Finding [a New] Religion...


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
The problem with that is that this definition then permits you to make statements like "[we] all have religion in some way, shape, or form. We accept and act in particular ways because of one belief or another." That statement, as I pointed out, is errant nonsense.
If the statement is nonsense, then it would mean that it is clear that there are people who accept and act in particular ways without belief.

Nope. What makes it errant nonsense is considering those beliefs to be "religion."

If I rephrased your statement as "[we] all have cats in some way, shape, or form. We accept and act in particular ways because of one belief or another," would you consider that nonsensical?

I mean, I can simply define a "cat" as a "belief," right? Therefore, everyone owns a pet, because pets include cats and cats include beliefs.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
I, for one, believe in human rights. I recognize that this belief is outside scientific evidence. I understand that there is nothing that dispassionately demonstrates that slavery is unnatural. But I still believe that slavery is wrong, and that there is nothing that people can do to "change the rules" to make it right. Thus, human rights are part of my religion.

To an extent, I'm again forced to disagree; all we need is to agree on an endpoint (something like "maximize liberty and quality of life," or some permutation or qualification thereof), and specific strategies can then be compared as being (a) conducive to that end; (b) an impediment to it; or (c) irrelevant to it. For the endpoint I named, slavery is demonstratively an impediment, as any cursory study of history shows.

Granted, Hume demonstrated that the endpoint itself isn't objective outside of our agreement, but, again, various strategies can be objectively evaluated against it.

Right, I'm in full agreement with what you're saying. I think the crux of the difficulty is that I'm calling that religion and you're insisting it's not. So really our difficulty is one of semantics.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
Belief in gravity is not a religion (perhaps I didn't make that clear, and I apologize). Gravity is a superhuman phenomena: there is nothing we can do to change the rules of gravity. However, gravity tells us nothing about how we should act; gravity does not care. It is a belief in a superhuman phenomena, but it gives us no direction.

I find gravity tends to give me a direction, usually 'down in relation to my perspective'.

I also find your definition of 'superhuman' to be nonsensical and an obstruction in understanding.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
The problem with that is that this definition then permits you to make statements like "[we] all have religion in some way, shape, or form. We accept and act in particular ways because of one belief or another." That statement, as I pointed out, is errant nonsense.
If the statement is nonsense, then it would mean that it is clear that there are people who accept and act in particular ways without belief.

Nope. What makes it errant nonsense is considering those beliefs to be "religion."

If I rephrased your statement as "[we] all have cats in some way, shape, or form. We accept and act in particular ways because of one belief or another," would you consider that nonsensical?

I mean, I can simply define a "cat" as a "belief," right? Therefore, everyone owns a pet, because pets include cats and cats include beliefs.

With that definition of "cat," absolutely. If we disagree on the definition of cat, then we can discuss what a better definition is. But I wouldn't call what you're saying nonsense. I'd ask for clarification.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


If I rephrased your statement as "[we] all have cats in some way, shape, or form. We accept and act in particular ways because of one belief or another," would you consider that nonsensical?

I mean, I can simply define a "cat" as a "belief," right? Therefore, everyone owns a pet, because pets include cats and cats include beliefs.

With that definition of "cat," absolutely. If we disagree on the definition of cat, then we can discuss what a better definition is. But I wouldn't call what you're saying nonsense. I'd ask for clarification.

That seems a foolish waste of time. There's nothing to clarify. The word "cat" has a widely accepted meaning and I'm using the word wrongly, whether through ignorance or malice. There's also little to discuss, as we're not going to find a Golden Mean that adopts elements of my erroneous definition with your more common understanding of the word and creates a useful mixture of both.

There are times when someone is simply wrong.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


1)Now, I'll accept that atheism in and of itself is not a religion. The belief in no gods is superhuman--there are no gods, and there is nothing anyone can do or think to change that--but atheism does not necessarily result in any conclusions about how to act.

2)However, someone can be atheist and still develop a belief in superhuman phenomena that causes them to act in certain ways. A belief in human rights, for example, will cause us to have a taboo against slavery. If we believe that no one can legitimately remove the right of a person to be free, that attempts to do so go against this notion, and although it may be possible, it is evil and must be stopped. Human rights are superhuman, and they dictate action.

3)I, for one, believe in human rights. I recognize that this belief is outside scientific evidence. I understand that there is nothing that dispassionately demonstrates that slavery is unnatural. But I still believe that slavery is wrong, and that there is nothing that people can do to "change the rules" to make it right.

4)Thus, human rights are part of my religion.

1) good.

2) That is, of course, true, because the one single thing that defines atheism is the lack of religion. You can basically be and atheist and anything, as long as the thing isn't being religious. So, yes, an atheist can accept certain opinions and beliefs. She can also be stupid, or smart, or like to play the piano. That's the entire point - atheism is not a specific worldview, it's just the lack of a religion. Nothing less and nothing more.

3) But then, this is a different sort of "believing" than the one a religion requires. The word "belief", when used in the context of religion, describes one's willingness to accept the existence of the specific god the religion worships, and to accept that everything that's written in the matching holy text is true. Which means that believing, in the context of religion, is deciding that certain *facts* are true, without the minimum evidence required to ascertain them.
In the context of "believing in human rights", that just meant you think humans have rights, because it makes sense to you. But it's not a fact - it's just the way you would have preferred things to work. Sceince, or scientific evidence, has nothing to do with this, because it's a personal opinion (a popular one in the modern western world, but an opinion nonetheless. You are not trying to claim there's something inherent about humans that ensures they have their rights. It's just a way to think about the world).
Once more, I think, you are taking words out of their (I dare say obvious) original context, where they make sense, and use them in a new way to reach false conclusions. For example,

4) No, human rights are not part of anyone's religion. They are the foundation of many schools of thought, but not of religions. Because "believing in human rights" means something entirely different from "believing in Jesus", or "believing in Allah" or any other abbreviation of that statement.


Lord Snow wrote:
If this one amused you, you might really, really want to check out Tim Minchin. Let me give you a good place to start

Hmm. Thank you for the links, but, for the sake of clarity, Hank's masterpiece doesn't amuse me, it moves me to my core. Despite never having seen the light. Well, not that particular light, anyway.

Country Music Three-Fer; I'll Get to Gospel Later

The Louvin Brothers
The Flying Burrito Brothers
Wilco


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


If I rephrased your statement as "[we] all have cats in some way, shape, or form. We accept and act in particular ways because of one belief or another," would you consider that nonsensical?

I mean, I can simply define a "cat" as a "belief," right? Therefore, everyone owns a pet, because pets include cats and cats include beliefs.

With that definition of "cat," absolutely. If we disagree on the definition of cat, then we can discuss what a better definition is. But I wouldn't call what you're saying nonsense. I'd ask for clarification.

That seems a foolish waste of time. There's nothing to clarify. The word "cat" has a widely accepted meaning and I'm using the word wrongly, whether through ignorance or malice. There's also little to discuss, as we're not going to find a Golden Mean that adopts elements of my erroneous definition with your more common understanding of the word and creates a useful mixture of both.

There are times when someone is simply wrong.

The word "atheist" used to have a widely accepted meaning as "an immoral person who's going to hell," and look how far we've come.

Can we just accept that we aren't going to see eye to eye about this? Or is it absolutely necessary that I am fully discredited?

Shadow Lodge

Wrong John Silver wrote:
Or is it absolutely necessary that I am fully discredited?

Necessary? No. A reality? Yes.


Wrong John Silver wrote:


The word "atheist" used to have a widely accepted meaning as "an immoral person who's going to hell," and look how far we've come.

Nope. That's a connotation, not a denotation.

Quote:
Can we just accept that we aren't going to see eye to eye about this? Or is it absolutely necessary that I am fully discredited?

Shrug. It's not necessary that you be fully discredited; I'm doing my best to allow you not to be.


Oh, wait, are we saying that atheism =/= religion because religion = theism?

Because that's not true at all. Buddhism doesn't require theism, for example. Animism isn't theist.

I think I'm having severe trouble understanding your definition of religion.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Oh, wait, are we saying that atheism =/= religion because religion = theism?

Nope.

Quote:


I think I'm having severe trouble understanding your definition of religion.

Obviously. But I think my spoon is broken and I can't feed you any longer.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Obviously. But I think my spoon is broken and I can't feed you any longer.

Sorry, but this crosses the line, for me. I get no sense that he's trolling; just that he doesn't have a solid foundation in logic or philosophy. Correcting misconceptions is OK. Mocking ridiculous ideas that have already been discredited is OK.

Straight-up insulting another poster isn't, though.


Sometimes I'm reminded how starkly different my worldview is from others.

If atheism =/= religion and religion is different from theism, then it's possible to be both not theist and not atheist.... I suppose there's agnosticism, but that's not what all this is about...

Please, I'm going off your definitions here. Something's not adding up.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Obviously. But I think my spoon is broken and I can't feed you any longer.

Sorry, but this crosses the line, for me. I get no sense that he's trolling; just that he doesn't have a solid foundation in logic or philosophy. Correcting misconceptions is OK. Mocking ridiculous ideas that have already been discredited is OK.

Straight-up insulting another poster isn't, though.

I tend to agree. And that's saying something.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
If atheism =/= religion and religion is different from theism, then it's possible to be both not theist and not atheist.... I suppose there's agnosticism, but that's not what all this is about...

I think we can all agree that animism is a religion. If we call the kami minor gods, then there is no discrepancy; an atheist doesn't believe in gods, and doesn't believe in kami. But if one claims that kami are spirits, rather than gods, the term "atheist," to that person, would have to be widened to encompass "does not believe in gods and similar beings."

But to an atheist like me, whether you call kami "gods" or "spirits" is irrelevant, because I provisionally reject their existence anyway -- whatever you choose to call them.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Obviously. But I think my spoon is broken and I can't feed you any longer.
Sorry, but this crosses the line, for me.

<Sigh.> All right, I apologize.

The key word in both the definitions I presented is "worship." Note that neither definition requires theism (although the first correctly points out that religion is often associated with theism), and in fact, atheistic Buddhism is widely recognized as a religion precisely because it has (apparently religious) rites of adoration and veneration associated with it.

"Worship" is almost as difficult a word to define as "religion," precisely because of this issue. Many Protestants consider Catholics to be idol worshipers, for example, because of the various veneration rites associated with the cult of the saints, including specific prayers and offerings at specific ritual times. Catholics, of course, claim merely to "venerate" saints but not to "worship" them. A Martian anthropologist would probably agree with the Protestants, but,... whatever.

But an atheist typically does not engage in activities that would be recognized by that same anthropologist as worship. You can, if you like, argue about folklore -- whether leaving a saucer of milk out for the fairies is worship. That's a corner case that I suppose could go either way. Mere ritual, of course, does not constitute worship; hiding Easter Eggs or serving ham on Easter is not worshiping the Easter bunny but just a fun traditional activity.

And, again, a typical atheist doesn't leave milk out for the Little Folk, either.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
If atheism =/= religion and religion is different from theism, then it's possible to be both not theist and not atheist.... I suppose there's agnosticism, but that's not what all this is about...

I think we can all agree that animism is a religion. If we call the kami minor gods, then there is no discrepancy; an atheist doesn't believe in gods, and doesn't believe in kami. But if one claims that kami are spirits, rather than gods, the term "atheist," to that person, would have to be widened to encompass "does not believe in gods and similar beings."

But to an atheist like me, whether you call kami "gods" or "spirits" is irrelevant, because I provisionally reject their existence anyway -- whatever you choose to call them.

Right, but does your definition of atheism require the disbelief in spirits? And in so doing, does this ascribe belief in spirits to theism? Or does animism belong in a different category from theism and atheism, thus causing theism/atheism not to be a strict dichotomy?


Wrong John Silver wrote:


If atheism =/= religion and religion is different from theism, then it's possible to be both not theist and not atheist.... I suppose there's agnosticism, but that's not what all this is about...

Nope, that's not what this is about. But it is possible to be both atheist and religious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Right, but does your definition of atheism require the disbelief in spirits?

(Emphasis mine)

That's the thing: my brand of atheism is provisional, not restrictive.

I provisionally reject outlandish claims that have no evidence to support them, which makes me a skeptic first and foremost.

I see no evidence for the factual existence of the various gods of the various religions, so I provisionally reject them, as part of being skeptical.

That makes atheism a conclusion, rather than a starting point.

I also provisionally disbelieve in spirits for the same reason I provisionally disbelieve in gods, and in unicorns, and in the Easter Bunny.

Then again, if presented with strong evidence for the existence of any of these things, I'd have to re-evaluate my stance on them. Not all of them -- just the ones with evidence.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:


If atheism =/= religion and religion is different from theism, then it's possible to be both not theist and not atheist.... I suppose there's agnosticism, but that's not what all this is about...

Nope, that's not what this is about. But it is possible to be both atheist and religious.

Lord Snow wrote:
That is, of course, true, because the one single thing that defines atheism is the lack of religion.

Aha! We do have different definitions of atheism running around! Okay, that helps. That's part of my confusion here.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Right, but does your definition of atheism require the disbelief in spirits?

(Emphasis mine)

That's the thing: my brand of atheism is provisional, not restrictive.

I provisionally reject outlandish claims that have no evidence to support them, which makes me a skeptic first and foremost.

I see no evidence for the factual existence of the various gods of the various religions, so I provisionally reject them, as part of being skeptical.

That makes atheism a conclusion, rather than a starting point.

I also provisionally disbelieve in spirits for the same reason I provisionally disbelieve in gods, and in unicorns, and in the Easter Bunny.

Then again, if presented with strong evidence for the existence of any of these things, I'd have to re-evaluate my stance on them. Not all of them -- just the ones with evidence.

Isn't theism a conclusion as well? As in, interpreting the evidence gathered as demonstration of the existence of divinity? If it is impossible to conclude theism from the existing evidence, what causes that evidence to be supporting atheism?

I think the thing is that, for me, the evidence tells us nothing about the existence or lack thereof of divinity. However, the crux or religion--where the rubber hits the road, as it were--is how belief dictates our actions. The existence of divinity or not does not change what we need to know to determine how best to act, and thus, the question of divinity is immaterial and the evidence or lack thereof is of no importance.

The Exchange

Wrong John Silver wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:


If atheism =/= religion and religion is different from theism, then it's possible to be both not theist and not atheist.... I suppose there's agnosticism, but that's not what all this is about...

Nope, that's not what this is about. But it is possible to be both atheist and religious.

Lord Snow wrote:
That is, of course, true, because the one single thing that defines atheism is the lack of religion.
Aha! We do have different definitions of atheism running around! Okay, that helps. That's part of my confusion here.

Nah. I'm not a native English speaker and was not aware that theism and religion means different things. However, Orfamay's definition makes sense. It's simply adding a distinction between two kinds of faiths.

I, however, am willing to admit I was misusing the word religion there.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Right, but does your definition of atheism require the disbelief in spirits?

(Emphasis mine)

That's the thing: my brand of atheism is provisional, not restrictive.

I provisionally reject outlandish claims that have no evidence to support them, which makes me a skeptic first and foremost.

I see no evidence for the factual existence of the various gods of the various religions, so I provisionally reject them, as part of being skeptical.

That makes atheism a conclusion, rather than a starting point.

I also provisionally disbelieve in spirits for the same reason I provisionally disbelieve in gods, and in unicorns, and in the Easter Bunny.

Then again, if presented with strong evidence for the existence of any of these things, I'd have to re-evaluate my stance on them. Not all of them -- just the ones with evidence.

1)Isn't theism a conclusion as well? As in, interpreting the evidence gathered as demonstration of the existence of divinity? If it is impossible to conclude theism from the existing evidence, what causes that evidence to be supporting atheism?

2)I think the thing is that, for me, the evidence tells us nothing about the existence or lack thereof of divinity. However, the crux or religion--where the rubber hits the road, as it were--is how belief dictates our actions. The existence of divinity or not does not change what we need to know to determine how best to act, and thus, the question of divinity is immaterial and the evidence or lack thereof is of no importance.

1) No, theism is not a conclusion, because it always leans on a-priory assumptions. That's why theism and religion require faith and belief - to compensate for a lack of evidence. Atheism does not share the same problem.

2)There is a HUGE gap between believing or disbelieving in "The existence of divinity" and being religious (or, more specifically, a theist). There is no way to disprove the existence of some sort of omnipotent power invisibly controlling things in the universe. There are, however, numerous ways to show inconsistencies and logical leaps and sometimes even flat out wrong statements in any of the religions I ever heard of.


Lord Snow wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:

1)Isn't theism a conclusion as well? As in, interpreting the evidence gathered as demonstration of the existence of divinity? If it is impossible to conclude theism from the existing evidence, what causes that evidence to be supporting atheism?

2)I think the thing is that, for me, the evidence tells us nothing about the existence or lack thereof of divinity. However, the crux or religion--where the rubber hits the road, as it were--is how belief dictates our actions. The existence of divinity or not does not change what we need to know to determine how best to act, and thus, the question of divinity is immaterial and the evidence or lack thereof is of no importance.

1) No, theism is not a conclusion, because it always leans on a-priory assumptions. That's why theism and religion require faith and belief - to compensate for a lack of evidence. Atheism does not share the same problem.

2)There is a HUGE gap between believing or disbelieving in "The existence of divinity" and being religious (or, more specifically, a theist). There is no way to disprove the existence of some sort of omnipotent power invisibly controlling things in the universe. There are, however, numerous ways to show inconsistencies and logical leaps and sometimes even flat out wrong statements in any of the religions I ever heard of.

But if there is no way to disprove the existence of such a power, then atheism would have to accept belief as well. The splitting off point between theism and atheism then becomes whether one accepts skepticism or not.

Now, that's not to say that any present established religions are getting it right. I can definitely agree that there are powerful arguments against each one. But I'd argue that just because existing established religions are incomplete in understanding, that all of religion is not necessarily incomplete as well.


In before the lock.

Do opponents of atheism call it a religion as an attempt to shift the burden of proof? It puts Atheists on the defensive, and it seems to work every time.

on that note let me get defensive...

True Atheism has no characteristics of religion. No rituals, no sacred objects, no moral code based on a divine being, no prayer or code of communication, and no social group.

now one can reasonably argue Atheists exhibit all these characteristics as some congregate, some display a code of communication (trolling Christians probably) and some have weekly meet ups. Gamers also exhibit all these characteristics and is Role Playing a religion?

Using obscure examples to define Atheists as "religious" is as silly as Atheists using westburough Baptist church and other extremists as examples of mainstream Christians. That is unfair and some might find it insulting.

We do have common ground: Atheists and Christians share a bizarre martyr/victim complex. A feeling like they are outsiders and that the world is oppressing them. This mindset worries me it does not allow for healthy conversation.

As I said above I have profound respect for those who have "seen the light". I just have not seen it. And that's ok

-MD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:

1)Isn't theism a conclusion as well? As in, interpreting the evidence gathered as demonstration of the existence of divinity? If it is impossible to conclude theism from the existing evidence, what causes that evidence to be supporting atheism?

2)I think the thing is that, for me, the evidence tells us nothing about the existence or lack thereof of divinity. However, the crux or religion--where the rubber hits the road, as it were--is how belief dictates our actions. The existence of divinity or not does not change what we need to know to determine how best to act, and thus, the question of divinity is immaterial and the evidence or lack thereof is of no importance.

1) No, theism is not a conclusion, because it always leans on a-priory assumptions. That's why theism and religion require faith and belief - to compensate for a lack of evidence. Atheism does not share the same problem.

2)There is a HUGE gap between believing or disbelieving in "The existence of divinity" and being religious (or, more specifically, a theist). There is no way to disprove the existence of some sort of omnipotent power invisibly controlling things in the universe. There are, however, numerous ways to show inconsistencies and logical leaps and sometimes even flat out wrong statements in any of the religions I ever heard of.

But if there is no way to disprove the existence of such a power, then atheism would have to accept belief as well. The splitting off point between theism and atheism then becomes whether one accepts skepticism or not.

Now, that's not to say that any present established religions are getting it right. I can definitely agree that there are powerful arguments against each one. But I'd argue that just because existing established religions are incomplete in understanding, that all of religion is not necessarily incomplete as well.

There are plenty of things that are impossible to disprove that we all accept as nonsense and don't worry about having special words for not believing. Various forms of solipsism/brain-in-a-vat theories. Last-Thurdayism. The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Do we really want to argue that you have to accept belief to not believe in any of those theories?

In the strictest of theoretical senses, I'm agnostic about almost everything. I can't actually prove that the world around me really exists. Everyone in this conversation could just be robots or figments of my imagination. As a practical matter, I treat the world around me as real. I find I experience less imaginary pain that way. If I was not being extremely pedantic, as is sometimes needed in these conversations, I would not hesitate to describe it as reality and ignore all the qualifiers.
That's about where I stand with God. Except the other way around. In the strictest sense, I'm agnostic. But the level of doubt is pretty close to the level of doubt that the world was not created last Thursday or that I am perceiving something that corresponds to reality.

If you want to claim that when we can't disprove something completely, even if there's no valid evidence for it, we have to suspend judgement and admit ignorance, remember that we have to do so for everything, not just God.


I think that's the thing. I recognize that I'm closer to atheism than to any of the established religions. I honestly don't see myself as an opponent to atheism, but I'm also not an opponent to religion.

I'm not seeing this as an attempt to establish that any one belief is equivalent to any other belief. But I'm also having a hard time seeing atheism as not a belief.

Usually, I see two paths to atheism:

First, I see no evidence for the existence of divinity, and so there is none. My response is that there is also no evidence of the lack of divinity, and so the conclusion must be based on an earlier belief of whether skepticism is an appropriate response or not. It's fine to accept atheism as a conclusion to the evidence, it's a reasonable model that fits the data. However, it's not the only model that fits the data. It's just that the models of older established religions are worse fits.

The second path is essentially, religion is bad, thus I reject religion. But why is religion bad? Then I get plenty of stories and news and history demonstrate all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion, and I'll admit, I've got no problem with rejecting all of that. But is that religion? Is belief required to be these atrocities? Would a religion that prohibited atrocity be acceptable? Wouldn't a more accurate statement be "atrocities are bad, thus I reject atrocities, regardless of the reason behind them"?

I think that's where I have trouble. I reject established religions. Too many inaccuracies, too many justifications for atrocity. But I do not find that sufficient reason to embrace atheism. The evidence isn't there, and atheism doesn't prevent atrocity. I'm not seeing the allure, nor do I see it as coming solely from logic and proof via evidence.

Atheism in and of itself is not a religion. But if it's a rejection of religion, it becomes itself a religion. If the goal is to remain nonreligious, then it's necessary not to reject religion. When you see the history of humanity rift asunder through the constant picking of sides, then if we're to avoid this fate, we can't pick a side outside all the others.

We must not pick.


Wrong John Silver wrote:


Isn't theism a conclusion as well?

Sometimes. Many religions, including in particular some forms of Christianity, interpret "faith" as "belief without evidence" and thus make theism a premise instead of a conclusion. There was a good example last night in the Creationism Nye/Ham debate. Ham admitted -- stated -- that there was literally no evidence that would shake his belief in special creation. If that's not a premise, what is?

Quote:
If it is impossible to conclude theism from the existing evidence, what causes that evidence to be supporting atheism?

Occam's razor, mostly. Basically, the same system of belief that tells me there's no tiger in my house (because there's no evidence for it) instead of telling me that I don't know whether or not there's a tiger in my house.

Occam's razor works extremely well in every discipline except theology. Even in theology, it works well for gods other than yours -- few people have an issue with stating that there's no evidence for Thunor, for Osano-Wo, or for Poseidon, and therefore they don't believe in them.

If someone wants to suggest that Occam's razor works well for anything except Christian theology,... well, that's a philosophical discontinuity that needs to be justified.


Wrong John Silver wrote:


The second path is essentially, religion is bad, thus I reject religion. But why is religion bad? Then I get plenty of stories and news and history demonstrate all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion, and I'll admit, I've got no problem with rejecting all of that. But is that religion? Is belief required to be these atrocities? Would a religion that prohibited atrocity be acceptable? Wouldn't a more accurate statement be "atrocities are bad, thus I reject atrocities, regardless of the reason behind them"?

Depends on whether you think that beliefs have causal effect. When a belief causes an atrocity, I have no issue with rejecting the belief as well as the atrocity.

When you can show me a set of religious beliefs that do not and cannot cause atrocities, you might have a firmer basis for discussion.

And the fact that atheism doesn't prevent all atrocities is not an argument against atheism. It's a false equivalence of the sort that is often embraced by religious apologists. I reject, for example, putting arsenic in food because it causes death. Not-putting-arsenic-in-food will not prevent all deaths, but at least it doesn't cause any deaths itself.

Quote:


Atheism in and of itself is not a religion. But if it's a rejection of religion, it becomes itself a religion. If the goal is to remain nonreligious, then it's necessary not to reject religion. When you see the history of humanity rift asunder through the constant picking of sides, then if we're to avoid this fate, we can't pick a side outside all the others.

We must not pick.

Er, no. We can't avoid poison by refusing to eat. If we have a choice among a dozen poisoned dishes, the correct choice is to pick a dish "outside all others," not to starve to death.

And you're misusing "religion" again. Atheism does not become a religion when religion is rejected.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:


The second path is essentially, religion is bad, thus I reject religion. But why is religion bad? Then I get plenty of stories and news and history demonstrate all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion, and I'll admit, I've got no problem with rejecting all of that. But is that religion? Is belief required to be these atrocities? Would a religion that prohibited atrocity be acceptable? Wouldn't a more accurate statement be "atrocities are bad, thus I reject atrocities, regardless of the reason behind them"?

Depends on whether you think that beliefs have causal effect. When a belief causes an atrocity, I have no issue with rejecting the belief as well as the atrocity.

When you can show me a set of religious beliefs that do not and cannot cause atrocities, you might have a firmer basis for discussion.

Well, on the surface, most professed religious beliefs are specifically designed to prevent atrocities. Jainism specifically prohibits all sorts of activities that could possibly increase suffering, to the point of veganism and, ideally, preventing the inhaling of microorganisms. Plenty of religions preach for peace. That peace is good. It's when they turn around and say, well, okay, it's acceptable to slaughter and persecute them, when they start acting exclusionary, that the beliefs become a problem.

Quote:
And the fact that atheism doesn't prevent all atrocities is not an argument against atheism. It's a false equivalence of the sort that is often embraced by religious apologists. I reject, for example, putting arsenic in food because it causes death. Not-putting-arsenic-in-food will not prevent all deaths, but at least it doesn't cause any deaths itself.

No, but it's also not an argument for atheism, either. I'll agree that not putting arsenic in food is a good idea, but religion is not putting arsenic in food!

Quote:
Quote:


Atheism in and of itself is not a religion. But if it's a rejection of religion, it becomes itself a religion. If the goal is to remain nonreligious, then it's necessary not to reject religion. When you see the history of humanity rift asunder through the constant picking of sides, then if we're to avoid this fate, we can't pick a side outside all the others.

We must not pick.

Er, no. We can't avoid poison by refusing to eat. If we have a choice among a dozen poisoned dishes, the correct choice is to pick a dish "outside all others," not to starve to death.

And you're misusing "religion" again. Atheism does not become a religion when religion is rejected.

It becomes exclusionary, though, and I'm trying to prevent exclusionary tactics.

And the poisoned food is a bad argument. I don't starve if I don't pick.


OP: I like Bad Religion, does that count.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


When you can show me a set of religious beliefs that do not and cannot cause atrocities, you might have a firmer basis for discussion.

Well, on the surface, most professed religious beliefs are specifically designed to prevent atrocities.

Which is why we don't stop looking at things on the surface and dig deeper.

Quote:


Quote:
And the fact that atheism doesn't prevent all atrocities is not an argument against atheism. It's a false equivalence of the sort that is often embraced by religious apologists. I reject, for example, putting arsenic in food because it causes death. Not-putting-arsenic-in-food will not prevent all deaths, but at least it doesn't cause any deaths itself.
No, but it's also not an argument for atheism, either. I'll agree that not putting arsenic in food is a good idea, but religion is not putting arsenic in food!

Well, that's an opinion, certainly. If you're of the "religion is bad" school of thought, as you defined it, then you do believe that religion is ipso facto bad, in the same way that poisoning food is. The fact that different religions offer different forms of badness/poison does not mean that any of them actually offer goodness -- or even neutrality.

To some extent, this comes down to beliefs-from-partial-evidence again. If I've seen several examples of X and none at all of not-X, when am I permitted to believe that X? The world almost never provides definitive proof, but anyone who seriously withholds assent from the law of gravity and thinks that this bowling ball may not fall the next time it's dropped is perverse. And likely to injure himself and others.

I acknowledge that you are trying to prevent exclusionary tactics. There are, however, two issues with that. The first is that "exclusionary" is not "religious" -- when atheism becomes exclusionary and rejects all religion, it does not thereby become a religion itself.

The second is that sometimes exclusionary measures are appropriate. I exclude (as much as I can) poison in my food; I don't negotiate with poisoners to allow them to put up to a certain amount of cyanide, or to permit arsenic but not cyanide. I exclude open fires from my valuable book collection, and I'm not going to negotiate with you about whether it's any more or less harmful to set fire to them with a candle instead of a cigarette lighter. I exclude unlicensed drivers from my pizza delivery jobs.

There's not always a Golden Mean. Sometimes one side really is wrong.

The Exchange

Quote:


But if there is no way to disprove the existence of such a power, then atheism would have to accept belief as well. The splitting off point between theism and atheism then becomes whether one accepts skepticism or not.

This is a misconception. Check out the wikipedia article on Russel's Teapot.

Basically, when debating something's existence, the burden of proof lies on those who wish to prove that the thing exists.

In addition to that, it also IS possible to disprove every single religion Iv'e ever encountered. They all claim considerably more than the existence of some divine power - they claim to know the exact nature of that power.

Christianity, for example, claims that Gods created the universe in seven "days", that He is a holy trinity, and that one day He will raise the dead in judgment day to fight a last battle with the forces of evil. Among other things it claims that God created all living things in the same "week" during which He created everything. This has been disproved by the theory of evolution.

Each of the other religions can be countered in the same way. The existence or lack thereof of SOME ultimate power is falsifiable. But every specific God presented so far is.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
To some extent, this comes down to beliefs-from-partial-evidence again. If I've seen several examples of X and none at all of not-X, when am I permitted to believe that X? The world almost never provides definitive proof, but anyone who seriously withholds assent from the law of gravity and thinks that this bowling ball may not fall the next time it's dropped is perverse. And likely to injure himself and others.

But I've seen no examples of divinity and no examples of not-divinity.

Also, I've seen examples of religions doing good and examples of religions doing bad.

I've seen religious organizations feeding the hungry because of their religion. I've seen atheistic organizations feed the hungry, not for atheistic reasons. I think feeding the hungry is good. There is no reason that it has to be for religious reasons, but if it is, I'm not going to stop it.

That's part of my puzzle. I see lots of little good bits to take from many different religions. Any ideal religion would have to pick and choose from these bits and throw out the bad bits. The result may be atheist, but there's no reason why it has to be. Throwing everything out seems like such a waste.


Lord Snow wrote:
Quote:


But if there is no way to disprove the existence of such a power, then atheism would have to accept belief as well. The splitting off point between theism and atheism then becomes whether one accepts skepticism or not.

This is a misconception. Check out the wikipedia article on Russel's Teapot.

Basically, when debating something's existence, the burden of proof lies on those who wish to prove that the thing exists.

Well, that's the issue. Or an issue, anyway. A number of people claim not to accept this burden of proof. The problem is that they only refuse to accept this selectively, usually as a form of special pleading for specific beliefs. I'm willing to bet that Wrong John Silver does not put on a gas mask when he heads home at night, because he's not been able to disprove that there's a lethal amount of phosgene gas in his foyer.

Quote:


In addition to that, it also IS possible to disprove every single religion Iv'e ever encountered.

And this becomes a scientific argument against religion. Even C. S. Lewis, the theologican, acknowledged its power. "Most of the stories about God are probably false, therefore the rest are probably false."

At what point does it become perverse to withhold assent to things that are probably the case?


Wrong John Silver wrote:


I've seen religious organizations feeding the hungry because of their religion. I've seen atheistic organizations feed the hungry, not for atheistic reasons.

What's an "atheistic" reason?

Seriously. You're engaging in false equivalence again. Frankly, the notion of an atheistic organization is itself rather strange -- that's basically like a bunch of people sitting around congratulating themselves for not-collecting-stamps. But there's no reason to expect an atheistic organization to feed the hungry any more than there is to expect a bridge club to do the same thing. And I've seen lots of a-religious organizations (e.g. Oxfam, which I believe is nonreligious) feed the hungry, precisely because if you want to feed the hungry, you might as well do it through Oxfam as through your bridge club.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
First, I see no evidence for the existence of divinity, and so there is none. My response is that there is also no evidence of the lack of divinity, and so the conclusion must be based on an earlier belief of whether skepticism is an appropriate response or not. It's fine to accept atheism as a conclusion to the evidence, it's a reasonable model that fits the data. However, it's not the only model that fits the data. It's just that the models of older established religions are worse fits.

So what's your response to Russell's teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars?

No evidence for it. No disproof of it.


thejeff wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
First, I see no evidence for the existence of divinity, and so there is none. My response is that there is also no evidence of the lack of divinity, and so the conclusion must be based on an earlier belief of whether skepticism is an appropriate response or not. It's fine to accept atheism as a conclusion to the evidence, it's a reasonable model that fits the data. However, it's not the only model that fits the data. It's just that the models of older established religions are worse fits.

So what's your response to Russell's teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars?

No evidence for it. No disproof of it.

No reason to have a position about it.

The Exchange

Orfamay,
maybe it's a scientific argument against religion in the specific case of evolution vs creationism, but even with just using simple logic one can locate many inconsistencies in the stories that compose the holy texts of every religion. Further, in many cases archaeological finds ascertain the source of certain stories as very earthly - for example, the myth of Noah's Ark has roots both Sumeria and Mesopotamia, and from older sources than the Jewish bible. So, in case anyone needed another proof that without a-priory assumptions it's absurd to think that the bible is a holy text, that's another strong argument. The text is clearly derivative from other stories from other cultures, and not a divine word of a god.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
No reason to have a position about it.

Perhaps you'd feel differently if there were large, powerful groups trying to push legislation based on the existence of the teapot.

But irrespective of your feelings about the teapot, do you see why the burden of proof must rest with he who asserts the positive? Religions are mutually exclusive...it is impossible to believe them all.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:


I've seen religious organizations feeding the hungry because of their religion. I've seen atheistic organizations feed the hungry, not for atheistic reasons.

What's an "atheistic" reason?

Seriously. You're engaging in false equivalence again. Frankly, the notion of an atheistic organization is itself rather strange -- that's basically like a bunch of people sitting around congratulating themselves for not-collecting-stamps. But there's no reason to expect an atheistic organization to feed the hungry any more than there is to expect a bridge club to do the same thing. And I've seen lots of a-religious organizations (e.g. Oxfam, which I believe is nonreligious) feed the hungry, precisely because if you want to feed the hungry, you might as well do it through Oxfam as through your bridge club.

No false equivalence at all.

I was thinking about Oxfam, and they're feeding the hungry and they're not doing it because they believe in any religion, and they're not doing it because they aren't in any established religion. They're just doing it.

And you're still not addressing my point: there's no reason that you need to be religious to feed the hungry. But if they are feeding the hungry for religious reasons, why reject that?

The Exchange

Wrong John Silver wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:


I've seen religious organizations feeding the hungry because of their religion. I've seen atheistic organizations feed the hungry, not for atheistic reasons.

What's an "atheistic" reason?

Seriously. You're engaging in false equivalence again. Frankly, the notion of an atheistic organization is itself rather strange -- that's basically like a bunch of people sitting around congratulating themselves for not-collecting-stamps. But there's no reason to expect an atheistic organization to feed the hungry any more than there is to expect a bridge club to do the same thing. And I've seen lots of a-religious organizations (e.g. Oxfam, which I believe is nonreligious) feed the hungry, precisely because if you want to feed the hungry, you might as well do it through Oxfam as through your bridge club.

No false equivalence at all.

I was thinking about Oxfam, and they're feeding the hungry and they're not doing it because they believe in any religion, and they're not doing it because they aren't in any established religion. They're just doing it.

And you're still not addressing my point: there's no reason that you need to be religious to feed the hungry. But if they are feeding the hungry for religious reasons, why reject that?

It's funny, from reading your post I get the impression people either do something because they are religious and their religion dictates doing it, or "They're just doing it.".

Can't you imagine a reason, that with no reliance whatsoever on white bearded old guys in the sky looking down at us with stern expressions, would lead people to try their best to feed the hungry?


bugleyman wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
No reason to have a position about it.

Perhaps you'd feel differently if there were a large, powerful group trying to push legislation based on the existence of the teatpot.

But irrespective of your feelings about the teapot, do you see why the burden of proof must rest with he who asserts the positive? Religions are mutually exclusive...it is impossible to believe them all.

Depends on the legislation. If they're saying, "There's this teapot, so we should make sure the hungry can eat," then sure, I'll go along with it. If they're saying, "There's this teapot, so we should prevent scientific inquiry," then no, I'm not going to go along with it.

But then again, it's all completely not about the teapot. Maybe the teapot's there. Maybe not. It does not matter. What matters is the legislation.

So does the burden of proof sit with those who claim existence of the teapot? Sure, but whether the teapot exists or not, it does not change what the best legislation is.

Forget the teapot. What about the legislation? It is not important to prove that there is no teapot.


Lord Snow wrote:

It's funny, from reading your post I get the impression people either do something because they are religious and their religion dictates doing it, or "They're just doing it.".

Can't you imagine a reason, that with no reliance whatsoever on white bearded old guys in the sky looking down at us with stern expressions, would lead people to try their best to feed the hungry?

Absolutely. There are plenty of nonreligious reasons to do so. Personally, I might like to prevent hunger. Economically, I might want systems in place to feed me should I fall hungry.

But religion does not require the bearded old guy. I might believe that feeding the hungry is the right thing to do. Just because I don't believe it's because of a bearded old guy, does that make my moral belief less religious?


Lord Snow wrote:

Orfamay,

maybe it's a scientific argument against religion in the specific case of evolution vs creationism, but even with just using simple logic one can locate many inconsistencies in the stories that compose the holy texts of every religion.

Um, yes. That's kind of my point.

I hope you're not insulted by my pointing out that you're not familiar with every religious story ever told in the history of human existence, and you're highly unlikely to be familiar even with the entire subset that has been published in English. Unless you're a much better religious scholar than,... well, than anyone I've ever even heard of.

So you're overstating your case when you say that one can locate inconsistencies in "the holy texts of every religion." But that's the "science" part of the evidence. Most of the holy texts are demonstrably inconsistent, therefore the rest of the texts, including the ones that I've not read, are probably also inconsistent.

Will you ever be able to examine every religious story? Will you ever be able to examine all the religious stories that might someday be told? Of course not. But what you're doing is basic science (more formally, scientific induction) and inferring universal properties from what your sample tells you.

Wrong John Silver would point out, correctly, that this kind of inductive proof is not dispositive, that there's a chance you might draw the wrong conclusion. What he misses is that the radical anti-skepticism he suggests instead never lets us draw any conclusions about anything at all. Personally, I don't think that my car has transformed itself into a fire-breathing cheetah and run down the street while I'm in the office, and I reject that idea. I think, in fact, that it would be ridiculous not to. But apparently some people would take it seriously.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Forget the teapot. What about the legislation? It is not important to prove that there is no teapot.

Assuming you're not interest in truth for truth's sake: Teapots are harmless; religions are not.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:


I've seen religious organizations feeding the hungry because of their religion. I've seen atheistic organizations feed the hungry, not for atheistic reasons.

What's an "atheistic" reason?

Seriously. You're engaging in false equivalence again. Frankly, the notion of an atheistic organization is itself rather strange -- that's basically like a bunch of people sitting around congratulating themselves for not-collecting-stamps. But there's no reason to expect an atheistic organization to feed the hungry any more than there is to expect a bridge club to do the same thing. And I've seen lots of a-religious organizations (e.g. Oxfam, which I believe is nonreligious) feed the hungry, precisely because if you want to feed the hungry, you might as well do it through Oxfam as through your bridge club.

No false equivalence at all.

I was thinking about Oxfam, and they're feeding the hungry and they're not doing it because they believe in any religion, and they're not doing it because they aren't in any established religion. They're just doing it.

And you're still not addressing my point: there's no reason that you need to be religious to feed the hungry. But if they are feeding the hungry for religious reasons, why reject that?

I know I am about to make kind of pointless point... But the people at Oxfam make money off of their work. The people who donate to charities may or may not be motivated by faith. We don't know. I assume both. But hey, they get a tax write-off and receive a good feeling for help so there's a reason.

So nobody is really "just doing it". I figure you mean that... it just wasn't part of your point.

Also there are a number of Atheist/secularist/humanist charities. Wikipedia Secularist Orgs

Interesting thread guys.


bugleyman wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Forget the teapot. What about the legislation? It is not important to prove that there is no teapot.

Assuming you're not interest in truth for truth's sake: Teapots are harmless; religions are not.

God is harmless. Religion is not. Science is harmless. People using science to make bigger bombs are not.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Wrong John Silver would point out, correctly, that this kind of inductive proof is not dispositive, that there's a chance you might draw the wrong conclusion. What he misses is that the radical anti-skepticism he suggests instead never lets us draw any conclusions about anything at all. Personally, I don't think that my car has transformed itself into a fire-breathing cheetah and run down the street while I'm in the office, and I reject that idea. I think, in fact, that it would be ridiculous not to. But apparently some people would take it seriously.

Well, my position would be.... Will I be liable for any damages? Will the cheetah turn back into my car and I can drive safely home with it? Will my, or anyone else's, life change because of this event? No? Then I don't need an opinion about its veracity.

151 to 200 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Finding [a New] Religion... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.