To the Anti-Religious

[PureX]

I share his irritation.

From my perspective (I do not wish to speak for him as well), it irritates me when people find fault in something that has been proven time and time again simply because they think its their job or their right to find fault with it, no matter how idiotic they sound in doing so. I don't know if you've seen the Noah's Ark thread, but it has caused me to become stupider as well. Slightly off topic, but its also amusing to see my posts ignored because they cannot be responded to using biblical nonsense. As i have keen interest in science and now, 2 years practical experience in geology, it annoys the hell out of me to see people reciprocate nonsense time and time again which is ignorant of geology, but claims superioirity over it.

But what takes the cake is people who will defend idiocy, and claim its someones right to be ignorant and stupid about science, whilst at the same time, the ignorant rip science to shreds as best they can. Religion does itself no favours by producing ******* idiots who make themselves look stupid by attacking natural concepts they do not understand.

It's real easy to just sit there and name-call, and ridicule. Other people's views always look silly when they're different from ours, because we're all biased.

I've spent years discussing and arguing with religious fundamentalists who in the end I believe had no faith at all in their religion, and so had to compensate with absolute blind allegiance. Their religion was mostly idiotic, fear-driven nonsense to me, but to them, it was all they had. It was the heart of their culture, and to leave it meant being shunned by family and community. I had no "skin" in the game, and nothing to lose. They had everything to lose.

I have noticed that a lot of the atheists around here have that same kind of blind worship of science. They wrongly think it's some sort of panacea against wrong-headedness, and it's not. Science is soulless. It has no art. It has no narrative that people can place themselves in and feel part of the whole story. It has no spirit that people can interact or commune with. And people need these things. You need these things, or you will come to need them as you get older. There is way more to life than just causes and effects. There is way more to life than being "right". And there is way more to truth than objective skepticism can ever even begin to illuminate.

That frustration you feel is just your ego trying to tell you that you're "right" while it feels threatened. But if our egos had their way, none of us would ever learn anything new, because we'd all be sitting around wallowing in how "right" we already are.

Religions have all kinds of great ideas and practices to offer us. So why are you only focussed on it's flaws? Really ask yourself that question.

 

[darkendless]

It's real easy to just sit there and name-call, and ridicule. Other people's views always look silly when they're different from ours, because we're all biased.

Tell me you don't get annoyed when you have to repeat yourself 20 times to get a concept accross?

I've spent years discussing and arguing with religious fundamentalists who in the end I believe had no faith at all in their religion, and so had to compensate with absolute blind allegiance. Their religion was mostly idiotic, fear-driven nonsense to me, but to them, it was all they had. It was the heart of their culture, and to leave it meant being shunned by family and community. I had no "skin" in the game, and nothing to lose. They had everything to lose.

My dis-taste for religion stems from the facts you speak of. I cannot grasp why people choose to follow in fear. Perhaps i have been programmed to think a certain way?

I have noticed that a lot of the atheists around here have that same kind of blind worship of science. They wrongly think it's some sort of panacea against wrong-headedness, and it's not. Science is soulless. It has no art. It has no narrative that people can place themselves in and feel part of the whole story. It has no spirit that people can interact or commune with. And people need these things. You need these things, or you will come to need them as you get older. There is way more to life than just causes and effects. There is way more to life than being "right". And there is way more to truth than objective skepticism can ever even begin to illuminate.

As far as im concerned my art is the beauty of knowing I havn't wasted years of my life and hundreds of hours to be incompetent. I work in the earth, sometimes up to 50m down. The real beauty often lies within. Its amazing to be able to shear straight through the earth and see millions of years of sedimentation. Maybe i'm crazy, but i still get excited by large scale excavations.

That frustration you feel is just your ego trying to tell you that you're "right" while it feels threatened. But if our egos had their way, none of us would ever learn anything new, because we'd all be sitting around wallowing in how "right" we already are.

I don't stand in a hole in 35 degree (c) heat all day to let my ego dominate. I tell things how they are when it comes to science because in my field, if im wrong, people will and have died in the past. My ego has nothing to do with it. There is no margin for error because people can and will destroy your life is you stuff their projects up. As bad as it sounds its true.

Religions have all kinds of great ideas and practices to offer us. So why are you only focussed on it's flaws? Really ask yourself that question.

Same can be said to you. Why ignore the flaws? Just because i find the bible pointless it doesn't mean im a silly athiest. I tried, i really did, but theres nothing in it for me.

I'd be horrified to be grouped as a "science-believing atheist" because i loathe those who blab about what they don't understand. I learnt very quickly as a university student to speak your mind and speak the truth. There are always people smarter than you and they will catch you out if you BS.

 

[themadhair]

I'm not "equivocating".

A clearcut example of you, yet again, performing just such an equivocation:
”The world around us according to whom? You have your idea about what reality is, and so does everyone else. Yet it's clear that we are not all conceptualizing it in the same way. So are you just refusing to recognize anyone else's concept of reality if it disagrees with yours?”
I do not know why you appear unable to differentiate between ‘reality’ and ‘perceptions/concepts of reality’, or why you continue this equivocation when it has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

I'm simply pointing out to you that NONE OF US has a full and accurate perception of realty.

You are not simply pointed this out. To quote myself – “ It irritates me when people argue that nothing can be known while attempting to present an idea . ” But feel free to pursue this irrelevant line if it makes you feel better.

And it's very likely that YOUR concept of reality is no more accurate than anyone else's, including mine. And all the insults and ridicule you can sling won't change that.

Kindly point out where my concept of reality is flawed and inferior to your concept. You are all for trial and error right? Why not start applying what you have been trying to shoe-horn into this discussion?
And dude – my last post did not insult you once. Attacking your ideas is not insulting you unless you consider the very act of applying logic and reason to be offensive. And if that is the case then it’s your cross to bear.

What I am doing is reminding you that the "only game in town" is hopelessly flawed, and that you might not want to put so much emphasis on it. In fact, we do have some other tools, and they do work each in their own way.

Not only do you completely fail to point out where such is “hopelessly flawed”, but you completely fail to demonstrate any alternative tool. Remember that the trial and error you previously attempted to champion is inherently an empirical methodology. And yet, the very foundation of your new-found champion is “hopelessly flawed”. It is points like this where it becomes clear that you really haven’t thought any of this through.

There were no deficiencies in the analogy. I was simply using the term science in it's broad context, which I posted. But you're in such a hurry to ridicule me that you just ignored all that so you could shout "hypocrite!"

A quick recap:
1) You attempt to draw parallels with science (you have used both gravity and evolution as your examples so you are lying when you claim to be using it in it’s broad context) and you theology. This was an attempt to strengthen your theology.
2) The glaring flaw, namely that the rigour demanded by science is not present in your theology, is pointed out to you.
3) You then attempt to defend the analogy by arguing that your theology is not subject to the rigours of science – practically shredding your own analogy in the process.
4) You then accuse us of “science worship”.

For you to reference a tool as a support for your argument, only to later accuse others of worshipping that tool, is hypocritical, and I stand by the charge that you are hypocrite for doing so. That you will ignore this context does not render the observation of hypocrisy an insult.

 

[themadhair]

It wasn't intended to.

Then you have no reason to continue using this flawed argument given that you now recognise its deficiencies.

I was simply pointing out that you and the theists are using the same flawed set of tools to establish what true reality is. Therefor, you are as likely to be wrong as they are.

You were not simply pointing this out. This is simply the position you have been forced to retreat to after getting called out for falsely analogising to science and workability. The difference between you and I is that I am applying tools like logic, like reason and like trial and error. You have championed trial and error already in this thread so you clearly think it works – but you will not apply it to your own theology. Arguing that two conceptions are equally likely, when you are refusing to apply the best analysis tools we have available to one of them, is straight up bs. To quote myself – “It irritates me when people argue that nothing can be known while attempting to present an idea .”

No one is "attacking" you.

Never said you were. I accused you of attacking logic and science due to an inability on your part to substantiate your theology.

We have trial and error.

You do not apply it. When you have an idea and it doesn’t work in some cases you have to revise the idea. You do not do this so you are not applying trial and error.

We have acting on faith.

IIHS has been roundly hammered at this point.

We have the surrender of control.

This isn’t a tool for acquiring knowledge. It is a tool for being indoctrinated or swallowing falsehoods wholesale perhaps, but not for acquiring knowledge. I note that you have not demonstrating this apparent tool either.

We have the practice of paradox, where you lead by following, learn by unlearning, etc.

Learning from others, revisiting earlier assumptions, etc. isn’t paradox. It is something a healthy person does on a constant basis. But this seems to have little to do with demonstrating an effective tool for determining the accuracy of your theology which seems to be that nagging question you are avoiding.

Religions offer a lot of these kinds of psychological/spiritual tools that work for people.

I’ve already answered this, frankly, vacuous quantifier.

You just have never tried them, so you think they don't exist.

Maybe if you read my posts you would know that I have. I, through using that tiral and error thingy that is so foreign to you, discovered their falsity.

Maybe if you stop slinging insults and try asking some polite questions, you'd learn more.

Maybe if you stopped equating attacking and idea with attacking a person, and maybe if you started offering reasonable argumentation and maybe if you addressed the criticisms being levelled at your ideas we would all learn something. Just saying.

That's because you can't seem to ever accept that from a human's perspective, everything is relative. Things are both alike and different, simultaneously, relative to the criteria one is choosing to make the determination.

How does this defend the following???:
1) You: Theology is similar to evolution in terms of workability, therefore theology is workable.
2) Others: But theology doesn’t confirm to the rigor of science that guarantees that workability, it doesn’t subject itself to the level of testing that allows its workability to be determined and it doesn’t adhere to constant experimentation in search of potential flaws.
3) You: But theology isn’t science so you can’t compare the two.

I am genuinely astounded you don’t see the problem with the above.

That's one of the reasons the idea of "God" works as well as it does.

This doesn’t make any kind of sense. If two different people have two completely different concepts of god then it is pointless to equate the two. And yet you appear to be proud of doing just that??

You keep flying off to the extremes. Personal experience does not in itself prove that our concept of that experience is accurate. I agree. But as you pointed out, and so did I, it's about all we have to go on. So for us, it's stands as evidence in favor of truthfulness. And that's all I've ever claimed.

But, if you ignore where the idea has failed (for example with me), then it doesn’t count as evidence. If I claimed that when it rained in Ireland it only rained on my house, and then ignored all the rain that didn’t, is that evidence in favour of my contention? You are performing the exact same logical fallacy here by ignoring where the idea doesn’t work, where it doesn’t correspond to reality and where the idea morphs to be self-contradictory.

I wasn't presenting an "argument" intended to "win you over". All I was presenting was evidence in favor of the actuality of God.

I wasn’t presenting an argument for rain only falling on my house to win you over. All I was presenting is the evidence I have seen for rain falling only my house.

Some ideas are more realistic than others. Some "work" for the wrong reasons. I have never met one of the people you refer to. So I have to conclude that this idea didn't work very well. Otherwise, people would still be using it.

1) There are people who still not only use this, but pay substantial sums of money in order to continue doing so.
2) You have no quantifiable means of differentiate which ideas are more likely if you do not subject them to trial and error, scrutinise them, compare them with reality, etc. etc. You decreeing such doesn’t make this particular idea any less realistic than yours.
3) Some ideas ‘work’ (using your meaning of work which appears to be a very low standard) for the wrong reasons – why do you recognise this potential in other ideas but not your own?
4) Why do you conclude this idea doesn’t work very well? You admit to never having met anyone who practised it, and you were unaware that some people are still currently using it. So what basis do you have for your conclusion?
5) Can you truly differentiate between this idea and your own?

No they don't. Some folks use a hammer to pound nails in, and some folks use the hammer to pull them out. There is no contradiction, as the hammer is designed to do both.

Has the traits and qualities of the hammer changed? No? See why you analogy is flawed since your god concept does change its traits and qualities?

And anyway, there is nothing wrong with contradictions.

Spotting the presence of contradictions is one of the most reliable methodologies we have of determining fact from fiction. But feel free to ignore this.

I see that YOU are having a lot of trouble grasping an idea that is dynamic.

To illustrate the ridiculous of this idea:
Man 1: A widget is a device used for shooting vermin.
Man 2: You’ll probably need a gun licence for that.
Man 1: No I won’t because it cannot be used as a gun.
Man 2: ?????
Man 1: I see that you are having a lot of trouble grasping an idea that is dynamic.

I determine fact from fiction the same way you do. By trial and error.

Protip: When you ignore the errors and contradictions you are not doing the same as I/

You're the one slinging the insults. I'm just asking why.

I have not insulted once. You seem unable to understand that attacking an idea is no the same as insulting someone. You also appear unable to understand that an observation (specifically your hypocrisy regarding science) is not an insult when it is backed up relevant context to establish it. But continue filling your boots.

So basically, you're irritated by anyone who perceives the world differently from you, and dares to express those differences.

No. I’m irritated when someone commits the offences I’ve listed. It also irritates me when people are determined to perceive everything as an insult when confronted with frank debate on their ideas.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

PureX: Could you explain the difference between an idea that is "dynamic" and one that is incomplete or poorly thought out.

 

[Commoner]

It's real easy to just sit there and name-call, and ridicule. Other people's views always look silly when they're different from ours, because we're all biased.

Or your views are silly. You're not doing your argument any favours with this "the whole world is against me" nonsense.

I've spent years discussing and arguing with religious fundamentalists who in the end I believe had no faith at all in their religion, and so had to compensate with absolute blind allegiance. Their religion was mostly idiotic, fear-driven nonsense to me, but to them, it was all they had. It was the heart of their culture, and to leave it meant being shunned by family and community. I had no "skin" in the game, and nothing to lose. They had everything to lose.

Maybe you should consider that you're in the same position now. You might not have an allegiance to a single religion, but you seem to be religiously holding on to your ideas as if your life depended on them. They might have had everything to lose, but they also had a lot to gain if they gave up their irrational beliefs.

I have noticed that a lot of the atheists around here have that same kind of blind worship of science. They wrongly think it's some sort of panacea against wrong-headedness, and it's not. Science is soulless. It has no art. It has no narrative that people can place themselves in and feel part of the whole story. It has no spirit that people can interact or commune with. And people need these things. You need these things, or you will come to need them as you get older. There is way more to life than just causes and effects. There is way more to life than being "right". And there is way more to truth than objective skepticism can ever even begin to illuminate.

I find great joy in art and I'm a bit baffled that you think you need the supernatural to find beauty in the world. That's completely false and it has nothing to do with science.

That frustration you feel is just your ego trying to tell you that you're "right" while it feels threatened. But if our egos had their way, none of us would ever learn anything new, because we'd all be sitting around wallowing in how "right" we already are. Religions have all kinds of great ideas and practices to offer us. So why are you only focussed on it's flaws? Really ask yourself that question.

I'm sure a lot of fiction has a lot of great ideas. There is only one flaw in religion - it teaches the fiction as truth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is only one flaw in religion - it teaches the fiction as truth.

I applaud your certitude and envy your youth. :yes:

 

[PureX]

PureX: Could you explain the difference between an idea that is "dynamic" and one that is incomplete or poorly thought out.

Sure, an idea that is dynamic can be used for multiple purposes. For example, if we accept that the reality of "God" is always going to remain somewhat beyond our grasp, then we are free to insert whatever images, personalities, characteristics, etc., we wish. And we can do so consciously. We don't have to pretend that whatever images, personalities, characteristics, or whatever we imbue God with are really God's. All that matters is that we choose these carefully, each according to his needs, so that through practiced (religious) interaction with this concept of "God" we and our lives can be improved.

A person who has a problem with anger may choose to imbue "God" with a very patient spirit, and so find it easier to desire, pray for, and find patience in his life, when needed. Another person may have difficulty with being honest, and so may choose to imbue his idea of God with a very strict code for human behavior that punishes dishonesty harshly. And thus use this image of God to keep himself honest. There are endless examples of how we can create an idea of God that can help us be better people, and to be healthier and happier people. We don't know if any of our inventions regarding "God" are accurate, but that's exactly WHY we're able to fill in these blanks, ourselves. And accuracy isn't what matters. What matters is the health and well being of the people who are using the idea.

This is why it's claimed so often that "God is love". If God is an expression of love, then God will not care how we choose to imagine (him), but will instead care more about how our image of (him) effects our well-being.

I have changed my concept of God many times in my life, and have now come to a point where it can change immediately, as needed. I hold various images of "God" in my head, and use whichever one works best in a given circumstance.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"I have changed my concept of God many times in my life, and have now come to a point where it can change immediately, as needed. I hold various images of "God" in my head, and use whichever one works best in a given circumstance."

IOW "god" means whatever you decide it means at any given moment w/o regard to what it meant before.

There is a name for this kind of "thinking" but for fear of offending you . . . .

 

[Commoner]

I applaud your certitude and envy your youth. :yes:

How many religions do you follow? One? Are the other 9.999 religions also "telling the truth"?

 

[PureX]

I find great joy in art and I'm a bit baffled that you think you need the supernatural to find beauty in the world. That's completely false and it has nothing to do with science.

I'm sure a lot of fiction has a lot of great ideas. There is only one flaw in religion - it teaches the fiction as truth.

Fiction often illuminates the truth far better than science. And anyway, the truth is way over-rated. Most of the people I have met in my life who claimed they placed such a high priority on truth were really just petty egoists who had to be "right" all the time.

First of all, as human beings we aren't ever going to get "the truth". Being honest is about the best we can do. And secondly, there are more valuable and important things in life besides the truth. I mostly don't buy it when people tell me how much they value truth. Mostly it's BS.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Science is soulless. It has no art. It has no narrative that people can place themselves in and feel part of the whole story. It has no spirit that people can interact or commune with. And people need these things. You need these things, or you will come to need them as you get older. There is way more to life than just causes and effects. There is way more to life than being "right". And there is way more to truth than objective skepticism can ever even begin to illuminate."

Frankly Son, speak for yourself.

I out grew fairy tales when I was 9, nigh on to 60 yrs ago. I have never looked back. Nor felt the need to.

 

[PureX]

Tell me you don't get annoyed when you have to repeat yourself 20 times to get a concept accross?

Of course. But that's still MY problem. I need to figure out why I can't either speak (write) more clearly, or walk away.

My dis-taste for religion stems from the facts you speak of. I cannot grasp why people choose to follow in fear. Perhaps i have been programmed to think a certain way?

I feel the same way. But we'll both be better men when we CAN understand those folks. And that won't happen if all we focus on is how bizarrely wrong we think they are.

As far as im concerned my art is the beauty of knowing I havn't wasted years of my life and hundreds of hours to be incompetent. I work in the earth, sometimes up to 50m down. The real beauty often lies within. Its amazing to be able to shear straight through the earth and see millions of years of sedimentation. Maybe i'm crazy, but i still get excited by large scale excavations.

Science is at it's best when it's being presented to us by an artist or a priest. That's because science by itself is soulless. It needs a shaman to give it magic, again.

Same can be said to you. Why ignore the flaws? Just because i find the bible pointless it doesn't mean im a silly athiest. I tried, i really did, but theres nothing in it for me.

I agree. The bible has some great stories, and they teach good and useful lessons. But I've read them and heard them many times, now. And like anything we use all the time, it kind of goes flat after a while. So I look for that divine spirit elsewhere.

I'd be horrified to be grouped as a "science-believing atheist" because i loathe those who blab about what they don't understand. I learnt very quickly as a university student to speak your mind and speak the truth. There are always people smarter than you and they will catch you out if you BS.

Keep in mind, though, that what we think is the truth, may well not be. That's why I say that honesty is the best we can do. And it's why we shouldn't imagine that science is some sort of cure for our bias and ignorance. It's not.

 

[PureX]

How many religions do you follow? One? Are the other 9.999 religions also "telling the truth"?

The truth is what is. If a religion works for people, helps them to be healthier and happier human beings, that's about the best they can hope for. I don't follow any particular religion. I just use whatever practices and ideas I find that I think can help me.

 

[PureX]

IOW "god" means whatever you decide it means at any given moment w/o regard to what it meant before.

Of course. I know that "God" is an idea. And it's MY idea. I'm in charge of it, and I can define it any way I choose. I can do this because none of us knows if or in what way God ACTUALLY exists. It turns out that God's greatest gift to me is the fact that he's "invisible" (incomprehensible). It's through this incomprehensibility that the idea becomes so dynamic. And so useful.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

pureX isn't making sense.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Of course. I know that "God" is an idea. And it's MY idea. I'm in charge of it, and I can define it any way I choose. I can do this because none of us knows if or in what way God ACTUALLY exists. It turns out that God's greatest gift to me is the fact that he's "invisible" (incomprehensible). It's through this incomprehensibility that the idea becomes so dynamic. And so useful.

So you don't know if God exists, but you're adamant God gives you great gifts? I think I speak for a few others when I exclaim: What the Hell!?

 

[Commoner]

Science is at it's best when it's being presented to us by an artist or a priest. That's because science by itself is soulless. It needs a shaman to give it magic, again.

What the hell?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

s-e-l-f d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n

 

[PureX]

So you don't know if God exists, but you're adamant God gives you great gifts? I think I speak for a few others when I exclaim: What the Hell!?

So you don't know that God doesn't exist, yet your adamant that everyone else's God is BS.