People who believe in god are broken

[Greg H.]

I read it to mean they are broken, meaning that some flaw leads them to follow this belief. I don't necessarily think religious individuals are any more or less broken than the rest of us, but I cannot fathom the depth of religious conviction given the contradictions of the published material, the inability of the faithful to agree on basic matters of doctrine and faith, and the general lack of physical evidence.

 

But then, I suppose, that is why they call it faith.

[Iggy]

I can excuse an illiterate person for making that kind of thing up 2,000 years ago in a tribal society where people were treated like property, but hearing someone repeat it today is just confusing.

I would use the term disheartening, myself... Something to be minimized in a modern world, for sure.

I agree, and I think 'scary' is the other thing it is. More than just trowing adjectives around, to honestly convey how the devoutly religious make me feel when they fervently recite nonsensical gibberish...

 

I was in a downtown bar area near a university town when I was approached by someone who was clearly mentally challenged. Just to look at him from twenty paces off, he was first of all holding a screwdriver for no apparent purpose, and holding it with both hands in a way that looked extremely abnormal. His walk was labored and unnatural, and most of all his affect did nothing to hide the irrational mess beneath.

 

He looked and walked directly at me at a full pace saying nothing with a screwdriver held tightly to his chest. I tried "hello, how are ya?" with no reply. He just kept walking right at me. Halfway through planning my escape he stopped and said something. I wish I could remember what it was, but it didn't make enough sense to remember. Whatever he said, it was enough for me to figure out that he wasn't mentally slow. He wasn't handicapped in that way. He was intelligent, but crazy. Psychotic and dissociated from reality without doubt.

 

At this point I'm two steps from a psychotic person holding a screwdriver delivering a mess of nonsense words at me. I was scared and confused, and I think we should all have that same reaction to religion. It is dangerous to be near. It is so nonsensical that it can deliver irrational violence at any moment.

 

My reaction, which may not have been the most compassionate (I was young), was to point down the street toward a larger group of people and say "right down there". He apparently took that to mean something because he walked off in that direction without any hesitation.

 

When the christian right gets out their "god hates fags" signs and the muslim right make their suicide videos I'm reminded of that incident. These people make no sense to me. Their thoughts aren't like my thoughts, and I think we should be a little scared of something so dangerous.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Iggy

[Moontanman]

iggy i honestly wish i could bring an argument against what you just sent. I really do, i would really like to think that our neighbors or fellow inhabitants of the earth are not like that. But sadly a great many are, far too many with far to much power and influence over those who believe but find the idea of religion being dangerous ridiculous. Most humans don't seem to see the innate danger in religion. in fact a great many will say we are all better off if religion has power but it's not a long step from that idea to everyone should believe the way i do...

 

it is very scary to see most of my fellow men being deluded, even those whose delusion is moderated by reality to some extent because they have the most power and have a very difficult time seeing any reason to throttle religion back in anyway... in fact the fringe groups who do believe that everyone should believe the way they do have considerable influence on the mainstream, in fact in the USA they are mainstream, Christian Evangelicals make up a large portion of the population and have an much inflated influence over politics, morality, and the power and the will to restrict the rights of others....

 

They did so last week in NC. For no reason other than to show their power the religious citizens of NC passed an amendment to the state constitution to outlaw something that was already illegal and to further make sure those citizens, whose right were being taken away, could not even have a non religious civil union. This law in fact disenfranchised not only homosexual people but unmarried nonreligious couples as well.

 

It is an outrageous assault on the people of the State of North Carolina by the government of the State of North Carolina...

Edited May 16, 2012 by Moontanman

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

You asked me to expound upon what belief in God has to do with reality.

 

I think my own understanding of reality is the only thing I can reference, with any authority, so I do that often, in the hopes that my take will not be foreign to another human. If I have a "blank" that I wish to fill, and another human has the same "blank", it is not inappropriate, in my estimation, to agree on "something" to fill it with. Villian has expressed that the bible gives us truth about our origins. Not my take exactly. It attempted to fill the blank, the best it could muster at the time, as the theory of evolution has for the past couple centuries. To many evolution is obvious fact, and the 4000 year Geneology from Adam to us, just doesn't add up. The Bible can't be telling the truth of our origins, not literally, so we have to take it as figurative, or rationalize it screwy some how, into "well what it really was saying...was this". But evolution theory demands that survival of the organism that fit reality the best is the only rule, and the "origin" of any particular organism at any particular time, had as its "cause" the accidental mutation of a protein string existant in a previously well fitted organism, that passed along its working form, along with a couple accidental mistakes, that reality would either work out to be a better fit, or not so and the fittest would pass their pattern on, and the not so fit would not.

 

So if I take evolution to be fact, as it so appears to all who test it, to be, then I, as a human organism can be sure, that I absolutely fit reality, and that no part of me is "other than" reality. It is responsible for me, it created me, and I have nothing else but it, to be responsible to, in return. Anything I am capable of, by extension, reality must be capable of. Anything I experience must have some basis in reality, be connected to it in some fashion, be part of the "me" that fits it so well as to exist in it for 58 turns of the Earth around the Sun. And there are others like me, and there have been others before me, and will be others after I die. And other "forms" of life that have also accomplished this "fitting reality" thing. And non alive forms that "exist" that fit reality for a little while, hurricanes and volcanoes, and waterfalls, and planets and suns and stars and galaxies...

 

So I can lay in field on a summer night, by myself, and gaze into the starry sky, and feel "not alone", and not separate from what I see. I contain it, and it contains me. I don't call it Jehovah, or Allah or some Indian name or the other names its been called, but I sure do believe in it. And it has everything to do with reality. It IS reality.

 

Regards, TAR2

[MonDie]

I don't think Iggy's description is entirely accurate. Religion can be predictable, and there are buffers against its spontaneity.

Some of the social norms reinforced by religion probably originated from historical events or natural tendencies, although that is not to say that the norms are justified. Religion continues to adapt to outside forces in ways that can be predictable.

Many people change their religion rather than blindly follow the first one they see, and some theology students don't become priests because they see the greed that plagues churches, so one leader's transformation into a Hitler won't necessarily turn all the followers into Hitlers.

Of course, this is not a black and white issue.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Villain]

1. I think providing references is a very good idea. It will force you to read the book you think is divine. By asking for references you do make absolutely clear that you have no clue where these things are in the bible. You've given divine warrant for a book you clearly haven't taken the trouble to read. Unimaginable in my mind.

 

The daughter sacrificed by her father, a leader of Israel, to God is in Jud. 11:29-40. Paul introduces himself as a slave of Jesus in the first sentence in Romans. 2. The comparison Jesus make between his followers and dutiful slaves is in Luke 12:35-48. Notice, also, the passage following that where peaceful Jesus promises to divide the word of people against each other in struggle -- the part where he says he doesn't come to the earth in the name of peace.

 

Almost everything christians believe about christianity can be contradicted in the bible. God is clearly having a terrible time getting his message out, as Greg just pointed out. I bet there are one or two of the chosen people that are in publishing. I think we should get him in touch.

 

 

3. Fantastic. Why are you granting me this apparent concession of my age?

 

1. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask.

 

Firstly as you have originally pointed out, the sacrifice was not asked for by God, so I don't see how it correlates to my original statement: "Also considering that God has sacrificed Himself for man but does not ask the same of man...".

Secondly there are different translations/interpretations of the passage that you have quoted, one being that he killed her as a sacrifice, the other being that she was given to the service of the Lord and remained a virgin.

 

2. Yes He uses the parable of the servant/slave. Now go and read John 15:15. Yes I notice the second half and the division of households is quite apparent today. Religion is no longer a cultural system and many families are split on religious views as per His word.

 

3. This is in relation to your father-daughter reference earlier. Your daughter might be child, but you are not. There is a big difference between a father-daughter(child) relationship and a father-daughter(adult) relationship.

 

[Greg H.]

1. ...

 

Secondly there are different translations/interpretations of the passage that you have quoted, one being that he killed her as a sacrifice, the other being that she was given to the service of the Lord and remained a virgin.

 

 

That's a pretty big difference in translation there. So basically this girl is like Schrödinger's Cat. Neither dead nor alive until you decide which iteration of the Bible you believe.

 

And yet people still wonder why there are those of us who are wary of organized religion.

[zapatos]

That's a pretty big difference in translation there. So basically this girl is like Schrödinger's Cat. Neither dead nor alive until you decide which iteration of the Bible you believe.

 

And yet people still wonder why there are those of us who are wary of organized religion.

 

Ah, the irony.

 

That's some special cat there.

 

And yet people still wonder why there are those who are wary of science!

[Villain]

That's a pretty big difference in translation there. So basically this girl is like Schrödinger's Cat. Neither dead nor alive until you decide which iteration of the Bible you believe.

 

And yet people still wonder why there are those of us who are wary of organized religion.

 

 

If you're interested, read the text and read some opposing views and come to your own conclusion. If not, just carry on with making a noise, it's much easier than doing something constructive.

[Greg H.]

If you're interested, read the text and read some opposing views and come to your own conclusion. If not, just carry on with making a noise, it's much easier than doing something constructive.

 

I thought my conclusions were fairly clear. Maybe if you read my posts a little more deeply they'll become self-evident.

 

With the sarcasm out of the way, let me be clear. I was raised in a Methodist family. I went to church, I went to Sunday school, I was baptized, and I did the youth group and church camp thing. I did spend the time reading the scripture, but as I got older, and spent more time studying science and math, I started to recognize the contradictions and outright disagreements in the biblical texts.

 

What you dismiss as "making a noise" I refer to as living an examined life.

[Iggy]

I don't think Iggy's description is entirely accurate.

If you mean my last post it was more of a comparison than a description, but I was hoping someone would argue that it is unfair.

 

Religion can be predictable, and there are buffers against its spontaneity.

Some of the social norms reinforced by religion probably originated from historical events or natural tendencies, although that is not to say that the norms are justified. Religion continues to adapt to outside forces in ways that can be predictable.

Many people change their religion rather than blindly follow the first one they see, and some theology students don't become priests because they see the greed that plagues churches, so one leader's transformation into a Hitler won't necessarily turn all the followers into Hitlers.

Of course, this is not a black and white issue.

I'm not sure which things you say are meant to contradict which things I said. I was comparing religion to psychotic people and saying that we would all do well reacting to both in the same way. You say, for example, "Religion can be predictable, and there are buffers against its spontaneity." Yes, well... psychotic people can be predictable and there are buffers against their spontaneity. Both can be unpredictable because they are so irrational as well. Both can be dangerous. I'm sorry, I don't see a contradiction.

[Moontanman]

If you mean my last post it was more of a comparison than a description, but I was hoping someone would argue that it is unfair.

 

 

I'm not sure which things you say are meant to contradict which things I said. I was comparing religion to psychotic people and saying that we would all do well reacting to both in the same way. You say, for example, "Religion can be predictable, and there are buffers against its spontaneity." Yes, well... psychotic people can be predictable and there are buffers against their spontaneity. Both can be unpredictable because they are so irrational as well. Both can be dangerous. I'm sorry, I don't see a contradiction.

 

 

The flat out dishonesty of the religious right is terrifying, their willingness to restrict the rights of others, the constant fight for power over everyone.... all that is predictable...

[zapatos]

I thought my conclusions were fairly clear. Maybe if you read my posts a little more deeply they'll become self-evident.

 

With the sarcasm out of the way, let me be clear. I was raised in a Methodist family. I went to church, I went to Sunday school, I was baptized, and I did the youth group and church camp thing. I did spend the time reading the scripture, but as I got older, and spent more time studying science and math, I started to recognize the contradictions and outright disagreements in the biblical texts.

 

What you dismiss as "making a noise" I refer to as living an examined life.

Oh come on. You disparaged all of organized religion because there is a difference of opinion regarding interpretation of one passage.

 

I could just as easily dismiss all of science since in every theory you can find people who have differences of opinion regarding interpretation of data.

 

Of course had I dismissed science with such a flimsy reason I would have received negative rep points, not positive.

 

I found the criticism of your post to be reasonable.

[Iggy]

1. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask.

 

Firstly as you have originally pointed out, the sacrifice was not asked for by God, so I don't see how it correlates to my original statement: "Also considering that God has sacrificed Himself for man but does not ask the same of man...".

Secondly there are different translations/interpretations of the passage that you have quoted, one being that he killed her as a sacrifice, the other being that she was given to the service of the Lord and remained a virgin.

Here is where we part company.

 

You just read a story where someone killed and burned the body of their daughter because God granted them a victory in a field of battle. Any morally normal person reading such a story has to be sickened by it. It is amoral garbage and basic human decency demands that anyone discussing it denounces it as amoral garbage.

 

But you read it and immediately start making excuses for it. Maybe it doesn't say what it says. Maybe God didn't ask for her to be sacrificed. Maybe God wanted a turtle dove to be slaughtered and burned that day for his pleasure, but by some freak accident poor Jephthah's daughter ended up on the slab instead.

 

It is inexcusable. Today, you can bet, there is a Muslim father murdering his Muslim daughter in the name of honor. Where he lives there is no difference between secular law and religious law. It's all the same thing -- and there is no law against what he is doing. It is happening today, believe me, the life is being strangled out of her body -- she is being sent to Allah -- while you sit on the other side of the globe and make excuses for his immoral justification.

 

I don't understand it at all. I don't understand how you can read that story, and not just be ok with it, but think that just maybe the creator of the universe also created that book special for our species. It is foreign to me that any intellectually and morally normal person can think that.

 

2. Yes He uses the parable of the servant/slave. Now go and read John 15:15.

Then read 1 Cr 7:22. If you're trying to prove to me that the bible has contradictions you can stop. I need no convincing.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Iggy

[Greg H.]

Oh come on. You disparaged all of organized religion because there is a difference of opinion regarding interpretation of one passage.

 

I could just as easily dismiss all of science since in every theory you can find people who have differences of opinion regarding interpretation of data.

 

Of course had I dismissed science with such a flimsy reason I would have received negative rep points, not positive.

 

I found the criticism of your post to be reasonable.

 

I was merely pointing out that passage as one of the many issues in translation and interpretation of the bible - not the only one. And yes, I did disparage all of organized religion. I find it to be of little value in living my life, and so I do my best to avoid it. That's a personal opinion, however, and I'm not presuming to speak for anyone else here.

 

Unlike the Bible, it's pretty simple (relatively) to determine which of a group of competing theories is the correct one. You test them, and see which one validates itself with empirical evidence. And while yes, you may find differences of opinion in the interpretation of the data for a given experiment, the fact is, the experiments are repeatable, by any group of scientists who chooses to test the theory. You can come up with your own methods to test those theories. Eventually those differences of interpretation can be resolved. The differences of interpretation of the bible have lasted for hundreds of years. That's a lot of biblical scholars, philosophers and theologians all looking at the same "data" and they still can't come to a consensus on what large portions of a relatively short book actually mean.

 

I think my criticism of religion was reasonable on that basis. Feel free to disagree. Many people will.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Greg H.

[zapatos]

I was merely pointing out that passage as one of the many issues in translation and interpretation of the bible - not the only one. And yes, I did disparage all of organized religion. I find it to be of little value in living my life, and so I do my best to avoid it. That's a personal opinion, however, and I'm not presuming to speak for anyone else here.

 

Unlike the Bible, it's pretty simple (relatively) to determine which of a group of competing theories is the correct one. You test them, and see which one validates itself with empirical evidence. And while yes, you may find differences of opinion in the interpretation of the data for a given experiment, the fact is, the experiments are repeatable, by any group of scientists who chooses to test the theory. You can come up with your own methods to test those theories. Eventually those differences of interpretation can be resolved. The differences of interpretation of the bible have lasted for hundreds of years. That's a lot of biblical scholars, philosophers and theologians all looking at the same "data" and they still can't come to a consensus on what large portions of a relatively short book actually mean.

 

I think my criticism of religion was reasonable on that basis. Feel free to disagree. Many people will.

No disagreement. Nice argument.

 

The criticism was how you had previously diparaged religion without making much of a case.

 

Had you made this argument the first time I would have had no issue, and I suspect Villian wouldn't have made the comment he did.

[MonDie]

If you mean my last post it was more of a comparison than a description, but I was hoping someone would argue that it is unfair.

 

 

I'm not sure which things you say are meant to contradict which things I said. I was comparing religion to psychotic people and saying that we would all do well reacting to both in the same way. You say, for example, "Religion can be predictable, and there are buffers against its spontaneity." Yes, well... psychotic people can be predictable and there are buffers against their spontaneity. Both can be unpredictable because they are so irrational as well. Both can be dangerous. I'm sorry, I don't see a contradiction.

My statements were based on the assumption that predictability is preceded by reason. Irrationality is the lack of reason.

When I argued that religion can make predictable changes in response to historical events and/or human social nature, I was arguing that religion involves some reasoning even if it's bad reasoning.

Next, I emphasized the role of rational individuals within the religious framework. I originally intended for the hypothetical religious leader's (irrational) transformation to be a contrast to the reasoning individuals, who buffer the irrationality.

Finally, I concede that religion isn't entirely rational or irrational.

 

However, I assumed that broader cultural factors that impact religion are thus part of religion. If that's not included in the definition of religion, my argument doesn't apply, and it becomes true that religion only contorts otherwise secular ideas into less rational dogmas even while preserving them.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Villain]

Here is where we part company.

 

You just read a story where someone killed and burned the body of their daughter because God granted them a victory in a field of battle. Any morally normal person reading such a story has to be sickened by it. It is amoral garbage and basic human decency demands that anyone discussing it denounces it as amoral garbage.

 

But you read it and immediately start making excuses for it. Maybe it doesn't say what it says. Maybe God didn't ask for her to be sacrificed. Maybe God wanted a turtle dove to be slaughtered and burned that day for his pleasure, but by some freak accident poor Jephthah's daughter ended up on the slab instead.

 

It is inexcusable. Today, you can bet, there is a Muslim father murdering his Muslim daughter in the name of honor. Where he lives there is no difference between secular law and religious law. It's all the same thing -- and there is no law against what he is doing. It is happening today, believe me, the life is being strangled out of her body -- she is being sent to Allah -- while you sit on the other side of the globe and make excuses for his immoral justification.

 

I don't understand it at all. I don't understand how you can read that story, and not just be ok with it, but think that just maybe the creator of the universe also created that book special for our species. It is foreign to me that any intellectually and morally normal person can think that.

 

You seem to think that we are born with moral values or that there are definite moral rights and wrongs. On what basis do you have the right to decide what is moral for the human species?

 

I have also stated that the passage is open to interpretation because of the ancient language and culture of the time. We do not know the exact meaning of words in those days. Think of the difference between Shakespearian English and our English today. It is still the same language but many words have totally different meanings. I'm not going to flood this site with biblical explanations so do a search if you want a further explanation.

 

Then read 1 Cr 7:22. If you're trying to prove to me that the bible has contradictions you can stop. I need no convincing.

 

Thank you. a very beautiful analogy.

[A Tripolation]

I believe you already agree with this point, however, and you're more accurately described as a "cultural christian" along the same lines as a non-believing "cultural jew." Is that correct?

 

Sure, I agree with that there is a jump between Jesus existing and God existing.

 

If by "cultural Christian" you mean "someone that believes Christ existed, was divine and perfect, and died on the cross to forgive you of your sin so that none shall truly perish", then yes. I am.

[immortal]

Except, religion DOES make truth claims that impact this world, and it DOES frequently concern itself with this world. You are arguing from an invalid premise... a false assertion.

 

 

This is the main problem I have with this thread there are different theists out there and you should be careful on what you're trying to minimize or suppress. In the modern world there are people who are not highly religious and at the same time they are not anti-religious either and they give respect to non-intellectual ways of looking at the world which is quite irrational. There might be other ways of knowing other than rationalism and empiricism.

 

---

 

 

 

 

http://www.ndtv.com/...troversy-211213

 

Certain religious thinking indeed often does impact the world around us. Recently some Oregan company in the U.S gave a beer bottle in the hands of goddess Kali which is the label to their bottle and today morning the leader of an extremist religious group openly stated in the media that if this trend continues he is going to chop off the hands of those who insult their gods and attacked the Church for converting people. This is the world we live in, let's accept it. People killing out each other in the name of politics and religion. Its really afraid to live having such people around you and such thinking need to be minimized.

 

 

My main point is not all religious thinking and people who believe in god harm others in any way, infact the priests of oldest religions used to pray for the good of the society as a whole and praying that his acts does not cause harm to others in anyway, what I am basically interested is in studying such religious thinking which challenge our accepted notions of reality and there is so much literature out there written by religious scholars which adds so much knowledge and contribute to humanity as a whole, so the question that I would ask to the original poster is that do you don't want to teach these things to our children, is it right to minimize religious thinking just because it isn't rational to you? Now I'm afraid of such intolerance towards religion and such intolerance shouldn't be tolerated. You can criticize such religious thinking all you want but its wrong to minimize it, its wrong to attack them personally so that society looks down upon them.

Edited May 18, 2012 by immortal

[Greg H.]

No disagreement. Nice argument.

 

The criticism was how you had previously diparaged religion without making much of a case.

 

Had you made this argument the first time I would have had no issue, and I suspect Villian wouldn't have made the comment he did.

 

No worries. I've always had a problem with condensing my arguments too far and leaving out salient bits that I assume people will understand to be included. My math teachers used to hate me because I rarely showed all of my work, just the parts I didn't do in my head.

 

I will make a renewed effort to be more clear in the future.

[iNow]

You seem to think that we are born with moral values or that there are definite moral rights and wrongs. On what basis do you have the right to decide what is moral for the human species?

We already have a conversation about this elsewhere (and have had many in the past at this site). Please take it there:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66483-religion-and-morality

[MonDie]

EDIT: I should ensure clear communication with my opponents before I argue.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

---

... and they give respect to non-intellectual ways of looking at the world which is quite irrational. There might be other ways of knowing other than rationalism and empiricism.

No, there really aren't. The only way your statement can possibly be true is if you extend the meaning of the word "knowledge" so broadly as to render it meaningless.

 

There are other ways of "believing" other than through rational thought, reasonable examination, and empiricism... But there are not other ways of "knowing."

 

This is the world we live in, let's accept it.

No. Let's not "accept it." Let's not allow ourselves to become complacent and use the status quo as a reason for non-action.

Let's improve it. Let's educate people. Let's seek to eradicate ignorance in all its various forms.

 

Let's NOT just sit here and accept it, though. We're not animals stuck in a cage that have forgotten what freedom means, and I shudder to think that you actually just recommended we give up on trying to eliminate willful ignorance and unnecessary division from our world... that you shared it authentically, sincerely, and with a straight face.

 

I refuse to accept irrational thinking as "just the way it is." I refuse to allow the society we share to be impacted by dark aged thinking. I refuse to remain silent in the face of a clear and present danger to our well being. I refuse to stop trying to make the world a better place, and I refuse to think "this is the world we live it, let's accept it."

 

My main point is not all religious thinking and people who believe in god harm others in any way,

But nobody here has made the argument that they did. The point is that this type of thinking bleeds into other parts of our existence, and provides justification for acts that DO harm others. There is nothing one will not try if they feel they are action under sanction from god.

 

so the question that I would ask to the original poster is that do you don't want to teach these things to our children, is it right to minimize religious thinking just because it isn't rational to you?

One must teach children to think critically, to examine claims for validity and seek evidence to confirm their truth. One must teach children to enjoy the sense of awe and wonder that comes from being a part of this vast and inspiring cosmos, and to exercise that energy in the form of study and reflection. Whether or not we teach them to minimize religious thinking is less relevant than teaching them to avoid broken logic or irrational thinking, and no where near as critical as teaching them to never accept extraordinary claims as true based on faith alone.

 

Now I'm afraid of such intolerance towards religion and such intolerance shouldn't be tolerated.

You have the right to believe any stupid thing you want, but you have no right whatsoever for your beliefs be immune from criticism, challenge, or dismissal. You have no right whatsoever for your own form or unreason and irrationality to be granted special protection from critical scrutiny and review. You can hold these beliefs, but you cannot suggest that others are disallowed from rightly describing them as nonsensical.

 

I look down on your beliefs in the same way I would look down on the beliefs of an adult who still thinks the tooth fairy is real, or in the same way that I would an adult who thinks that unicorns exist... and for good reason. You (and thousands of years worth of theists before you) have put forth NOTHING that demonstrates your imaginary friend to be any different, and you have earned no special deference so will receive none. I will not treat you differently or exercise a double standard just because you think religion should get a special pass from the bullshit detection mechanisms each of us uses in every single other aspect of our daily lives.

 

That's been one of the central themes of this thread, and it's a question that has been woefully evaded by essentially every contributing theist. Why should we treat religious belief or belief in god(s) any differently than all of other countless unsupported and silly human beliefs out there? We shouldn't. To think we should is a broken form of thinking.

[immortal]

No, there really aren't. The only way your statement can possibly be true is if you extend the meaning of the word "knowledge" so broadly as to render it meaningless.

 

There are other ways of "believing" other than through rational thought, reasonable examination, and empiricism... But there are not other ways of "knowing."

 

Many religious scholars suggest that pre-cognition is possible and it is real. Imagine how such a thing can add to our knowledge of space and time, Minority Report was an amazing Sci-fi movie about precogs. I know my argument is weak since I'm not demonstrating it and I also know you might have a different explanation for such cases but it is these things which attracts me to religion. There are good things and great wisdom which can come out of religion so we should be careful of on what to minimize or suppress and what to encourage and pass it on to our children.

 

 

No. Let's not "accept it." Let's not allow ourselves to become complacent and use the status quo as a reason for non-action.

Let's improve it. Let's educate people. Let's seek to eradicate ignorance in all its various forms.

 

Let's NOT just sit here and accept it, though. We're not animals stuck in a cage that have forgotten what freedom means, and I shudder to think that you actually just recommended we give up on trying to eliminate willful ignorance and unnecessary division from our world... that you shared it authentically, sincerely, and with a straight face.

 

I refuse to accept irrational thinking as "just the way it is." I refuse to allow the society we share to be impacted by dark aged thinking. I refuse to remain silent in the face of a clear and present danger to our well being. I refuse to stop trying to make the world a better place, and I refuse to think "this is the world we live it, let's accept it."

 

The root cause of such ignorance might indeed be from religion and it has to be minimized but its wrong to think that the ancient people were in a dark age as though they didn't made any contributions to the knowledge base of humanity, knowledge is cumulative. There is so much to learn from them, I would suggest that there is as much a need for scholars who study these things as much as we need scientists and engineers. Its wrong to think that there is no use from such studies.

 

 

But nobody here has made the argument that they did. The point is that this type of thinking bleeds into other parts of our existence, and provides justification for acts that DO harm others. There is nothing one will not try if they feel they are action under sanction from god.

 

That's the point, there is no need to eradicate the apples as a whole just because there are a few bad apples which ruin the acts of good apples.

 

 

One must teach children to think critically, to examine claims for validity and seek evidence to confirm their truth. One must teach children to enjoy the sense of awe and wonder that comes from being a part of this vast and inspiring cosmos, and to exercise that energy in the form of study and reflection. Whether or not we teach them to minimize religious thinking is less relevant than teaching them to avoid broken logic or irrational thinking, and no where near as critical as teaching them to never accept extraordinary claims as true based on faith alone.

 

The very encouragement to study such literature from scholars would make them question their beliefs and their pre-concieved notions and if we can seperate religion from the real world then we can let them be open to whatever positions that they want to take about religion.

 

 

You have the right to believe any stupid thing you want, but you have no right whatsoever for your beliefs be immune from criticism, challenge, or dismissal. You have no right whatsoever for your own form or unreason and irrationality to be granted special protection from critical scrutiny and review. You can hold these beliefs, but you cannot suggest that others are disallowed from rightly describing them as nonsensical.

 

I look down on your beliefs in the same way I would look down on the beliefs of an adult who still thinks the tooth fairy is real, or in the same way that I would an adult who thinks that unicorns exist... and for good reason. You (and thousands of years worth of theists before you) have put forth NOTHING that demonstrates your imaginary friend to be any different, and you have earned no special deference so will receive none. I will not treat you differently or exercise a double standard just because you think religion should get a special pass from the bullshit detection mechanisms each of us uses in every single other aspect of our daily lives.

 

That's been one of the central themes of this thread, and it's a question that has been woefully evaded by essentially every contributing theist. Why should we treat religious belief or belief in god(s) any differently than all of other countless unsupported and silly human beliefs out there? We shouldn't. To think we should is a broken form of thinking.

 

There is a difference between criticizing a certain way of thinking and minizing a certain way of thinking. I am not in for minimizing religious thinking as a whole. You can criticize all you want and some think that if they some how make an argument look ridiculous and show disrespect to it that they have won the argument, the very fact that we doubt religious ideas keeps us adherent to these positions rather than dismissing them as a whole.