Evidence of the Non-Physical

[Hidingfromyou]

Not really, since faith doesn't produce moon landings, or medicine, it doesn't cure or even eradicate disease, it doesn't explain anything in fact. That science, for example, can very successfully explain reality is a given, thus it can be demonstrated as very good at explaining reality when compared to something like faith.

The objective evidence for this would be the relative successes of both methods. So no, in this instance you are wrong to claim the observation was entirely subjective.

hahaha! Well said.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If people are made better by believing in whatever religion, the more power to them.

The danger is that religion is make-believe and setting up a social hierarchy on make-believe leads to easy corruption. Once performance in make-believe is your standard, then clever frauds easily and often become your leaders, pedophiles your religious leaders, liars your teachers.

It's perfectly fine to be like a child and think make-believe is wisdom and knowledge if that makes people happier than they'd otherwise be, but the dangers are profound because of the corrupt people, parasites, always vying to take advantage of such a system.

Religion isn't a crutch. It's a danger. As Hitchens' wrote, "religion poisons everything. And I do mean everything."

Well, the belief that the world can be reduced down to a very simple sets of norms, is always dangerous. But that is not unique to religion.
It is standard human sociology and psychology and can be witnessed outside religion.
As for hierarchies they are everywhere and not just in religion.

So don't make it too simple and only about religion, because then your anti-religion could be considered a religion.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Well, the belief that the world can be reduced down to a very simple sets of norms, is always dangerous. But that is not unique to religion.
It is standard human sociology and psychology and can be witnessed outside religion.
As for hierarchies they are everywhere and not just in religion.

So don't make it too simple and only about religion, because then your anti-religion could be considered a religion.

Hierarchies aren't everywhere, but assuming they are lends them power. It's better to give them a critical eye, examining them to reduce their power.

Also, you took what I wrote out of context. The "make-believe" part was crucial to my reasoning. Hierarchies dependent on make-believe are very dangerous and open to corruption. Hierarchies dependent on merit and education aren't, because they measure real world achievements and performance.

If we're going to have this discussion, it's best if you don't reduce my claims to vague notions, but stick to specifics instead. Thank you in advance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hierarchies aren't everywhere, but assuming they are lends them power. It's better to give them a critical eye, examining them to reduce their power.

Also, you took what I wrote out of context. The "make-believe" part was crucial to my reasoning. Hierarchies dependent on make-believe are very dangerous and open to corruption. Hierarchies dependent on merit and education aren't, because they measure real world achievements and performance.

If we're going to have this discussion, it's best if you don't reduce my claims to vague notions, but stick to specifics instead. Thank you in advance.

So all rights, norms, human evolutions are not subjective, but rather you don't have make-beliefs because your morality is not make-believe.
So that I am better than you, if I have a higher score than you, is objectively real and not a make-believe.
The word "real" has no objective referent just like "God". Real is a make-believe that I don't believe in.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

So all rights, norms, human evolutions are not subjective, but rather you don't have make-beliefs because your morality is not make-believe.
So that I am better than you, if I have a higher score than you, is objectively real and not a make-believe.
The word "real" has no objective referent just like "God". Real is a make-believe that I don't believe in.

You're doing a whole ton of leaps of logic here that I did not make.

First of all, religion does not equal "all rights, norms and human evolutions [sic]" whatever you mean by that. What do you mean by that? How do people measurably differ in "human evolutions"?

I'm starting to think that English isn't your first language. Is this true?

 

[Hidingfromyou]

So all rights, norms, human evolutions are not subjective, but rather you don't have make-beliefs because your morality is not make-believe.
So that I am better than you, if I have a higher score than you, is objectively real and not a make-believe.
The word "real" has no objective referent just like "God". Real is a make-believe that I don't believe in.

Assuming English is your first language, here's my response to this mess.

You are making the claim above that merit based social hierarchies are equivalent to the make-believe social hierarchies of religion. That's patently false.

Are there problems with merit based systems? Yes, of course. But they're not on the level of corruptibility that religious based ones are. For ex., to get a PhD, you have to do exhaustive hypothesis testing. To become a pastor, you just repeat fictional nonsense.

Academic performance is gated by professionals in the discipline.
Religious performance is gated by . . . at best, tradition.

Re: the word "real." I didn't use it. You seem to have a subjective/objective argument that you want to bring to this discussion, but you don't seem to get the difference between full on make-believe like religion and the best our subjective sciences can achieve.

If we're going to discuss subjective versus objective, I'm all for it. But I'd be happier knowing if you understand the word "enculturation" and the works of Foucault before we proceed. Probably save us some time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're doing a whole ton of leaps of logic here that I did not make.

First of all, religion does not equal "all rights, norms and human evolutions [sic]" whatever you mean by that. What do you mean by that? How do people measurably differ in "human evolutions"?

I'm starting to think that English isn't your first language. Is this true?

Yeah, evaluation and not evolution. Auto spelling can be fun.
Now here is one for you:
You are looking at a dog and say the dog is black.
Now you are looking at the world and say the world is real.
So here is my questions for you. What does real look like? What quantitative measurements can you make of real and what instruments measure real?
There is not real unless you believe in it. I don't! To me real is a first person evaluation.
Now all you have to do, is to answer my questions with at least one positive fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Re: the word "real." I didn't use it. ...

Just read the quote of your post in mine and we can start a new:
Evidence of the Non-Physical

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Yeah, evaluation and not evolution. Auto spelling can be fun.
Now here is one for you:
You are looking at a dog and say the dog is black.
Now you are looking at the world and say the world is real.
So here is my questions for you. What does real look like? What quantitative measurements can you make of real and what instruments measure real?
There is not real unless you believe in it. I don't! To me real is a first person evaluation.
Now all you have to do, is to answer my questions with at least one positive fact.

To what end would I enter into this conversation? What are we trying to achieve by this discussion?

If you're interested in the subjective/objective, just go read Michel Foucault on the "structuring structures that structure." Or Derida on postmodernism.

This is all very old school for me. Yes, we're all subjective experiencers and yes your subjective experience is a product of your enculturation.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Just read the quote of your post in mine and we can start a new:
Evidence of the Non-Physical

Do better.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do better.

"real world"
And good bye to you.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

"real world"
And good bye to you.

Have a good one!

 

[Sheldon]

Also, you took what I wrote out of context.

You'll get used to mikkel after a while, he does tend to do that a lot.

 

[Sheldon]

You're doing a whole ton of leaps of logic here that I did not make.

I know, you will expend a lot of energy chasing his straw men, best to just smile and nod.

 

[Sheldon]

What does real look like?

Compared to what?

 

[DNB]

Yes, humans are animals. Presumably you meant non-human animals, but this is still totally irrelevant to any notion of humans having spirits.

why are only humans religious?

 

[Hidingfromyou]

I know, you will expend a lot of energy chasing his straw men, best to just smile and nod.

I'm probably just going to give up. No sense in attempting the absurd.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

why are only humans religious?

To form larger than kin social cohesion. Religiosity is an adaptation.

edit to add: also, neanderthals appeared to have been religious. Do you consider them human?

 

[DNB]

Oh, now that's funny, since the god of the bible orders and commits genocide and other crimes against humanity, punishes all of creation because two people ate the wrong fruit (or whatever you think it represents), and then requires a substitute blood sacrifice to make things okay with humans again (to right its own injustice), but only if they believe the self-contradictory nonsense.

If you were a little bit more introspective and wise, then you would appreciate the significance of of God's austerity in these circumstances. I feel that I am no better than Adam, the Canaanites, the Gentiles, nor any other Christian, who, by definition, considers themselves to be reprobate, like myself. We all deserve to die - thank God for His patience and mercy (grace is free).

 

[DNB]

Sir Isaac Newton.

No, he didn't, Bazinga.