People who believe in god are broken

[zapatos]

The dichotomy is not between scientists and theists. There are plenty of religious scientists.

Correct, this is not a dichotomy. There are plenty in all camps. My point was that scientists look at evidence differently than non-scientists. Most theists are not scientists, and many, if not most, scientists are not theists. It was an easy breakdown but I didn't mean to imply that no scientists are theists.

Laypeople are ordinarily perfectly capable of judging the quality of evidence as well. It isn't that they have "less demanding rules of evidence".

Of course they have less demanding rules of evidence. Read any post from a newbie who is not a scientist. Read what Christians have to say about evolution. The average person off the street coming onto this site is given a lecture on 'evidence' and supporting their claims before they get through their first day.

 

Theists don't use rules of evidence to determine their belief.

Then why are they forever mentioning miracles, matches between the bible and science, complex life, etc.

 

Think what you want. You seem to be ignoring the entire context of my comments. They were made in direct reply to DrDNAs post which was arguing against a strawman (namely that biblical inconsistencies aren't there, and only result from "some scientific fad."

No, I was pretty much directly going after what you had said:

...only a broken person would ignore the inherently flawed foundation of the bible... these writings that are so very clearly inconsistent, fictional, and in large part completely bunk when reviewed by any reasonable, rational, realistic observers..

 

 

As I think I've made known repeatedly in the past, I find the concept of faith to be implicitly flawed. The bible never becomes relevant to that specific argument. Faith is the worst possible reason to accept something as valid. That's my worldview.

 

Given this perspective... Yes, if you disagree and think faith is an acceptable reason to accept something as valid, I have good evidence to suspect that you are a broken human being. Other people believe completely different things than you based on faith alone. Their faith is not enough to convince you of the merit of their position. Why do you think your faith is enough to convince me?

 

There is much more to my position than just this, but condensed... I don't attack your faith specifically. I disregard it as irrelevant. If you were paying more attention, you might realize that my attacks are leveled against the entire concept of faith itself. If you were more intellectually honest, you would concede that I am right to do so.

If you would have bothered to read my post before starting your lecture, you would have realized that I never said faith was an acceptable reason to accept something as valid, that I was not trying to convince you otherwise, and that I never said you were not right to disregard it as irrelevant.

 

My whole post was about attacks on the bible.

 

You are just presenting one giant strawman.

 

If you don't want it discussed, don't end your post with 'Discuss'.

Edited April 24, 2012 by zapatos

[iNow]

This amplifies some of my own points:

 

 

 

---

 

If you would have bothered to read my post before starting your lecture, you would have realized that I never said faith was an acceptable reason to accept something as valid, that I was not trying to convince you otherwise, and that I never said you were not right to disregard it as irrelevant.

 

My whole post was about attacks on the bible.

 

You are just presenting one giant strawman.

And, as I thought I made clear, my comments re: the bible were in direct response to DrDNA. That is why I responded the way I did to your "whole post about attacks on the bible."

 

I would greatly appreciate it if you would calm down a bit in your posts, zapatos. To be fair, I also understand if you don't care what I would and would not appreciate. I just thought I'd put that out there, as you seem to be one of the most vitriolic and emotional contributors to this discussion right now and it's not exactly helping maintain civility.

[zapatos]

This amplifies some of my own points:

Are you sure that isn't you?

 

And, as I thought I made clear, my comments re: the bible were in direct response to DrDNA. That is why I responded the way I did to your "whole post about attacks on the bible."

Yes, I know it was in direct response to DrDNA. But I don't understand your point. I was commenting on what you said. What does the fact that you were responding to DrDNA have to do with it? How does that make my response to your words invalid or whatever it is you are trying to tell me?

I would greatly appreciate it if you would calm down a bit in your posts, zapatos. To be fair, I also understand if you don't care what I would and would not appreciate. I just thought I'd put that out there, as you seem to be one of the most vitriolic and emotional contributors to this discussion right now and it's not exactly helping maintain civility.

Now this I just find funny, because I was trying very hard to have my closing match your closing. Did you notice I wasn't 'vitriolic and emotional' until you started talking to me?

You said '...if you were paying more attention...', so I said '...if you would have bothered to read my post...'

You said '...if you were more intellectually honest...', so I said '...one giant strawman...'.

 

I generally go with the flow. If you won't comment about my attention span then I won't comment about your commitment to reading.

 

Deal?

Edited April 24, 2012 by zapatos

[tar]

Inow,

 

I have no argument, that proves a large white bearded gentleman sits in the clouds, writing names in this or that book.

 

Primarily because such a notion is ridiculus. It can not be a literal fact, because we have been up there, and he was not.

 

However that is not the notion of God that I have entertained in my youth, and it is not the notion of God that I entertain today, as an Atheist.

 

People do seem to look for the hidden powers behind things. Beyond correlation. A causal agent. Seems normal to me. Like everybody does it. Maybe even you. After all you are implying and Imatfaal is implying that faith, or belief in God is "causing" the human race to make bad decisions. That this "belief" itself is the cause of the problems of the world.

 

I might agree in a lot of cases, Twin Towers and Middle East turmoil and book burnings, and creationist's mangling of education and the like. But I was raised Protestant, and went to schools with religious founders. Gave me a moral grounding. Taught me how to properly act toward other people. School I went to, taught me an "Honor Code". Later in life I was surprised at the number of people who lied and cheated and "got over" on other people, and were not only not ashamed, but flauntingly proud about it.

 

Without my upbringing, I might be like those people. How would that help humanity?

 

Regards, TAR2

[zapatos]

But I was raised Protestant, and went to schools with religious founders. Gave me a moral grounding. Taught me how to properly act toward other people. School I went to, taught me an "Honor Code". Later in life I was surprised at the number of people who lied and cheated and "got over" on other people, and were not only not ashamed, but flauntingly proud about it.

 

Without my upbringing, I might be like those people. How would that help humanity?

 

Regards, TAR2

Interesting you should say this. Even as I was drifting to atheism I sent both of my sons to 12 years of Catholic school. I never encouraged them to 'be Catholic' but I wanted a partner in teaching my kids morals and integrity, which I got from Catholic school. Just as I'd expected.

 

As an aside, while my sons may not have finished their thoughts on the subject, if I had to classify them I'd say they are both atheist.

[tar]

Zapatos,

 

There seems to me, a way you can take religion, or God for that matter, as a collective ideal that people hold. It is a personal god, in that you hold it alone, and it has no material being, except for ALL material being is of it. But once you recognize that your ideal, and someone elses ideal, consist of the same thing, there is something real and valuable about it. Especially if it makes sense, and works to promote your own survival and the survival of people around you.

 

Regards, TAR

 

The Pingry Honor code was written by Pingry students in the 1920's and adopted by faculty in the thirties. Pingry is now coed, was for boys only when I attended.

[DrDNA]

 

 

I stand up for veracity, intellectual honesty, and integrity. That's all I need to motivate me to speak out openly and passionately against the cancer which is faith and the ignorance which is demonstrated by this belief in imaginary friends far into adulthood.

 

---

 

Speaking of Sigmund Freud....... what kinda superhero complex is this Stan Lee?

 

I was just chastised for "making this about " iNow and here you go and make it about iNow x10. I r Confused.

 

Could you please rephrase this in a non-egocentric manner?

Then perhaps I can also respond in an impersonal manner.

 

Thanks.

 

Exactly how is faith a "cancer"?. I've never heard of it referred to in that manner before.

We all have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. We all have faith that we will live at least a little longer. We have faith in so many things. Faith is a normal human emotion. Lacking faith is pathological. It is classified as severe clinical depression.

 

Anger?

No way dude.

Never.

I apologize if (since) it seemed that way.

 

I'm just puzzled. Puzzled why you feel so strongly that religion is so awful. Without it, we would have no moral laws, for example. That would be total anarchy.

Edited April 25, 2012 by DrDNA

[iNow]

People do seem to look for the hidden powers behind things. Beyond correlation. A causal agent. Seems normal to me. Like everybody does it. Maybe even you. After all you are implying and Imatfaal is implying that faith, or belief in God is "causing" the human race to make bad decisions. That this "belief" itself is the cause of the problems of the world.

 

I might agree in a lot of cases, Twin Towers and Middle East turmoil and book burnings, and creationist's mangling of education and the like. But I was raised Protestant, and went to schools with religious founders. Gave me a moral grounding. Taught me how to properly act toward other people. School I went to, taught me an "Honor Code". Later in life I was surprised at the number of people who lied and cheated and "got over" on other people, and were not only not ashamed, but flauntingly proud about it.

 

Without my upbringing, I might be like those people.

Belief in god is not a requirement to achieve the goodness and ethics you cite. Many studies actually show that the more secular a person is, and the more they are a nonbeliever, the better they treat those around them and the more moral they act relative to their theistic/believer equivalents.

 

Also, while these beliefs are sometimes the cause of bad things in the world, let us be sure to note that the proposed damage stemming from them goes far beyond just that (far beyond just the 9/11, or bombings, and the creationist insistence that we return to dark ages thinking with education).

 

These beliefs... this faith... are a crack in the rational mind through which other sewage is allowed leak. These beliefs and this faith are bad apples that infect and ultimately rot all of the other fruits of our consciousness. If we allow bullshit to reign supreme on some topics (like god) and allow our minds to be made up based on faith alone in one subject arena, then that same lack of rigor and consistency and reason more easily creeps into our other domains of thought... into other sectors of our worldview... into even the real world decisions we make. If we allow this type of bullshit (i.e. faith) to make up our minds on one topic, that more easily convinces us that it's okay to ignore facts on other topics... makes it more likely that we abandon logic and reason and rationality more broadly in favor of that which we "want" to believe... in favor of what we "wish" were true...

 

Not only should any intelligent, rational, reasonable human being who shows integrity avoid such things, but they should IMO seek to minimize them in others with whom they share this fragile finite existence.

 

---

Did you notice I wasn't 'vitriolic and emotional' until you started talking to me?

No, I didn't notice that. What I did notice was that you were very emotive even when interacting with others in this thread... even when I was not a part of the exchange. No worries, though. I just thought I'd put that forward. Feel free to ignore it. I do appreciate, at least, that you're not as bad as DrD when it comes to highly emotive personal comments toward others.

 

---

I'm just puzzled. Puzzled why you feel so strongly that religion is so awful. Without it, we would have no moral laws, for example. That would be total anarchy.

I suspect then that you've not encountered any of the research showing how morals and laws seem to come from being a social species, not from religion? You seem ignorant of the work done in other nonhuman animals who survive in tribes and groups that shows they also display moral behavior. On top of that, your argument is both hollow and wrong.

 

Implicit in your statement is that there would be anarchy without religion, but countless examples show this position plainly false. This is one of those old canards that has been debunked and refuted countless times, yet keeps raising its ugly zombie head from theists like you who seem not to care about putting forth quality arguments.

 

Also implicit in your statement is that nonbelievers cannot be moral, and this again is shown wholly bunk by numerous examples. Your assertion here (along with many of the previous ones you have put forth) is ridiculous on its face. It does little more than add credence and texture to the proposal that those who believe in god are broken.

[DrDNA]

I feel strongly that the root of matter is this.

One basic question is a strong distinguishing factor between theists (at least Christians) from non-theists:

 

Do you believe that man/woman is born good or bad?

 

a. From a Christian perspective, we believe that we are born messed up.

 

b. From many secular views, man/woman is born just the way we should be (ie, "good") and the world messes us up.

 

What I'm leading to is this, how can you be believe that man/woman is born imperfect and be an atheist?

 

 

Implicit in your statement is that there would be anarchy without religion, but countless examples show this position plainly false.

Name some. I was going to say one, but you said "countless" (ie, infinity) so a few should be easy. Humans only.

 

Also implicit in your statement is that nonbelievers cannot be moral, and this again is shown wholly bunk by numerous examples. Your assertion here (along with many of the previous ones you have put forth) is ridiculous on its face. It does little more than add credence and texture to the proposal that those who believe in god are broken.

You seem ignorant of history. Most or even perhaps all moral civil laws are

derived from religions. If you disagree, please give some examples.

Edited April 25, 2012 by DrDNA

[zapatos]

No, I didn't notice that. What I did notice was that you were very emotive even when interacting with others in this thread... even when I was not a part of the exchange.

Ok. I'm willing to take a critical look at myself here. I reread the thread and could not find what you are talking about, but it is certainly possible that I am coming across poorly and just don't recognize it.

 

If you would be so kind as to point out the precise places I was being very emotive when interacting with others in this thread, I would appreciate it, and will make an effort to improve.

 

No bullshit, no sarcasm, just an honest request for further detail.

[DrDNA]

You seem ignorant of the work done in other nonhuman animals who survive in tribes and groups that shows they also display moral behavior. On top of that, your argument is both hollow and wrong.

 

 

You seem ignorant to the fact that guinea pigs do not regularly attend church.

[immortal]

Belief in god is not a requirement to achieve the goodness and ethics you cite. Many studies actually show that the more secular a person is, and the more they are a nonbeliever, the better they treat those around them and the more moral they act relative to their theistic/believer equivalents.

 

Also, while these beliefs are sometimes the cause of bad things in the world, let us be sure to note that the proposed damage stemming from them goes far beyond just that (far beyond just the 9/11, or bombings, and the creationist insistence that we return to dark ages thinking with education).

 

These beliefs... this faith... are a crack in the rational mind through which other sewage is allowed leak. These beliefs and this faith are bad apples that infect and ultimately rot all of the other fruits of our consciousness. If we allow bullshit to reign supreme on some topics (like god) and allow our minds to be made up based on faith alone in one subject arena, then that same lack of rigor and consistency and reason more easily creeps into our other domains of thought... into other sectors of our worldview... into even the real world decisions we make. If we allow this type of bullshit (i.e. faith) to make up our minds on one topic, that more easily convinces us that it's okay to ignore facts on other topics... makes it more likely that we abandon logic and reason and rationality more broadly in favor of that which we "want" to believe... in favor of what we "wish" were true...

 

Not only should any intelligent, rational, reasonable human being who shows integrity avoid such things, but they should IMO seek to minimize them in others with whom they share this fragile finite existence.

 

 

There is not much difference between a person who has a weak belief in God and a person who lack a belief in God. Even though Religion doesn't overlaps with science it does overlap in reality and in our social and political aspect of our lives.

 

Religion is a way of life to many people.

 

 

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/3956/!via/oucontent/course/23/a103_7_003.pdf

 

 

So anything which is said from, or read from, our Holy Book, it’s taken that these are the actual words of our guru. Because our tenth guru (when they departed from us), his answer was, ‘After me, there won’t be any guru, and the Holy Book will be your living guru.’ So we have faith that the Holy Book is our guru.

 

I wondered how a Sikh actually goes about consulting this living guru, and he went on to tell me:

The way we go is this: when we go to a temple, we bow – the same mark of respect – and then we go behind and ask somebody (if there is somebody on the seat already), we ask them to give a wak; ‘wak’ means, to read the first paragraph of the Holy Book. And that paragraph would definitely coincide with what you had in your mind, because that is the answer.

 

I asked him if it is the first paragraph that his eye falls on. He said:

Yes, the first paragraph from the left hand side. Some people take it from the right hand side – you know, the bottom right. Some take it from the left. So if the paragraph has started, he turns his page back. And these words – again, it’s a question of faith – are exactly what you want.

 

Then our conversation went on:

‘But supposing they’re not what you want: can you argue with the living guru? Can you disagree with the advice that is given?’

‘No, we don’t have to disagree, because guru is a guru.’

‘So he has authority over your choice?’

‘Definitely. Because nothing could happen otherwise: if the guru wants he can make things happen. That’s our belief. I mean, even the wind won’t blow unless the Almighty wants it to blow. The rain won’t go unless the Almighty wants the rain. So everything is in his hands.’

 

While I agree that one shouldn't base their important decisions of their lives on a Holy Book which is based on blind faith and I would never follow such practices blindly but what right do we have to show intolerance towards such beliefs and practices when I really don't know what the truth is.

 

I don't think we have met the criteria to show intolerance towards such beliefs, I would never blindly fall into such beliefs and I would neither go on forcing people to abandon their faith.

 

You seem to be of the opinion that we should abandon faith and think rationally but does that mean that theologians should abandon their search for God? Its like forcing scientists to abandon their hope of finding a fundamental theory and preventing them from investing money and time on building particle accelerators.

 

Whenever someone posts a religious topic and wants to learn about God you are free to push them away by saying that "God probably don't exist so go and enjoy your life" and even theists are equally free to say that God probably exists, they have got their own reasons for their belief but somehow theists are looked down upon by those who lack a belief in God.

[Villain]

Whilst I am sure iNow will reply for himself - many of us here spend a not inconsiderable amount of time arguing on this subject; I will let you know why I do so.

 

I understand and recognize that religious observation and devotion is an important part of many peoples lives; that this provides succour and comfort in distress is good and I would never seek to take away that strictly personal relationship with a god/gods. However, the relationship is very often far from personal - it becomes proselytizing, which I find annoying and disruptive; but much worse it becomes political. I do not want to live in a state, a country, or a planet in which decisions are made based on what I believe is a fallacy. This has a real impact on the way we are able to live our lives - at present in the UK I am not overly affected by religiously motivated state interference in my life; however we often copy the lead of the USA, and there it is another matter entirely.

 

If you think I am exaggerating please take a look at this post - and the discussions that follow. The religious right in some states of America are actively and deliberately threatening women's rights of self-determination (through restrictions on contraception and draconian legislation on abortion)- those three bills alone are worth fighting over. Others might cite cases regarding Education and Bills in several state legislature that mandate the "teaching of the controversy" of evolution when scientifically there is none. These are why we debate and argue - to stop our countries being run by those labouring under a fallacious delusion.

 

 

Perhaps you would be better served by bringing up the problems of democracy. If the majority disagree with abortion or whatever else might be on the cards then it's probably going to get banned. Most countries ban recreational drugs as well and I'm sure some people are upset about it. Using the easy target of religion is a very weak argument in this regard. Vote or take up a political position if you want to change or keep legislation. Attacking someone's morals is not the best way of changing their mind IMO.

 

Please be assured that I am convinced of my own opinion on this matter. There were many years of introspection, reflection, and deep anguish inducing doubt that I had to process and work through before I realized the relief that comes with letting go of such an unsupportable position. That doubt, however, is long gone and every argument I've seen trying to convince me that my position is somehow inaccurate has been quite easily dispatched, shown lacking, and based on copious logical fallacies.

 

Let me summarize what I've come to realize in bullet point form. Faith is stupid. End program. Belief in god is baseless and based on wish thinking and indoctrination. End program. The default position should be to dismiss the concept of god entirely until adequate reason is given to accept it. None of the reasons offered scale with the extraordinary nature of the belief. End program.

 

I know some people are offended by my directness and the blunt manner with which I sometimes wield my words. I really don't give a shit. If your position was even remotely credible, you'd easily be able to defend with something more rigorous than "it's that way because I believe it's that way... it's called faith." Since when has such a childish approach to discussion been allowable to anyone who no longer eats their own boogers? Yes, I know this is provocative. My genuine hope is that MAYBE someone will actually rise to the challenge and support the god belief with something more than the ridiculous notion of faith.

 

It's simple. My study of human psychology and sociology and other similar fields like neuroscience and evolution have all led to a far better explanation for why people believe these ridiculous things than the prospect that "god actually exists." When you couple that with inherent flaws and inconsistencies of the beliefs themselves, it strikes me as ludicrous to think they are valid, and anyone who fails to accept this is IMO broken.

 

Others have already noted some of the real world impacts of belief, and why it's so important to share the nonbelief position so passionately. It infects our politics, our education, our culture, our understanding of the universe... everything that has relevance on our lives and the futures of our children is impacted by our choice to allow faith into a conversation that should instead be rooted in facts and reality.

 

I stand up for veracity, intellectual honesty, and integrity. That's all I need to motivate me to speak out openly and passionately against the cancer which is faith and the ignorance which is demonstrated by this belief in imaginary friends far into adulthood.

 

 

What does your study of human psychology have to say about the essay that you wrote to my one line question? Why do you feel the need to motivate your position to me or others?

[iNow]

If you would be so kind as to point out the precise places I was being very emotive when interacting with others in this thread, I would appreciate it, and will make an effort to improve.

 

No bullshit, no sarcasm, just an honest request for further detail.

Let me first say that this mindset you've just shown in this reply here is one I very much respect, and I appreciate the openness shown by you. Second, it looks a bit like I have mud on my face now. I have just reviewed the thread, and I was clearly conflating your responses with those of others. I was wrong to admonish you, as your posts (with the exception of 101) have been calm. I feel like a bit of a dumbass when I have to admit it, but I do have no problems admitting it when appropriate... I was wrong on this point. Sorry, zapatos. Your posts have largely been thoughtful and well writ. I'll blame jetlag, but that's really no excuse.

 

---

Religion is a way of life to many people.

<...>

I don't think we have met the criteria to show intolerance towards such beliefs, I would never blindly fall into such beliefs and I would neither go on forcing people to abandon their faith.

The only force involved here is the conviction of my position, the clarity of my words, and the nature with which I deliver them. These people are not being forced to do anything, and can believe in the existence of santa claus, unicorns, and puff the magic dragon if they so choose. The larger issue is that we as a society really do need to cease and desist from showing special deference and undue respect to these positions. The moment someone mentions faith, their position should be weakened in the mind of the audience, not granted special authority nor become immune from criticism.

 

My primary hope in expressing these points is that these individuals will genuinely consider what is being said, hopefully reflect on the specious and childish nature of their beliefs, and perhaps even show a bit of strength, courage, and mental fortitude by letting go of any belief they've accepted on faith and begin to lead a better life not anchored by fairy tales and nonsense.

 

---

What does your study of human psychology have to say about the essay that you wrote to my one line question? Why do you feel the need to motivate your position to me or others?

I've already put forth the answer to this exact question more than once.

[immortal]

The only force involved here is the conviction of my position, the clarity of my words, and the nature with which I deliver them. These people are not being forced to do anything, and can believe in the existence of santa claus, unicorns, and puff the magic dragon if they so choose. The larger issue is that we as a society really do need to cease and desist from showing special deference and undue respect to these positions. The moment someone mentions faith, their position should be weakened in the mind of the audience, not granted special authority nor become immune from criticism.

 

My primary hope in expressing these points is that these individuals will genuinely consider what is being said, hopefully reflect on the specious and childish nature of their beliefs, and perhaps even show a bit of strength, courage, and mental fortitude by letting go of any belief they've accepted on faith and begin to lead a better life not anchored by fairy tales and nonsense.

 

I agree that religious superstition and blind faith are the worse things that one can use to convince others, the merit of their position.

[imatfaal]

Perhaps you would be better served by bringing up the problems of democracy. If the majority disagree with abortion or whatever else might be on the cards then it's probably going to get banned. Most countries ban recreational drugs as well and I'm sure some people are upset about it. Using the easy target of religion is a very weak argument in this regard. Vote or take up a political position if you want to change or keep legislation. Attacking someone's morals is not the best way of changing their mind IMO.

 

/snipped

 

Oh I do bring up the problems of democracy - the main problem being that active interest groups regularly have far too much attention paid to them by lawmakers and that voters are apathetic to large degree. The fact that the majority (which will have to include a lot of women) might, even might, go along with the legislation I mentioned is the very crux of the problem. They are not thinking rationally and are basing their decision on falsehoods - as their judgments affect me, then I care. Being politically active (which I am) and trying to persuade others of their errors in fact, logic, and method are not exclusive, in fact they are necessarily complementary and thus essential. Politics and religion are intertwined and I would love to lessen that integration.

[zapatos]

Let me first say that this mindset you've just shown in this reply here is one I very much respect, and I appreciate the openness shown by you. Second, it looks a bit like I have mud on my face now. I have just reviewed the thread, and I was clearly conflating your responses with those of others. I was wrong to admonish you, as your posts (with the exception of 101) have been calm. I feel like a bit of a dumbass when I have to admit it, but I do have no problems admitting it when appropriate... I was wrong on this point. Sorry, zapatos. Your posts have largely been thoughtful and well writ. I'll blame jetlag, but that's really no excuse.

No problem. There was post 101 and you are probably remembering an outburst I had in a different thread. Regardless, I'll still make an effort to double check myself before posting.

 

Also, I kind of liked the Christopher Hitchens video. Takes brass to put yourself out there like that.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Rigney, please try to stick to the topic.

I'm not going to keep giving people a list of what this thread isn't about.

[Villain]

Oh I do bring up the problems of democracy - the main problem being that active interest groups regularly have far too much attention paid to them by lawmakers and that voters are apathetic to large degree. The fact that the majority (which will have to include a lot of women) might, even might, go along with the legislation I mentioned is the very crux of the problem. They are not thinking rationally and are basing their decision on falsehoods - as their judgments affect me, then I care. Being politically active (which I am) and trying to persuade others of their errors in fact, logic, and method are not exclusive, in fact they are necessarily complementary and thus essential. Politics and religion are intertwined and I would love to lessen that integration.

 

 

It might not be your opinion but that doesn't automatically make it a falsehood. I don't think there is much rational thought in having sex for pleasure, I think if we were completely rational beings sex would be for reproduction only. So where exactly does the rational argument begin?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Everybody,

Back on page 1 of this thread I made a comment that if this started getting out of hand, it would be closed and it would be closed without hesitation. This is a final warning. Get back on topic and stop attacking religious belief or the lack thereof and those who choose to adhere to it.

And rigney, you should know better than to address someone with personal attacks. I would also strongly advise you not to ignore mod notes in future.

[imatfaal]

It might not be your opinion but that doesn't automatically make it a falsehood. I don't think there is much rational thought in having sex for pleasure, I think if we were completely rational beings sex would be for reproduction only. So where exactly does the rational argument begin?

 

No - but your question was about motivation. And my motivation comes from what I perceive as true and false. Quite clearly from my argument I think a motivation to change the world for religious reasons is ill-conceived. It is my opinion (which I believe is rational and well evidenced) that religion (through its pernicious effects on politics) adversely affects the world - as a rational being I am forced to confront this hazard and try and avert it.

 

On a rational being not having sex for pleasure; I cannot fathom your reasons for saying this. There are many things we must do to live, survive, and prosper as a species - we must eat, drink, breath, procreate, cooperate, excrete, defecate, and pay taxes etc . Some of these things very few people find any pleasure in at all, we do them because we must. The others we find pleasure in the act in addition to the necessity of the act. I would not want to spend the rest of my life eating nourishing gruel and drinking lukewarm tap water; as a rational being I can take the opportunity of combining something I must do with a pleasurable experience and thus today I had a cracking humus and olive salad washed down with strawberry milk (hey - I never claimed to be normal). I must admit I even eat and drink sometimes just for pleasure.

 

And sex - well sex is a hell of a lot better than humus and olive salad washed down with strawberry milk; it's enjoyable, good exercise, fun, an incredibly intimate and giving act, great fun, a moment of oneness between two identities, and really really good fun - and if you want it will put you on the path to having babies as well. It is totally irrational to do something that can give great pleasure in manner that does not give great pleasure. Sex is about the one thing in today's health conscious world that is an unalloyed good - it doesn't make you fat, or cause ill-health, it lowers stress and raises self-esteem etc - even without the baby-making it is an amazing thing, it would be irrational not to partake of it.

[scourge]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Everybody,

 

Back on page 1 of this thread I made a comment that if this started getting out of hand, it would be closed and it would be closed without hesitation. This is a final warning. Get back on topic and stop attacking religious belief or the lack thereof and those who choose to adhere to it.

 

And rigney, you should know better than to address someone with personal attacks. I would also strongly advise you not to ignore mod notes in future.

 

 

 

Heh, Yeah i guess things do get derailed quite easily in the religious forum. Pretty easy to lose track, You could end up one second talking about how you see humanism being promoted worldwide (Not saying it is just i.e.) and the next second your talking about what the structure of an atom has to do with religious validity. Now ill just shut up and leave you guys to your arguments

[iNow]

Back on page 1 of this thread I made a comment that if this started getting out of hand, it would be closed and it would be closed without hesitation. This is a final warning. Get back on topic and stop attacking religious belief or the lack thereof and those who choose to adhere to it.

I might humbly request that you try to avoid so quickly giving the few trouble makers such a large degree of power. There are a few of us having an interesting discussion, and being quite civil overall. Closing the entire thread due to the posts of a tiny few gives them far more power and influence than they deserve, and much more power in the discussion than they've earned.

 

If staff action is actually required at some point, perhaps you can instead merely trim off the offending posts and let the others of us continue the productive and engaging chat... No need to use a cannon to kill the fly.

[ecoli]

It might not be your opinion but that doesn't automatically make it a falsehood. I don't think there is much rational thought in having sex for pleasure, I think if we were completely rational beings sex would be for reproduction only. So where exactly does the rational argument begin?

 

The evolutionary explanation for sex being pleasurable is that pleasure would encourage reproduction. The more pleasurable sex is, the more we'd want to do it, a trait that would clearly result in amplification thanks to greater numbers of offspring. Enjoying sex, with the moderate hack of taking away the reproductive component, is perfectly rational behavior for pleasure-maximizing ulititaritons.

 

Do understand that an agnostic position is not a position on the axis of theism. Either you have an affirmative belief that there are in fact one or more deities making you theist or you are atheist, i.e. not-theist.

 

 

why not simply Pascal's wager taken to its logical conclusion? ie - an affirmative belief regarding some small probability of there being a diety-like thing.

[iNow]

Okay... So now, as we wrestle with the off topic comments from theists, we do a random walk farther and farther away from the OP premise.

 

People who believe in god are broken. Agree? Disagree? Discuss...

 

Let's stop playing whack-a-mole with the nonsense as so often happens in creationist threads, or threads on climate change, or threads on relativity, or all of the other countless fractured ceramics we see... and which is happening here.