To the Anti-Religious

[Breathe]

There was a time when 99% or so of the planet thought the earth was flat, too.....

Cheers

And this proves what exactly?
That you're attempting to justify intolerance.

 

[Dunemeister]

But this would be a useless expression relative to actuality, as no two anythings are exactly the same as two anything else's. If they were exactly the same things, they would BE the same things, and 2 would =2, but not 4. Reality looks more like this: "A" & "B" + "C" & "D" = "A, B, C, & D"

I don't know how to make this simpler. Mathematics says that two expressions "2 +2" and "4" are identical numerical values. They mean exactly the same thing. One reduces to the other. I fail to see how this is "useless...relative to actuality." Two apples added to two apples (2 + 2) is identical with (=) four apples (4). It seems silly to have to make an argument here (but I suppose needs must).

 

[PureX]

I don't know how to make this simpler. Mathematics says that two expressions "2 +2" and "4" are identical numerical values. They mean exactly the same thing.

I understand. But this does not occur in reality. It is theoretically perfect, but is actually useless.

I fail to see how this is "useless...relative to actuality." Two apples added to two apples (2 + 2) is identical with (=) four apples (4).

Only if you are ignoring all the ways that each of these apples ARE NOT ALIKE. They DO NOT REDUCE TO THE SAME IDENTICAL APPLE, nor they reduce to the same identical four apples. Each apple is a different apple, and is NOT EQUAL to any other apple.

It seems silly to have to make an argument here (but I suppose needs must).

I think it's important that we understand that the mathematical perfection that we take for granted is an illusion. It does not ACTUALLY exist.

 

[Tiapan]

And this proves what exactly?
That you're attempting to justify intolerance.

No not at all. Just pointing out, that just because 85% of people believe something, does not always make it correct.

 

[Breathe]

No not at all. Just pointing out, that just because 85% of people believe something, does not always make it correct.

That's good that you don't.

I don't dispute that just because 85% of people believe something means it's correct (or true) though. That would be a case of argumentum ad populum, wouldn't it?

However, what I do dispute is the way he can so casually say he will give people some hassle simply for believing differently. When people start interfering with politics and stuff though because of their religion (or lack of) and when they start forcing it on other people, then it's when they should have some hassle thrown their way (but it should really be on what they're trying to do, in my view). I'm a big fan of secular laws - favouring neither atheism nor religion.

 

[Dunemeister]

Perhaps this genetically inherited trait, in actuality, may cause a tendency to develop mental disorders such as schizophrenia, and god-belief is simply a milder case. This makes far more sense from an evolutionary perspective. Although, it makes even more sense that no such gene exists, and god-belief is the result of cultural conditioning.

That's possible.

 

[Dunemeister]

I understand. But this does not occur in reality. It is theoretically perfect, but is actually useless.

Tell that to an accountant (or anyone else making a budget or taking inventories).

Only if you are ignoring all the ways that each of these apples ARE NOT ALIKE. They DO NOT REDUCE TO THE SAME IDENTICAL APPLE, nor they reduce to the same identical four apples. Each apple is a different apple, and is NOT EQUAL to any other apple.

That's not implied by the mathematics. It implies that the numerical values on either side of the equal sign are identical.

I think it's important that we understand that the mathematical perfection that we take for granted is an illusion. It does not ACTUALLY exist.

No, it's merely only about numbers, not physical objects.

 

[PureX]

Tell that to an accountant (or anyone else making a budget or taking inventories).

Mathematics works for the accountant, and for the rest of us most of the time because when we ignore it's inaccuracies, we do not notice the consequences. The ways that apples differ are inconsequential to us. So the "equivilancy" being wrongly implied by the mathematics "works" for us anyway, in most cases.

But when we get to the quantum level of existence, everything is so small that the tiny differences between things become enormous, and the effects of these differences can no longer be ignored. This is why mathematics becomes an exercise in probabilities at the quantum level.

That's not implied by the mathematics. It implies that the numerical values on either side of the equal sign are identical.

Exactly, and this is why the math is basically wrong, except as an ideal exercise.

No, it's merely only about numbers, not physical objects.

But actuality is physical.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

You seem to be saying that a belief is warranted only if it is (perhaps only in principle) verifiable.
I would have thought that so foundational as be implicitly understood.
The baby isn't learning to trust her perceptual and cognitive apparatus. This is just their normal development. (Besides, do babies even have beliefs?)
This is simply not true. And I strongly suspect you KNOW it is not true. The entire period of infancy contains MOST of the learning we do. And it is so foundational that we simply take it for granted once learned. As you mentioned early. You don’t question your perception you take for granted. And WHY? Cause it has been proven to largely correct since you were infant. And you bet babies have beliefs. You sound like someone who never gotten up at 0300 to change a crying baby. They absolutely believe that if they make enough noise something good will happen. It took but a few weeks for THAT lesson to sink in. BTW, my cats have beliefs. Springing from the exact same process.
You can't verify my belief by any means whatsoever. Yet it's warranted for me (whether it is for you is debatable

Not me personally but any competent audiologist can in minutes. Provided you are willing to engage honestly in the effort. (And THERE is where the process may indeed break down.)

As for my skipping over your earlier example I noted they all had the SAME defect. To take your banana example you must certainly DO (or could quickly obtain) evidence to verify what you had. You can check the # of bananas in the fridge, you can examine the breakfast dishes, or you can check the trash for banana peelings. You could even have your stomach pumped. Your memory can indeed be verified by you are anyone who cares to go to the effort. You don’t do any of those things because your experience has taught you that your memory is pretty good about such things and you willing to accept it at face value. But that is something you have LEARNED by a process of trail and error. A process that continues even today.

Or maybe not.

 

[Vile Atheist]

In other words, you're an awful intolerant person?

If condemning pedophilia, defence of pedophilia, genocide, defence of genocide, corruption, irrationality, infanticide, worship of a megalomanical dictator, etc, etc makes me intolerant, then yeah...I deserve the moniker.

Remember, I'm not "intolerant" of religion because I believe the beliefs to be inherently stupid (though that does sort of help), I'm "intolerant of religion" because of all the aforementioned dumps on human dignity. So in the same way I'm intolerant of murder, I'm intolerant of religion.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

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?

I would have thought that the distinction was SO obvious that no one NEED comment on it. Apparently I am in error. Severe error. So of us claim - at least - to imagine that a vision of Athena smiting the Trojans on the plains of Troy is the equivalent of conceiving the idea of the double helix.

The fact that the double helix can be independently verified by anyone with the tools and skills to do the work is - irrelevant(?)

 

[Vile Atheist]

There are many religious organisations that are intolerant, certainly, but there are large groups of followers for each organisation that are not intolerant. You can't presume every theist's opinion on this matter.

The theist themself may be a "good person". And while I obviously have to generalize, a theist usually gets their religious opinions from their religious leader, be it priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, Popes, etc, etc. And these people look to their bigoted scriptures for answers to today's problems.

And that theist starts to think "Well, they must know more about God than me. I agree with them that homosexuality is wrong and is doing society a world of damage." Sure, they go out to soup kitchens, but then when they get into the political vote, major progressive changes are hampered - like gay marriage, euthanasia, stem cell research, abortion. And when their son comes to them and says "Mom, dad. I'm gay." What then? You think they are going to be tolerant of it? Honestly, do you?

I have no qualms with the people infected by the poison of religion, my qualms is with the ideas themselves and the people who profit off spreading that poison.

 

[Breathe]

If condemning pedophilia, defence of pedophilia, genocide, defence of genocide, corruption, irrationality, infanticide, worship of a megalomanical dictator, etc, etc makes me intolerant, then yeah...I deserve the moniker.

Remember, I'm not "intolerant" of religion because I believe the beliefs to be inherently stupid (though that does sort of help), I'm "intolerant of religion" because of all the aforementioned dumps on human dignity. So in the same way I'm intolerant of murder, I'm intolerant of religion.

Not all religious people do those though, in fact, I'd say 99.999999% of people don't. Bashing the old lady down the street because she's a Christian, for example, would show how awful a person you are.

Perhaps you should spend less time around fundies and more time around those who aren't literalists and view such things as metaphors. Story of Noah? Ice Age ending. Sodom and Gomorrah? A lesson against selfishness (new theories suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah may in fact be a story about the shepherds when they went into the cities and were treated with contempt, and how people wouldn't share with them - though I suppose this is lost on you)

Although to be intolerant of 85% of the world says a lot about you. Like you need to calm yourself down, stop taking things so literal, and chill out. Peace.

 

[Vile Atheist]

There are also many human organizations that are not religious, but are still very intolerant. So I see no direct correlation between religion and intolerance. I think human beings are intolerant. Their religion or lack of it seems to be irrelevant to their inclination to tolerate other people's differences.

Good people will do good things with or without religion. Bad people will do bad things with or without religion. The difference is, religion gives them sufficient justification to commit their atrocities and bigotry while atheism does not. Atheism allows no quarter for that. You need to stand by reason, logic, and evidence. If you can't defend those, then you are condemned by others.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

CM:

The system won't let me add frubals but you are on my 'owe you one list.'

And if rejecting medieval superstition and loudly and often naming it such is intolerant then color me intolerant. Loudly and proudly so.:shout

 

[Vile Atheist]

No, it isn't, and saying it is only serves to illustrate your irrationality and trivialize the suffering of those who have actually experienced it. Religion can, of course, be used as a tool of child abuse, but so can stoves. I do not presume to say you weren't abused religiously, but if you were, the fault lies with your abusers, not their implements.

As for your "immense psychological damage," may I ask what your diagnoses are? My abuse left me with PTSD, Schizo-Affective Disorder (learned paranoia), and Sleep Terror Disorder, from which I have thankfully recovered.

Not really. In Catholicism the fear of Hell has always been used to try and get kids to "do good". It's even worse in Protestant sects. Look up "Hell Houses" and tell me that isn't child abuse. It's absolutely disgusting that humanity needs to be threatened by a celestial overlord with an eternity of agony before they are inspired to do good.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Not all religious people do those though, in fact, I'd say 99.999999% of people don't. Bashing the old lady down the street because she's a Christian, for example, would show how awful a person you are."

If someone actually believes that they are viewing the religious population thru a very small key hole indeed.

According to the last numbers I read Pat Robertson reaches 6 million people every day. And my personal experience gives me no reason to doubt it.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Not all religious people do those though, in fact, I'd say 99.999999% of people don't. Bashing the old lady down the street because she's a Christian, for example, would show how awful a person you are.

Perhaps you should spend less time around fundies and more time around those who aren't literalists and view such things as metaphors. Story of Noah? Ice Age ending. Sodom and Gomorrah? A lesson against selfishness (new theories suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah may in fact be a story about the shepherds when they went into the cities and were treated with contempt, and how people wouldn't share with them - though I suppose this is lost on you)

Although to be intolerant of 85% of the world says a lot about you. Like you need to calm yourself down, stop taking things so literal, and chill out. Peace.

You miss the point. There is little difference between that old Christian lady's beliefs and the extremist who wants to bomb the abortion clinic down the road. The difference is willingness to act. That old lady believes pretty much exactly the same things, if not 99.99999999999999999999999999999% (as you put it).

I would never bash someone because they are a Christian. I would bash someone if their personal beliefs support the death and misery of humans. It just so happens that Christianity does that quite well.

It isn't about taking things literally or figuratively. You miss the point.

My mother, for example, is a devout Catholic and agrees with the Pope on everything. He declares contraception use is a sin. This means that millions of Africans should die, in his books, because condoms are one of the best, most effective and cost-effective ways of lowering the AIDS rate in Africa. His reason? He doesn't want the world to be so promiscuous. Are you kidding me?

My mother agrees with this man that millions should die because they have different views on sex than the Catholic Church. And while my mother would not go to Africa and personally murder a million of them, she supports this endeavour because she doesn't have the moral and mental fortitude to think about the consequences of accepting a moral position and holding it relentlessly and blindly. THIS is the danger I seek to combat.

 

[Vile Atheist]

"Regardless of it is is a moderate or extremist".
I've met many a moderate theist from the Abrahamic religions who don't have a problem with homosexuality. I've some who do, but why on earth should you give those who don't go around being nasty to homosexuals a hard time because they have faith? Hell, I've met people who are religious who are gay. Talk about being nasty from both sides!

Intolerance is intolerance, and in this case the poster has shown intolerance to theists. Considering about 85% or so of the planet is considered theist, then this person has some real issues.


Agreed.

Again, you miss the point. I am not intolerant to theists, I'm intolerant to the ideas they hold because they promote misery and death.

While you point out one or two people are are both homosexual and religious, I can point to you nations full of people who would want to have them executed for being such. And many, many more who wouldn't consider them to be religious.

You want me to back this point up? I challenge you, then. I want you to go to the Catholic DIR and post the question: Would you consider a homosexual a Catholic if they professed their beliefs as such? If so, do you consider this to be a sin?

See all the answers you get. I bet you'll get something along the lines of (in order to hide their homophobia [and you accuse ME of intolerance lmao]) "The Catholic laypeople and the Pope have to be in communion. So if the Pope declares homosexuality to be a sin, then we cannot accept homosexuality."

I'm stupified by how you have people like Fred Phelps yelling "God hates ****!" the Catholic Church's rampant homophobia and sexism...and accuse me of intolerance for not wanting that on the planet I reside on. Sorry, that just doesn't fly.

 

[Breathe]

You miss the point. There is little difference between that old Christian lady's beliefs and the extremist who wants to bomb the abortion clinic down the road. The difference is willingness to act. That old lady believes pretty much exactly the same things, if not 99.99999999999999999999999999999% (as you put it).

How do you know she is not willing to act? How do you know does not find such acts disgusting? This is your prejudice and ignorance speaking, not hers, considering you don't know her. What if she had an abortion many years ago? What on earth would you know about her before you decided to brandish her as in the same league as a Christian extremist who blows up abortion clinics?

I would never bash someone because they are a Christian.

You didn't say that earlier.

I would bash someone if their personal beliefs support the death and misery of humans. It just so happens that Christianity does that quite well.

I don't mind you bashing someone's beliefs when they support the death and misery of humans. I do mind when you bash someone's beliefs when they don't, when they don't interfere with the world at large.

It isn't about taking things literally or figuratively. You miss the point.

I disagree. You miss the point.

My mother, for example, is a devout Catholic and agrees with the Pope on everything. He declares contraception use is a sin. This means that millions of Africans should die, in his books, because condoms are one of the best, most effective and cost-effective ways of lowering the AIDS rate in Africa. His reason? He doesn't want the world to be so promiscuous. Are you kidding me?

I'm not a Catholic. I'm not even Christian. I view the Pope's actions as irresponsible and immoral and believe that he would do wise to reverse them. Therefore, your point doesn't really do much good. However, many Catholic people still use contraception regardless of the sin and stigma attached. Yet you would still insult these people, according to what you said earlier.

My mother agrees with this man that millions should die because they have different views on sex than the Catholic Church. And while my mother would not go to Africa and personally murder a million of them, she supports this endeavour because she doesn't have the moral and mental fortitude to think about the consequences of accepting a moral position and holding it relentlessly and blindly. THIS is the danger I seek to combat.

As I've said, those views debating are fine.
However, you said "moderate" or "extreme", the people themselves. I have no problem with debating and discussing their views, so long as you do it respectfully. You don't have to be "ANTI-religious", you just have to be "pro-common sense".