People who believe in god are broken

[rigney]

Hence, the correct description for you is agnostic atheist, precisely as doG has been suggesting.

 

Did you even bother watching the video you chose to include in the text you quoted in your reply?

 

That may be your opinion of my problem, but not to my way of thinking. And yes, I did watch the video, but only after replying. Edited April 26, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

It has zero to do with opinion. It's about accuracy and using words properly and precisely. Regardless... do you or do you not think that people who believe in god are broken, rigney?

Edited April 26, 2012 by iNow

[rigney]

It has zero to do with opinion. It's about accuracy and using words properly and precisely. Regardless... do you or do you not think that people who believe in god are broken, rigney?

No more broken than someone bent on destroying another persons belief.

[iNow]

No more broken than someone bent on destroying another persons belief.

What if that belief is harmful to others? What if that belief is that raping young boys will lead to riches and fortune? What about a belief that throwing acid on to the genitals of the elderly will end world hunger? Are you suggesting it is also broken to be "bent on destroying" beliefs like those?

 

... or at least to be passionate about trying to prevent such beliefs from being implemented in this world we share?

[hypervalent_iodine]

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.

 

Consider it done (and thank you).

[rigney]

What if that belief is harmful to others? What if that belief is that raping young boys will lead to riches and fortune? What about a belief that throwing acid on to the genitals of the elderly will end world hunger? Are you suggesting it is also broken to be "bent on destroying" beliefs like those?

 

... or at least to be passionate about trying to prevent such beliefs from being implemented in this world we share?

 

Oh no! I'm only suggesting that like the dog who stopped to take a crap.. Had he not chose to do so; he would have have likely caught the rabbit? And had he caught the rabbit, at least been humane enough to just bite its frikkin head off quickly, so as not to arouse the neighbors hounds? Even dogs hate to share a meal.

 

by the way,You posted this: iNow Posted Today, 08:39 PM

It has zero to do with opinion. It's about the accuracy of and use of using words properly and precisely. Regardless... do you or do you not think that people who believe in god are broken, rigney?

Edited April 26, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Consider it done

Many thanks, hypervalent.

 

---

 

Oh no! I'm only suggesting that, like the dog stopping to take a crap, had he not chose to so; he would have have caught the rabbit? And had he caught the rabbit, at least been humane enough to just bite its frikkin head off quickly, so as not to arouse the neighbors hounds? Even dogs hate to share a meal.

I am sad to say that I am completely unclear how you presume this addresses the questions I put to you. Can you perhaps articulate your point in another manner?

[rigney]

Many thanks, hypervalent.

 

---

 

 

I am sad to say that I am completely unclear how you presume this addresses the questions I put to you. Can you perhaps articulate your point in another manner?

 

No more sad than the commentary depicted by what you wrote: What if that belief is harmful to others? What if that belief is that raping young boys will lead to riches and fortune? What about a belief that throwing acid on to the genitals of the elderly will end world hunger? Are you suggesting it is also broken to be "bent on destroying" beliefs like those? Now that is truly sad. Edited April 26, 2012 by rigney

[tar]

Inow,

 

Christopher Hitchens video gave me the creeps.

 

That "people of faith" should be disregarded rather than regarded...without specifying what faith was being talked about. As if ANY faith should be rejected as defective.

 

I think the reason I find this kind of thinking creepy, is that because, in the end, when you discount all faiths and beliefs, there is nothing left to have faith in or believe in. This cannot work.

 

Hence it is a rejection of yourself. Which is quite impossible for any self to do.

 

So where do people like Hitchens find their grounds? In themselves alone, or in the world around them, or both?

 

Perhaps this is a psychological/neurological discussion. In my logic, one cannot discount the rest of the world, and say that only they exist, without thinking that they themselves, magically appeared on the planet. At which point they have absolutely zero right to suggest that anybody who believes in magic, is broken.

 

We know each other a little bit Inow, you and I. From your great "Does Religion Hijack" thread.

 

I am still trying to understand myself, and others, on the basis of scientifically proven things. Our ability to put ourselves in other peoples shoes developed around the age of three or four. Our ability to imagine unseen others. Our evolutionary history, and how many of our "social animal" drives and proclivities are rooted in survival attained characteristics.

 

We are not "other than" human...and that includes the whole shooting match that makes one human. The ignorance, the wisdom, the illogic and the logic. The self, and the group. The subject and the subjected to. The leader and the follower. Shame, pride, conscience, and morals. Without an authority, a clan, a belief in the "spirit" of the group, there would be no right or wrong.

 

If there were such thing as a "perfect" (unbroken) human. It would not be Hitchens. He had divorced himself from humaness, and proclaimed faithless, beliefless existence as the only true reality, thus proclaiming himself and his rationality as a separate, superior ideal...with no feet of clay. Anybody that showed any humaness, was a subject of ridicule.

 

I might not have it broken down correctly, but if you think about a "complete", unbroken person, you would have to account for the Id, Ego and Superego all being present.

 

Symbolically you could take the Id as our animal drives, and historical attachment to evolutionary characteristics, that brought us from element to atom to molecule, to compound to organic compound to protein to...cell....organ...organism.

And Ego as the self that moderates and witnesses, and the SuperEgo as the rules and reality of the group, internalized.

 

Not one of the three is worth a whit, without the other two.

 

So none can say, in truth, that they are only one of the three, and the other two are "other than" them.

 

The trinity in Christianity speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Similar to Reality, Man and Belief.

 

So I can not prove the existance of voodoo or telepathy or Gods or magic of any sort at all.

 

But I have ample proof available of Reality, Man and Belief.

 

The word "spirit" was in the Pingry Honor Code. And no magical God is required, in order to have it.

 

If spirit exists and no magic exists, is this proof that God is real?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

If God is real, and believing in reality is perfectly alright, then no one believing in God should be considered broken.

Edited April 26, 2012 by tar

[DrDNA]

 

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.

 

I never said that nonbelievers cannot be moral. You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say, did not consider, nor did I imply.

I said that many laws are derived from moral codes developed by religions. In Western societies many of these laws were derived from the Hebrews, for example, the Law(s) of Moses.

The same holds true for Eastern societies, et al, and their particular religion-based moral attitudes which have been translated into laws.

 

Without those moral codes, we would have anarchy.

 

Your "non human" examples that you propose translate to humans, human society, and human morals are nothing short of nonsense.

Edited April 26, 2012 by DrDNA

[Villain]

Response to #121 & #124

 

My link

Edited April 26, 2012 by Villain

[iNow]

Now that is truly sad.

So, you'd rather continue to have your audience not able to understand what you're saying? This makes no sense to me. I asked you questions. Your reply talked about dogs or something. I told you this was not clear, and asked for clarification. You replied again with nonsense.

 

I quoted a comment you made, and used it to show that you are, by definition, an agnostic atheist. You replied that this was just my opinion. I said:

 

"It has zero to do with opinion. It's about accuracy and using words properly and precisely. Regardless... do you or do you not think that people who believe in god are broken, rigney?"

 

You said:

"No more broken than someone bent on destroying another persons belief."

 

To demonstrate to you that this point has definite limits, and to help better understand your stance, I asked:

"What if that belief is harmful to others? What if that belief is that raping young boys will lead to riches and fortune? What about a belief that throwing acid on to the genitals of the elderly will end world hunger? Are you suggesting it is also broken to be "bent on destroying" beliefs like those?

 

... or at least to be passionate about trying to prevent such beliefs from being implemented in this world we share?"

 

 

Is there any chance you will address this question like a mature human being, or are you simply going to continue talking in strange metaphors about rabbits taking dumps?

Edited April 26, 2012 by iNow

[DrDNA]

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."

 

I did not say that biblical inconsistencies do not exist.

I did not say that they only result from scientific fad.

 

Do actually read a post that has an opposing view before you criticize it?

 

You have ignored most every question that I asked you point blank.

 

Your behavior is very much like Mitt Romney in a Republican primary debate....

 

Mr Romney what is your stance on taxes?

"We must defeat the Obama administration, which is actively trying to destroy the American way of life, at all costs".

 

Seriously, are you baiting?

Edited April 26, 2012 by DrDNA

[iNow]

That "people of faith" should be disregarded rather than regarded...without specifying what faith was being talked about. As if ANY faith should be rejected as defective.

That's sort of the point, tar. Faith is an exhaustively pathetic reason to accept something as true or valid.

 

I think the reason I find this kind of thinking creepy, is that because, in the end, when you discount all faiths and beliefs, there is nothing left to have faith in or believe in. This cannot work.

Nonsense. It absolutely works. Are you here now suggesting that people like me who lack faith and use evidence to shape our views and beliefs "cannot work?" Come on, tar... I know you're way better than that. Please... clarify your point. That can't be what you mean, but it's right there a result of the words you chose. You are perhaps using a completely different definition of faith than the one we've been using throughout the discussion already?

 

We are not "other than" human...and that includes the whole shooting match that makes one human. The ignorance, the wisdom, the illogic and the logic. The self, and the group. The subject and the subjected to. The leader and the follower. Shame, pride, conscience, and morals. Without an authority, a clan, a belief in the "spirit" of the group, there would be no right or wrong.

The answer to these points seems obvious to me, yet it appears that you do not see it. Nobody is talking about being beyond human, or being "all that exists."

 

It's really intensely simple. The authority is the group itself. The rules come from the pack... the tribe. We know "right or wrong" because we exist as a social species and we are taught. Those teachings do not hinge on religion or on belief in god, even though sometimes those aspects of our culture hijack them.

 

The idea of god, religion, faith, and belief really play no role. If you think it does, and if you find yourself unable to acknowledge such a powerful yet simple point, then perhaps your belief has broken you?

 

I don't know. This seems so basic to me, but I understand others are coming from different perspectives to this discussion.

 

It would not be Hitchens. He had divorced himself from humaness, and proclaimed faithless, beliefless existence as the only true reality, thus proclaiming himself and his rationality as a separate, superior ideal...with no feet of clay. Anybody that showed any humaness, was a subject of ridicule.

Sorry, but no. You're way out in left field on this one, mate. I do not think you are operating from a very accurate view of what Hitchens said, did, or thought. The misunderstanding seems quite deep and broad, so I'm really not sure I'm able to correct it myself.

 

The argument is for us to apply the same rationality, the same logic, and the same thinking that we apply in every other domain of our lives ALSO to the ideas of religion and god. It has nothing to do with proclaiming himself "divorced from humaness" or ridiculing those who exhibit human traits. I'm having a real WTF moment right now as a result of your words.

 

I might not have it broken down correctly, but if you think about a "complete", unbroken person, you would have to account for the Id, Ego and Superego all being present.

 

Symbolically you could take the Id as our animal drives, and historical attachment to evolutionary characteristics, that brought us from element to atom to molecule, to compound to organic compound to protein to...cell....organ...organism.

And Ego as the self that moderates and witnesses, and the SuperEgo as the rules and reality of the group, internalized.

 

Not one of the three is worth a whit, without the other two.

Freud's ideas were interesting, but ultimately wrong. It's like you're here now arguing with an astrophysicist and citing numerology. Ego, superego, and id are all arbitrary buckets that some dude in the late 1800s speculated about. They have little to no bearing on how the human mind actually works... not to mention they are WAY WAY WAY beyond the scope of this discussion...

 

So I can not prove the existance of voodoo or telepathy or Gods or magic of any sort at all.

 

But I have ample proof available of Reality, Man and Belief.

As do we all, even the faithless. Not sure of your point.

 

The word "spirit" was in the Pingry Honor Code. And no magical God is required, in order to have it.

 

If spirit exists and no magic exists, is this proof that God is real?

The word "spirit" is a bullshit catch-all term for nonsense and woo. It is an ill defined flypaper for the ridiculous, and I would encourage you not to use such an amorphous, ambiguous, asinine term as the foundation of any arguments you put forth on a science forum. /2cents

 

If God is real, and believing in reality is perfectly alright, then no one believing in God should be considered broken.

Maybe you're right. However, until god has been clearly defined and evidence of his "realness" put forth, the appropriate path is to assume nonexistence. Do you also assume that unicorns are real, or that other gods like Posieden or Apollo or Zeus or Thor are real? Of course not. Let's maintain some perspective here and simply be consistent in the way we think about the world and approach the universe around us.

 

Assume nonexistence, be open to changing your mind in the face of evidence. Anything else is IMO quite broken.

 

---

 

 

I never said that nonbelievers cannot be moral. You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say, did not consider, nor did I imply.

You may not realize it, but that is PRECISELY what your words implied. For your review, here again is EXACTLY what you said:

 

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 said that many laws are derived from moral codes developed by religions. In Western societies many of these laws were derived from the Hebrews, for example, the Law(s) of Moses.

The same holds true for Eastern societies, et al, and their particular religion-based moral attitudes which have been translated into laws.

 

Without those moral codes, we would have anarchy.

And religion or belief in god are required for none of those codes are laws. What is your point then?

 

Your "non human" examples that you propose translate to humans, human society, and human morals are nothing short of nonsense.

More "broken" arguments from a believer in god. Let me walk you through real fast.

 

You suggested belief in god was the source of morals. I countered that morals actually come from our existence as a social species. I gave an example of how even nonhuman animals (who almost certainly do not believe in god and almost certainly are not religious) display moral behaviors. That's not nonsense. That's plain and simple fact. End program.

 

I did not say that biblical inconsistencies do not exist.

I did not say that they only result from scientific fad.

 

Do actually read a post that has an opposing view before you criticize it?

Are you sure? Here is what you said, and it certainly seems like you're suggesting (in response to my previous comments that the bible is full of flaws and it's silly to accept it as valid) that the only flaws are the result of scientific fads and is, in fact, true:

 

But I do believe that the biblical account is true.

It is in no way shape or form contradictory to science.

<...>

The Bible may be contradictory to some scientific fad or false hypothesis.

It has been in the past.

But it does not contradict to the truth and this is becoming more evident every day.

<...>

This does not mean that the Bible is broken. It means that we are broken.

 

---

 

Haha... I got neg repped for requesting hypervalent iodine consider being more focused with her mod efforts instead of closing down the entire discussion due to one poster. Fucking hysterical.

Edited April 26, 2012 by iNow

[DrDNA]

iNow,

You STILL have ignored most every question that I asked you point blank.

 

 

 

You may not realize it, but that is PRECISELY what your words implied.

That is false. '

I said that there would be no organized moral structure. There may be moral individuals in such an environment, but it would be anarchy without a moral legal system.

a la Mad Max and The Road Warrior may be examples.

I stand behind my statement.

Our legal system in the US is based on Jude o Christian moral codes.

 

And religion or belief in god are required for none of those codes are laws. What is your point then?

Again, you are either not reading, not reading clearly, or avoiding it purposely because you disagree with it. I said that they are primarily DERIVED from these codes and laws.

 

The only "example" you could give to support your statement that the legal system and society would be just fine without laws and morals derived from religious codes and laws was an ambiguous (paraphrasing) uncountable number of non-human studies.

I assumed that we were discussing humans, not gerbils here.

 

Please, what are these studies and exactly how to they directly relate to human beings, which I believe this thread is about?

 

If you want to discuss non-human religions, I am willing to participate, but that would be off topic.

 

More "broken" arguments from a believer in god. Let me walk you through real fast.

You use the term "believer(s) in god" only in very negative contexts.

What exactly did we do to you to evoke this negative bias and emotion.

I, for one, would like to apologize for whatever it was.

 

You suggested belief in god was the source of morals. I countered that morals actually come from our existence as a social species. I gave an example of how even nonhuman animals (who almost certainly do not believe in god and almost certainly are not religious) display moral behaviors. That's not nonsense. That's plain and simple fact. End program.

It is nonsense. We are talking about humans and non human examples are apples and oranges.

 

This is so basic, I am starting to wonder.

You are confusing genetically programed behavior with learned behavior.

Behavioral studies on non humans do not translate well to humans.

This went out of the mainstream in the 60s and 70s.

 

Are you sure? Here is what you said, and it certainly seems like you're suggesting (in response to my previous comments that the bible is full of flaws and it's silly to accept it as valid) that the only flaws are the result of scientific fads and is, in fact, true:

DrDNA, on 22 April 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

But I do believe that the biblical account is true.

It is in no way shape or form contradictory to science.

<...>

Translation for you.

Bible is true.

Bible does not contradict science.

 

The Bible may be contradictory to some scientific fad or false hypothesis.

It has been in the past.

But it does not contradict to the truth and this is becoming more evident every day.

<...>

Translation.

Bible has been contradictory to scientific fads or false hypotheses in the past.

Bible does not contradict the truth.

The truth is becoming more evident every day.

 

This does not mean that the Bible is broken. It means that we are broken.

Translation. People are broken. The Bible is not broken.

 

Now, iNow. What is the problem?

PS. Regarding the use of a slang word (F.......g) which means a sexual act.....I would appreciate it if you would refrain from this. My kid reads this forum for science knowledge, as do other kids.

Thank you.

Edited April 26, 2012 by DrDNA

[Xittenn]

 

You suggested belief in god was the source of morals. I countered that morals actually come from our existence as a social species. I gave an example of how even nonhuman animals (who almost certainly do not believe in god and almost certainly are not religious) display moral behaviors. That's not nonsense. That's plain and simple fact. End program.

 

---

 

Haha... I got neg repped for requesting hypervalent iodine consider being more focused with her mod efforts instead of closing down the entire discussion due to one poster. Fucking hysterical.

 

 

To paraphrase someone I overheard in the library today "we don't know that a Lion won't look up at one specific Giraffe and see something in that Giraffe that might give it reason to spare its life and to protect it from predators." I would also argue that we don't know whether or not on a philosophical and emotional level if some animals might believe in a 'God.' Within the context of the thread I would conjecture to say that some animals may be broken as well.

 

I negated your neg rep because your comment sounded like a broken plea for some divine intervention . . . .

Edited April 26, 2012 by Xittenn

[iNow]

Again, you are either not reading, not reading clearly, or avoiding it since you disagree with it. I said that [morals] are primarily DERIVED from these codes and laws.

That's another positive assertion. The onus is on you to support it with evidence.

 

The only "example" you could give to support your statement that the legal system and society would be just fine without laws and morals derived from religious codes and laws was an ambiguous (paraphrasing) uncountable number of non-human studies.

I assumed that we were discussing humans, not gerbils here.

I apologize. The point seemed so basic to me that I did not take the time to explain it more, and I can tell that is resulting in your confusion.

 

If morals came from religions, we'd probably not see them in nonhuman animals.

If morals came from religions, atheists and nonbelievers (or even believers in different gods) would not be moral. They are.

If morals came from religions, religious people would not act immorally. They often do.

 

The more likely explanation is that morals evolved in social species, helping them to maintain pack cohesion and aid in success of offspring. This is made more likely because we see similar "moral" behaviors in animals that are not human. It has evolved in species that do not demonstrate religion, that do not demonstrate belief in god(s), and even in humans that are never exposed to religion.

 

Does this help?

 

More here:

http://www.atheistapologist.com/2010/08/do-human-morals-come-from-religion.html

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/080210/full/news.2010.55.html

 

If you want to discuss non-human religions, I am willing to participate, but that would be off topic.

I really don't, so let's not. Comments like these, however, are part of why I find believers so broken. Why would you assume this based on the context of our discussion?

 

 

You use the term "believer(s) in god" only in very negative contexts.

What exactly did we do to you to evoke this negative bias and emotion.

I, for one, would like to apologize for whatever it was.

Seriously, stop with the nonsense personal stuff, would you please? I approach believers in god in the exact same way that I approach people who believe in Puff the magic dragon after the age of 15, or who think Dora the Explorer is a real person after the age of 11.

 

The same way I'd approach an adult who thought Zeus ruled the cosmos...

 

... or Yahweh...

 

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2012 by iNow

[Villain]

After watching the Tribute to Hitchens video posted earlier on in the thread, I can't help but think that his motivation is based on not wanting to bow down to anything and his reasons follow. One might say that a religious following is based in the emotional side of a human being but I have yet to come across a person who does not ultimately refer to emotion when disagreeing to religion.

 

 

 

[rigney]

So, you'd rather continue to have your audience not able to understand what you're saying? This makes no sense to me. I asked you questions. Your reply talked about dogs or something. I told you this was not clear, and asked for clarification. You replied again with nonsense.

 

I quoted a comment you made, and used it to show that you are, by definition, an agnostic atheist. You replied that this was just my opinion. I said:

 

"It has zero to do with opinion. It's about accuracy and using words properly and precisely. Regardless... do you or do you not think that people who believe in god are broken, rigney?"

 

You said:

"No more broken than someone bent on destroying another persons belief."

 

To demonstrate to you that this point has definite limits, and to help better understand your stance, I asked:

"What if that belief is harmful to others? What if that belief is that raping young boys will lead to riches and fortune? What about a belief that throwing acid on to the genitals of the elderly will end world hunger? Are you suggesting it is also broken to be "bent on destroying" beliefs like those?

 

... or at least to be passionate about trying to prevent such beliefs from being implemented in this world we share?"

 

 

Is there any chance you will address this question like a mature human being, or are you simply going to continue talking in strange metaphors about rabbits taking dumps?

 

Let's put it this way. No! I don't think people who believe in God are broken. Many are perhaps misguided, mis-informed, ignorant or even stupid, but then, that can apply to those of us who are non-believers such as you and me. And bringing up the rape of children or tossing acid on the genitals of elders was totally rank, other than for the sensationalism of the verbiage. Thankfully there are laws in this country hopefully preventing such happenings. Again, No! I don't believe religious people are broken in the sense you suggest. You may also add this postscript. To my knowledge, I don't have an audience of even 1. Edited April 26, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Let's put it this way. No! I don't think people who believe in God are broken. Many are perhaps misguided, mis-informed, ignorant or even stupid, but then, that can apply to those of us who are non-believers such as you and me.

That's actually an answer to a different question than the ones to which I'm referring in the most recent exchange, but I won't belabor it.

 

 

And bringing up the rape of children or tossing acid on the genitals of elders was totally rank, other than for the sensationalism of the verbiage.

Actually, it's not... and let me briefly explain why.

 

You were berating people like me for speaking passionately against faith based beliefs, and against the concept of faith itself. You suggested it was actually people like me who were "broken" for being "bent" on minimizing beliefs in others, and for being "bent" on minimizing the impact those beliefs have on our society ("in this fragile finite existence we all share").

 

To demonstrate that this point stinks of hypocrisy, I exchanged the example of religion with one that was much more clearly one-sided and inarguable. Since your comment was specific to the concept of belief, and since you seemed to suggest that we should let people believe whatever they wanted and not interfere, and since you seemed to imply that live-and-let-live is the best path... I asked if you would feel the same way if the beliefs were something much more "rank" or "sensational" like those horrific examples I gave.

 

 

You said:

"[believers in god are] No more broken than someone bent on destroying another persons belief."

 

So, I will ask you now again:

 

What if that belief is harmful to others? What if that belief is that raping young boys will lead to riches and fortune? What about a belief that throwing acid on to the genitals of the elderly will end world hunger? Are you suggesting it is also broken to be "bent on destroying" beliefs like those?

 

... or at least to be passionate about trying to prevent such beliefs from being implemented in this world we share?

 

 

As I think most readers may have already ascertained, the central issue is the harm to others. That is the key crux in this particular disagreement. Distilled down to it's most elementary essence, the point is that if there is harm, we should minimize it. If there is not, we should ultimately ignore it. Now, with this said, you would likely acknowledge that we should seek to minimize beliefs in people that will harm others. Is this fair? Are we at least aligned on this relatively straight forward point that we should seek to minimize beliefs which cause harm in others? Can I continue?

 

If so, then that will allow us to begin discussing the issue toward which I was trying to bring us in this exchange... Namely, that it is the concept of harm to others where we seem to disagree.

 

Folks like imafatal and me (in this thread) have put forward a premise. A rough version of our stance (and the stance of countless others) is that these types of faith based beliefs far too often result in real-world harms... They far too frequently result in negative and tangible impacts on the lives of millions and millions of people. Examples have already been given, and more are available. This point is irrefutable, and only the scale or magnitude of the effect can be argued.

 

I added to these real-life tangible negatives that these types of faith based beliefs carry additional negative outcomes with them... In short, they tend to erode the ability of humans to think critically and to rationally evaluate various other claims themselves beyond the sphere of religion and external to belief in deities. The supplemental point is that this too carries with it downstream consequences that translate into measurable harms in the real world. We can disagree about the magnitude or scope of those negative downstream impacts, rigney, but not that they exist or change the world we share together in very real ways.

 

So, this opens the question... If you agree that we should minimize beliefs that cause harm to others... like the belief that raping young boys will lead to wealth and fortune, or the belief that tossing acid into the genitals of elderly people will end world hunger, can we not also agree that we should minimize religious beliefs... or beliefs in god(s)... which themselves also cause some degree of measurable harm to others? If so, then we can begin discussing where that threshold exists, but without this basic agreement we have no hope of continuing an intelligent dialog with one another because one of us is not approaching the exchange in good faith [no pun intended].

 

 

You may also add this postscript. To my knowledge, I don't have an audience of even 1.

Just for the sake of rigor, I have to note that this TOO is wrong. Obviously, I am reading what you write, so your audience is AT LEAST one... and very likely, much much higher of a number than that given that others are also here reviewing our exchange as lurkers and even participants.

 

---

 

After watching the Tribute to Hitchens video posted earlier on in the thread, I can't help but think that his motivation is based on not wanting to bow down to anything and his reasons follow.

I find it fascinating that you feel you can accurately understand a man's central motivations after watching one short Youtube video of various sound bits from him. That shows some real audacity that you would claim to have knowledge of ANYONE's motivations, let alone someone about whom your knowledge is so limited and restricted.

[rigney]

I'm not sure just how you can assess another humans mind, since most of us have enough trouble trying to untangle our own. Be that as it may. But I specifically stated to you that "law" and the justice system in America is the single factor in dealing with crazies and criminals who want to s---w little boys or dump acid on older folks. While there are countries in which such practices may still take place, an enclave such as the one you seem to suggest would likely take thousands of years to even adjust to such a regime. And in the end it would only be a yoke around someone elses neck, not yours. What you have to remember is, places like Iran, and other middle eastern societies, along with the witcheries in Africa, existed long before England and America were even thought of. Yes, many people are broken in this world; but let's not simply associate religion with it. We have enough nuts on our side to scare hell out of me.

Edited April 26, 2012 by rigney

[Villain]

 

I find it fascinating that you feel you can accurately understand a man's central motivations after watching one short Youtube video of various sound bits from him. That shows some real audacity that you would claim to have knowledge of ANYONE's motivations, let alone someone about whom your knowledge is so limited and restricted.

 

The first one and a half minutes also do nothing to promote him as an intellect, they mostly just show him to be obnoxious. What else am I suppose to take from this? Perhaps this particular video is not a very good choice, there might be a better one (of him) to get your point across. If you would like me to point out the part that suggests my previous post I will watch it again and do so, just ask.

[iNow]

The first one and a half minutes also do nothing to promote him as an intellect, they mostly just show him to be obnoxious. What else am I suppose to take from this? Perhaps this particular video is not a very good choice, there might be a better one (of him) to get your point across.

I don't really care what you take from the video. The point is that you obviously were constructing a view of his motivations based on it, and I suggested that you were silly for doing so, especially given the particular conclusion at which you arrived.

 

---

 

iNow,

You STILL have ignored most every question that I asked you point blank.

You mean these?

 

 

What do you think you are, a god who doesn't permit discussion?

<...>

What are people?

iNow,

 

Why are you so fixated on disproving or disallowing the existence of God? It's a little much don't you think?

 

Did you wake to find that Santa forgot about you or did he bring you the completely wrong toy one Christmas morning long ago?

 

How did that make you feel?

 

Were you breast fed or bottle fed?

 

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

Do actually read a post that has an opposing view before you criticize it?

Now, iNow. What is the problem?

 

Yes, you're right. I have been ignoring most of your questions. Also, while we're at it, when did you stop beating your wife?

 

 

Please, what are these studies and exactly how to they directly relate to human beings, which I believe this thread is about?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=morals+in+nonhumans&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=morals+in+animals&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C44

 

I'd be glad to go through a few in more detail if you really need us to. The central point is that moral behavior is not restricted to humans, and hence the argument that morals come from religion or belief in gods is bogus on its face. I simply used the fact that moral behavior is found in nonhuman animals to make this point more accessible to you.

Edited April 26, 2012 by iNow

[immortal]

can we not also agree that we should minimize religious beliefs... or beliefs in god(s)... which themselves also cause some degree of measurable harm to others? If so, then we can begin discussing where that threshold exists....

 

Not all religious beliefs cause harm to others, religious beliefs are personal, it should in no way harm others, how does a humble theist's act of exploring the world outside of science to guide the journey of his soul has anything got to do with other people in the observable world.

 

Religion transcends morals.

 

1. Religion teaches us that the light of God which exists in you is the same light of God which exists in every living thing, it teaches us that a violence to others is a violence to oneself.

 

2. Religion teaches us to be responsible in society and teaches us to go on with your works and not to destabilize society in anyway.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa_in_Jainism

 

The concept of syadvada allows the Jains to accept the truth in other philosophies from their perspective and thus inculcating a tolerance for other viewpoints. Anekantvada is non-absolutist and stands firmly against all dogmatisms, even including any assertion that only Jainism is the right religious path.[9] It is thus an intellectual Ahimsa or Ahimsa of mind.[1] In Anekantvada, there is no "battle of ideas", because this is considered to be a form of intellectual himsa or damage, leading quite logically to physical violence and war. In today's world, the limitations of the adversarial, "either with us or against us " form of argument are increasingly apparent leading to political, religious and social conflicts. Even the mounting ecological crisis is linked to adversarialism, because it arises from a false division between humanity and "the rest" of nature.

 

According to Adian Rankin, the concept of Ahimsa is so much intertwined with Jainism that it conjures up images of ascetics who cover their mouths and sweep the ground before them with small brushes to avoid injuring the most minuscule forms of life and Jain-owned animal sanctuaries where even the sickest, most deformed birds and beasts are protected and cherished. These overt manifestations of an ancient faith challenge the comfortable - and near-universal - assumption of human precedence over other creatures.

 

 

Rigney is an agnostic so he should be left to have his view, persons who lash out and give disrespect to other's beliefs are the one's who are really causing harm to others and they are the one's who are broken.

Edited April 26, 2012 by immortal

[iNow]

Not all religious beliefs cause harm to others...

Yes, I agree... but some do. That threshold is what drives some of our motivations to speak out against them with such passion and fortitude. I (and others) was asked why I care so much. That was part of my answer.

 

Saying that religious beliefs in no way harm others is not only ridiculous, but disingenuous, yet that's precisely what you've just done.

 

 

Rigney is an agnostic so he should be left to have his view, persons who lash out and give disrespect to other's beliefs are the one's who are really causing harm to others and they are the one's who are broken.

Sigh... Has this ground not already been covered and completed? Is this dead horse not sufficiently beaten by now?