To the Anti-Religious

[tumbleweed41]

We must be especially diligent to guard against offending the tender sensibilities of believers.

Believers in what, specifically?

 

[Quiddity]

What? That the only way you can make a point is through the intellectually dishonest process of taking a sentence fragment out of its context in order to distort the meaning of what a poster has written?

Agreed then.

What meaning was I taking out of it exactly?

You must feel confident about what meaning I was taking out of it if you felt inclined to say I was being "intellectually dishonest".

So...do tell what "meaning" I was taking out of it?

Stop projecting...

 

[ManTimeForgot]

We must be especially diligent to guard against offending the tender sensibilities of believers. They are a touchy feely lot and quick to sense - and painfully feel - disrespect and satire touching on their cherished beliefs.

But then given that one wonders why they come to an open forum where it should be expected those of a more - shall we say 'robust' nature - are with holding forth.

Or to offer and more colloquial expression of the same idea:

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Correct me where I am wrong here, but how exactly does this make you different from the Forum equivalent of a Rogue Nation? In order to gain your "respect" (which I am not convinced is anything close to what the rest of us understand as respect) you have to be able to back up your claims with force (making the other person look stupid) and will ignore UN resolutions (rules of the forum) unless backed up by force (moderator action).

It is clear from your explanation of how you came to have your beliefs that you see no difference between beliefs worthy of condemnation and those which empower human beings to become better people. It does bear mentioning that nothing should be immune to critique; nothing should be immune to satire. But that nothing should be immune to critique and satire does NOT mean that every single instance of a conversation should include critique and satire. Do you find the inclination to contribute anything positive ever? Does the term "constructive criticism" mean anything to you? If there isn't actually any substance to your criticism and all it is meant to do is make the other person feel stupid (with no goal of replacing a more flawed idea with a better one), then your actions bespeak a form of total nihilism. Who cares about manners, civility, compassion, honesty, or bettering our fellow man? All comes to naught in the end; nothing matters other than being the smartest and the best in this short, cruel, pitiful thing we all call life.

Being able to insult people and getting the same treatment in return without being insulted is not a sign of a robust philosophy or belief system. It is a sign of an insecure, lonely individual who spends too much time in a testosterone induced fantasy world of their own devising. The onus to engage in moral behavior does not begin with others; it begins with yourself.

MTF

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What meaning was I taking out of it exactly?
You must feel confident about what meaning I was taking out of it if you felt inclined to say I was being "intellectually dishonest".
So...do tell what "meaning" I was taking out of it?
Stop projecting...

I enjoy humor at all levels, albeit not equally. Then again, I can't really empathize very well with being insulted or offended by a joke, since I've never had that reaction.

Enuff said.

Your response of "Enuff said" coupled with the sentence fragment from my response that you chose to highlight, implies that your response is to only that sentence fragment. Otherwise, there would be no point in highlighting any part of my response.

Your choice to highlight only the sentence fragment "I can't really empathize very well," suggests that you are trying to say that I am not someone who empathizes well in general, by using my own words to illustrate this.

However, this is intellectually dishonest, as that sentence fragment, taken in context with the rest of the sentence I wrote, does not communicate that I think I do not empathize very well in general, but only in the specific context of becoming insulted or offended by a joke.

Frankly, your accusation of me "projecting" makes absolutely no sense, so I can't even respond to it meaningfully.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Correct me where I am wrong here, but how exactly does this make you different from the Forum equivalent of a Rogue Nation? In order to gain your "respect" (which I am not convinced is anything close to what the rest of us understand as respect) you have to be able to back up your claims with force (making the other person look stupid) and will ignore UN resolutions (rules of the forum) unless backed up by force (moderator action).

It is clear from your explanation of how you came to have your beliefs that you see no difference between beliefs worthy of condemnation and those which empower human beings to become better people. It does bear mentioning that nothing should be immune to critique; nothing should be immune to satire. But that nothing should be immune to critique and satire does NOT mean that every single instance of a conversation should include critique and satire. Do you find the inclination to contribute anything positive ever? Does the term "constructive criticism" mean anything to you? If there isn't actually any substance to your criticism and all it is meant to do is make the other person feel stupid (with no goal of replacing a more flawed idea with a better one), then your actions bespeak a form of total nihilism. Who cares about manners, civility, compassion, honesty, or bettering our fellow man? All comes to naught in the end; nothing matters other than being the smartest and the best in this short, cruel, pitiful thing we all call life.

Being able to insult people and getting the same treatment in return without being insulted is not a sign of a robust philosophy or belief system. It is a sign of an insecure, lonely individual who spends too much time in a testosterone induced fanstsy world of their own devising. The onus for moral behavior does not begin with others; it begins with yourself.


Thank you (from all us I am sure) for that uplifting and inspiring sermonette. I am sure we all the better for it and will wake tomorrow with new found enthusiasm for our universal task of improving our fellow man.

Do remember to include a link to your website were we may effect our goodwill gifts and offerings.

Now as to the actual argument - which you apparently would rather NOT address - I deny that the belief in supernatural religion HAS contributed anything of value to the advance of civilization. And as a small bit of evidence for that assertion I use your words, "The onus [impetus??] for moral behavior does not begin with others; it begins with yourself." And that beginning has little if anything to do with belief in an invisible fairy god father who will keep score of you moral doings. Indeed those who NEED to believe something is looking over their shoulder and keeping score have very little IMPETUS for moral behavior.They are at best interested in "storing up treasures in heaven" and if some small good comes of that effort so be it.

What belief in these myths HAS done is provide us with one more handy excuse to kill and main each other.

And on top all of that they simply are NOT true. Not the 20th part of half a syllable of the beginning.

Male bovine excrement - every letter.

 

[Quiddity]

Your response of "Enuff said" coupled with the sentence fragment from my response that you chose to highlight, implies that your response is to only that sentence fragment. Otherwise, there would be no point in highlighting any part of my response.

Your choice to highlight only the sentence fragment "I can't really empathize very well," suggests that you are trying to say that I am not someone who empathizes well in general, by using my own words to illustrate this.

However, this is intellectually dishonest, as that sentence fragment, taken in context with the rest of the sentence I wrote, does not communicate that I think I do not empathize very well in general, but only in the specific context of becoming insulted or offended by a joke.

Frankly, your accusation of me "projecting" makes absolutely no sense, so I can't even respond to it meaningfully.

Your standards were brought to question because you found something humorous that wasn't even directed at you. You responded by saying that you can't really empathize because you have never been insulted or offended by a joke.

The context was a joke that wasn't directed at you and how you can't empathize with it.

I understood you quite well.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Your standards were brought to question because you found something humorous that wasn't even directed at you. You responded by saying that you can't really empathize because you have never been insulted or offended by a joke.

The context was a joke that wasn't directed at you and how you can't empathize with it.

I understood you quite well.

Now I'd hate to jump into a battle that isn't my own, but what is the BS of "standards brought into question"? Because he found something funny that wasn't directed at him? Your point?

People can find almost anything funny. There is no need for some Nuremburg Tribunal of Humour to determine what someone can find comical and what someone cannot.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Believers in what, specifically?

Well to some degree if varies by individual but generally those who hold to a anthropomorphic benevolent spirit god who takes a daily and intense interest in their individual lives. They see themselves as very special creatures, the apple of the Creator's eye, their personal existence the object for the entire universe's creation.

This belief is quite important to them. It defines their lives to a large degree. They rarely make any decision w/o consulting their god and fear daily that their actions are not pleasing to it.

They are quite defensive about this belief and view any criticism touching it with very deep antagonism. Even more so the person(s) making such criticism.

This is not to say that this describes everyone who claims to be a theist. But is well nigh universally true of those who call themselves Christians or Muslims. And absolutely true of those who are "true believers."

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Correct me where I am wrong here, but how exactly does this make you different from the Forum equivalent of a Rogue Nation? In order to gain your "respect" (which I am not convinced is anything close to what the rest of us understand as respect) you have to be able to back up your claims with force (making the other person look stupid) and will ignore UN resolutions (rules of the forum) unless backed up by force (moderator action).

It is clear from your explanation of how you came to have your beliefs that you see no difference between beliefs worthy of condemnation and those which empower human beings to become better people. It does bear mentioning that nothing should be immune to critique; nothing should be immune to satire. But that nothing should be immune to critique and satire does NOT mean that every single instance of a conversation should include critique and satire. Do you find the inclination to contribute anything positive ever? Does the term "constructive criticism" mean anything to you? If there isn't actually any substance to your criticism and all it is meant to do is make the other person feel stupid (with no goal of replacing a more flawed idea with a better one), then your actions bespeak a form of total nihilism. Who cares about manners, civility, compassion, honesty, or bettering our fellow man? All comes to naught in the end; nothing matters other than being the smartest and the best in this short, cruel, pitiful thing we all call life.

Being able to insult people and getting the same treatment in return without being insulted is not a sign of a robust philosophy or belief system. It is a sign of an insecure, lonely individual who spends too much time in a testosterone induced fanstsy world of their own devising. The onus for moral behavior does not begin with others; it begins with yourself.


Thank you (from all us I am sure) for that uplifting and inspiring sermonette. I am sure we all the better for it and will wake tomorrow with new found enthusiasm for our universal task of improving our fellow man.

Do remember to include a link to your website were we may effect our goodwill gifts and offerings.

Now as to the actual argument - which you apparently would rather NOT address - I deny that the belief in supernatural religion HAS contributed anything of value to the advance of civilization. And as a small bit of evidence for that assertion I use your words, "The onus [impetus??] for moral behavior does not begin with others; it begins with yourself." And that beginning has little if anything to do with belief in an invisible fairy god father who will keep score of you moral doings. Indeed those who NEED to believe something is looking over their shoulder and keeping score have very little IMPETUS for moral behavior.They are at best interested in "storing up treasures in heaven" and if some small good comes of that effort so be it.

What belief in these myths HAS done is provide us with one more handy excuse to kill and main each other.

And on top all of that they simply are NOT true. Not the 20th part of half a syllable of the beginning.

Male bovine excrement - every letter.

Interesting response. I'm guessing you think that there is some other reason to criticize? If you are positing that the ultimate purpose of criticism is to give yourself an ego boost, then no one is going to want to associate with you. Or does society also mean nothing to you?

No the onus (as in where it must originate; ultimate responsibility for) rests upon you first, and then it is the duty of others to follow suit. And as far as impetus goes I will use your words to evidence my case: indeed those who NEED to believe something is looking over their shoulder and keeping score have very little IMPETUS for moral behavior. The fact of the matter is some people do not progress much if at all beyond pre-operational morality. They perform moral actions because authority says they should and authority can punish you if you don't. Sociology almost universally recognizes that the institution of religion incorporated ethical behaviors into their dogma for the simple reason that it was needed to reinforce those behaviors for societies larger than the Band. So for a percentage of the population of all human societies across recorded history religion has played a significant role in the formation of their morality. It should therefore be obvious that whatever morality they did have in the presence of religion would easily have been less developed without the existence of religion.


Claims that religion has contributed nothing across human history are as empty of content as criticism without suggestion. I am willing to make the argument that organized religion has done more harm than good to human societies over the milennia. But to make the claim that no good has come of it completely flies in the face of societal evolution. Societies do not develop completely useless institutions. It must fulfill some purpose in society, else it would not exist. You want to suggest that the world should exist completely without religion? Suggest a workable alternative that the portion of the population that needs religion can actually use. Philosophy, psychology, pharmacology, and mysticism are not workable alternatives. 50% of the world's population has an IQ 100 or less, and 3 out of 4 of those are going to need a little bit more "brain power" than that in order to be workable. Pharmacology has too many side-effects while maintaining productive members of society. Unless it is also your contention that the 50% of the world's population with IQ's of 100 or less are useless and that the world would be better off if that 50% was in medically induced euphoria/comas (or dead)?

MTF

 

[OmarKhayyam]

“It should therefore be obvious that whatever morality they did have in the presence of religion would easily have been less developed without the existence of religion.”
I am not so sure it is “obvious” but it IS true that it cannot be established – either way. We can’t insert the tape and run it again with different parameters. We may just see the glass differently.
I do think your claim about “organized religion” is a DWOAD. If it ain’t organized it ain’t religion.

As for society not developing useless institutions the same could be said of war. Perhaps useful but is it something we really NEED? And if we COULD re-run the tape would we not change THAT parameter?

Both of those are minor points and subject to simple differences in outlook. The larger point is your claim that 50% of us are just too dumb to make our own moral choices and need to be told by authority what is right and wrong. Therefore religion. I doubt that was true historically but concede there is no way to establish my claim. We will never know.

BUT

I argue it is NOT true now and will not be true in the future. Half of us will always be below 100 on your IQ scale. But I assert the scale has moved. That 100 is MORE now that it was 5000 yrs ago. I am not claiming any evolution here. I am asserting that the mental exercise that a modern child encounters growing up is more intense and more demanding than in the distant past. That a modern child gets more mental excersie and therefore gets more practical mental skills than was true in the past. And I further assert that there is nothing that will stop or even slow that change. Life will be more complex and more demanding and require more mental alertness 5000 yrs from now than it does today and kids of the future will adjust to THAT demand just ours do today.

And one result will be the realization that belief in supernatural religion is BOTH foolish and unnecessary. That morality is a useful social construct that exists independently of any supernatural force and is a good in and of its self.

In short, we will outgrow supernatural religion and leave it in the ash can of history. Where it and its good friend and companion war both belong.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your standards were brought to question because you found something humorous that wasn't even directed at you. You responded by saying that you can't really empathize because you have never been insulted or offended by a joke.

The context was a joke that wasn't directed at you and how you can't empathize with it.

I understood you quite well.

Apparently not. Try again.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Apparently not. Try again.

You really want him to?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You really want him to?

Absolutely. I love to see the holes people dig themselves into when their ego drives them to keep attempting to win an argument instead of just admitting their error.

 

[Dunemeister]

Absolutely. I love to see the holes people dig themselves into when their ego drives them to keep attempting to win an argument instead of just admitting their error.

That knife cuts both ways.

 

[Dunemeister]

1) Distinguish between an "experience with God" and schizophrenia.

Professional psychiatrists do not confuse the two, so why should you?

2) First off, the general consensus among theists is that God exists in the supernatural world. The supernatural cannot be observed by naturalistic means. Therefore it is impossible to even know if a supernatural world exists, regardless of whether it exists or not.

Actually, if the Christian story is correct, knowing God is the most natural thing imaginable. God created us in such a way as to be able to know him. Our cognitive faculties are such that, under the right conditions, we form beliefs about God. Because these faculties are (well) designed to obtain truths about God, then, at least sometimes (under the right conditions, as I said before), they do in fact provide us true beliefs about God. All very naturalistic.

The evidence that would convince me of God's existence would have to be naturalistic in nature. Either I would have to directly observe God, or find evidence of His presence like suspension of known laws of science or evolution being shown false. If evolution were proven to be false, that would indicate a probable randomness in how life developed. The universe is anything but random. Evolution being shown to be false would shake my faith that God does not exist.

The truth of evolutionary mechanisms is compatible with the existence of God. Besides, evolution presupposes a radical randomness, so I'm not sure how getting rid of evolution produces MORE randomness. I'm further confused about how yet more randomness makes the existence of God more probable. But maybe I've just misunderstood you.

 

[Dunemeister]

Mostly, but not entirely. By illegitimate, I mean there is no direct causation and correlation between a spirit entity and the "experience" you have. The probable matter is that the whole "experience" is a product of brain chemistry.

There may be "legitimate" experiences, such as they are supported by evidence, but I certainly have never heard of them. I just don't buy into the whole "experience" thing.

I'm not saying you're doing this, CM, but your statement raises the issue. I've noticed that skeptics tend to be VERY skeptical about mystical experience, saying that it's all "brain chemistry." But they don't seem quite as skeptical about other forms of perception, say vision. That sort of experience, say the skeptics, is just the sort of thing we build rational societies out of; that's what we do science with, and so forth. But that's all "brain chemistry" too, isn't it? Just a powerful brain doing what it does and giving us the experience we have? Why make such a firm distinction between sense experience and mystical experience?

 

[gnomon]

Actually, if the Christian story is correct, knowing God is the most natural thing imaginable. God created us in such a way as to be able to know him. Our cognitive faculties are such that, under the right conditions, we form beliefs about God. Because these faculties are (well) designed to obtain truths about God, then, at least sometimes (under the right conditions, as I said before), they do in fact provide us true beliefs about God. All very naturalistic.

If these faculties are well designed to form truths about God then why haven't human beings been following Jesus Christ the world over for the last 2,000 years. It took a 1,000 years just for Christianity to spread through Europe with different versions of the "truth"?

 

[logician]

"God created us in such a way as to be able to know him"

We weren't created, we evolved from earilier primate ancestors.

I've never met any god, I don't seem to have been "created" to know it, nor has it come jumping out of the woodwork.

 

[gnomon]

"God created us in such a way as to be able to know him"

We weren't created, we evolved from earilier primate ancestors.

I've never met any god, I don't seem to have been "created" to know it, nor has it come jumping out of the woodwork.

Same here.

We must be spiritually retarded.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Storm, there is a BIG difference between bashing one's beliefs and bashing people. Ever heard of 'love the sinner, hate the sin?' Its the very same concept. I am friends with wiccans (mostly the really hot ones lol), jews, a muslim, hell, even CATHOLICS!!!
And yet I hate everything about the beliefs, and they hate my lack thereof, but at the end of the day we agree to disagree.

I love that phrase. I wonder what would happen if two people one day disagreed to disagree....