People who believe in god are broken

[Villain]

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

 

 

What is the point of posting a Youtube link with: 'This amplifies some of my own points', if we are not suppose to try figure out what your 'points' are? I apologise for not taking your point of view, I didn't know it was posted in some form of brain wash attempt. Perhaps you could highlight the aspects that I should listen to and then I can sit with my hands over my ears for the rest. Is it the terrible injustice of circumcision part? Or that religion tells people when to jerk-off part? Or is there some other trivial point that I'm suppose to concentrate on?

[Iggy]

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

Since you're interested in his motivations...

 

Had you said "God" or "a creator" rather than "anything" you would have been spot on. At 14:10 when asked "Sir, is it possible that the reason you rage so much against God is because you just want to live your own autonomous way, living any way that you want to, any lifestyle that you prefer without being accountable to your creator?" Hitch's answer is "I think that's highly probable, yes."

 

I feel the same way. I would be perfectly happy to leave the godly alone if they could leave me alone. If they stopped trying to pass religious laws in a secular state, stopped trying to proselytize their myths, and stopped trying to terrorize people I would have nothing to say against their God. I suspect many feel that way.

 

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

 

 

Here is a similar exchange from a different radio interview expressing the same idea,

 

Slave for Jesus: I readily admit that I'm a slave. I'm a slave of Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Christopher Hitchens: And glad of your chains... which is absolutely fine for you, but you must leave me out of it. I don't want to be told that I have to obey these laws, too, or that my children have to be taught this in school, or that laws have to be written to ratify the bizarre beliefs of a cult like yours. That's the thing I would need you to understand. You're quite happy to believe this, but why can't you keep it to yourself?

 

Slave for Jesus: Why can't you keep your atheism to yourself?

 

Christopher Hitchens: Because the religious won't allow me to. Because every time I open the paper, there's another instance of theocratic encroachment on free society, which I won't put up with. Up with which I will not put! I hope that's clear.

 

http://cocknbull.tumblr.com/post/1613803954/slave-for-jesus-your-view-would-be-the-same-as

[immortal]

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

 

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

 

 

Yes, true religious beliefs shouldn't harm others, not all faith based beliefs harm others and hence your attack on "FAITH" is flawed.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

There is a middle way that one can take, you were the one who raised that point again or am I not following this thread clearly?

[iNow]

...or am I not following this thread clearly?

Let's just go with that.

[iNow]

Yes, true religious beliefs shouldn't harm others...

But... again... they rather often do. Also, please note... The discussion about faith being a poor reason to accept something as true or valid is independent from the discussion about some beliefs causing harm in others. Your point above seems, however, to conflate them.

[doG]

Yes, true religious beliefs shouldn't harm others, not all faith based beliefs harm others and hence your attack on "FAITH" is flawed.

I think we could probably just say that faith based beliefs without skepticism are flawed. This could imply that people with beliefs based on nothing but blind faith with no skepticism to question the validity of those beliefs are broken.

[zapatos]

I think we could probably just say that faith based beliefs without skepticism are flawed. This could imply that people with beliefs based on nothing but blind faith with no skepticism to question the validity of those beliefs are broken.

Other than the fact that I'm uncomfortable calling someone 'broken' when we really haven't defined what that means, I completely agree with this statement. Although just to be fair I guess we have to exclude those who are immature or insufficiently educated.

 

Given that the existence of God is outside the realm of science, would you say that people who know without doubt that God exists fall into the category of broken? And could the same be said for those who know without doubt that God does not exist?

Edited April 27, 2012 by zapatos

[immortal]

I think we could probably just say that faith based beliefs without skepticism are flawed. This could imply that people with beliefs based on nothing but blind faith with no skepticism to question the validity of those beliefs are broken.

 

Not all theists hide their God in a Cave to keep him immune from criticism, there are Gods which are falsifiable, my God is falsifiable, one of the strong claims it makes is that it says strong AI is impossible. The default position for me is not to have a lack of belief in God and abandon our search for him instead theists keep looking for him.

[tar]

Inow,

 

Well thanks for the "what if" game with Hitchens. Less ugly than the first video. And put against the falsities of the question asker, his (Hitchens') take would certainly be the "better" take, in regards to truthfulness, as far as I am concerned. But still, I do not subscribe to Hitchen type Atheism, or if I do, certainly not with the same vitriol, and not with the equating of faith with slavery.

 

Yes, religions are used in this manner. But people's faith is abused by others in other ways that has nothing to do with religion. Take belief in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as are granted, as "god-given" rights to the subscribers to the constitution of the U.S. I am endowed by my creator with these unalienable rights. You can not give them to me, or take them away. No other peoples or powers can either. I already have them, they already belong to me. I believe this to be true. I have faith in the constitution of the U.S. and the people that also hold it to be true and valuable.

 

Yet my faith in this ideal, is used by the Government, according to Hitchens logic to extract a tithe or more from me, force me to serve in an Army that does the bidding of the powerful few, doing harm to others at their command, and in a thousand other demonstrable ways, proscribes how I should live my life to serve "the will of the people". I do not think a man of Hitchens' intelligence would have had much trouble putting together his "slavery" argument, against a "government" if he so had been inclined.

 

Personally, I think it alright to give up some certain autonomous "rights" for the benefit of others, because then 230 million people give up certain of their "rights" for your benefit. I do not consider it slavery. Who and what I grant authority over me to is something which is under my control. (to a certain extent). And much of the "workable" nature of society is due to the non material, non scientifically verifyable, "faith" I have in what is in the hearts and minds of the people around me, and the faith they put in me, to do my part, and fulfill my role, and hold up my end of the bargain.

 

Generally speaking, I would say it is OK to pick out and throw away the badly bruised and moldy and rotten fruit in the basket, without considering the whole basket inediible. And OK to have faith that the fruit indeed will taste sweet, and fill your belly and give you strength. And perfectly logical to thank the strawberry plant for providing you with her/his bounty, if you be so inclined as to do so.

 

Regards, TAR2

[doG]

Given that the existence of God is outside the realm of science, would you say that people who know without doubt that God exists fall into the category of broken? And could the same be said for those who know without doubt that God does not exist?

Yes. Both of these groups equate 'knowledge' with 'belief' and that is flawed. Knowledge comes from science. In fact the word science is derived from the Latin word for knowledge, scientia. Those that think they can claim knowledge based simply on beliefs, particularly blind faith based beliefs have a mental defect in their ability to reason rationally.

[iNow]

Take belief in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as are granted, as "god-given" rights to the subscribers to the constitution of the U.S.

Those concepts are defined, there is a shared consensus on their definition, and they exist independent of whether or not someone has faith in them. Further, the concepts of life, liberty, and happiness are not equivalent to a deity for many countless reasons. This is not a valid comparison.

 

I have faith in the constitution of the U.S. and the people that also hold it to be true and valuable.

As I suspected, you are mixing the way you use the term faith. When I discussed it, I was very clearly talking about the positive belief in the existence of some entity based solely on what you want to or wish to believe... Based solely, independently, and on nothing other than faith.

 

Here, however, you are trying to completely change the context of the term... trying to suggest that your "faith" in the constitution is the same thing as the faith which is required to believe in god(s). It's not.

 

What you're talking about is something more akin to your personal admiration and respect for the tangible founding document of our great nation... our constitution. You are using the term "faith" here now to describe your confidence that the positive effects our constitution has on all of our laws and regulations and on our culture will continue in the future. That is not the type of faith we were discussing in this thread, and it would be disingenuous of you to pretend it is.

 

One is the affirmative belief in something in the absence of (and often in complete opposition to) available evidence. This is the idea that a deity exists (or many deities) despite any clear falsifiable definition of them and despite the lack of any extraordinary evidence which scales appropriately with the extraordinary claim of existence.

 

The other use of the term faith is more like a synonym for confidence, acceptance, or admiration... Such as that you expressed for our constitution. This really isn't the same thing. I really shouldn't have to waste time explaining this, but alas... Here I am, doing precisely that.

 

The concepts differ. The term "foot" has different meanings in different contexts, too. Sometimes it refers to an appendage at the bottom of your leg. Other times it refers to a distance. Still other times it's a verb, such as when one "foots the bill." To make my point even more clear, let me do to the term "foot" what you've done above to the term "faith." You're essentially here trying to suggest that we have toes and put socks and shoes on our distance measurements of 12 inches... You're essentially here trying to suggest that we pull out our credit cards and pick up the check after dinner at restaurants to know how long a wall is in our living room or where to cut a piece of lumber.

 

The faith I'm referring to in this thread is not the same as the faith you're referring to in regards to the constitution. You are mixing the way the term is used solely to make your point, and that is not a valid argument.

 

I would say it is OK to pick out and throw away the badly bruised and moldy and rotten fruit in the basket, without considering the whole basket inediible. And OK to have faith that the fruit indeed will taste sweet, and fill your belly and give you strength. And perfectly logical to thank the strawberry plant for providing you with her/his bounty, if you be so inclined as to do so.

Again, this is completely irrelevant to the way the term faith is used in context of belief in god. That god does not exist outside of faith alone. The fruit does, as does the process of dessication and the growth of fuzzy mold cultures.

 

In short, your argument is still more evidence of the premise in the OP... If nothing else, your logic is broken, and apparently so too is your ability to remain focused on the actual topic of discussion and context in which we are discussing various topics and terms.

 

---

 

Those that think they can claim knowledge based simply on beliefs, particularly blind faith based beliefs have a mental defect in their ability to reason rationally.

Or, to use a rhetorical shorthand, they are "broken."

[Villain]

Might I suggest that the title of the thread get changed to Team America:World Police so that the ROW doesn't get confused by thinking that it is about belief in God. It might as well get moved to the Politics section and perhaps a sister thread can attack race groups and cultures that hold moral codes that might influence politics.

[Iggy]

Inow,

 

Well thanks for the "what if" game with Hitchens. Less ugly than the first video.

Us atheists all sound the same That was me.

 

Yes, religions are used in this manner. But people's faith is abused by others in other ways that has nothing to do with religion. Take belief in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as are granted, as "god-given" rights to the subscribers to the constitution of the U.S. I am endowed by my creator with these unalienable rights. You can not give them to me, or take them away. No other peoples or powers can either. I already have them, they already belong to me. I believe this to be true. I have faith in the constitution of the U.S. and the people that also hold it to be true and valuable.

 

Yet my faith in this ideal, is used by the Government, according to Hitchens logic to extract a tithe or more from me, force me to serve in an Army that does the bidding of the powerful few, doing harm to others at their command, and in a thousand other demonstrable ways, proscribes how I should live my life to serve "the will of the people". I do not think a man of Hitchens' intelligence would have had much trouble putting together his "slavery" argument, against a "government" if he so had been inclined.

 

[my bold]

I think iNow makes a good point in objecting to your comparison, but I would add that in free society the power of the government comes from the people. When that process is broken -- when power comes from a single unassailable source (a dictator) it is comparable to the idea that morality comes from God. In that case it is, of course, appropriate to rail against that government which Hitchens is well known for doing. You asked why he wouldn't put together his slavery argument against government in terms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. After visiting North Korea, he did exactly that:

 

The light of the human being, this is what I failed to convey in my article, is completely pointless. The concept of liberty or humour or irony or happiness or love doesn't exist. You are there simply as a prop for the State. And though used to be, as with any slave system, that they would feed you in return for your services. That compact broke down a couple of decades ago. Now they don't feed you either.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3738744.html

 

...perhaps a sister thread can attack race groups and cultures that hold moral codes that might influence politics.

I resent the idea that morals are a function of "race groups". Any implication that different races have different moralities should be directly confronted and hopefully by anyone who hears it.

 

I absolutely hate Islamic fascism, and I have the utmost fondness and respect for Arabs as with any ethnic or racial group. Any confusion between the two is dangerous.

 

[edit]... unless I've misunderstood you completely, which is always possible with me I'm afraid ...[/edit]

Edited April 27, 2012 by Iggy

[tar]

Villian,

 

There you go, using "truth" again, in a way that is not appropriate for the discussion, according to Inow.

 

Foot has those various meanings because we have feet to compare the analogies to. We know when we are using the term as the thing under our leg and we know when we are using it to put our signiture at the bottom of the check or measure the wall by "stepping it off", or using it to "personify"In the foundation of a building.

 

Interesting that Inow takes my arguments as disingenous, when I am actually not trying to pull any wool over anyones eyes but trying to point out ways in which I may be broken, for the same reasons, that cause others to look broken to me.

 

That is to say, that Hitchens, no matter how smart he is, no matter what confidences he has in reality and truth, is not in any better position to determine objectively the difference between right and wrong, than the sage on the mountaintop, or the prophet in the cave. We are all likely to put our own "spin" on it. And my point is, that if you truely remove all spin, remove all references to humans, remove all human beliefs, faiths, confidences, understandings, agreements and images of ideals that people think "actually" exist, you are left with either nothing, or everything, depending of course on the characteristics that you have given to this "objective" viewer.

 

I am taking strongly by the "fact", that whatever I think, whatever facts I hold, whatever conceptions I have of the universe, of the nature of the thoughts of unseen others, or of what is right and wrong, are completely contained as analog representations of something else, within my body/heart/brain. Scientifically speaking, it is rather obvious that my body/heart/brain group is capable of "containing" the entire universe...by analogy. The analogy, the patterns of neuron connections and firings, that represent the outside world, inside, are scientifically knowable. We can "see" thoughts occuring by looking at brain activity through the eyes of special equipment. We could, if not "morally abhorent" dissect a human brain and after many years slice it up and catalog every neuron and its connections and compare the structure to the activities we recorded when we scanned the living brain while it was having certain "thoughts". And in my estimation, the things we will find will prove to us, that thoughts of things bear some certain resemblance, some analogous charateristics, to the things themselves.

 

Given this "fact". That our entire universe exists both outside our brains, and exists "again" within our minds and our "knowledge" of it, it is difficult to say with clarity, when exactly you are referring to something "real", and when you are referring to something that is a human conception of such.

 

Even more difficult, is to imagine what someone else is imagining, and to do this in any manner that is not "infected" by your own knowledge of the world, what "insights" you have had of it, and what you "know" must be the case, and what you "know" cannot be the case.

 

Let me illustrate with my take on thousands of Muslims circling the stone in Mecca. To me, there must be some form of mass hypnosis going on. People repeating memorized verses of the Koran, over and over again in their minds, along with everybody around them...obvious to me that they must be lying to themselves...except they are experiencing something very real and special. A union of their being, with the beings around them, and with the being that is responsible for being. To say that their experience is of something "other than" reality, would be counterfactual. There does not exist anything other than "all of reality".

 

I do however, have a tendency to look more strongly at the defects in the logic of Moslems, then look for rational arguments in their favor, because to some of them, I am the great Satan, and worthy of the Twin Tower punishment. I have no "objective" right to usurp the power and truth of the universe, and call it mine, than they do. But I do have the strong impulse to make my take, the one that holds sway in the real world.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

There you go, using "truth" again, in a way that is not appropriate for the discussion, according to Inow.

Can you please explain why you have just suggested this, and quote specifically what I have posted that implies to you in any way, shape, or form that truth is not allowed here in this discussion?

 

 

That is to say, that Hitchens, no matter how smart he is, no matter what confidences he has in reality and truth, is not in any better position to determine objectively the difference between right and wrong, than the sage on the mountaintop, or the prophet in the cave.

Okay. Now I'm getting frustrated.

 

Why the huge focus on Hitchens? Is that not just another theist evasion from the central discussion? Is it not completely peripheral to what most of us are here saying and from the meat of this exchange between posters? Can we please return to the actual topic of conversation and STFU about Hitchens?

 

I swear... Discussions like this with broken believers are maddening sometimes. Your thoughts wander like a one-winged mosquito in a Mumbai disco hall.

 

We were more than 100 posts into this discussion when I shared the Hitchens video and merely said "this amplifies some of my own points." That's it. Then, nearly 35 posts later (almost 140 posts into the thread), you TAR decided you needed to comment specifically on the video, even though your comments were on an entirely different topic to the ones being discussed with the membership. You essentially commented that you didn't like how the video made you feel, and you then started talking about a bunch of weird id, ego, superego nonsense and about how Hitchens must feel he is beyond human and all kinds of other ridiculousness. I responded to your points clearly, concisely, and respectfully in post 139 hoping we could move beyond that off topic venture.

 

So, we sort of did... But then DrDNA started implying that religion and belief in god is a source of morality, and how the world would fall into chaos without them. This is a very tired old canard offered by theists, one that has been debunked repeatedly and from numerous angles. I repeated some of the more basic points, and decided to supplement my argument with two videos to make the comments more clear. One video was a short clip from Hitchens, the other was a longer tutorial on the larger concept of morality and how we all really can (and pretty much are) good without the need to invoke gods.

 

Alas... Instead of staying focused on the content of the conversation, another theist then decided to jump in and make assumptions about Hitchens motivations. We again spent time playing whack-a-mole correcting THAT comment. How can you claim to know the motivations of another, especially after one short video clip of sound bytes? Really? Why does this even need saying?

 

This back and forth off topic silliness about what Hitchens thought or not (frankly, both off-topic and all irrelevant to the discussion at hand since the video was only a supplemental point to my argument that gods are not required for us to be moral), another poster finally said after like 15 posts on this side-topic, "Well, if you really care to learn more, here's another video that should clarify it a bit for you." I paraphrase, but that's the gist.

 

The other posts throughout the thread have been largely been on the actual topic and civil... Focused on the content of peoples posts and the merit of their actual arguments, and not on tangential irrelevancies. However, you then again came into the thread several posts later to talk about... yep... you guessed... Christopher fucking Hitchens. Please stop. I responded to that post again, but ignored your comments about Hitchens and focused on the content of what you were saying to try bringing you more closely inline with the actual discussion topic. What happened when I did, though? You replied again and came in to talk about... yep... you guessed it... Christopher fucking Hitchens!!

 

The Hitchens videos were shared to supplement the points and arguments already made, not to act as the foundation of any argument, nor as the catalyst for any new ones. Can comments about Hitchens kindly please be made in other threads? Please?

 

 

Now... I would still like to know what has prompted you to think that my position is that "truth" is not appropriate to the discussion. I would like you to quote my precise words (and not speculate about what you THINK I meant) that have led you to think this. Thank you.

[immortal]

But... again... they rather often do. Also, please note... The discussion about faith being a poor reason to accept something as true or valid is independent from the discussion about some beliefs causing harm in others. Your point above seems, however, to conflate them.

 

I would say that people who reject evolution by natural selection or people who say that the earth is flat in a literal sense etc. is broken which means that holding on to a belief in a literal sense even after showing a pile of evidence against that view is broken. So I would like to ask you what evidence do you have against the existence of God? If there are no evidence and if a theist just wants to have a personal belief in God without trying to convert or convince others based solely on his faith based beliefs then what is wrong with that?

 

"To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant - inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write."

 

-Daniel Dennett

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

iNow, try and keep the profanity and personal attacks to a minimum. And please, if you think that people are veering off topic, report it. It makes our lives much easier.

tar, please stick to the topic.

[rigney]

I would say that people who reject evolution by natural selection or people who say that the earth is flat in a literal sense etc. is broken which means that holding on to a belief in a literal sense even after showing a pile of evidence against that view is broken. So I would like to ask you what evidence do you have against the existence of God? If there are no evidence and if a theist just wants to have a personal belief in God without trying to convert or convince others based solely on his faith based beliefs then what is wrong with that?

 

I'm not a theist, but if religion rules the day and I am at some future time doomed to an eternal pit of predition simply because of my ignorance, I certainly hope a benevolent God or Creator will have mercy on me. Not broken, just slightly bent. Edited April 27, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

So I would like to ask you what evidence do you have against the existence of God?

That's not how it works, though. I am not claiming there is no god. My stance is that there is no compelling evidence to suggest god is real. My stance is that there is no good reason to believe in such a childish fairytale, and that there is zero extraordinary evidence which scales with the extraordinary claim of gods existence. I am not making a positive assertion. You are. You're the one positively asserting the existence of some ethereal sky pixie... a cloud surfing dictator or nebulous ill-defined universal energy... mumbo jumbo and woo is all it is, and you're the one saying it's real. If you think god exists, it's up to you to prove it.

 

In much the same way, I don't believe in the tooth fairy, and you're not asking me to prove she doesn't exist. That would be tremendously asinine. Let me use a completely far out example, and ask you the same question you've just asked me. It will show you how ridiculous your request truly is.

 

What evidence do you have against the existence of Jigorwuppin Swordtail, the 4 ton invisible dragon I say is living in your garage?

 

You have none. You cannot possibly produce any. It's the same with the fact that you cannot prove there's not 43 pigmy gnomes hiding between the bristles in your toothbrush, it's the same with the fact that you cannot prove there are not little scrotum fairies sleeping in your underwear drawer, and it's the same with the fact that you cannot prove there is no god... Unless of course you happen to define god in a falsifiable way and we manage to falsify it (like the manner in which biblical claims have shown to be false). Would you be willing to put forth such a falsifiable definition? I'd certainly be glad to hear one, as up 'till now, god has remained little more than an ill-defined three letter word.

 

 

If there are no evidence and if a theist just wants to have a personal belief in God without trying to convert or convince others based solely on his faith based beliefs then what is wrong with that?

We've been through this... repeatedly... in this very thread. The issue is the harm to others, and the attempt to minimize it. Accepting something on faith alone allows all kinds of awful things... both tangible primary outcomes and less tangible secondary and tertiary outcomes... outcomes which effect us all and impact everyone. This is irrefutable. Examples have been given. More are quickly available. Perhaps you've forgotten how this very question was already answered for you more than once earlier in the thread?

[rigney]

That's not how it works, though. I am not claiming there is no god. My stance is that there is no compelling evidence to suggest god is real. My stance is that there is no good reason to believe in such a childish fairytale, and that there is zero extraordinary evidence which scales with the extraordinary claim of gods existence. I am not making a positive assertion. You are. You're the one positively asserting the existence of some ethereal sky pixie... a cloud surfing dictator or nebulous ill-defined universal energy... mumbo jumbo and woo is all it is, and you're the one saying it's real. If you think god exists, it's up to you to prove it.

 

In much the same way, I don't believe in the tooth fairy, and you're not asking me to prove she doesn't exist. That would be tremendously asinine. Let me use a completely far out example, and ask you the same question you've just asked me. It will show you how ridiculous your request truly is.

 

What evidence do you have against the existence of Jigorwuppin Swordtail, the 4 ton invisible dragon I say is living in your garage?

 

You have none. You cannot possibly produce any. It's the same with the fact that you cannot prove there's not 43 pigmy gnomes hiding between the bristles in your toothbrush, it's the same with the fact that you cannot prove there are not little scrotum fairies sleeping in your underwear drawer, and it's the same with the fact that you cannot prove there is no god... Unless of course you happen to define god in a falsifiable way and we manage to falsify it (like the manner in which biblical claims have shown to be false). Would you be willing to put forth such a falsifiable definition? I'd certainly be glad to hear one, as up 'till now, god has remained little more than an ill-defined three letter word.

 

 

 

We've been through this... repeatedly... in this very thread. The issue is the harm to others, and the attempt to minimize it. Accepting something on faith alone allows all kinds of awful things... both tangible primary outcomes and less tangible secondary and tertiary outcomes... outcomes which effect us all and impact everyone. This is irrefutable. Examples have been given. More are quickly available. Perhaps you've forgotten how this very question was already answered for you more than once earlier in the thread?

 

If I may say so, shame on you iNow. I'm afraid that you are religiously devout, but looking for a purpose to disavow religion on any level of understanding by saying: "NO, I don't believe:" My problem is that I'm not sure; yours is strictly a prayer of denial. Edited April 27, 2012 by rigney

[tar]

Inow,

 

Well. I was trying, in my flitting about way, to address the topic.

I didn't know I went off topic.

The discussion is whether or not people that believe in god are broken.

 

If the God that we are talking about, is the personage we are talking about, who was the main character of the bible and the Koran, as depicted in those books, taken literally, with all the human characteristics bestowed upon him by the prophets and the writers, then yes, I have no problem agreeing that people that believe in this fictional account, are broken.

 

But that is crystal clear to me. What keeps the discussion open in my mind, and what I have been flitting around about, is the fact that many people believe in God. And there are more people that subscribe to some portion or another of some religion or another, than there are people that wholly reject every notion, that any religion has come up with. This leads me to believe that there is meaning to be found in religion. That every religion is telling stories about something. And the lessons we have learned, from such stories are sometimes with value to us, as individuals and as societal groups.

 

It would be possible that even though I see through the impossibities and illogics of religions, that I could also see the truths and the things of value to the believer, that the stories and beliefs bring about. This does not mean that I cannot, on the basis of the stories, come to the same moral place as the believer, without the need for the aforementioned God. But this would make God unrequired. It says nothing against the value of the story, which may indeed still hold some truth, if the known false things, are replaced by known true things. Because, I figure, it is the true things, that the stories are about in the first place.

 

And then a flit to the other side of the ballroom is required. The human mind, containing shadows of what is actual, and knowing these shadows as reality.

 

We as humans, have a clear sense of what is real, and what is imagination. We know when other people are being fooled, or lying, or are ignorant, based on what we know to be true and false. We know when somebody is making something up, that is not real, because it does not fit what we know to be true. We can as well, proceed "as if" something is true, even when we don't know it to be the case for sure, as in expecting someone for dinner. And we can "fool ourselves" and pretend something is true, even though logic and evidence say to the contrary, as in expecting a surprise birthday party. And then there is the whole realm of things that start out not true, but become true, as soon as you bring them into reality, and make them true for others, as in promises, team spirit, the border between the U.S. and Canada, scientific method, religion, morals, and just about everything and anything we do together.

 

Which is why I am "flitting around the ballroom" on this one Inow. God can mean one thing to me, another to a Christian, another to a Jew, and mean nothing to you. But we all inhabit the same planet and we for sure did not put it here. It got here on its own and grew people. Seems like something that needs a good story to explain it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

So to answer the "broken" part I would accept that when a story is told and it is demonstrably fictitious, and both the teller and the listener proceed as if it is true, they are living a fantasy, which is allowable, until they think it applies to me, or act like it applies to anybody else without the other person's permission and buy in. At that point, they are indeed broken and in need of repair.

[iNow]

This leads me to believe that there is meaning to be found in religion. That every religion is telling stories about something. And the lessons we have learned, from such stories are sometimes with value to us, as individuals and as societal groups.

This particular point was never in contention, and we don't disagree on it.

 

It would be possible that even though I see through the impossibities and illogics of religions, that I could also see the truths and the things of value to the believer, that the stories and beliefs bring about. This does not mean that I cannot, on the basis of the stories, come to the same moral place as the believer, without the need for the aforementioned God. But this would make God unrequired.

Bingo.

 

Which is why I am "flitting around the ballroom" on this one Inow. God can mean one thing to me, another to a Christian, another to a Jew, and mean nothing to you. But we all inhabit the same planet and we for sure did not put it here. It got here on its own and grew people. Seems like something that needs a good story to explain it.

Well, if a good explanation for the history of the planet serves as a motivation for you to believe in god, then it surprises me deeply that you find yourself satisfied by the god conjecture and that you would accept such a NON-explanation to sate you.

 

Saying "goddidit" doesn't offer any more clarity or beauty to the cosmos. It brings no understanding, no grasp of reality, and no decreased proximity to truth. It actually dulls the brilliance, corrupts our attachment, and emputrifies our experience of the universe by suggesting some baseless unfounded fiction accurately describes it.

 

If your hope is to learn more about the universe, then by all means, my good man... go learn about the universe. Let's walk that path together as friends and enjoy the journey for what it is. In what bizarro world, though, do you equate holding tightly to the hollow concept of empty "faith" as the sole reason for accepting a proposition as true... faith in something absent any evidence whatsoever (and often in direct opposition to the evidence we DO have)... In what bizarro world do you equate that with the concept of "learning about the universe" and attaining a better appreciation of its magnificence?

 

The fact that "we for sure didn't put" the planet here is not at all relevant to the discussion about the existence of god, nor about the brokenness of someone who affirmatively believes in god(s).

 

Just because we didn't do it doesn't mean some ill-defined god (by your own admission it's ill defined as you conceded that different people believe different things, which is part of the problem... why don't you believe in Apollo or Thor? After all, they're faith based too)... did. Just because we didn't put the planet here or just because you haven't devoted enough time to studying verifiable claims and evidence... time toward educating yourself about the reality of our worlds history and our universes make-up and evolution does not mean that "goddidit." Goddidit does not equate with understanding. It's a non-answer entirely. Why not Harry Potter?

 

 

So to answer the "broken" part I would accept that when a story is told and it is demonstrably fictitious, and both the teller and the listener proceed as if it is true, they are living a fantasy, which is allowable, until they think it applies to me, or act like it applies to anybody else without the other person's permission and buy in. At that point, they are indeed broken and in need of repair.

So, you largely agree with me then? I hope I am not misinterpreting you, and it's not your position that "they are broken, but YOUR god is different..."

[immortal]

You have none. You cannot possibly produce any. It's the same with the fact that you cannot prove there's not 43 pigmy gnomes hiding between the bristles in your toothbrush, it's the same with the fact that you cannot prove there are not little scrotum fairies sleeping in your underwear drawer, and it's the same with the fact that you cannot prove there is no god... Unless of course you happen to define god in a falsifiable way and we manage to falsify it (like the manner in which biblical claims have shown to be false). Would you be willing to put forth such a falsifiable definition? I'd certainly be glad to hear one, as up 'till now, god has remained little more than an ill-defined three letter word.

 

If you take the bible literally then those claims indeed turns out to be false but one of the reasons why I have a huge respect for religion is that the interpretations are made on some kind of psychology, when they say earth is flat I really don't think that they are talking about the planet earth, they are talking about a subjective aspect which has nothing to do with the observable world.

 

If they were really talking about the planet earth then it is definitely ridiculous and I wouldn't have respect for such faith based beliefs.

 

I really don't find the concept of God to be ridiculous just because you cannot see how such thing can be real doesn't mean that you can go about and say that God isn't real.

 

We've been through this... repeatedly... in this very thread. The issue is the harm to others, and the attempt to minimize it. Accepting something on faith alone allows all kinds of awful things... both tangible primary outcomes and less tangible secondary and tertiary outcomes... outcomes which effect us all and impact everyone. This is irrefutable. Examples have been given. More are quickly available. Perhaps you've forgotten how this very question was already answered for you more than once earlier in the thread?

 

Faith might lead to experiential knowledge, by minimizing faith you're suppressing a possible road to reality, what needs to be minimized is ignorance I wouldn't go about and call them broken and somehow make their life hard by showing intolerance towards their views instead we need to educate them and minimize their misconceptions and explain to them what science is and what religion is.

 

A theist don't have to convince anyone, faith doesn't have to hinder scientific and critical thinking, there is nothing that prevents a theist to make an inquiry about God and there shouldn't be any conflicts, but some do stupid things in the name of God due to their misconceptions and with no education they are more easily vulnerable to be brain washed.

[tar]

Inow,

 

I am with you, in the solid belief, that the scientific method, serves us well.

 

I am not a "believer" in the God of Moses and the God of Mohammed.

 

And am not sure what I have said, on this or any other thread, that is making you think I believe, on faith, in any particular God at all, outside of thinking of the universe I am in and of, as "one" entity.

 

That I can do this, this thinking of all reality as one thing, is evidence of something though. I give this "ability" or "disability" to every other human, by default, in my muses, and my investigation of the "meaning behind language".

I theorize that this is something that humans do. It is quite impossible to do this thing, but we do it, none-the-less.

 

When we do this impossible thing and consider that we "understand" the nature of the entire universe, there must be a bit of mental shorthand involved, and we must be leaving a considerable amount of the universe, out of the conception.

 

If we give other "limited" humans like ourselves, the benefit of the doubt, it probably would not be incorrect to assume that "that which is beyond my understanding" is in most part, the exact same set of stuff that is beyond the understanding of other humans. While there is certainly a large body of information that others know, that I don't, there is even more information available, that has not yet been witnessed and internalized by any human, even with the benefit of wonderful equipment, and careful study. This does not mean "magic" is on the other side, or that there is a big human-like consciousness somewhere that has "ALL of it" in mind. I can believe on faith that there are things going on in the universe, that I will never be informed of. Like what is happening now, on the other side of the Milky Way. That stuff won't be informing minds on Earth of what its doing now, for 100,000 years.

 

So, I put conditions on when another human, who takes "that which is beyond our understanding" on faith, is broken or not. And I suggest that in general, people that live in glass houses, should not throw stones. And I like to take any argument that undermines someone elses "faith", and check if the same argument falsifies my own understanding.

 

What I usually find is that its OK to do it my way, because its my way. And its OK for them to do it their way, as long as it does not get in my way. And I have a theory, that others have a similar perspective.

 

In the video on morals, the "do as little harm as possible" rule seems right. But it is missing an ingredient that I think is important and actual. Do as little harm as possible to me and mine. That is, the family or the pack or the clan, or by extension, the race or species, or country or religion, or philosphy that one is a member of, gets preference over "other thans" when it comes to moral decisions.

 

I have to cause a rat to die, or cause a person to die? Now which will it be.....?

 

I have to cause my daughter to die, or his daughter? My president or his president?

 

A random democrat, or a random republican?

 

A fundamentalist christian, or a fundementalist muslim? ("both", and "I don't care" are not allowable responses)

 

 

So when you asked me if I rank my faith(whatever in) higher than the faith of another, I would say "yes I do".

 

Regards, TAR2

 

To go to a "higher" authority on the matter, one would have to postulate such a God, as Moses and Mohammed envisioned.

[tar]

Perhaps, being brought up Christian, and living in a country founded in the belief of such a God, I do, deep down, believe metaphorically in such an entity. And my Atheism is just a stripping away of the "impossible" attributes and characteristics given this entity by others. Perhaps I still have faith in this entity, but worship, in my own private way, my "cleaned up" version, a version unencumbered by the "can't be" characteristics that others attribute to it.