People who believe in god are broken

[Prometheus]

Go back and follow this discussion, starting from this post: http://www.sciencefo...post__p__685624

 

So, what has happened here is that I've agreed that religious believers are bad philosophers for believing something without adequate evidence, but not that they're all mentally ill, broken, childish, or silly.

 

That supposedly implied that I am against your freedom to say such things, and implied that I am against satirizing Islam, that I support the rioters, etc.

 

Of course I hadn't said anything against satire. But because I don't agree with your (tendentiously argued at best) conclusion that religious people are mentally ill, broken, childish, or silly - therefore I'm unwilling to question their beliefs? "Bad philosophers" isn't good enough for you?

 

No, it's clearly not. I have to agree with you that all theists are broken, childish and silly, or else am I against satire and unwilling to question their beliefs.

 

Wow.

 

I already admitted i haven't been following your posts. Apparently neither have you mine. I have been arguing against the OP that one is mentally ill for holding theistic beliefs. I agreed that believing in the Abrahamic god, however, is childish. I have not argued this point, tendentiously or not, but simply agreed. If you think otherwise, tell me which post. Where we met was when i said it is possible to regard someone's beliefs as childish, without regarding the person as childish (we all do stupid things at times, but we are only stupid when we make a habit out of them). You then apparently took offence when i suggested that people easily offended should not participate in such debates in a rather glib way.

 

You now claim i implied that you are against my freedom to say such things, by saying this:

 

Consider the quote in full. It takes an 'If/then' structure (even though the word 'then' is not explicitly used, it is implicit. I shall add it in to add clarity). If someone is so sensitive they will become offended at anything someone says contrary to their views, then they should bury their heads in the earth i.e. should not engage anyone in debate. Notice also the caveat that the comment was not directed at you, but was general (i have bolded that part). Incidentally, one of the religious groups i was thinking of was Islam, in relation to the Danish cartoons.

 

I can only think that you are getting confused who you are debating and on what points. Happens to me sometimes, when there's a busy thread. For the record, i do not say you are against free speech, but again will invoke an if/then clause: if you think causing offence is on its own a good enough reason to not have a debate on any subject, then you are against free speech.

 

 

I wasn't offended. I think you need to ask yourself why you thought I was.

 

 

Fair enough, only you know your mind. To answer your question directly, here is why i thought you were offended:

 

Wow, that can barely be construed as relevant to what we were talking about before.

 

In fact, you're correct to imply that my intention here was something along those lines. Because I am satisfied to say that a theistic belief has no evidence to support it and find no need to insult theists, I hope to set up a theocratic government in which we will not be allowed to say that theists are broken or childish. I will do so via mobs of rioters. Watch out! Come on, man.

 

Wow.

 

Maybe you use 'wow' and 'come on man' a lot in your discussions, but i don't know you and misconstrued them to be defensive statements after having taken offence. Regardless, it's not even possible to debate this particular point, as only you know your mind and if you say you're not offended i believe you.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

In an attempt to move this discussion on, may i use our brief exchanges as a framework for showing that it is not so much the belief in Abrahamic style god(s) that i consider childish, but the reasons for believing in such?

 

You have been using strawman arguments quite a lot. By claiming i implied that you are against freedom of speech (which i hope was resolved to your satisfaction above), a strawman argument was made. Iggy has also highlighted a few. Such strawman arguments are a common feature when debating Abrahamic theists. It is also a childish way of arguing any point.

 

Perhaps we are just genuinely getting confused with whom we are arguing. Regardless, can we both accept that strawman arguments are childish? Do you agree it is a common feature of theists?

 

The OP also suggested that believing something on faith alone is childish, broken etc. I agree accepting something on faith alone is childish. I suspect not, but do you agree? If not, why not?

[Villain]

Villian,

 

So, since I am not as intelligent as Plato I must admit I am ignorant.

 

Fine and good.

 

I yield to all humans that know more than I do. About anything.

 

Except those that believe they know the disposition of my soul. I am the best judge of that.

 

Do you expect that you know what God thinks of me?

 

Based on what knowledge, do you establish this claim?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

My answer to your first question is: no.

 

The second question is answered in previous statements.

 

 

[Prometheus]

When someone stones a woman accused of adultery to death for their theistic beliefs -- when acid is poured in the unveiled face of a girl because god deems it necessary -- you are satisfied saying "a theistic belief has no evidence to support it". I am not satisfied with that, and I hope you would not disparage other people who do choose to speak up against, and insult directly, such stupidity.

 

 

Now I'm basically against speaking out against people pouring acid on girls' faces. And you want an apology for my mischaracterizing your positions.

 

Point in case: a strawman has been made. Notice how Iggy says 'when someone stones a women', 'when acid is poured...', you are satisfied saying "a theistic belief has no evidence to support it". This is not the same as saying you are against speaking out against such atrocities. I dare say you are against such things. But that is not the point Iggy is making. He is saying that he finds it most unsatisfactory that you can believe in the same Abrahamic god which allows such atrocities without supporting evidence.

 

You would be better off pointing out that it is not the same Abrahamic god as these people believe in, or that such people have mistaken the word of god or some such. But you do not, instead you make a strawman, and that is what is childish (whether intentional or because you genuinely misinterpreted Iggy's comment).

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Sorry for hijacking that Iggy, but the point supports my debate.

[music]

I already admitted i haven't been following your posts. Apparently neither have you mine. I have been arguing against the OP that one is mentally ill for holding theistic beliefs. I agreed that believing in the Abrahamic god, however, is childish. I have not argued this point, tendentiously or not, but simply agreed. If you think otherwise, tell me which post. Where we met was when i said it is possible to regard someone's beliefs as childish, without regarding the person as childish (we all do stupid things at times, but we are only stupid when we make a habit out of them). You then apparently took offence when i suggested that people easily offended should not participate in such debates in a rather glib way.

 

You now claim i implied that you are against my freedom to say such things, by saying this:

 

I can only think that you are getting confused who you are debating and on what points. Happens to me sometimes, when there's a busy thread. For the record, i do not say you are against free speech, but again will invoke an if/then clause: if you think causing offence is on its own a good enough reason to not have a debate on any subject, then you are against free speech.

 

Fair enough, only you know your mind. To answer your question directly, here is why i thought you were offended:

 

Maybe you use 'wow' and 'come on man' a lot in your discussions, but i don't know you and misconstrued them to be defensive statements after having taken offence. Regardless, it's not even possible to debate this particular point, as only you know your mind and if you say you're not offended i believe you.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

In an attempt to move this discussion on, may i use our brief exchanges as a framework for showing that it is not so much the belief in Abrahamic style god(s) that i consider childish, but the reasons for believing in such?

 

You have been using strawman arguments quite a lot. By claiming i implied that you are against freedom of speech (which i hope was resolved to your satisfaction above), a strawman argument was made. Iggy has also highlighted a few. Such strawman arguments are a common feature when debating Abrahamic theists. It is also a childish way of arguing any point.

 

Perhaps we are just genuinely getting confused with whom we are arguing. Regardless, can we both accept that strawman arguments are childish? Do you agree it is a common feature of theists?

 

The OP also suggested that believing something on faith alone is childish, broken etc. I agree accepting something on faith alone is childish. I suspect not, but do you agree? If not, why not?

 

I can't comment on anyone believing anything on faith alone because I don't take that to be an accurate description of anyone's psychological processes. But I understand that you might simply be intending to ask about whether religious people are childish. The word "childish" ordinarily means something that only immature adults do, and I do not think that's an accurate description of all religious people. Nor would I equate "childish" with "broken," though the latter is so vague that it's impossible to discuss meaningfully. At least "Mentally ill" is a term that we can try to use with some precision, and it seems to me that it was used earlier as a synonym for "broken." And I've already said, it does not appear to me that most religious people are mentally ill.

 

Are straw man arguments childish? I don't think so. They're bad arguments, but normal adults make them all the time. As might be seen here:

 

iNow: Perhaps broken, or maybe just childish and silly?

 

music: Nope. Can't agree to any of that. Of course some theists are, but not all of them. I can settle for, "They're apparently wrong to believe that supernatural agents exist." I don't need to add any slander.

 

Prometheus: There's a difference between saying something someone does, or believes, is childish and saying someone is childish. It would only be slander if the latter was stated.

 

music: That nuance doesn't seem to be in iNow's post, to which I was responding; anyway, even if you are right about the law, I was using the term informally. It is certainly insulting and meant to be insulting to tell an adult that she does or believes in something childish.

 

Prometheus: Well the nuance is in my posts. [Logically, this means that you claim to criticize the beliefs, not the people.] I'm not sure it is meant to be insluting, only the OP will know that. It obviously has insulted, but that in itself should not detract from any debates. If someone is so sensitive that they cannot help but become offended or insulted discussing a contrary view of their beliefs they should stick their head back in the ground [where, clearly and logically, they were before - an insult to the people and not to their beliefs] (not saying you are, not followed this thread close enough to judge, but i've seen it in plenty of places, certain religious groups in particular).

 

music: You claim some nuance in your post, not insulting people who disagree with you (as if you were merely "discussing a contrary view of their beliefs), insulting only their world views I suppose, and then you conclude that they should "stick their heads back in the ground."

 

Iggy [note that this is somehow supposed to be in response to what I'd just posted]: What are you proposing? What is your position? [Describes the riots over the Muhammad cartoons.] So, what do you suggest? Nobody satire Islam? Nobody tell them that they are stupid for thinking they get paid 72 virgins for suicide? If you speak your mind you are going to insult these people. If you tell me I can't speak my mind then you are going to insult me. So, besides telling iNow or Prometheus that they are insulting people (which isn't an argument at all) what is it that you propose?

 

music: Wow, that can barely be construed as relevant to what we were talking about before. Being respectful to people who disagree with you on a message board even if they're religious = endorsing the riots over the Mohammad cartoons? There is really no middle ground in your mind? We have to choose between characterizing all religious people as "broken," "childish," having "their heads in the sand," or not questioning the belief (held, apparently, by "Muslims everywhere") that "they get paid 72 virgins for suicide?"

 

Prometheus: You won't be surprised to hear i agree with Iggy. It is a relevant comparison because it asks an important question: is it OK to satirise someone's beliefs? I for one believe it is; if someone is offended by this then that is their prerogative, but it should not hinder free speech.

 

So yes, both you and Iggy suggested that I was against free speech - the straw man that was constructed is the one that pretends that I'd said anything against satire of religion or any other form of free speech. My pointing that fact out was not a straw man.

 

I need to apologize to Iggy and iNow, whom I'd conflated!

 

 

Point in case: a strawman has been made. Notice how Iggy says 'when someone stones a women', 'when acid is poured...', you are satisfied saying "a theistic belief has no evidence to support it". This is not the same as saying you are against speaking out against such atrocities. I dare say you are against such things. But that is not the point Iggy is making. He is saying that he finds it most unsatisfactory that you can believe in the same Abrahamic god which allows such atrocities without supporting evidence.

 

You would be better off pointing out that it is not the same Abrahamic god as these people believe in, or that such people have mistaken the word of god or some such. But you do not, instead you make a strawman, and that is what is childish (whether intentional or because you genuinely misinterpreted Iggy's comment).

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Sorry for hijacking that Iggy, but the point supports my debate.

 

 

Iggy accused me of being satisfied to say nothing but "a theistic belief has no evidence to support it" in response to acid being poured on someone's face in the name of theistic belief.

 

It was not a straw man for me to point out that Iggy accuses me of being satisfied to say nothing but "a theistic belief has no evidence to support it" in response to acid being poured on someone's face in the name of theistic belief. That is precisely what he did.

 

(Edit: My bad. You're drawing a distinction between Iggy accusing me of not being willing to speak out against such action and Iggy accusing me of being against speaking out against such action. Fine, but notice that he wrote, "I hope you would not disparage other people who do choose to speak up against, and insult directly, such stupidity." He assumes that I do not have anything to say against such actions except that "a theistic belief has no evidence to support it" - taking that quote so far out of context that I can hardly believe he did it anything except maliciously - and then he implies that I might "disparage" other people for speaking out against the pouring of acid on girl's faces. It wasn't a straw man by me: "I hope you would not disparage" was meant precisely and solely to imply that I might disparage such people for doing so, or that I might be against them doing so. Again, that was precisely and solely what he meant to imply. My pointing it out was not a straw man argument.)

 

But, as that Iggy's post was a complete (and probably malicious) mischaracterization of anything I've ever argued, Iggy was the one who created a straw man.

Edited June 25, 2012 by music

[Iggy]

 

Now I'm basically against speaking out against people pouring acid on girls' faces.

If speaking out against people pouring acid on the unveiled faces of girls insulted their theistic beliefs, would you be in favor of doing it? If printing a satirical cartoon in Denmark meant "offending a billion Muslims" would you be against doing it? That has been my question. Are you asking me what your answer is? Because... I don't know.

 

What simple question did you ask? What my position was? My only position in this discussion is that not all theists are mentally ill, childish, or silly. That isn't hard to understand.

Well... you said this:

 

It is certainly insulting and meant to be insulting to tell an adult that she does or believes in something childish.

Understanding that even the smallest satire... and supporting the free expression of that satire... will be insulting to a huge number of people's religious beliefs, what is your proposition? One shouldn't insult theists for their beliefs, perhaps? You said you "find no need to insult theists", but you've got to -- even just a little -- want to support the free expression of satire. I mean, even if it insults quite a lot of theists... you've got to want to support a free press just a little. No?

 

I have not denied your right to hold or express such opinions... Nor have I denied anyone's right to satire anything...

 

I didn't suggest you did.

 

And yes, you intentionally did nothing other than draw a direct line from what I'd written to - first, the riots in response to the cartoons of Mohammad, and now to acid thrown on girls' faces for going to school.

More of the same. Any response other than showing me where I implied it or apologize is academically dishonest at this point.

 

You are intentionally doing nothing other than slandering me...

I have said nothing to slander you.

 

- and let's get to the reason why - because I don't agree that all religious people are mentally ill, broken, childish, or silly.

I've said previously in the topic that I couldn't say that belief in god makes for a broken person. I must have committed this novel slander thing for some other reason than our disagreement on that point.

 

For holding that position, you have accused me of saying that you can't speak your mind, or that you can't satire Islam, or that my position has anything at all to do with the riots against people who do so, or the pouring of acid on a girls' face.

 

You are apparently unable to have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with your diagnosis of religious people.

I accused you of nothing of the sort.

 

Knowing that nothing more than supporting a free press will be needed to insult the theistic beliefs of many theists, are you against insulting the theistic beliefs of many theists? If you aren't against it then why are you pointing out that iNow's post is insulting? Noting that something is insulting isn't an argument of any kind. What is your position? For what reason do you point it out, in other words?

Edited June 25, 2012 by Iggy

[music]

Knowing that nothing more than supporting a free press will be needed to insult the theistic beliefs of many theists, are you against insulting the theistic beliefs of many theists? If you aren't against it then why are you pointing out that iNow's post is insulting? Noting that something is insulting isn't an argument of any kind. What is your position? For what reason do you point it out, in other words?

 

 

Let's start here. What I said was that religious people are not all childish, and that claiming that they are is meant to be insulting, and I don't feel the need to insult them all (as childish, broken, whatever) just for believing in a god - I'm content to say it's bad philosophy.

 

I didn't and haven't said that people shouldn't ever be insulting to religious people, and even implying that I'd said anything of the sort is a malicious mischaracterization of my position.

 

If speaking out against people pouring acid on the unveiled faces of girls insulted their theistic beliefs, would you be in favor of doing it? If printing a satirical cartoon in Denmark meant "offending a billion Muslims" would you be against doing it? That has been my question. Are you asking me what your answer is? Because... I don't know.

 

 

My god. Do you really think that I would oppose speaking out against such actions?

 

Just in case: Of course I favor not merely speaking out against such actions, but preventing them by legal force, and when it's too late for prevention, punishing them by legal force.

 

But really, dude, what were you accusing me of? You ask the question precisely in order to suggest that I might not be against opposing such actions, even merely speaking against them.

 

Edit: And might I add, that is far more insulting to me than anything that I have said about you. It is an insult to my character, my morality, everything about me. And you did it intentionally, viciously, with malice aforethought.

 

More of the same. Any response other than showing me where I implied it or apologize is academically dishonest at this point.

 

I have said nothing to slander you.

 

I've said previously in the topic that I couldn't say that belief in god makes for a broken person. I must have committed this novel slander thing for some other reason than our disagreement on that point.

 

 

There's two halves to this. First, I did confuse you with iNow, but second, perhaps you only meant to be asking what kind of speech I might be against, but in the process of asking that question you implicitly argued that I, in the post to which you were responding, had implied that I would be against satirizing religion, and later you most explicitly and intentionally (and maliciously) suggested that I'd saying nothing against the acid incident except "a theistic belief has no evidence to support it," and implied that I might even be against anyone else saying more than that against it.

 

Ah, there's a third half. (Call me Macbeth.) Academically dishonest? This is a message board, not a journal.

Edited June 25, 2012 by music

[Iggy]

Of course I favor not merely speaking out against such actions, but preventing them by legal force, and when it's too late for prevention, punishing them by legal force.

If you're speaking out against the theistic beliefs of Muslims who do these things, and doing so insults quite a large number of them, then by force of logic you are insulting the theistic beliefs of these people. I have only two questions. 1... why tell iNow that his post is insulting if you, yourself, are fine insulting a large number of Muslim people? 2... why say that you "find no need to insult theists"? If you favor saying things like "hey, respect your women, please!" then you favor insulting the religious beliefs of a large number of theists. You apparently do find the need to insult them... and that's good. If they get offended so easily over something so stupid they should be insulted. They seem to value the experience.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Iggy

[music]

If you're speaking out against the theistic beliefs of Muslims who do these things, and doing so insults quite a large number of them, then by force of logic you are insulting the theistic beliefs of these people. I have only two questions. 1... why tell iNow that his post is insulting if you, yourself, are fine insulting a large number of Muslim people? 2... why say that you "find no need to insult theists"? If you favor saying things like "hey, respect your women, please!" then you favor insulting the religious beliefs of a large number of theists. You apparently do find the need to insult them... and that's good. If they get offended so easily over something so stupid they should be insulted. The seem to value the experience.

 

Not all religious people - not even all Muslims - are pouring acid on girls' faces or killing people over cartoons; religious belief doesn't seem to me to lead necessarily to such actions; and even if it is your contention that theism necessarily does lead to such actions, that kind of thing hadn't explicitly been the subject of any posts relevant to this discussion. We were discussing whether religious belief is inherently and necessarily childish, broken, silly, and/or mentally ill - descriptions that I find inaccurate, and cannot but believe were meant to be insulting.

 

Besides inaccurate and insulting, I found them unnecessarily insulting.

 

Now (and I think this ought to go without saying), I would not favor any law limiting anyone's ability to use even counter-productive satire or insult. (Of course, as it may for some reason need to be said, I'm also against domestic abuse, murder, arson, most forms of violence, book-burning except when threatened by hypothermia, cruelty to sentient beings, etc....) From this point forward, let it be explicitly understood that I am discussing not legal limitations on free speech, but rhetorical strategies.

 

I'm all for using the full rhetorical toolkit in efforts to persuade people to adopt true beliefs and abandon false beliefs. That rhetorical toolkit includes both satire and insult, and I approve of them both wholeheartedly when used productively.

 

Characterizing all religious believers as broken, mentally ill, childish, and/or silly is obviously counter-productive. It may well boost our self-esteem, but not only will it not help any religious people to see the error of their beliefs, it will lead at least some religious people not to take seriously our more valid objections to their beliefs.

 

(Edit: Again, just for clarity and my god I can't believe I'm needing to do this - the preceding five paragraphs are solely about persuading ordinary people with irrational beliefs, especially religious believers, to question those beliefs, and have absolutely nothing at all in any way whatsoever to do with our policy regarding atrocities committed in the name of religion. If the subject were how we should deal with religious terrorists or whatever, the question would not merely be about helping them see the error of their beliefs, but about protecting innocent people from them. Any construal of the preceding five paragraphs as in any way objecting to such protection will be maliciously unfair to me, as similar construals have been in the past.)

Edited June 25, 2012 by music

[iNow]

Besides inaccurate and insulting, I found them unnecessarily insulting.

This is a rather arbitrary threshold that will vary from observer to observer, is it not?

 

Characterizing all religious believers as broken, mentally ill, childish, and/or silly is obviously counter-productive.

Perhaps, but it may be a valid assertion all the same. I ask, why should we treat their belief in god(s) any differently than we would treat their belief in Puff the Magic Dragon being the reason why watermelons grow? We'd likely accept the latter as "broken, mentally ill, childish, or at least silly," so why the special deference for belief in a deity? What is the relevant distinction that second belief has earned that should result in all of us treating it differently than belief that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns?

 

I'm genuinely curious.

[immortal]

How about childish in the sense that it's the thinking of a spoiled two year old? I think that counts as childish. The entire OT's message is "do what I say or I will kill you" which is an extension of the completely childish view of justice based on "you hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you". This is a straight up two year old mentality. People try to justify it by talking about the "love" of the NT, but that just shows they missed the point. The NT just takes the OT's "do what I say or I will kill you" and turns the "kill you" into "torture you forever". There is nothing constructive about Hell. You do not come out of it a better person, or at all for that matter. Hell is the ultimate "you hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you"; there is no justice there. The entire anthology is of a two year old mentality. It's just that the NT turns the two year old into a psychotic stalker as well.

 

There is NOTHING backing up Immortal's claim I quoted earlier. It's historically incorrect. It's scientifically incorrect. The morality is such that slavery is moral and consentual love between two adults is worthy of death. There is nothing there that could not have been dreamt up by goat herders, and as I discussed above, it is incredibly childish.

 

What is childish and ridiculous for you might be a source of great wisdom for religious scholars and psychologists. Those are your just personal opinions not a scientific fact. Both religion and science has every potential to reduce the other into itself. Just as the scientific community has earned respect for some people so do some religious scholars have earned the respect. The ideas of religious scholars do need to be addressed seriously and not ridiculed as childish.

 

Its disappointing when people state their personal opinions as fact in a science forum. The intolerance of New Atheists towards religion will not be tolerated.

If reincarnation research proves that reincarnation is a scientific fact then it drastically changes the way we view the world and its origins. This is not childish. This is just a small chunk of a reservoir of ancient wisdom hidden behind religions of the world.

 

A search for the truth of past life regression

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Ok let's not go down a branch of discussing re-incarnation. The thread is interesting enough whilst sticking to the OP. If you wish to discuss potential areas of proof (or not) then please do so in another thread. Thanks

[music]

This is a rather arbitrary threshold that will vary from observer to observer, is it not?

 

 

Yes, it certainly is.

 

 

Perhaps, but it may be a valid assertion all the same. I ask, why should we treat their belief in god(s) any differently than we would treat their belief in Puff the Magic Dragon being the reason why watermelons grow? We'd likely accept the latter as "broken, mentally ill, childish, or at least silly," so why the special deference for belief in a deity? What is the relevant distinction that second belief has earned that should result in all of us treating it differently than belief that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns?

 

I'm genuinely curious.

 

Whether X is true (or whether X has been sufficiently justified) is one kind of question. To me, as an atheist, there is no more intellectual justification for believing in any deity than there is for believing in UFOs, fairies, ghosts, angels, and so on.

 

However, another question is why people believe things. People are not primarily scientific, rational calculators moving through life trying to figure out which beliefs are true. In fact, only a tiny minority of people put much effort into finding out things like whether their religion is true. Whether the subject is religion, science, or history, the fact is that most people just aren't very concerned to rationally evaluate their beliefs. And the people who do put any effort into such projects are usually - often enough even consciously - primarily seeking to justify the beliefs that they already hold (and subconsciously, I'd argue, their motive is that they believe doing so will increase their status within their community), rather than just trying to figure out what happens to be the case.

 

And that's not mental illness or childishness or whatever. That's because of the way we evolved. We almost cannot help but care more about things like our status within our society than about things like whether there is a logical fallacy in the ontological proof of God's existence, or whether George Washington was an Evangelical Christian, or whether the speed of light has been constant throughout the history of the universe. If our belief about the latter sort of question has relevance to our status within our society, then we will usually determine our belief on those questions according to our estimation (usually performed subconsciously) of how our belief will affect our status.

 

The reason that science works well is not that scientists are so much more rational than other people, but because status within the scientific community depends almost entirely on whether the evidence supports a scientist's claims.

 

But few communities are like that - and probably no religious community consistently is.

 

Now let's put the question like this: if a person getting emotional and material support from her community depends on her believing that Puff the Magic Dragon makes watermelons grow, what should she believe? I'm not asking what the fact of the matter happens to be, I accept as well as you do that no substantial evidence could defend her community's beliefs; all I'm asking is, what should an ordinary person believe in that circumstance?

 

Let's intensify it. What if doubting that Puff the Magic Dragon makes watermelons grow will lead to her complete expulsion from the community, and she knows of no community likely to receive her in short order?

 

And finally of course, what if expressing such a doubt (even accidentally) might lead to her community harming her or her family?

 

Those are the circumstances in which religious beliefs are forged, and that is why most people believe the religion of their family and larger society without putting any serious or careful thought into the matter.

 

We can insult our entire species as dishonest, irrational wretches, but the fact is that for most of our history, and perhaps even now in most or maybe even all societies, to be a complete outcast was to be short-lived. To be wrong about what makes watermelons grow was to be... nothing more serious than wrong about what makes watermelons grow. The only rational course for most people most of the time was to accept what their community said about such things, and only to question the community when it could lead to increased status (as it can among scientists) or when it could lead to some other very significant (and probably immediate) benefit.

 

This brings us to the point where I can answer your question. If you are in a devoutly Catholic family and all of your friends are devoutly Catholic and a large part of the reason that your friends and family will support you is that you too are Catholic, then believing that the Sacred Heart of Jesus can help your watermelons grow is something very much like a rational belief. It will not occur to many people in such a situation to worry about whether the claim is empirically well-founded.

 

It's not that the gods of actual religions are empirically or philosophically superior to Puff the Magic Dragon, it's that there are a lot of people in the world who find themselves in situations where little is to be gained and much to be lost by doubting the god(s) of their religion. In the actual, real-life context in which most people find themselves, a belief in the spirits of their community is not in any practical sense equivalent to a belief in a cartoon character. And it's not that they're childish or mentally ill, it's that they're real-life physical human beings who need community support and would benefit from higher social status, and not purely ethereal beings who need concern themselves with nothing but the disinterested pursuit of rationally justified belief.

 

Were we the latter, there would be no religion. Nor would such beings strive to outdo each other in how cleverly and originally they can scorn people who do not share their conclusions. "The farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns" and "faith is a mental illness" are good fun among atheist friends, and you'll get due credit for them, but they are neither farsighted rhetoric attempting persuasion, nor the result of a sincere attempt to understand someone else's beliefs.

Edited June 25, 2012 by music

[iNow]

Nice post, music. Thank you for that. I will note that I've spent considerable time in a sincere attempt to understand their POV, but that's tangential to your central point.

 

If I read you correctly, you posit that the issue is one where societal pressure leads to higher (and often unacceptable) risk to the individual for questioning these beliefs... That it's neither childish, broken, nor silly to accept these things as true since they are so central to their very survival and acceptance within the community.

 

You seem to be suggesting that the risk of ostracization and potential consequences for not accepting these things as true is too high, and that the chance such questioning could lead to the unavailability of resources is too great to make criticism and scrutiny of the beliefs themselves worth it when viewed in context of the cost/benefit analysis.

 

It's a solid difference. I take your point, and want to think about it some more. It's irrelevant to the belief itself, which is still itself unreasonable, irrational, and or childish... but the motivation for holding such a belief may, in fact, be the more important variable on which to focus.

 

Again, thanks for the solid post. I need to chew on this some more (and hope I haven't misrepresented your point with my summary)...

[music]

Nice post, music. Thank you for that. I will note that I've spent considerable time in a sincere attempt to understand their POV, but that's tangential to your central point.

 

If I read you correctly, you posit that the issue is one where societal pressure leads to higher (and often unacceptable) risk to the individual for questioning these beliefs... That it's neither childish, broken, nor silly to accept these things as true since they are so central to their very survival and acceptance within the community.

 

You seem to be suggesting that the risk of ostracization and potential consequences for not accepting these things as true is too high, and that the chance such questioning could lead to the unavailability of resources is too great to make criticism and scrutiny of the beliefs themselves worth it when viewed in context of the cost/benefit analysis.

 

It's a solid difference. I take your point, and want to think about it some more. It's irrelevant to the belief itself, which is still itself unreasonable, irrational, and or childish... but the motivation for holding such a belief may, in fact, be the more important variable on which to focus.

 

Again, thanks for the solid post. I need to chew on this some more (and hope I haven't misrepresented your point with my summary)...

 

Nope, sounds fair enough to me.

 

One thing you might want to consider is, why did religion evolve? Why did humans evolve the ability to experience things that just aren't actually there, and to form very powerful emotional attachment to those things? (Even if not all of us can have such experiences, at least some in every society can, and it may be that all of us can.) Why do beliefs about invisible entities so often involve stronger feelings than beliefs about visible ones? Whatever is going on there, it is something deep, extremely important, and thoroughly irrational.

 

 

 

 

 

[iNow]

One thing you might want to consider is, why did religion evolve? Why did humans evolve the ability to experience things that just aren't actually there, and to form very powerful emotional attachment to those things?

Yep. Did that a here about 3 years ago, in fact, and had begun researching those same questions about a decade prior in my personal time.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/37248-how-religion-hijacks-neurocortical-mechanisms-and-why-so-many-believe-in-a-deity

 

Summarized: Certain abilities proved beneficial evolutionarily, like the ability to rehearse interactions with unseen others, find cause and effect even where none existed, and to learn from tribal elders or authority figures. These abilities collectively have led strongly to increase the chances for belief in deities.

[zapatos]

Nice post, music. Thank you for that. I will note that I've spent considerable time in a sincere attempt to understand their POV, but that's tangential to your central point.

 

If I read you correctly, you posit that the issue is one where societal pressure leads to higher (and often unacceptable) risk to the individual for questioning these beliefs... That it's neither childish, broken, nor silly to accept these things as true since they are so central to their very survival and acceptance within the community.

 

You seem to be suggesting that the risk of ostracization and potential consequences for not accepting these things as true is too high, and that the chance such questioning could lead to the unavailability of resources is too great to make criticism and scrutiny of the beliefs themselves worth it when viewed in context of the cost/benefit analysis.

 

It's a solid difference. I take your point, and want to think about it some more. It's irrelevant to the belief itself, which is still itself unreasonable, irrational, and or childish... but the motivation for holding such a belief may, in fact, be the more important variable on which to focus.

 

Again, thanks for the solid post. I need to chew on this some more (and hope I haven't misrepresented your point with my summary)...

To me, another important part of music's post was the lack of effort people put into whether or not their beliefs are rational.

 

People are not primarily scientific, rational calculators moving through life trying to figure out which beliefs are true. In fact, only a tiny minority of people put much effort into finding out things like whether their religion is true. Whether the subject is religion, science, or history, the fact is that most people just aren't very concerned to rationally evaluate their beliefs.

 

If someone makes no attempt to logically evaluate religion, we have data concerning their use of logic (where religion is concerned).

[music]

Yep. Did that a here about 3 years ago, in fact, and had begun researching those same questions about a decade prior in my personal time.

 

http://www.sciencefo...ieve-in-a-deity

 

Summarized: Certain abilities proved beneficial evolutionarily, like the ability to rehearse interactions with unseen others, find cause and effect even where none existed, and to learn from tribal elders or authority figures. These abilities collectively have led strongly to increase the chances for belief in deities.

 

I'll check out that thread tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know about it.

[ydoaPs]

What is childish and ridiculous for you might be a source of great wisdom for religious scholars and psychologists. Those are your just personal opinions not a scientific fact. Both religion and science has every potential to reduce the other into itself. Just as the scientific community has earned respect for some people so do some religious scholars have earned the respect. The ideas of religious scholars do need to be addressed seriously and not ridiculed as childish.

 

Its disappointing when people state their personal opinions as fact in a science forum. The intolerance of New Atheists towards religion will not be tolerated.

If reincarnation research proves that reincarnation is a scientific fact then it drastically changes the way we view the world and its origins. This is not childish. This is just a small chunk of a reservoir of ancient wisdom hidden behind religions of the world.

 

A search for the truth of past life regression

 

 

Good thing I DID give facts, then, huh. It is a fact that the science is wrong. It is a fact that the history is wrong. It is a fact that it is childish given the criteria I gave for the term.

 

You sir, have still yet to substantiate your initial claim at all. Tell me, what about it is extraordinary to the point that it couldn't have been written by "goat herders"? How is the general theme of "You hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you FOREVER" not childish?

[Iggy]

Not all religious people - not even all Muslims - are pouring acid on girls' faces or killing people over cartoons; religious belief doesn't seem to me to lead necessarily to such actions; and even if it is your contention that theism necessarily does lead to such actions, that kind of thing hadn't explicitly been the subject of any posts relevant to this discussion.

No, certainly not all religious people and certainly not all religious beliefs. But, that really is why I started where I did. It is noteworthy just how many theists are extremely insulted (incited to violence so great is the insult) by nothing more than supporting a free press in Denmark.

 

I understand your other positions and I find them agreeable, but I think it is not so cut and dry to say that you don't feel the need to insult theists -- that you're content to say it is bad philosophy. I think it is unavoidable... just being a skeptic and supporting certain liberties means that you are insulting the religious beliefs of a significant fraction of the world's population.

 

If you are born into a Muslim family in Iran then all you really have to say is "I've begun to doubt the existence of God" and they can sentence you to death for the terrible insult those words are to your family, your country, your Imam, and your prophet. That is to say... calling their most cherished theistic beliefs "bad philosophy" is insulting enough to get you put to death.

 

I'm glad to see you say,

 

I'm all for using the full rhetorical toolkit in efforts to persuade people to adopt true beliefs and abandon false beliefs. That rhetorical toolkit includes both satire and insult, and I approve of them both wholeheartedly when used productively.

But I would rather say that I support satire and insult even when they do not productively persuade people to abandon their false beliefs, because to me the problem is almost never the skeptic's insult to false beliefs, but the theist's determination to be insulted for their false beliefs.

 

I'm sorry to keep making this look like a diatribe, but I think it is really serious. People lose their lives for speaking their mind about theism, and the reaction of too many people has been that there is no need to insult the faith of theistic people. Western countries pass laws against blasphemy as if that were the problem. I have friends who grew up where they couldn't insult religion and their psyche was damaged for it. There is a need to insult false religious beliefs. For the health of a person and the health of a society, it is absolutely necessary.

[tar]

Music,

 

Status in the community, but not only that, maybe.

 

There are people like me, who hold the community in a Godish type manner. That is, that when it comes to objective reality, the community is just that, from the standpoint of an individual. Knowing other people, validates ones knowledge of objective reality. And in a sense, increases ones "feeling of self" to include others. And there may be some "reasons" why believing the same things as others actually makes those things real. (as in the border between Canada and the U.S., doing on to others, as you would have them do onto you, and countless other shared, "made up" beliefs.)

 

It does not seem completely broken to me for instance, to continue listening to my Grandfather, and using his integrity and honesty and love and attention to other people, as a guide to how I structure my life and make my decisions...even though he passed away quite a few years ago. Am I allowed to "believe" in this no longer existing entity, as pertinent and real and currently present in my heart and mind? What evidence do I have, that he would be dissapointed, if I failed to follow his advice or show that I had not learned an important lesson he had taught me? None. No evidence. He is dead and gone. He is just about as real as puff the magic dragon, living only in my memory, and the memory of others he had touched during his life.

 

My Grandfather's image, how he lived his life, what he means to me, is not substantially different in kind, to the image a person may hold of Muhammed, or Jesus or Moses. And that all four of these people really existed is fact. And that all four of these people taught us that one should feel responsible to "others" is a true fact.

 

And for the sake of my argument, I will not tell you if my grandfather believed in God or not.

 

Where belief in objective reality (which includes other consciousnesses) turns from not broken to broken is not an easy line to draw.

And as you say, the "spirit" of the community is a real and present concern to all of us.

 

Since this is the case, it is not a far stretch to label the commonly held spirit, and see the logic in together submitting to it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And this is another partial answer to Inow's question as to why we might give other people that believe in the pet "spirit" of the community, a pass.

Edited June 26, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

To me, another important part of music's post was the lack of effort people put into whether or not their beliefs are rational.

<...>

If someone makes no attempt to logically evaluate religion, we have data concerning their use of logic (where religion is concerned).

Indeed, and that's one of the variables I'm considering prior to claiming they may be broken or at least childish.

 

---

I'll check out that thread tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know about it.

No worries. Hope you find it interesting. Throughout, you'll see some random strings of characters centered in the screen... seemingly out of place. Those are Youtube video IDs. They used to play the video referenced, but broke when the forum software upgraded. The thread doesn't make much sense without them, so if you want to view those videos just copy/paste those IDs to the end of this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

 

---

that really is why I started where I did. It is noteworthy just how many theists are extremely insulted (incited to violence so great is the insult) by nothing more than supporting a free press in Denmark.

 

I understand your other positions and I find them agreeable, but I think it is not so cut and dry to say that you don't feel the need to insult theists -- that you're content to say it is bad philosophy. I think it is unavoidable... just being a skeptic and supporting certain liberties means that you are insulting the religious beliefs of a significant fraction of the world's population.

This point is both valid and important. Simply speaking openly and authentically will sometimes be seen as insulting. It's not enough to try to avoid intentionally insulting a theist. Sometimes scrutinizing their worldview at all is deemed insulting, and that's simply too bad. There's no polite way to suggest to someone that they've wasted their life believing in unfounded nonsense. That doesn't mean the suggestion should be avoided.

 

Seriously... a group tried to put the ad below on a bus in Pennsylvania and it was rejected for being too offensive. Trying to avoid offending these types of people is an exercise in futility.

 

 

 

http://newhumanist.org.uk/2640/repeat-offender-new-humanist-interviews-ricky-gervais

 

I always expect some people to be offended. I know I ruffle feathers but some people’s feathers need a little ruffling. And remember: just because someone is offended doesn’t mean they’re in the right. Some people are offended by multiculturalism, homosexuality, abortion, atheism – what should we do? Ban all those things? You have the right to be offended, and I have the right to offend you. But no one has the right to never be offended.

Edited June 26, 2012 by iNow

[zapatos]

Indeed, and that's one of the variables I'm considering prior to claiming they may be broken or at least childish.

I am regularly surprised by explanations for things I thought I understood, or by new connections between events or concepts I was familiar with. It makes me feel a bit foolish when someone explains something to me and I realize if I had only given it some thought I would have figured it out myself. But these are typically small events and I consider this part of my lifetime of education.

 

If someone examines their belief in God and comes to the conclusion that God exists I really don't feel that constitutes a fault on their part (for reasons we've kicked around enough). I do agree with you however that failure to examine something as significant as faith, or worse, ignoring it because you suspect you may be wrong, does indeed show a lack of maturity.

 

I would certainly consider myself immature if instead of planning my financial future, I just accepted blindly that Social Security would be there for me, and take care of me when the time came. And that's only my temporal life.

[music]

No worries. Hope you find it interesting. Throughout, you'll see some random strings of characters centered in the screen... seemingly out of place. Those are Youtube video IDs. They used to play the video referenced, but broke when the forum software upgraded. The thread doesn't make much sense without them, so if you want to view those videos just copy/paste those IDs to the end of this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

 

 

Thank you!

Edited June 26, 2012 by music

[immortal]

Good thing I DID give facts, then, huh. It is a fact that the science is wrong. It is a fact that the history is wrong. It is a fact that it is childish given the criteria I gave for the term.

 

You sir, have still yet to substantiate your initial claim at all. Tell me, what about it is extraordinary to the point that it couldn't have been written by "goat herders"?

 

I claimed that its wrong to conclude that it was all made up by goat herders not that they could not have been written by goat herders. Ancients believed that God was in control of every aspect of their human life so even if it came from God it is the prophets who have to write it in the end. I am not claiming that it came ready made from outside of space-time.

 

Just because the ancients used story telling to convey their thoughts and ideas don't under estimate their knowledge and thinking. Hidden behind those stories are reality based claims which give knowledge about the numinous world and its nature. So even if those stories were made up by them these claims about the nature of reality questions us to know the source of their knowledge. It could be revelation from God or pure imagination or false experiences, there is an equal possibility that it could be from anything. They might be wrong but do you consider the possibility that you might be wrong, do you?

 

How is the general theme of "You hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you FOREVER" not childish?

 

You're mistaken, that was not the theme of the Hebrew wisdom literature.

 

The Message of the Hebrew Wisdom Literature

 

There were agnostics like Agur who questioned the above message of the Hebrew wisdom literature.

 

The Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament

 

 

Who has ascended to heaven and come down?

 

Who has gathered the wind in his fists?

 

Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment?

 

Who has established all the ends of the earth?What is his name, and what is his son's name?

 

Surely you know! (xxx. 4)- Agur

 

 

 

Just because religious people believe in God its not the end of all form of human enquiry, even religion fails to explain questions of the 'why' type. All creation myths very well explain how the world came about but they go silent when we ask why did the world came about, what is its purpose? It would be wrong to think that if one accepts belief in God it would end all exploration for further knowledge and investigation.

 

Another example is the Gospel of John which is considered to be a mystical work by scholars.

 

John 8:14

Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

 

John 8:23

He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

 

 

The pharisees could not understand what Jesus was talking about. Now whether the ancients made such claims directly or through the mouth of Jesus (in the form of a story) is irrelevant because we know they have indeed made such reality based claims and it definitely doesn't look ordinary to me either they were mentally ill or they knew something or access to knowledge which we don't have.

 

This is just one religious tradition out of the many world religions and if you see the similarities in the claims of other religions then these goat herders do look like extraordinary humans and when you study their claims it doesn't look very unlikely.

 

 

There are different kinds of people-

 

1. Some people rely on astrologers and spend all their earnings based on their advice in order to solve and fulfil their problems and desires.

2. There are parents who throw babies from a third storey builiding where two people will be standing down holding a mat to catch the babies and they think that by doing this it increases God's grace upon their children. (Imagine what would happen if something goes wrong and the babies broke their bones)

3. There are people who under go painful body piercings, run on burning charcoal, fall on a thorny plant from a height etc all originating from their belief in their tribal Gods.

 

4. Some people motivated by rational religious scholars want to worship god and want to experiment with methods and rituals passed on by ancients in order to know whether he exists or not. They don't have to preach it to anyone, they don't have to convince anyone and its their personal enquiry into the nature of reality.

 

So if someone wants to worship a God let them worship. What's wrong with that?

 

Its important to figure out what is ignorance, what is harmful and what need to be minimized in society. The first three acts of commitment can be criticized as it is harmful and as there are no rational basis for such acts but I think its wrong to criticize the latter kind of people. They might be wrong, so what? Its their life and they want to dedicate their lives for the benefit of the humans. Saying to them in a harsh way to stop dedicating their life in their imaginary friends is like saying stop building particle accelerators and stop doing experiments. They never say not to put theist's heads on fMRI scans or say stop investigating on neuro-cortical affects of religious beliefs so isn't it wrong on atheists to say to them in harsh way to stop dedicating their life on Gods in the name of eradicating ingnorance creeping in our society.

 

Just because there is no evidence of Higgs and we have not discovered yet doesn't mean that it does not exist similarly just because there is no evidence of God doesn't mean that he does not exist. The universe works the way it is depending on the truth irrespective of we discover the truth or not. Its silly to expect Higgs to reveal itself and say "Hey humans, I'm here" in the same way its silly to expect God to reveal himself for reasons which we might not know.

 

Let people worship their Gods and let science investigate on the objective origin of religion and let us see what the truth is.

 

[tar]

Immortal,

 

I have a few objections to #1174, but not to your general point.

 

It is interesting to me that Inow for instance is looking for the reasons why we give theists a pass.

 

One of my thoughts on the issue is that it is difficult to construct a consistent worldview, without giving oneself a pass, on or about the same level that theists operate.

 

Regards, TAR2