A problem i see with religious people

[Wandering Monk]

Here's what I think the main problem is.

There's no objective standards in religion. Two religious people, even in the same denomination, may well have different interpretations and attitudes towards anything from Scripture to history to an image of God. And while one might have better education about what other people believe(i.e. degrees) it's still just subjective opinions about the unknowable. Whether religion contains any objective truth or not, there's no way to falsify any truly religious claim. So, the most poorly thought out, irrational, opinion has as much authority as any other.

Once one has separated their beliefs and worldview from evidence and reason, one could believe almost anything.
Tom

People arguing about whose magical thinking is correct. Pretty hilarious given the fact that this is the 21st century.

 

[columbus]

The thing is there are those who claim to be Atheists who are also so religious and fits the bill you have developed up there perfectly. Only thing is, i dont know what kind of denomination they could have and that could be an interesting thing to think about.

But religious people claiming to know the unknowable and atheists claiming to know the unknowable are nearly in inverse proportions.
There are hard atheists, but not many. Frankly, I(and most atheists) see them as nearly as irrational as hard theists. Mainly because their image of God is as limited as the most fundamentalist Abrahamic religionist.
The overwhelming majority of non-theists are agnostic. We don't claim to have evidence, and that lack of evidence is the evidence for our beliefs and worldview. "Religion is fiction" is not the same as "No God can possibly exist".
Theists commonly cannot understand the difference.

Tom

 

[firedragon]

But religious people claiming to know the unknowable and atheists claiming to know the unknowable are nearly in inverse proportions.
There are hard atheists, but not many. Frankly, I(and most atheists) see them as nearly as irrational as hard theists. Mainly because their image of God is as limited as the most fundamentalist Abrahamic religionist.
The overwhelming majority of non-theists are agnostic. We don't claim to have evidence, and that lack of evidence is the evidence for our beliefs and worldview. "Religion is fiction" is not the same as "No God can possibly exist".
Theists commonly cannot understand the difference.

Tom

I think you should read the post again too.

 

[firedragon]

People arguing about who's magical thinking is correct. Pretty hilarious given the fact that this is the 21st century.

You are the third person who should read the opening post again, slowly.

 

[Wandering Monk]

You are the third person who should read the opening post again, slowly.

Maybe you should check whose post I was responding to. It wasn't the OP.

 

[columbus]

People arguing about who's magical thinking is correct. Pretty hilarious given the fact that this is the 21st century.

Humans are strongly inclined to do that.
It's easy to think that people should be more sophisticated now than we used to be. But we're not.

And it's not like this is only a feature of religionists. I often hear people express Faith that science will provide salvation, by producing sustainable energy and synthetic food and mental health care and such.

The facts don't match this worldview any more than the belief that Jesus's Second Coming will provide salvation. But people find a belief in science quite comforting, so they don't ask any hard questions.
Tom

 

[firedragon]

Maybe you should check whose post I was responding to. It wasn't the OP.

Thats why i said you should read the OP. Anyway, no worries. Its not important.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I often hear people express Faith that science will provide salvation, by producing sustainable energy and synthetic food and mental health care and such.

I have yet to hear this from any science advocate on this forum. Science isn't about salvation, it is about progress.

The facts don't match this worldview any more than the belief that Jesus's Second Coming will provide salvation. But people find a belief in science quite comforting, so they don't ask any hard questions.
Tom

The application of science HAS improved the human conditions immensely since at least the Enlightenment.

When you can show me that the application of religion has done the same thing, then we can compare apples with apples.

 

[PureX]

But religious people claiming to know the unknowable and atheists claiming to know the unknowable are nearly in inverse proportions.
There are hard atheists, but not many.

They are all "hard atheists" ideologically. Only few realize and admit to it, however. The others disguise their hard atheism within the illogical assumption that if gods existed, there would be evidence for that fact that the atheist could recognize and verify. Since there is no such evidence, they then "logically" presume that no gods exist until the evidence (that they blindly presume would exist if gods did exist) shows them otherwise.

It's all "hard atheism". It's just being falsely disguised as 'reasoned skepticism' these days, by many atheists.

The overwhelming majority of non-theists are agnostic. We don't claim to have evidence, and that lack of evidence is the evidence for our beliefs and worldview.

That's not agnosticism. That's the aforementioned 'reasoned skepticism' behind which many atheists are hiding their atheism. An agnostic would not assume "disbelief" because they lack information upon which to make a determination. They would simply remain undetermined until such information were available. Atheism is not undetermined, however. It determines that no gods exist until they're shown to exist. Agnosticism takes no such position. And that's the big difference. It's also what gives the atheists away as "hard atheists" even when they so adamantly proclaim that they are not.

 

[firedragon]

I have yet to hear this from any science advocate on this forum. Science isn't about salvation, it is about progress.



The application of science HAS improved the human conditions immensely since at least the Enlightenment.

When you can show me that the application of religion has done the same thing, then we can compare apples with apples.

Ah the science vs religion debate. Great debate. In another thread though because its not even closely relevant to this thread.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Ah the science vs religion debate. Great debate. In another thread though because its not even closely relevant to this thread.

One again, I wasn't responding to you.

 

[firedragon]

One again, I wasn't responding to you.

I am not debating with you. I am saying that your topic is not relevant to this thread. Alright fine. Go ahead. The weather must be making communication blockages.

 

[Thief]

When i say religious i don't mean Muslim, Christian or a Hindu alone. I mean all of those people who take everything and make a religion out of it. Even atheists, Buddhists, Agnostics, etc. I feel that the day Aliens ascend or if they emerge they will be the same. Some may get offended of course, but i have found this forum has people who provide very decent food for thought so here goes.

A Muslim will have a discussion with another Muslim about a particular viewpoint in theology. One person is very highly educated and the other is not but he pretends to be highly educated in theology. Very very quickly he moves to call the other person by a sectarian, habitual phrase like Munafiq or hypocrite, moderate, Zindiq or heretic, etc etc. This is the habit of being sectarian. Whenever someone is bringing some insight they immediately put them into a bracket. A sectarian bracket. But when you question them they are also very quick to say "I dont belong to a sect".

A Christian will have a discussion with another Christian or even a Muslim who maybe educated in Christian theology. One person will pretend to be very highly educated. Why?

An atheist can be the same. He too can be very religious in his sentiments. "I am scientific, you are not capable of being like me". My group is my tribe. Many atheists also pretend to be highly educated in theology.

Why do people pretend to be highly educated? Isn't it more honourable to admit that one may lack in knowledge about a particular topic they are discussing and learn something? I have seen many Christians and Muslims debate with very highly educated Atheists pretending they are too, and of course, vise versa.

One young man, a Muslim claims he has a bachelors degree in theology but doesn't know a single word of arabic or the fundamentals taught in your first semester. Doesnt get embarrassed but opts to keep pretending and call the cavalry in slamming the other. A Christian claims to be a Phd but isn't. An atheist claims "you are dumb and stupid because you are a Christian" but he doesnt know the very fundamental of physics though he claims he is very highly educated in it.

My question is this. In a world where we are just typing on a keyboard, remotely connected, without any real human ties to lose face, why do we have to have such an egoistic position of "no yielding no matter what"? Why cant we ask questions rather than pretending to penalise. Why do we have to immediately put people into a sectarian bracket and cast them out rather than following their thought pattern and analyse to make deduction?

Is that a human need? What is this need. Most of us will concede and meekly believe every whim the superiors of our tribe teaches us in our madrasas, seminaries or groups but immediately bracket out the rest or others as "those".

What is this issue with us?

did I miss it?
I did not see the word ...dogma.....in your post

I have no religion.....no dogma
no beads for your hand ….no rug for your knee....no hat for your head
no ritual....no ceremony...no sacrament

love science

and I believe in God

 

[columbus]

I have yet to hear this from any science advocate on this forum. Science isn't about salvation, it is about progress.

I hear it frequently.

Not in those words, of course. But the sense that science will save us from our ways, with methods that nobody understands and aren't at all feasible,(magic) that happens all the time.
Salvation through science. I hear it a lot. But I don't believe it any more than I believe in the apocalypse.
Tom

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An atheist can be the same. He too can be very religious in his sentiments. "I am scientific, you are not capable of being like me".

How is that being religious? That's being arrogant.

Many atheists also pretend to be highly educated in theology.

I would argue that one cannot be formally educated in theology at all. Believers can't agree what their scripture mean, which tells me that they mean nothing definite at all. They mean what the reader brings to them as with poetry, and for the same reason - vague language open to private interpretation. Scripture is a verbal Rorschach test. What is there to teach or learn that isn't subjective opinion?

Just because something can be studied doesn't make familiarity with it learning on par with what goes on in academic institutions. We could do a thesis on Disney princesses, but is that really learning? Not unless we make it academic, perhaps by contrasting the white ones (Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle) with those of color (Mulan, Jasmine, Tiana, Pocahontas) to try to glean some social significance that the trends in these characters reveal about changing social mores, it's nothing but fluff.

Theology is similar. How many tiers of angels are there, and what are their various powers and jobs? Which day is the Sabbath? Shall we pray to saints or not? How can one be educated in any of that?

The thing is there are those who claim to be Atheists who are also so religious and fits the bill you have developed up there perfectly.

I disagree.

What he said was, "There's no objective standards in religion. Two religious people, even in the same denomination, may well have different interpretations and attitudes towards anything from Scripture to history to an image of God" and "Once one has separated their beliefs and worldview from evidence and reason, one could believe almost anything."

What atheists fit that bill, and what makes having an empiricist epistemology religious?

Most of the atheists I am familiar with are secular humanists, which is not only not a religion, but is antithetical to dogmatic pronouncements and unsubstantiated claims.

They are also usually pretty well educated, they are evidence based thinkers with rational defenses for their beliefs, and unlike the religious, they are in general agreement about what is true about our common world. The universe is expanding. Life evolves, Tectonic plates wander throwing up mountain ranges and causing earthquakes and volcanoes.

So unlike religious faith-based thinkers, they can't "believe almost anything." Their beliefs have to map a portion of external reality, which is demonstrated by comparing those beliefs to external reality, the only arbiter of what is true and real, and which keeps those beliefs similar from observer to observer. This is why there are countless gods in human history, but only one periodic chart of the elements.

Being religious as the term is used in the West is nothing like that. Being religious is about believing magical things by faith, receiving instruction through people claiming to channel a god, concepts like sin and the sacred, meaningful rituals and symbols, etc..

Atheism has none of that. It is the rejection of that.

 

[firedragon]

How is that being religious? That's being arrogant.



I would argue that one cannot be formally educated in theology at all. Believers can't agree what their scripture mean, which tells me that they mean nothing definite at all. They mean what the reader brings to them as with poetry, and for the same reason - vague language open to private interpretation. Scripture is a verbal Rorschach test. What is there to teach or learn that isn't subjective opinion?

Just because something can be studied doesn't make familiarity with it learning on par with what goes on in academic institutions. We could do a thesis on Disney princesses, but is that really learning? Not unless we make it academic, perhaps by contrasting the white ones (Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle) with those of color (Mulan, Jasmine, Tiana, Pocahontas) to try to glean some social significance that the trends in these characters reveal about changing social mores, it's nothing but fluff.

Theology is similar. How many tiers of angels are there, and what are their various powers and jobs? Which day is the Sabbath? Shall we pray to saints or not? How can one be educated in any of that?



I disagree.

What he said was, "There's no objective standards in religion. Two religious people, even in the same denomination, may well have different interpretations and attitudes towards anything from Scripture to history to an image of God" and "Once one has separated their beliefs and worldview from evidence and reason, one could believe almost anything."

What atheists fit that bill, and what makes having an empiricist epistemology religious?

Most of the atheists I am familiar with are secular humanists, which is not only not a religion, but is antithetical to dogmatic pronouncements and unsubstantiated claims.

They are also usually pretty well educated, they are evidence based thinkers with rational defenses for their beliefs, and unlike the religious, they are in general agreement about what is true about our common world. The universe is expanding. Life evolves, Tectonic plates wander throwing up mountain ranges and causing earthquakes and volcanoes.

So unlike religious faith-based thinkers, they can't "believe almost anything." Their beliefs have to map a portion of external reality, which is demonstrated by comparing those beliefs to external reality, the only arbiter of what is true and real, and which keeps those beliefs similar from observer to observer. This is why there are countless gods in human history, but only one periodic chart of the elements.

Being religious as the term is used in the West is nothing like that. Being religious is about believing magical things by faith, receiving instruction through people claiming to channel a god, concepts like sin and the sacred, meaningful rituals and symbols, etc..

Atheism has none of that. It is the rejection of that.

Great. Thanks.

 

[Vee]

My question is this. In a world where we are just typing on a keyboard, remotely connected, without any real human ties to lose face, why do we have to have such an egoistic position of "no yielding no matter what"? Why cant we ask questions rather than pretending to penalise. Why do we have to immediately put people into a sectarian bracket and cast them out rather than following their thought pattern and analyse to make deduction?

Is that a human need? What is this need. Most of us will concede and meekly believe every whim the superiors of our tribe teaches us in our madrasas, seminaries or groups but immediately bracket out the rest or others as "those".

What is this issue with us?

There is a great lack of humility out there, and it's not just about religion. It's a general thing for people to pretend they know something they don't. The other day a guy told me playing guitar is easy and that anyone can learn quickly. As someone who's been learning guitar, I was fuming. But he kept going on and eventually I let it go. It wasn't worth arguing with him.
I think a lot of people are more worried about having the last word than what they're actually saying.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't see religious people as a problem. People are free to hold views.

 

[firedragon]

I don't see religious people as a problem. People are free to hold views.

1. Theres a difference between "Religious people are a problem" and "A problem with religious people".
2. Go back and try to understand how the post defines "religious". Its not about "views".

Cheers.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

When i say religious i don't mean Muslim, Christian or a Hindu alone. I mean all of those people who take everything and make a religion out of it. Even atheists, Buddhists, Agnostics, etc. I feel that the day Aliens ascend or if they emerge they will be the same. Some may get offended of course, but i have found this forum has people who provide very decent food for thought so here goes.

A Muslim will have a discussion with another Muslim about a particular viewpoint in theology. One person is very highly educated and the other is not but he pretends to be highly educated in theology. Very very quickly he moves to call the other person by a sectarian, habitual phrase like Munafiq or hypocrite, moderate, Zindiq or heretic, etc etc. This is the habit of being sectarian. Whenever someone is bringing some insight they immediately put them into a bracket. A sectarian bracket. But when you question them they are also very quick to say "I dont belong to a sect".

A Christian will have a discussion with another Christian or even a Muslim who maybe educated in Christian theology. One person will pretend to be very highly educated. Why?

An atheist can be the same. He too can be very religious in his sentiments. "I am scientific, you are not capable of being like me". My group is my tribe. Many atheists also pretend to be highly educated in theology.

Why do people pretend to be highly educated? Isn't it more honourable to admit that one may lack in knowledge about a particular topic they are discussing and learn something? I have seen many Christians and Muslims debate with very highly educated Atheists pretending they are too, and of course, vise versa.

One young man, a Muslim claims he has a bachelors degree in theology but doesn't know a single word of arabic or the fundamentals taught in your first semester. Doesnt get embarrassed but opts to keep pretending and call the cavalry in slamming the other. A Christian claims to be a Phd but isn't. An atheist claims "you are dumb and stupid because you are a Christian" but he doesnt know the very fundamental of physics though he claims he is very highly educated in it.

My question is this. In a world where we are just typing on a keyboard, remotely connected, without any real human ties to lose face, why do we have to have such an egoistic position of "no yielding no matter what"? Why cant we ask questions rather than pretending to penalise. Why do we have to immediately put people into a sectarian bracket and cast them out rather than following their thought pattern and analyse to make deduction?

Is that a human need? What is this need. Most of us will concede and meekly believe every whim the superiors of our tribe teaches us in our madrasas, seminaries or groups but immediately bracket out the rest or others as "those".

What is this issue with us?

Alot of atheists use the term "free thinkers" when actually they appear to be unable to grasp even basic articles of philosophy and theology, and appear to incapable to debating outside a very narrow framework. I find this particularly bad, because while I agree that many Christians or Muslims (or other religions) also are narrowly educated and unable to question their teachings, they don't use such a label as declares them able to think freely. Christians and Muslims (and whatever) simply try to put on airs of being moral or having strong faith or knowing the teachings.

I think there are two reasons for what you suggested:
1. Human beings typically fear shame, and are not likely to willingly declare ignorance. I'm okay with this, as I made up my own religion from splicing together several others, and clearly can tell people I don't know everything, but I understand the average person might be reluctant to tell people "I'm not sure the answer to that." I kinda get annoyed at the person not just admitting their flaws. The more you lead people on, the more annoying it is when they find out you don't actually know.
2. People also have a tendency to confuse strong beliefs for correct beliefs. As in, people will feel that if they stubbornly cling to an idea, it must be right.

Theres a difference between "Religious people are a problem" and "A problem with religious people".
Go back and try to understand how the post defines "religious". Its not about "views".

I think we have a reason #3 that I'm going to put.

3. People tend to look at an article title, and make a snap assumption on what it's about, and debate that, rather than reading. They also don't have time to look at any pictures/links/long paragraphs, so they persist in saying "there is no proof for theism/for evolution/for whatever" even after someone just showed them why this or that must be so.