TheRPGSite

I've seen maybe three threads in the Pundit's forum (a while ago mind you) and now a harmless thread about paranormal bull reduced to "d00d! Religion is teh suxxors!" From now on, instead of actually responding in an otherwise unrelated thread, I'm going to link you here. Note that while I have no problem with atheists, I do have a problem with those discourteous enough to proselytize the virtues of atheism on a GAMING FORUM. And tell me that those who share my beliefs and I are somehow ignorant by default.

However, I will gladly engage in debate in a thread clearly marked as being for such discussion.

To give some background on the discussion, some quotes:

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThere is no God and religion is a crutch for the weak minded.

Quote from: beejazzNo. It isn't. At its worst it has become an unnecessary social construct. But religion, theist or otherwise, is not a crutch for the weak minded. There are numerous Buddhists alot more strong-minded than you'll ever be. It takes a great deal of effort and study to thoroughly understand religion. Just because you are too lazy to understand your opponent does not mean you can dismiss the effort that opponent puts in.

So no. And by the way fuck you. I'd never make such broad assumptions about atheists.

Quote from: Mr.AnalyticalDude, you think I'm going to hell/not going to attain Nirvana. Get off your high horse.

Quote from: beejazzThere is no hell. Not even in the Christian faith. That's just some shitty interpretation.

So no, no hell. No high horse here, either

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYou think I'm not going to attain union with the godhead though.

People who are just generally spiritual are one thing, but if you sign up to a religion with a moral code then by definition you're setting yourself above those who don't follow it.

Quote from: beejazzUm... no. For example, if you keep living until you reach enlightenment and don't need live anymore, then you WILL attain enlightenment no matter what. You don't even technically need to be Buddhist, you just need to be in touch with yourself. This is something you can do even without knowing Buddhism exists.

As for Christianity, the core of that religion's dogma revolves around "Love thy neighbor" and "Forgive them for they know not what they do." And the latter statement isn't "haha they're so stupid" or "you're not accountable" as it is "ha... can't really fault you for not getting the ineffable... we're still cool though, right?"

RTFM.

Quote from: Mr.AnalyticalActually isn't the answer you'll both be alive and not be alive?

My point was that believing in there being something else whether that be enlightenment or the reward of being a faithful christian submissive, you're doing so with faith rather than on the basis of evidence and in response to a psychological need.

In some cases it's the inability to come to terms with life being meaningless, in other cases it's a case of wanting to know that club-footed midgets get justice in heaven, it can even be "I like this book, I'm going to buy into what it says". It's positing beliefs about the nature of the universe in response to a psychological urge rather than reason and as a result it's a form of weak mindedness. Of wanting the universe to be the way you hope it is.

The fact that this form of thinking usually comes with either the use of politics or the use of force to make people believe what you do only makes it worse.

People who are vaguely theistic I have less of a problem with because it's clear that it's just woolly-headedness or fear but if you believe that there's a moral edge to your spirituality then by definition you're judging me and the gloves are off. Doubly so if you belong to an organised religion.

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: Mr.AnalyticalMy point was that believing in there being something else whether that be enlightenment or the reward of being a faithful christian submissive, you're doing so with faith rather than on the basis of evidence and in response to a psychological need.

And is that so wrong? You can't really attribute meaning to life objectively, because objectively there is no meaning. Attributing meaning to "the sanctity of human life" or any other thing requires a leap of faith with or without religion. In the end, it is up to your subjective interpretation to decide what is or is not important. So yes, there is a psychological need for faith. No matter how objectively you observe, you can't separate the subjectivity of your motive from the objectivity of how you act on the motive. You can't separate impetus from implementation.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIn some cases it's the inability to come to terms with life being meaningless, in other cases it's a case of wanting to know that club-footed midgets get justice in heaven, it can even be "I like this book, I'm going to buy into what it says". It's positing beliefs about the nature of the universe in response to a psychological urge rather than reason and as a result it's a form of weak mindedness. Of wanting the universe to be the way you hope it is.

Um... quite to the contrary. God isn't some dude in the sky that attributes meaning to life so you don't have to. God is actually an allegorical tool used to describe some pretty heavy existencialist principles. While this bears a close resemblance to "God gives a shit so you don't have to," and sometimes actually crosses over into such dangerous territory, that is not the basis of religion.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe fact that this form of thinking usually comes with either the use of politics or the use of force to make people believe what you do only makes it worse.

Hmm... do you have any idea how many religious people there are in the world? If even a slight majority used force, humanity would be extinct now. Most of us are actually fairly civil. As for politics, that's a pretty slim minority. A majority of politicians are religious. A very slim minority of the religious are in politics.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalPeople who are vaguely theistic I have less of a problem with because it's clear that it's just woolly-headedness or fear but if you believe that there's a moral edge to your spirituality then by definition you're judging me and the gloves are off. Doubly so if you belong to an organised religion.

Well... I can't say there's any fear in my faith, and maybe I do need a haircut (though that's none of your business). As for a moral edge: d00d! No one has teh moral edge. Original sin means we all at fault! (Note: Sin is translated from the Hebrew word het, IIRC. Means "to err" or something like that. Original sin does NOT make us inherently evil or accountable for other people's sins. It's just a roundabout way of saying everybody makes mistakes. Just a preemptive chillax.)

Quote from: Dominus Nox

Quote from: RPGpunditHow did this thread become about attacking christians and not about attacking wiccans, would-be aleister crowleys, and otherkins who believe in the "elven holocaust"??

I mean fuck, I can insult christians any day of the week. I was really hoping someone was going to come on here and argue that "actually, I read Silver Ravenwolf's books on Wicca and magick really works!".

Shit. You guys are no fun.

Anyways, since it came up on here, most of the "eastern philosophy" religions actually tend to posit an inevitability of enlightenment/return to godhead. The major branch of Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, contends that eventually, inevitably, all life will attain enlightenment. No one is going to be missed from it.
The process of attaining enlightenment is the process of overcoming suffering; so the only reason to do it sooner rather than later is not because its some future temporal reward (aka heaven) or out of a fear of future punishment (aka hell), but because it deals with a process of overcoming suffering RIGHT NOW. Its about the here and now, mainly, so there's no need to exclude anyone from it, and no carrot-on-a-stick reason to participate in it other than because you want to, right now.

The various branches of hinduism likewise posit that sooner or later everyone achieves Liberation (be it personal or impersonal).

The only religions which need to present a division between the "saved" vs the "not saved" would be those that demand that the supposedly "saved" do a shitload of pretty irrational things or avoid doing a shitload of enjoyable things for no good reason they can explain right now, aside from a promise of some future reward/punishment.

RPGPundit

Well, Pundy, we don't attack wiccans because wiccans are not trying to force their agenda on anyone thru any means. If they were I'd be firing on them and using their pentagrams for targets.

People, or at least me, attack christians because they are trying to force their agenda on them, or me, and we will not sit quietly while they try to take away our rights to not live the way they do.

BTW, I also attack islam for the same reason, I don't discriminate, I attack antone out to force their ways on me period.

Quote from: J ArcaneMan I love pushing my agenda on things. Gives me a real hard on.

Why just this morning, I got up, had a shower, cooked some eggs, then went and forced my Christian agenda on my next door neighbor.

My day is not complete until I've gone and forced my Christian agenda on at LEAST 10 people. I keep a quota. Last week, I made it up to 59, by best record ever!

...

Oh wait, that's a lie. I don't really force myself on anyone, and I rarely even bring up my beliefs, in part because I don't believe I've fully discovered the depths of them, in part because most people don't want to hear it, and also in part because of having become utterly tired of slings of insults from people with delusions of superior intelligence.

Generalizations are a crutch for the weak minded, those terrified of the other.

Grow the fuck up. This isn't bleeding high school anymore, and the Goth movement is largely dead, and was mostly lame when it was still breathing.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalOh for fuck's sake will you god botherers get over yourselves. I bet Jesus didn't whinge half as much as you lot did when he was up on the cross.

Quote from: GRIM

Quote from: J ArcaneOh wait, that's a lie. I don't really force myself on anyone, and I rarely even bring up my beliefs, in part because I don't believe I've fully discovered the depths of them, in part because most people don't want to hear it, and also in part because of having become utterly tired of slings of insults from people with delusions of superior intelligence.

Generalizations are a crutch for the weak minded, those terrified of the other.

I'll let Mr Dawkins answer this one for me...

Ohh, and there is a VERY strong correlation between intellligence, education and increased levels of atheism, so its not wrong to infer that those who live a life without religion are, on average, better educated and more intelligent.

Anyway, Dawkins on religious moderates from a Salon article...

But don't you need to distinguish between religious extremists who kill people and moderate, peaceful religious believers?

You certainly need to distinguish them. They are very different. However, the moderate, sensible religious people you've cited make the world safe for the extremists by bringing up children -- sometimes even indoctrinating children -- to believe that faith trumps everything and by influencing society to respect faith. Now, the faith of these moderate people is in itself harmless. But the idea that faith needs to be respected is instilled into children sitting in rows in their madrasahs in the Muslim world. And they are told these things not by extremists but by decent, moderate teachers and mullahs. But when they grow up, a small minority of them remember what they were told. They remember reading their holy book, and they take it literally. They really do believe it. Now, the moderate ones don't really believe it, but they have taught children that faith is a virtue. And it only takes a minority to believe what it says in the holy book -- the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Quran, whatever it is. If you believe it's literally true, then there's scarcely any limit to the evil things you might do.

And yet most moderate religious people are appalled by the apocalyptic thinking of religious extremists.

Of course they're appalled. They're very decent, nice people. But they have no right to be appalled because, in a sense, they brought it on the world by teaching people, especially children, the virtues of unquestioned faith.

Basically the 'religious moderates' are still religious and still perpetuating the society and circumstance that gives undue respect to faith. This continuance acts as an enabler for the loopy fringe and even the moderates support, vote and act upon values and ideas that are just plain irrational

Quote from: Mr. Analytical

Quote from: BalbinusOh, and probably because I am by nature sceptical I get annoyed by po faced skeptics who give us all a bad name by writing complaining letters about the x-files on the basis that it promotes superstition (and I am not making that one up). Being sceptical is being unpersuaded you fuckwits, it's not being absolutely bloody mindedly persuaded that nothing is out there it's doubting that something is and requiring good evidence before changing your mind.

Being sceptical means not just saying that there's no evidence for something, it also means signing up to a load of philosophical beliefs about what constitutes evidence, burdens of proof and inductive and deductive forms of reasoning.

Despite being a signed up secularist and having been a member of various atheist organisations since I was 16 (though I only really became a sceptic at university), I'd be hard pressed to remember anyone who bloody-mindedly triues to convince anyone that there's nothing out there. If there's an "aggressive rationalist" position it tends to be that because of the lack of evidence, beliefs about ghosts monsters and baby jesuses are irrational at best and outright falsehoods at worse and should therefore be ignored by all. Which is a different philosophical position (and one I have considerable sympathy for).

Where I agree with you is that I have no time for the kind of PC-secularism that wants to deny religious groups access to town halls and get upset about the X-files because it encourages woolly-mindedness (which it admittedly did). That's just pettyness and resorting to the same unhelpful sniping that annoys atheists when believers do it.

In this country there's the protection of religions from equal opportunity legislation, the presence of Bishops in the house of Lords, the fact that religious people are massively over-represented in parliament and the explosion in faith schools. All of these are problems that are worth getting annoyed about. The X-files and a Sikh keep fit class for over 60's really aren't.

Speaking of which, I used to have a lecturer in moral philosophy who did his PhD under Moore and later Mackie and he HATED the X-files. He once went off on one that went on for forty minutes, ranting and raving about how the X-files were "Aliens ate my cat masquerading as open-mindedness". Was most entertaining.

Quote from: J Arcane

Quote from: GRIMAnyway, Dawkins on religious moderates from a Salon article...

Wow. This Dawkins guy is a real bigoted loon. Remind me never to invite him round to drinks.

And "god botherers"? Jesus fuck, do you even listen to yourself? You sound like an atheist Church Lady.

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalDespite being a signed up secularist and having been a member of various atheist organisations since I was 16 (though I only really became a sceptic at university), I'd be hard pressed to remember anyone who bloody-mindedly triues to convince anyone that there's nothing out there. If there's an "aggressive rationalist" position it tends to be that because of the lack of evidence, beliefs about ghosts monsters and baby jesuses are irrational at best and outright falsehoods at worse and should therefore be ignored by all. Which is a different philosophical position (and one I have considerable sympathy for).

Oh, so you're not trying to say there's nothing out there, you're just saying that anyone who believes there is is stupid by default and should be ignored or reviled. Riiiiiiight.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIn this country there's the protection of religions from equal opportunity legislation, the presence of Bishops in the house of Lords, the fact that religious people are massively over-represented in parliament and the explosion in faith schools. All of these are problems that are worth getting annoyed about. The X-files and a Sikh keep fit class for over 60's really aren't.

Bishops in the House of Lords? Okay, I'm with you on that one. I wouldn't find faith-based schools to be such a bad thing. I've been to one and, if anything, it has encouraged me to question the origin of my faith and actually analyze it from a more informed position. Of course, I also got the crap kicked out of me by older fellow-Christians, so of course I'm going to have a couple of questions. Maybe waiting until Middle School and opting for some actual education as opposed to indoctrination. Memorization of Bible verses was a great help when I needed to look things up. I can't say it hurt my reading comprehension either. Chapel on Thursdays, though, is something I could've done without.

Quote from: Mr. Analytical

Quote from: beejazzOh, so you're not trying to say there's nothing out there, you're just saying that anyone who believes there is is stupid by default and should be ignored or reviled. Riiiiiiight.

Ignored and not trusted around small children. What's the problem?

Quote from: beejazzBishops in the House of Lords? Okay, I'm with you on that one. I wouldn't find faith-based schools to be such a bad thing.

Well the problem is that they a) promote sectarianism by preventing kids from mixing with people of other faiths and backgrounds, b) they're funded out of the public purse, so in effect I'm currently paying to help the Catholic Church recruit its next generation, c) they're hotbeds for extremist views, from encouraging terrorism amongst Muslims to teaching creationism amongst Christians and d) they're frequently used as a means of forcing parents to practice more than they would otherwise. The woman who cleans my mum's place cleans her kid's school chapel twice a week for fear that the priest won't allow her kid into secodary school.

By and large I have no problem with private faith schools (aside from the fact that kids are too young and uncritical to make up their minds on such matters), it's publically funded ones that I think should be done away with.

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: Mr. Analyticala) promote sectarianism by preventing kids from mixing with people of other faiths and backgrounds

Well, I hadn't thought about that. Granted I didn't have any trouble with it, but I didn't go to *just* a Christian school; I also went through a public school, a correctional facility, and an art school.

Quote from: Mr. Analyticalb) they're funded out of the public purse, so in effect I'm currently paying to help the Catholic Church recruit its next generation

Wait... what?! Funded out of the public... Okay, that is a problem.

Quote from: Mr. Analyticalc) they're hotbeds for extremist views, from encouraging terrorism amongst Muslims to teaching creationism amongst Christians

Um... Mr. Analytical, is there any way of testing and proving this hypothesis?

Quote from: Mr. Analyticald) they're frequently used as a means of forcing parents to practice more than they would otherwise. The woman who cleans my mum's place cleans her kid's school chapel twice a week for fear that the priest won't allow her kid into secodary school.

Public education should be public. As in the parents shouldn't have to earn it. Charter schools might be an exception, but it's still the student's priority and not the parent's. I highly doubt that there was not another more secular school available. If there wasn't, that's a problem. If there was, then this woman is simly acting on her goals and priorities, however misguided those goals or priorities may be. I've seen similar behavior from parents who wanted to be part of other community activities, from soccer to the local math charter school. That said, I highly doubt that her child would actually have been kicked out because she didn't go and clean that chapel.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalBy and large I have no problem with private faith schools (aside from the fact that kids are too young and uncritical to make up their minds on such matters), it's publically funded ones that I think should be done away with.

I'm both with you and against you on this one. Kids shouldn't have to learn about faith, but making religious education the exclusive domain of the rich is something I'm hesitant to endorse.

I'm Jewish.

Your religion is bigger than mine, but it's not the size, it's what you do with it! And we have a global conspiracy and everything!

:ponder:

THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION HAVE INFILTRATED RPGSITE

TAKE THE GREEN PILL I WILL JOIN YOU IN PARADISE.

You know why I love to watch Warner Brothers' old "Roadrunner" cartoons?

It's because I love seeing how the Coyote tries to catch the Roadrunner.  I'd rather he never catch him -- if he did, it wouldn't be any fun.

That's how I feel about religion -- the search for answers, I think, is more interesting and enlightening than the answers themselves.

Only there're no rocket-skates.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!You know why I love to watch Warner Brothers' old "Roadrunner" cartoons?

It's because I love seeing how the Coyote tries to catch the Roadrunner.  I'd rather he never catch him -- if he did, it wouldn't be any fun.

That's how I feel about religion -- the search for answers, I think, is more interesting and enlightening than the answers themselves.

Only there're no rocket-skates.

If these people just ran themselves off cliffs, it might be fun.

But they want to force all of us to march off the cliff with them. Not fun.

Quote from: Dominus NoxIf these people just ran themselves off cliffs, it might be fun.

But they want to force all of us to march off the cliff with them. Not fun.

Not the case. Not for the majority of religious people anyway. We outnumber you what? Ten to one? If we wanted you gone you'd be gone already.

Seriously. Don't join my religion. I don't particularly like you and you'd reflect poorly on it (and, by extension, me).

Dominus Nox already has a religion, a being whom he worships. His altar takes the form of a mirror.

"O Dominus..."

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!You know why I love to watch Warner Brothers' old "Roadrunner" cartoons?

It's because I love seeing how the Coyote tries to catch the Roadrunner.  I'd rather he never catch him -- if he did, it wouldn't be any fun.

That's how I feel about religion -- the search for answers, I think, is more interesting and enlightening than the answers themselves.

Only there're no rocket-skates.

Religion isn't a search for answers though.
It is an assumption of an answer 'Goddidit!' and then working backwards cherrypicking things that support the assumption of divinity.

Quote from: beejazzNot the case. Not for the majority of religious people anyway. We outnumber you what? Ten to one? If we wanted you gone you'd be gone already.

Seriously. Don't join my religion. I don't particularly like you and you'd reflect poorly on it (and, by extension, me).

War.
Education.
Law.
The unwritten social code of society.
Voting patterns.

The religious majority already imposes by making decisions on irrational grounds that impact on the irrelegious minority.

Quote from: GRIMWar.
Education.
Law.
The unwritten social code of society.
Voting patterns.

The religious majority already imposes by making decisions on irrational grounds that impact on the irrelegious minority.

That's a problem with democracy and its derivatives, including representative democracy. Not religion.

I could say that because I don't like pop music, I am being persecuted by the majority, who by buying into pop music allow it to dominate radio broadcasts everywhere. Oh woe is me for being forced to listen to pop music because the majority dictates.

Tough. There's a word for systems that put the minority over the majority. I don't know what it is at this hour of the morning though. It might be "oligarchy." I'll look it up later.

Quote from: GRIMReligion isn't a search for answers though.
It is an assumption of an answer 'Goddidit!' and then working backwards cherrypicking things that support the assumption of divinity.

How the fuck would you know? You aren't religious. Unless you read minds, you have no evidence. I don't mind people only putting their faith in the objective and the observable, but I expect some amount of internal consistency.

Richard Dawkins thinks that the Archbishop of Cantebury doesn't really believe in God.  There's a fine reducto ad absurdum right there

(Here's my working:
1) Richard Dawkins believes that religious moderates "don't really believe in it." (from the Salon article)
2) Rowan Williams is a religious moderate (anyone want to dispute this?)
3) therefore...)

Until I have evidence that he's had a nice sit down and a cup of tea with The Eyebrows I find it hard to take him seriously on any subject other than evolutionary biology and maybe some areas of information theory

What he's attacking has no resemblence to the faith of CS Lewis, John Betjeman, Rowan Williams or myself.  Whatever he's attacking, it ain't Anglicanism.  It's a classic "true Scotsman" fallacy

Quote from: beejazzThat's a problem with democracy and its derivatives, including representative democracy. Not religion.

I could say that because I don't like pop music, I am being persecuted by the majority, who by buying into pop music allow it to dominate radio broadcasts everywhere. Oh woe is me for being forced to listen to pop music because the majority dictates.

Tough. There's a word for systems that put the minority over the majority. I don't know what it is at this hour of the morning though. It might be "oligarchy." I'll look it up later.

We don't allow the mentally ill or the criminal to vote though do we?
Concentrating on the mentally ill why is it we don't allow them to vote?
Consider.

Quote from: beejazzHow the fuck would you know? You aren't religious. Unless you read minds, you have no evidence. I don't mind people only putting their faith in the objective and the observable, but I expect some amount of internal consistency.

Only the arguments made by the religious.  If they were still searching for an answer they wouldn't have one yet and the god hypothesis is falsifiable, yet is stuck to doggedly.

Faith = (belief - evidence)

If its observable and objective it is not faith.

Quote from: GRIMthe god hypothesis is falsifiable

No it's not

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonRichard Dawkins thinks that the Archbishop of Cantebury doesn't really believe in God.  There's a fine reducto ad absurdum right there

(Here's my working:
1) Richard Dawkins believes that religious moderates "don't really believe in it." (from the Salon article)
2) Rowan Williams is a religious moderate (anyone want to dispute this?)
3) therefore...)

Until I have evidence that he's had a nice sit down and a cup of tea with The Eyebrows I find it hard to take him seriously on any subject other than evolutionary biology and maybe some areas of information theory

What he's attacking has no resemblence to the faith of CS Lewis, John Betjeman, Rowan Williams or myself.  Whatever he's attacking, it ain't Anglicanism.  It's a classic "true Scotsman" fallacy

I forget if you're British or not but if you watched The Root of All Evil there was indeed an Anglican priest who said pretty much that no, he doesn't believe in god, IIRC. Surveys done do show a particular lack of belief in what many would consider core Christian values and ideas and a retreat to 'parable' and 'moral storytelling' away from a biblical truth position.  The C of E in England is, pretty much, a supreme irrelevence with falling attendences and an increasingly secular feel. A great number of them may as well be humanist celebrants in drag.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonNo it's not

Sure it is.  Depends on the particular god being posited but depending on the attributes and deeds supposedly committed by that god they can be disproven thereby taking the god concept with them.

Creation, for example.
Or the making of a global flood.
Or the problem of evil.

...

...unbelievable.

Ahh, no, wait.  This is the internet.

Quote from: GRIMI forget if you're British or not but if you watched The Root of All Evil there was indeed an Anglican priest who said pretty much that no, he doesn't believe in god, IIRC.

Ah yes.  The "Sea of Faith" movement.  Remember we're the original "broad church"

Quote from: GRIMSurveys done do show a particular lack of belief in what many would consider core Christian values and ideas and a retreat to 'parable' and 'moral storytelling' away from a biblical truth position.

If you're talking about Christian Research's 2002 survey of Anglican Ministers both the structure and the methodology was dreadful (if you aren't that's the only recent study I know).  The sample was self-selecting and was given a set of statements and told to rate them from 1-5 on how much they believed it (5 meaning that they had no doubts whatsoever)

Question 1 was something like "Do you believe in God the Father, Creator and Sustainer of the Universe."

I consider myself a fairly mainstream Anglican, and, even on a good day, my answer could be anything from 1 to 5.  I could even produce a reasoned argument for why answering that question with a "5" is heresy

Quote from: GRIMThe C of E in England is, pretty much, a supreme irrelevence with falling attendences and an increasingly secular feel. A great number of them may as well be humanist celebrants in drag.

You know everyone talks about falling attendances, but no-one seems to know where it's happening.  We're bursting at the seams and another Anglican church in town has just completed a multi-million pound building programme to try and fit everyone in.  I think it's a problem in the way we're counting people.  I don't appear on church attendance figures because I don't go the 10am service

How can the CofE be an irrelevance when parents are doing all that hoop-jumping to try to get their children into church schools (incidentally, I don't think that this is a good thing)

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonHow can the CofE be an irrelevance when parents are doing all that hoop-jumping to try to get their children into church schools (incidentally, I don't think that this is a good thing)

I attended one as a child. In many cases they are simply the nearest, or only, school (As was the case with my rural upbringing). The church aspect is pretty much an irrelevence in the CoE schools for the parents, pupils and teachers. A going-through-the-motions. Christmas, maybe Easter, funerals and christenings. A way of marking time.

These new faith schools are a different and more sinister creature entirely.

Quote from: GRIMSure it is.  Depends on the particular god being posited but depending on the attributes and deeds supposedly committed by that god they can be disproven thereby taking the god concept with them.
Creation, for example.
Or the making of a global flood.

This is the "I have no need for that hypothesis." argument, right?  That it isn't necessary for a supernatural explanation for the phenomena we see around them, therefore there isn't a supernatural explanation, yes?

Personally, my God is the answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"  Falsify that one baby!

Quote from: GRIMOr the problem of evil.

A separate argument and one that deserves it's own thread.  Personally, I don't believe in the existance of evil, just in an absence of good

Quote from: GRIMI attended one as a child. In many cases they are simply the nearest, or only, school (As was the case with my rural upbringing). The church aspect is pretty much an irrelevence in the CoE schools for the parents, pupils and teachers. A going-through-the-motions. Christmas, maybe Easter, funerals and christenings. A way of marking time.

Or it could be seen as a way of communicating our common myths and the common source for our morality, when these things were held in common by our society.  The CofE schools were originally set up by the church to ensure universal education - we paid for the buildings, but in return we'd get access

Nowadays our society doesn't hold any myths in common, but these schools still exist.  We need to teach our children why we believe what we believe, but I don't see how this can be done in a totally secular environment.  I still can't get my head round the Categorical Imperative and I'm in my thirties

Quote from: GRIMThese new faith schools are a different and more sinister creature entirely.

I agree entirely

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonThis is the "I have no need for that hypothesis." argument, right?  That it isn't necessary for a supernatural explanation for the phenomena we see around them, therefore there isn't a supernatural explanation, yes?

Biblical Literalist God Concept: Includes and is reliant upon a divinely caused global flood.
There is no evidence of such a flood (the evidence against which is comprehensive and covers geology, animal/human population migration and numerous other disciplines).
The flood, as described in the bible, never happened and was, in fact, poached from an earlier babylonian myth based on real events in a much more local area for which there is evidence.
God concept disproven and must be revised or discarded.
With all the revisions you end up with a largely meaningless god of the gaps.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonPersonally, my God is the answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"  Falsify that one baby!

Why is a pretty meaningless question.  How is a much more meaningful question. For me the answer is 'we don't know yet' but you assume a divinity despite there being nothing pointing to a divinity. This gets similar very quickly to the 'This demands a creator!' argument which just ends up with an ever receding problem of who created that creator and that creator's creator and so ad infinitum.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonA separate argument and one that deserves it's own thread.  Personally, I don't believe in the existance of evil, just in an absence of good

That would still invalidate a swathe of god concepts since god is meant to be all good, all powerful and all present.  Therefore there couldn't be an absence of good since that would mean the god concept would be neither all powerful, nor omnipresent.

Quote from: GRIMWhy is a pretty meaningless question.  How is a much more meaningful question. For me the answer is 'we don't know yet' but you assume a divinity despite there bing nothing pointing to a divinity.

It's not a meaningless question to me.  For me at least, what points me towards there potentially being an answer to this question is my conviction that there is meaning, order and purpose to my existence.  This may be nothing more than a badly coded pattern matching algorithm, but it keeps me off the streets on a Sunday night.

Quote from: GRIMThat would still invalidate a swathe of god concepts since god is meant to be all good, all powerful and all present.  Therefore there couldn't be an absence of good since that would mean the god concept would be neither all powerful, nor omnipresent.

Hang on, what's going on here? Oh yes, word game with "absence".  "Absence of good" meaning a lack, loss or deprivation of something good

"The fault dear Brutus lies not in the stars but in ourselves"

Religion is only so evil as the people who use it for evil. People don't need a God to act like an asshole.

Quote from: JamesVReligion is only so evil as the people who use it for evil. People don't need a God to act like an asshole.

You, my man, just earned yourself a parade.

Quote from: JamesV"The fault dear Brutus lies not in the stars but in ourselves"

Religion is only so evil as the people who use it for evil. People don't need a God to act like an asshole.

What's the quote...

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
  --  Steven Weinberg

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIt's not a meaningless question to me.  For me at least, what points me towards there potentially being an answer to this question is my conviction that there is meaning, order and purpose to my existence.  This may be nothing more than a badly coded pattern matching algorithm, but it keeps me off the streets on a Sunday night.

Indeed it probably is.
Why do you need an externally defined why? Isn't existing and having self determination, finding your own why, enough? How greedy. That's how the religious meme gets to people though, fear of the sheer scale of the universe, fear of insignificance, fear of death.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonHang on, what's going on here? Oh yes, word game with "absence".  "Absence of good" meaning a lack, loss or deprivation of something good

So you're redefining absent to mean something is there still?

Quote from: GRIMWhat's the quote...

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
  --  Steven Weinberg

That's a bad assumption considering the times people have suffered for what were said to be the best intentions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Five-Year_Plan). The sad thing is that religion has become an excuse for the wrongs we do, not only for the spiritual, but for those who don't like it as well.

Grim, if I were you I'd walk away from this thread.  You're not going to get anywhere with this lot.

Quote from: GRIMOnly the arguments made by the religious.  If they were still searching for an answer they wouldn't have one yet and the god hypothesis is falsifiable, yet is stuck to doggedly.

Faith = (belief - evidence)

If its observable and objective it is not faith.

You originally stated that we decide the answer before hand. Not the case. My religion is an outgrowth of my existencialism.

The god hypothesis is useless on any objective level because it it not falsifiable (though very useful on a subjective level because it encompasses 3000+ years of psychoanalysis, existencial allegory, literature, and a sprinkling of history).

As for faith, still necessary for an atheist. Check your motive in any action. Sooner or later, you'll come to "just because."

"Killing is bad."
"Why?"
"Because dying is bad."
"How do you know?"
*shrugs*

It comes down to the fact that you value life. For no reason than because you do. You can say the same thing for stealing and personal property or about adultery. Anything you define as right or wrong is necessarily "just because." Therefore faith is necessary.

Likewise, any definition of terms will consist of finding words of a similar meaning or other things to compare it to. Eventually you reach a tautology (unless of course you define the thing entirely by what it is not).

And yet it is useful to have a definition for a thing. And yet the prevention of killing and stealing and rape is good for a society (again, relying on our subjective definition of good. It might be better to say that such societies thrive above and beyond those that would tolerate killing, stealing, and rape.)

As for God... It would take forEVER to explain what I think about that.

Oh, and you mentioned us voting in ways you consider "irrational" or "imposing." For the record, my political agenda:

Death: I don't give a shit about abortion. It might appear distasteful to me, but so do alot of things that are legal. I would prefer to do away with the death penalty, if only because I don't like the institutionalization of death. However, I see it as damned near impossible to get rid of (and therefore pointless to vote on the basis of.) I find war abhorrent for the same reason (not to mention that unlike with the death penalty, it is FAR more expensive than the alternative) and may in fact give my vote to whoever has what it takes to end this.

Money: I'd prefer to impose or increase tariffs (I'm more than a little isolationist, if only because we need those jobs here.) I'd prefer to get rid of the sales tax (a regressive tax that penalizes those who spend a greater portion of their money, i.e. the poor.) I'd prefer to up property taxes (take that property owners!) And income taxes should be set where they need to be (enough with the debt... enough with the tax cuts for the rich.) Also, a raise in minimum wage might be nice.

Foreign policy: Anything but what we're doing now. The war has to stop.

Education: Fund our public schools better. Fuck private school. Establish charter schools for math and science. Maybe one or two for the arts in the case of a bdget surplus. Also, let's put affirmative action in place. And include "Middle Eastern" on the list of ethnicities. I'm sick of having to fill in a box labeled "other."

So... while the right wing uses Christianity to support its agenda, that doesn't mean that Christians are forced by mandate to support the right wing. As you can see above, my agenda is highly liberal.

Oh, and I'm for the teaching of evolution (and against the teaching of creation) in public schools. Just for the record.

Mr. A. still hasn't told us his story of the terrible traumas he's suffered from the Faithful.

Let Oprah hold you and tell you it'll all be okay.



Share your pain, brother. Share it!

^wow. That is sooo helping me present my cause as legitimate.[/sarcasm]

Quote from: beejazz^wow. That is sooo helping me present my cause as legitimate.[/sarcasm]

You really don't need to worry about apparent legitamacy in the face of guys like GRIM and Mr. A.

They're bigots, pure and simple.  You may as well be trying to convince the KKK that black people aren't so bad, or that there really isn't a Zionist conspiracy.  

They don't respond to logic.  They have their dogma, their faith, and they will never give it up.  They are the athiest fundamentalists, a fringe sect of loonies better ignored and mocked than given credence on equal ground of debate, as they've done nothing to deserve such.

Quote from: J ArcaneYou really don't need to worry about apparent legitamacy in the face of guys like GRIM and Mr. A.

They're bigots, pure and simple.  You may as well be trying to convince the KKK that black people aren't so bad, or that there really isn't a Zionist conspiracy.  

They don't respond to logic.  They have their dogma, their faith, and they will never give it up.  They are the athiest fundamentalists, a fringe sect of loonies better ignored and mocked than given credence on equal ground of debate, as they've done nothing to deserve such.

Hey, I've got no problem with people being atheist. As I've said before, my religion is little more than an outgrowth of my existencialism (an entire school of thought dedicated to a complicated explanation of "to each his own?" how novel!)

My problem is when assholes threadjack to say that religion is for the weak minded or that the religious pose a threat to such-and-such or even that people embrace religion to put themselves above their peers (hypocrisy of hypocrisies... right after claiming intellectual superiority on the basis of their athesim.) It's bullshit.

Quote from: beejazzMy problem is when assholes threadjack to say that religion is for the weak minded or that the religious pose a threat to such-and-such or even that people embrace religion to put themselves above their peers (hypocrisy of hypocrisies... right after claiming intellectual superiority on the basis of their athesim.) It's bullshit.

That's what JA is saying, beejaz. They're fundamentalists. They don't listen to reason. They're not here to discuss, but to preach. Anyone who disagrees with them is a murderous pervert.

See, I'm Jewish. So when you talk about the resurrection of Christ, I think you're wrong. But I don't think you're crazy or stupid or evil, because I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm not a fanatic.

If I were a Jewish fanatic, then I'd think you're crazy or stupid or evil - or all of those things. I'd rail against you and tell you that your whole faith is full of perverted murderers. That's what we call "blind faith." You have your faith, and see nothing else.

The rational person has faith, but they have reason, and imagination, and empathy. The atheists in this thread have blind faith in science and their logic; they don't have reason, or imagination, or empathy. So they can't see that if you believe differently, you mightn't be crazy, stupid or evil - you just believe differently. They can't see that even if you're wrong, you have part of the truth. They have blind faith. They're fundamentalists.

That's why they're worthy of mockery. And nothing more.

Beejazz -
Thanks for starting up a new thread on this question, by the way.

Quote from: mattormegBeejazz -
Thanks for starting up a new thread on this question, by the way.

Yeah... I was mostly just sick of the threadjacking (and I do tend to get drawn in to any discussion that makes dumbassed generalizations about me... as a Christian, an Iranian, or whatever). I just wish I'd thought to do this sooner.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalGrim, if I were you I'd walk away from this thread.  You're not going to get anywhere with this lot.

One has to try, I was hoping for a better quality of argument here though.

Quote from: GRIMOne has to try, I was hoping for a better quality of argument here though.

I do have some sympathy for you. You're trying to convince me I'm an idiot because I'm a Christian.

No one ever has, nor ever will, win the "you're an idiot." argument. Ever.

Quote from: beejazzThe god hypothesis is useless on any objective level because it it not falsifiable (though very useful on a subjective level because it encompasses 3000+ years of psychoanalysis, existencial allegory, literature, and a sprinkling of history).

Taken as some sort of ultimate truth.
If you believe the time basis to lend it some worth why not worship the egyptian gods? In one form or another they were around for longer so must have more worth and veracity on those criteria? No?

As for faith, still necessary for an atheist. Check your motive in any action. Sooner or later, you'll come to "just because."

Quote from: beejazz"Killing is bad."
"Why?"
"Because dying is bad."
"How do you know?"
*shrugs*

Not quite.
Reduced down to entirely objective levels.
"Killing is bad."
"Why?"
"Because consciousness is an extremely rare thing that we are priviledged to experience.  All evidence with no contradiction points to consciousness being seated in the physical mind and death brings it to an end. That's a squandered opportunity and killing people disrupts the social fabric of human co-dependence increasing risk for everyone."
"How do you know?"
"Here, let me show you..."
*Present evidence*

A lot better than "An invisible wizard in the sky says its bad, m'kay?"

Quote from: beejazzIt comes down to the fact that you value life. For no reason than because you do. You can say the same thing for stealing and personal property or about adultery. Anything you define as right or wrong is necessarily "just because." Therefore faith is necessary.

Well that's assuming I define any of those as good or bad.  That depends on a lot of factors.  There's no real objective and definate source or morality.  The closest we come to is evolutionary pressure which, in a social animal like humans can basically be reduced down to 'altruistic good, selfish bad'.  What is viewed as selfish and disruptive is, of course, somewhat different culture to culture.

Faith is unnecessary.

Quote from: beejazzAnd yet it is useful to have a definition for a thing. And yet the prevention of killing and stealing and rape is good for a society (again, relying on our subjective definition of good. It might be better to say that such societies thrive above and beyond those that would tolerate killing, stealing, and rape.)

Killing and stealing and rape OUTSIDE of your own societal tribe has been and still is often considered a relative good thing, or at least not something that should be punished. It is all still relative. There is a source outside religion for these impulses though, different as they may be for different cultures there is the evolutionary imperative I mentioned above. Indeed if one were to follow (for sake of argument) the Christian bible one SHOULD be stoning adulterers to death, killing children for answering back and numerous other terrible things that any reasonable human being in this day and age would consider to be 'evil'. Yet the majority of the modern day religious cherry pick the nice sounding religious rules by some other criteria outside of their faith, altering their faith to fit their own definitions. If anything the 'God Hates Fags' group are more honest.

Bully for you on the politics but as a socio-economic bloc 'Christians' moderate or otherwise do apply a considerable weight of pressure and groups within it, such as the evangelical Christian right, have disproportionate lobbying strength and representation because they are relatively unified and can mobilise their base.

Part of this is a problem with the political systems themselves, part of it is a problem with voter apathy in other sectors but that doesn't prevent this being a problem.

Again I have to say that we prevent the clinically insane from voting.

If a man is perfectly happy and content believing he is Napoleon we lack him up, put him on drugs, force him through psychotherapy and try to bring him back to reality and a productive member of society.

If a man believes the world was created in seven days 6,000 years ago by an invisible sky wizard who cares for every living thing, yet drowned almost everyone and will consign you to an infinite torment forever simply for not believing in him, despite him hiding. If this man believes that invisible devils are out to get him and others, that he has some invisible essence called a soul, if he believes that invisible people talk to him, tell him what to do, if he gets the basis for all his actions from a poorly translated book scribbled down from the ravings of wandering desert loonies, if he believes a man in a silly hat speaks directly from the sky wizard, if he believes a bearded carpenter will return to earth in the next couple of decades and whoosh the faithful up into the sky while everyone else rots... if he believes ALL this crazy shit he's somehow still a productive member of society and should be allowed any say in what goes on in it?

Something is a little cuckoo there.  I'd rather get Napoleon's input.

Quote from: beejazzI do have some sympathy for you. You're trying to convince me I'm an idiot because I'm a Christian.

No one ever has, nor ever will, win the "you're an idiot." argument. Ever.

Naive, gullible, meme-infected, 'you haven't thought this through'? Take it which ever way you prefer.

Quote from: J ArcaneYou really don't need to worry about apparent legitamacy in the face of guys like GRIM and Mr. A.

They're bigots, pure and simple.  You may as well be trying to convince the KKK that black people aren't so bad, or that there really isn't a Zionist conspiracy.  

They don't respond to logic.  They have their dogma, their faith, and they will never give it up.  They are the athiest fundamentalists, a fringe sect of loonies better ignored and mocked than given credence on equal ground of debate, as they've done nothing to deserve such.

Laughable comparison.

'They don't respond to logic' - amusing.  How about trying some hmm?

I suppose there's some intolerance there certainly, the same intolerance I would show to someone trying to set fire to my house. I live there, I'd rather it wasn't burnt down, thanks.

Quote from: JimBobOzSee, I'm Jewish. So when you talk about the resurrection of Christ, I think you're wrong. But I don't think you're crazy or stupid or evil, because I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm not a fanatic.

But by perpetuating that faith you are an enabler of that fanaticism.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe rational person has faith,

Balderdash. Faith and rationality cannot coexist where they cross streams.  People of faith CAN be rational so long as the area in which they work doesn't bump up against their faith. When it does there are problems and either self-deluding rationalisation or some manner of lashing out.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe atheists in this thread have blind faith in science and their logic; they don't have reason, or imagination, or empathy.

Again, rubbish. The scientific mindset is incapable of blind faith, or 'faith' of any kind save the colloquial meaning of 'trust'. Atheists come to the realisation via a variety of means but assuming it to be through examination and rational thought that IS reason and does not preclude imagination or empathy. Indeed arguably those who don't differentiate on the basis of faith have more empathy for humanity as a whole. Indeed the relative lack of atheistic criminality would seem to support that.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo they can't see that if you believe differently, you mightn't be crazy, stupid or evil - you just believe differently. They can't see that even if you're wrong, you have part of the truth. They have blind faith. They're fundamentalists.

And what 'truth' would that be other than as living examples of the efficacy of mental virii?

Quote from: beejazzThe god hypothesis is useless on any objective level because it it not falsifiable (though very useful on a subjective level because it encompasses 3000+ years of psychoanalysis, existencial allegory, literature, and a sprinkling of history).

Quote from: GRIMTaken as some sort of ultimate truth.
If you believe the time basis to lend it some worth why not worship the egyptian gods? In one form or another they were around for longer so must have more worth and veracity on those criteria? No?

Firstly, no. The truth itself is ineffable. So while the Bible may be true to varying degrees, in that it is "useful" or "accurate" or even just "a very good read" the Bible isn't the whole truth.
Secondly, the Egyptian faith did not last 3000+ years. In the time between then and now it died. Call it Darwinism applied to memes if you will: Viable thought patterns live and reproduce while inviable thought patterns wither and die.

Quote from: beejazzAs for faith, still necessary for an atheist. Check your motive in any action. Sooner or later, you'll come to "just because."
"Killing is bad."
"Why?"
"Because dying is bad."
"How do you know?"
*shrugs*

Quote from: GRIMNot quite.
Reduced down to entirely objective levels.
"Killing is bad."
"Why?"
"Because consciousness is an extremely rare thing that we are priviledged to experience. All evidence with no contradiction points to consciousness being seated in the physical mind and death brings it to an end. That's a squandered opportunity and killing people disrupts the social fabric of human co-dependence increasing risk for everyone."
"How do you know?"
"Here, let me show you..."
*Present evidence*

A lot better than "An invisible wizard in the sky says its bad, m'kay?"

"Because consciousness is an extremely rare..." ARBITRARY. You're attributing importance on the basis of scarcity. Why? Just because.

Quote from: beejazzIt comes down to the fact that you value life. For no reason than because you do. You can say the same thing for stealing and personal property or about adultery. Anything you define as right or wrong is necessarily "just because." Therefore faith is necessary.

Quote from: GRIMWell that's assuming I define any of those as good or bad. That depends on a lot of factors. There's no real objective and definate source or morality. The closest we come to is evolutionary pressure which, in a social animal like humans can basically be reduced down to 'altruistic good, selfish bad'. What is viewed as selfish and disruptive is, of course, somewhat different culture to culture.

Faith is unnecessary.

*groan* I've already said in this thread and others that morality is relative. That it is *subjective*. If you actually read the Bible (or many of my previous posts, because those are much lighter reading), you'd see alot less "thou shalt" and alot more "if:then." As in if you value x, then y is the way to go. What you value, where you want to go, etc... that's your business. Believe me, I don't just know poverty, I've also robbed my fair share of houses.
My point is not that faith in God is necessary. My point is that faith is necessary. One assumes things. One needs to know what one assumes and why one assumes it.

Quote from: GRIMKilling and stealing and rape OUTSIDE of your own societal tribe has been and still is often considered a relative good thing, or at least not something that should be punished. It is all still relative. There is a source outside religion for these impulses though, different as they may be for different cultures there is the evolutionary imperative I mentioned above. Indeed if one were to follow (for sake of argument) the Christian bible one SHOULD be stoning adulterers to death, killing children for answering back and numerous other terrible things that any reasonable human being in this day and age would consider to be 'evil'. Yet the majority of the modern day religious cherry pick the nice sounding religious rules by some other criteria outside of their faith, altering their faith to fit their own definitions. If anything the 'God Hates Fags' group are more honest.

And what's so wrong with cherrypicking? Again, the stronger more relevant memes should survive. Remember, this Bible is a mess of many things, including history, philosophy, myth, and a bit of outdated legal code. I see no problem in chucking the latter. It might represent what was best for a society a couple thousand years ago, but lots of shit has happened since then.

Quote from: GRIMBully for you on the politics but as a socio-economic bloc 'Christians' moderate or otherwise do apply a considerable weight of pressure and groups within it, such as the evangelical Christian right, have disproportionate lobbying strength and representation because they are relatively unified and can mobilise their base.

Yeah, Christian fundamentalists FTL. My complaint is with those who automatically equate Christianity (or any other religion) with fundamentalism. Saying "because fundamentalists are Christians, Christians are fundamentalists" is like saying "because robots are machines, machines are robots" there are screwdrivers and dishwashers and lightbulbs and stereos too... they're not all robots.

Quote from: GRIMAgain I have to say that we prevent the clinically insane from voting.

We who? I'm a paranoid schizophrenic. So... yeah.

Quote from: GRIMIf a man believes the world was created in seven days 6,000 years ago by an invisible sky wizard who cares for every living thing, yet drowned almost everyone and will consign you to an infinite torment forever simply for not believing in him, despite him hiding. If this man believes that invisible devils are out to get him and others, that he has some invisible essence called a soul, if he believes that invisible people talk to him, tell him what to do, if he gets the basis for all his actions from a poorly translated book scribbled down from the ravings of wandering desert loonies, if he believes a man in a silly hat speaks directly from the sky wizard, if he believes a bearded carpenter will return to earth in the next couple of decades and whoosh the faithful up into the sky while everyone else rots... if he believes ALL this crazy shit he's somehow still a productive member of society and should be allowed any say in what goes on in it?

These statements only serve to illustrate that you have no fucking clue what religion even is. RTFM.

Quote from: beejazzFirstly, no. The truth itself is ineffable. So while the Bible may be true to varying degrees, in that it is "useful" or "accurate" or even just "a very good read" the Bible isn't the whole truth.
Secondly, the Egyptian faith did not last 3000+ years. In the time between then and now it died. Call it Darwinism applied to memes if you will: Viable thought patterns live and reproduce while inviable thought patterns wither and die.

Jolly good. Time to cast aside the whole primitive atavism that is faith before it takes us down with it like a bad dose of ebola then. Time to evolve.

Quote from: beejazz"Because consciousness is an extremely rare..." ARBITRARY. You're attributing importance on the basis of scarcity. Why? Just because.

Value perhaps, not importance.  We like being conscious and aware for the most part.  The why doesn't particularly matter.  Supply and demand. Even on our own planet, a seat of life, we're a tiny minority of all the matter that makes up the earth the vast overwhelming majority of which is inert and lacks cosnciousness.  We're a couple of drips in a thin smear of life wiped thinly over the surface and with the ability to think and understand.  Shame to squander the opportunity.

Quote from: beejazz*groan* I've already said in this thread and others that morality is relative. That it is *subjective*. If you actually read the Bible (or many of my previous posts, because those are much lighter reading), you'd see alot less "thou shalt" and alot more "if:then." As in if you value x, then y is the way to go. What you value, where you want to go, etc... that's your business. Believe me, I don't just know poverty, I've also robbed my fair share of houses.
My point is not that faith in God is necessary. My point is that faith is necessary. One assumes things. One needs to know what one assumes and why one assumes it.

Again, faith is not necessary. One can, and should, operate on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  Faith is irrational, belief without reason or evidence. I have read the bible, unfortunately.

Quote from: beejazzAnd what's so wrong with cherrypicking? Again, the stronger more relevant memes should survive. Remember, this Bible is a mess of many things, including history, philosophy, myth, and a bit of outdated legal code. I see no problem in chucking the latter. It might represent what was best for a society a couple thousand years ago, but lots of shit has happened since then.

What's wrong with cherrypicking? Well for one it demonstrates that your morality is not actually coming from your religion but from outside it.  You're not actually following your religion, you're already making your own decisions on morality and other issues independent from it and often contradictory to it but this process is crippled and weakened by the religious thought structure. If the bible is the word of god it should be perfect and relevent even today, if it isn't then god ain't perfect is he? And therefore - not god. As a moral codex it isn't even a particularly good one.

Quote from: beejazzYeah, Christian fundamentalists FTL. My complaint is with those who automatically equate Christianity (or any other religion) with fundamentalism. Saying "because fundamentalists are Christians, Christians are fundamentalists" is like saying "because robots are machines, machines are robots" there are screwdrivers and dishwashers and lightbulbs and stereos too... they're not all robots.

That's not what's being said here.
These beliefs are a) fucking stupid, b) demonstrably erroneus c) dangerous to the future of humanity but not everyone who says they're a believer is going to perform the extremes.  Still the perpetuation OF the religious meme furthers the danger, clouds judgement, blocks progress and creates a social environment that enables the more dangerous extremes.

My problem is with 'faith' overall, not just Christianity it just presents the most well known and relevent battleground, at least in the west.

Quote from: beejazzThese statements only serve to illustrate that you have no fucking clue what religion even is. RTFM.

What? Speaking about Christianity these are the core tenets of this belief.

* Creation
* Original sin
* Punishment/Reward
* Jesus
* Resurrection
* 'Salvation'.

All crazy as a sack full of rabid badgers.

Religion is a codified set of supernatural beliefs and codes of behaviour 'informed' by those beliefs.

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Perhaps you have a different definition in mind?

So, if you have faith, you are clinically insane?

There may have been a point before which there could be useful, intelligent discussion. But we passed that some time ago, and it was old Grim who dragged us past there and into the realm of plain old flameage.

Grim, in future I think you could just summarise your posts as, "me smart, you poopyhead!" It'd be much simpler, and save our reading over all the gloss.

Quote from: GRIMJolly good. Time to cast aside the whole primitive atavism that is faith before it takes us down with it like a bad dose of ebola then. Time to evolve.

Missing the point. Again.
Religion not only has survived since humanity's beginnings, but remains predominantly today. Because it works.

Like D20. You might have a problem with classes and levels, but you can't deny the system works. Because most people who buy into any system buy into that one. Which means that D20 serves its purpose well. You might also buy into GURPS or what have you. You may use a classless/levelless D20 variant. Still doesn't change the fact that D20 is viable.

Likewise, you have a problem with God. However, most people who see fit to buy into any school of thought see fit to buy into that one. Hell, God may even be a ridiculous premise. Doesn't change that religion works, in that it continues to survive because it serves its purpose well. I might be a Christian and ditch those parts of my faith I don't like, pick up a little Buddhism and Kabaalah (I can never remember if it's two "a" or two "b" with that one). Doesn't change that religion is viable. That's just my homebrew.

QuoteValue perhaps, not importance.  We like being conscious and aware for the most part.  The why doesn't particularly matter.  Supply and demand. Even on our own planet, a seat of life, we're a tiny minority of all the matter that makes up the earth the vast overwhelming majority of which is inert and lacks cosnciousness.  We're a couple of drips in a thin smear of life wiped thinly over the surface and with the ability to think and understand.  Shame to squander the opportunity.

Again, why? A resounding "just because." You want to live because you want to live. It would be a shame to do otherwise because it would be a shame to do otherwise.

QuoteAgain, faith is not necessary. One can, and should, operate on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  Faith is irrational, belief without reason or evidence. I have read the bible, unfortunately.

Reason breaks down eventually into "just because." Evidence is often misleading. A man stands behind a curtain. You do not see him. Is he not there?

QuoteWhat's wrong with cherrypicking? Well for one it demonstrates that your morality is not actually coming from your religion but from outside it.  You're not actually following your religion, you're already making your own decisions on morality and other issues independent from it and often contradictory to it but this process is crippled and weakened by the religious thought structure. If the bible is the word of god it should be perfect and relevent even today, if it isn't then god ain't perfect is he? And therefore - not god. As a moral codex it isn't even a particularly good one.

Firstly... what's wrong with my morality preceding my beliefs? If anything, I have approached my morality "pre-faith" by your more narrow definition of faith and been able to extrapolate from it by the benefit of 3000+ years of experience.

Quotea) fucking stupid

Not.

Quoteb) demonstrably erroneus

Do you apply the same logic to sketch comedy? Seriously, if a comedian stands in front of you on a stage and spouts some absurd hyperbole, are you going to not laugh because it is demonstrably erroneous? No. Because you know that the statement is made with the explicit intent of pointing out the irony of the situation. By the same token, is demonstrable correctitude what religion is even about? Might it be that truth cannot be flatly stated, but must be similarly "pointed out?" Especially if the truth (about what works for society or what have you) is going to change constantly?

Quotec) dangerous to the future of humanity but not everyone who says they're a believer is going to perform the extremes.  Still the perpetuation OF the religious meme furthers the danger, clouds judgement, blocks progress and creates a social environment that enables the more dangerous extremes.

You said yourself morality precedes religion. Which is it?

QuoteMy problem is with 'faith' overall, not just Christianity it just presents the most well known and relevent battleground, at least in the west.

Then we are even more at odds. I am a vaguely religious existencialist.

Quote* Creation

Meh... not literally. I've got a couple of interpretations squirreled away somewhere. Frankly, though, I don't care as it has no bearing on my life.

Quote* Original sin

There's a quote somewhere in the OP that explains this quite thoroughly. Original sin defines humans as falible, not guilty or evil.

Quote* Punishment/Reward

Only on Earth. Hell is a translation error (also explained in the OP) and heaven was likely metaphorical.

Quote* Jesus

So. He lived. I don't trust John as far as I can throw him, but Jesus did once live. Whether he was the son of God or just an early Zionist I'll leave others to debate. (like I said, I'm closer to "vaguely religious" than "specifically Christian.")

Quote* Resurrection

Maybe ridiculous, but I hardly see how this is dangerous. You said yourself that death is "a waste." You don't have to be a doctor to hope to beat death.

Quote* 'Salvation'.

Could you point to maybe a specific problem?

QuoteReligion is a codified set of supernatural beliefs and codes of behaviour 'informed' by those beliefs.

Well, I don't feel particularly supernatural. *shrugs*

Quote1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Perhaps you have a different definition in mind?

Well, here Ima do my cherry-picking thing again: "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe..." So far okay, though I would not equate cause with creation... The Beginning is kind of irrelavant either way. Likewise for purpose... I can't think of very many religions that say "the universe is for such and such."
"esp" As in not necessarily part of the definition, but often the case "when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies" Uh... "superhuman agency?" Anyway, I'm hardly a traditionalist on my take on God. I'd hardly consider His "superhumanity" or"agency" to be the primary qualifiers.
"Usually containing... observances..."Off and on. Mostly in the form of independant study. I don't particularly like the local church scene.
"Often containing a moral code..." BINGO! This is where I loot the temple, so to speak. Now, there's a distinction for me between "ancient law" and "modern relevant" for me. For example, the whole not-eating-shellfish. Ancient law. It was put in place because they didn't have refrigeration and nothing good will come of salting lobster. Now, the thou shalt not kill bit remains pretty relevant, as you explained yourself.
As for #2... No. Not in my case, anyway.

Quote from: GRIMIndeed it probably is.
Why do you need an externally defined why? Isn't existing and having self determination, finding your own why, enough? How greedy.

I am "finding my own why".  Admittedly I'm taking an off-the-shelf package and customising it rather than building my own, but I'd call that laziness rather than greed

You mentioned meme-infected earlier.  Well yes, ideas do appear to propagate in a similar way to diseases and I've been a victim of a couple of particularly bad ones during my life.  Which is why I've voluntarily infected myself with a good or at least a benign one.  Apart from anything else, it's boosted my immune system

Quote from: GRIMThat's how the religious meme gets to people though, fear of the sheer scale of the universe, fear of insignificance, fear of death.

Well duh! I'd rather live in a world where I can see myself gradually becoming the person I was always meant to be as part of a plan that was set in motion before the world was created than one where I can't.  Have you read "The Silver Chair" by CS Lewis.  There's a bit where the heroes are basically dungeon-crawling through the Underdark when they're captured by the Big Bad.  Using magic and argument, she makes them doubt their memories of the surface world until Puddleglum says that even if Narnia is a fantasy, it beats her Underdark reality cold and that he'd rather spend his life searching for Narnia even if it doesn't exist.

Quote from: GRIMSo you're redefining absent to mean something is there still?

Definition 4 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absence), though the example it uses is rather ironic

Quote from: GRIMWhat? Speaking about Christianity these are the core tenets of this belief.

* Creation
* Original sin
* Punishment/Reward
* Jesus
* Resurrection
* 'Salvation'.

I can see a huge "No True Scotsman" fallacy approaching, but I'll play:

* Creation: If you mean "creationism" this is not and never has been a central tenet of any of the the big three Christian groups (Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican)
* Original sin: I'm pretty sure that you don't know what Catholics mean by this phrase, but, even so Orthodox and most Anglicans don't believe it
* Punishment/Reward: the idea that God will reward you if your good and punish you if your bad? Not Christian, never has been
* Jesus: Yep, I believe that he was who he said he was - totally God and totally human
* Ressurection: General or specific? Doesn't matter, I believe in them both
* 'Salvation': Not sure what you mean here

Quote from: JimBobOzSo, if you have faith, you are clinically insane?

There may have been a point before which there could be useful, intelligent discussion. But we passed that some time ago, and it was old Grim who dragged us past there and into the realm of plain old flameage.

Grim, in future I think you could just summarise your posts as, "me smart, you poopyhead!" It'd be much simpler, and save our reading over all the gloss.

If you believe your reading comprehension is only up to that level, sure.
Now, why do you believe the comparison to be invalid?
What is the real difference between a man who believes invisible machine elves are telling him to flash his genitals and one who believes a two-thousand year dead carpenter from the middle east wants him to pave the way for his calamatous return?

Why does one set alarm bells ringing and not the other?

EDIT: Will have to come back later for the rest but there's nothing new there really.

Quote from: GRIMIf a man believes the world was created in seven days 6,000 years ago by an invisible sky wizard who cares for every living thing,

I believe the term you're looking for here is "Great Sky Pixie".

Or, "magic deer".

RPGPundit

Its a curious irony that a Children's book writer was easily, hands down the greatest intellectual defender of christianity in the 20th century.

RPGPundit

If you like your children's fiction with a touch of racism and misogyny then yes.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts a curious irony that a man most famous today as a Children's book writer was easily, hands down the greatest intellectual defender of christianity in the 20th century.

FIFY :) He much prefered the "Out Of The Silent Planet" trilogy

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIf you like your children's fiction with a touch of racism and misogyny then yes.

There are seven Narnia books.  In five of those the bad guys have white skin (and more than a touch of the Aryan ideal about them), in two of them the bad guys have brown skin.  In one of those the heroine also has brown skin and marries a bloke with white skin (incidentally, that book was published in 19-fricking-54) and in the other Lewis goes out of his way to demonstrate that not all people with brown skin are baddies

As regards the misogyny, would you give a nine-year old girl an adults weapon?  By the time of the Last Battle, Lucy (now an adult) is commanding the only unit that doesn't break

Go on, bring up Susan. I dare you :D

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIn five of those the bad guys have white skin (and more than a touch of the Aryan ideal about them), in two of them the bad guys have brown skin.

  So because the Nazis fought the Americans and British, Hitler couldn't be a racist?  I think the fact that the book was written in 1954 says all that needs to be said on the matter.  Lewis shows a deep distrust for people of other races, seeing them as filthy and dispicable people.  The fact that Narnia's black people were descended from white people only makes things worse really... as if to suggest black people are degenerate white people.

  In it's day all fine and dandy, but we're living in more enlightened times and I think that these aren't the kinds of books that should be given to easily-influenced kids.

  As for Susan, I've heard the counter-arguments and I'm not convinced.  Neither in the detail (lipstick and highheels supposedly not being symbols of mature female sexuality but of commercialism) nor in the allegorical (Susan's crime being turning away from God).

  Ultimately he was a conservative, small minded little man who lead his ivory tower existence without ever looking beyond received opinion on race, women's right or religion.  In this respect he was rather typical and it's this sheer mediocrity that ultimately condemns him.

That and the fact that the Narnia books are shit of course.  The only good thing about them is that they got the same actress who plays Big Suze in Peep Show to play one of the girls in the catastrophic film version they made.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalSo because the Nazis fought the Americans and British, Hitler couldn't be a racist?

Buzz! Godwin violation.  25 yard penalty!

If you want to accuse a writer of a particular form of prejudice, you need to find a pattern.  If someone of a particular skin colour was always evil (Tolkein) or was always described using negative language (Lovecraft), you'd have a case.  I'm pointing out that you don't.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI think the fact that the book was written in 1954 says all that needs to be said on the matter.

So what? All childrens fiction written before (let's be generous) 1960 is unsuitable for modern children?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalLewis shows a deep distrust for people of other races, seeing them as filthy and dispicable people.

Have you read the "Out of the Silent Planet" trilogy?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe fact that Narnia's black people were descended from white people only makes things worse really... as if to suggest black people are degenerate white people.

Wa-wa-wa? Are you sure that you're not confusing this with Tolkeins' (black) orcs, which are degenerate (white) elves.  I can see a strong argument for that being racist

Assuming that the Calamoreans are descended from the couple in "The Magicians Nephew" (and not all humans in that setting are), is it ever stated that the couple are both white?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIn it's day all fine and dandy, but we're living in more enlightened times and I think that these aren't the kinds of books that should be given to easily-influenced kids.

I bet you love Politically Correct Fairy Tales (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Politically-Correct-Bedtime-Stories-Garner/dp/002542730X/sr=8-1/qid=1161250215/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/202-0018287-4799058?ie=UTF8)

Quote from: Mr. Analytical(lipstick and highheels supposedly not being symbols of mature female sexuality but of commercialism)

IIRC Lewis has Jill criticise Susan for only being interested in "parties, nylons and invitations", but lipstick and highheels are symbols of the commercialism of sexuality (and Dr. Greer would agree with me).  High heels hobble women and arch the pelvis, emphasising the buttocks and vulva and as for (particularly bright red) lipstick - well!

Not that I'm really complaining, but if someone is being encouraged to buy a particular object in order to make themselves more sexually attractive then it can go too far.

Lewis was concerned about this (it's a theme in at least one of his short stories) and in his bumbling, pre-second-wave-feminism way he's waving in the direction of the issues that Greer et al would explore a decade later.

Women in Lewis's books are armed, they take a central role in conflicts, they lead men and, certainly by the later books, this is not treated as anything unusual ("war is an ugly business", yes, but it's an ugly business anyway).  This is at a time when Flash Gordan's squeeze is screaming in a corner

Don't you see how revolutionary this is? Ten years later Ulhura is never issued with a phaser and when she kisses a white man it's a possessed alien.  And this was supposed to have been a huge step forward for human rights?

Even today Xena and Buffy are presented as something unusual because they are strong, confident, armed women (Agent Scully was always in a subordinant role to a man) and when was the last time you saw an interracial couple on TV where this isn't an "issue".  But Jill is given the same equipment as Eustace; Lucy takes charge of a military unit; the hero and heroine of the "Horse and his Boy" get married and all of this is presented as something quite usual.  Normal.  Just something that people do.

The religious allegory in "Lion" is ham-fisted; I think it's the weakest of the books because of this.  But racism and sexism? It's not in the texts.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonBuzz! Godwin violation.  25 yard penalty!

  Actually it's not.  Firstly, Godwin's law applies only to debates the point at which either side compares the other's position to that of the nazis.  Secondly, it was a point about the nature of racism, referring to a prominent racist is perfectly valid.

QuoteIf you want to accuse a writer of a particular form of prejudice, you need to find a pattern.

He has a RACE of black people who are depicted as slimy, disgusting and largely evil.  That's at least as bad as Tolkien and even nudges towards Howard and Lovecraft.

QuoteSo what? All childrens fiction written before (let's be generous) 1960 is unsuitable for modern children?

  If that fiction was written by someone without the wit or foresight to re-evaluate the beliefs he was brought up with then absolutely.  Besides which, Lewis wrote the Narnia books as a kind of Pilgrim's Progress for kids so that when they went to sunday school they'd be familiar enough with the concepts of christianity to not do the reasonable thing and go "Hang on! that's bollocks!".  Lewis' books not only reek of the misogyny and racism of his era, they're also intended to help recruit children to christianity.  Aside from Mythusmage's "Daddy stuck his fingers up me!  What fun!" I can't think of a more inappropriate cocktail of out of date and wretched thought to expose your children to.

QuoteWa-wa-wa? Are you sure that you're not confusing this with Tolkeins' (black) orcs, which are degenerate (white) elves.  I can see a strong argument for that being racist

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Battle#Commentary)
suggests that the Calormenes were descended from the same stock as the first King of Narnia.  The first King of Narnia was an english taxi driver.  So clearly, the black Calormenes are degenerated white people (if you put two and two together).

In those days I can see this kind of view being acceptable; white people go brown when they're in the sun so if a bunch of white people went off to live in a hot climate they might go black.  The link between change of colour and moral decay being no accident.  These views reek of the kind of casual racism that would have been quite common in Lewis' world.  But it's not acceptable now, by today's standards Lewis is a racist much like Tolkien, Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard.

QuoteIIRC Lewis has Jill criticise Susan for only being interested in "parties, nylons and invitations", but lipstick and highheels are symbols of the commercialism of sexuality (and Dr. Greer would agree with me).  High heels hobble women and arch the pelvis, emphasising the buttocks and vulva and as for (particularly bright red) lipstick - well!

  ...and yet now, as in those days, there were so common so as to be universal.  As girls become women they discover sex and in the process adopt the culturally-determined trappings of someone who is sexually active.

  Lewis is a misogynist because he considers what is perfectly normal young adult behaviour to be incompatible with having a relationship with God.  In short, women are whores and God wants you to punish them.  This is, of course, without touching on Lewis' non-fiction writing in which he says that men are (I think it was) "The head" and women should do as they say within a relationship.

  Again, these views were not uncommon among the more "traditional" elements of 50's society but society has moved on and these views are clearly misogynist.  Even in those days they would have been seen by many as old fashionned.

  Greer's no help to you here, she believes that female circumcision carried out on teenaged girls is morally acceptable (so she's not exactly a solidly liberal voice).  She's also writing in a completely different social context.  Even if she did back you up, I'd argue that her position's misogynistic too.  Just as I'd argue that those feminists who believe that women need their own special kind of maths and who equate the rights of mothers with the rights of women are misogynistic.

  He looked at a completely normal, mainstream activity which all women went through at the time and declared it to be incompatible with having a close relationship with God.  Either that makes him a misogynist or it makes God a misogynist and I'm happy to argue both.

QuoteDon't you see how revolutionary this is? Ten years later Ulhura is never issued with a phaser and when she kisses a white man it's a possessed alien.  And this was supposed to have been a huge step forward for human rights?

  Not really.  It was a huge step forward for notoriously racist, misogynistic and prudish American TV.  Interacial relationships in written literature even feature in Shakespeare, by the time Lewis appeared they were neither revolutionary nor even all that surprising.

QuoteEven today Xena and Buffy are presented as something unusual because they are strong, confident, armed women

  AGAIN, that's TV (genre TV at that) and it's PR spin aimed at dispelling the idea that fantasy's only for guys.  Buffy isn't exceptional because it empowers women, it's exceptional because of the amount of subtext it manages to pack into a genre formula.  Neither series can really be described as revolutionary simply because they have female leads and they REALLY aren't revolutionary when weighed against the history of literature.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalHe has a RACE of black people who are depicted as slimy, disgusting and largely evil.  That's at least as bad as Tolkien and even nudges towards Howard and Lovecraft.

He also creates TWO races of WHITE people that are universally depicted as brutal, tyrannical and evil.

And that's just in the Narnia books - the bad guys in the "Out of the Silent Planet" trilogy are colonialist white Englishmen.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalWikipedia suggests that the Calormenes were descended from the same stock as the first King of Narnia.  The first King of Narnia was an english taxi driver.  So clearly, the black Calormenes are degenerated white people (if you put two and two together).

Why are you assuming that an English taxi driver and his wife were both white? That's a little racist of you ;)

That's Wiki for you.  There's nothing in the text to suggest this.  They could easily have come through the same portal as the Telmarians, or even a different portal

Quote from: Mr. Analytical...and yet now, as in those days, there were so common so as to be universal.  As girls become women they discover sex and in the process adopt the culturally-determined trappings of someone who is sexually active.

Lewis is a misogynist because he considers what is perfectly normal young adult behaviour to be incompatible with having a relationship with God.  In short, women are whores and God wants you to punish them.

Let's look at the passage in question:

Quote"Oh Susan!" said Jill. "She's interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on growing up."

"Grown-up, indeed," said the Lady Polly. "I wish she would grow up. She wasted all her school time wanting to be the age she is now, and she'll waste all the rest of her life trying to stay that age. Her whole idea is to race onto the silliest time of one's life as quick as she can and stop there as long as she can."

Her only interests are "nylon, lipstick and invitations" and she apparently intends to stay that shallow for the rest of her life.  Is it misogynistic to suggest that there might be more to life than this?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThis is, of course, without touching on Lewis' non-fiction writing in which he says that men are (I think it was) "The head" and women should do as they say within a relationship.

The end of chapter 6 of "Mere Christianity".  Prefaced by him saying that he shouldn't really be talking about this because he isn't married, but he's doing it because no discussion of Christian ethics would be complete without discussing marriage.  He's blatently not throught his ideas through and is regurgatating traditional teaching about headship within marriage (which is misogynistic) and trying to lighten it as much as he feels can.  Complete balls-up of a passage; he shouldn't have written it.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalGreer's no help to you here, she believes that female circumcision carried out on teenaged girls is morally acceptable (so she's not exactly a solidly liberal voice).

It is a very interesting chapter.  Basically she compares genital mutilation in the developed and developing worlds and (among other questions) asks if we in the developed world allow the ritual genital mutiliation of male babies and actually recommend the genital mutilation of female babies in certain circumstances why do we condemn even the most minor forms of FGM in the developing world (one form of "FGM", if carried out by an American gynacologist would be viewed as an operation to improve the patient's sex life)

Answer me these questions:

Would a racist have depicted interracial marriage as a good thing?
Would a misogynist have shown women as competent warriors and military leaders?

But you're biggest charge is that of indoctrination - it strikes me that you're just trying to find other reasons to hate the books (and him by inference).  Well yes, they're dedicated to the original Lucy, they're about what he believes and they're an attempt to communicate why he believes this and the positive aspects of his faith.  All non-trivial literature, particularly that directed at children can be viewed as indoctrination.  Are only atheists allowed to do this?

Y'know, I was going to avoid this tar pit of a thread, but I just wanted to point out that for once in a religious debate the Magical Sky Pixie crowd seems to be much more reasonable and rational than the Dead is Dead crowd.

I mean, seriously, if I was keeping score I'd be having to hand out almost every point to the religious nutcases and a big fat goose-egg to the rational nutcases.  

I say: take a deep breath, you'll have a nice solid answer in a few short years anyway. :eek:

Quotesuggests that the Calormenes were descended from the same stock as the first King of Narnia. The first King of Narnia was an english taxi driver. So clearly, the black Calormenes are degenerated white people (if you put two and two together).

I know this has nothing to do with religion, but weren't other gates coming into Narnia mentioned? I specifically remember an entire human kingdom descended from pirates. Their consolation on finding this out was being told that they were still of noble blood because they were all "sons of Adam and daughters of Eve." While it shafts all the non-human sentient creatures more'n a little, I don't see it as being so bad for the blacks.

It's been a while though... so what do I know? *shrugs*

Quote from: beejazzknow this has nothing to do with religion, but weren't other gates coming into Narnia mentioned? I specifically remember an entire human kingdom descended from pirates.

Yep, the Telmarians, one of the evil white races I mentioned earlier.  Conquered Narnia a generation or so before the events in "Prince Caspian".

Quote from: Mr. Analytical[Xena and Buffy are] PR spin aimed at dispelling the idea that fantasy's only for guys.

Oddly enough, it's "dispelling" the myth by catering to it with scantilly clad women, flashing their sensuality and sexuality all over the screen.

Yeah, baby, dispel the idea some more!  HARDER!  :D

Anyone who tells you his strong atheism is not a faith doesn't understand his own belief system. It's akin to saying that before 1932 Neutrons didn't exist because there was no proof that they existed. You cannot prove the absence of a being that is all powerful (or close to it) and doesn't want to be found. Hence, if you believe he does not exist, you are working on faith.

Oops, I thought I'd already posted this reply from way back in the thread, but just saw it in a still open notepad window:

Quote"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-- Steven Weinberg

Or patriotism. Or false information. Or having had enough BS and looking to strike back. Or any of a number of other reasons. The quote sounds nice, and it makes rabid fundamentalist atheists want to wet themselves with glee, but it only tells a fraction of the story.

Many of the reasons under James's quote could be viewed as a religion, including, for the record, Rapid Fundamentalist Atheists... Or Rabid ones for that matter...

Anyway, he's a comedian. In the same way that judging religion on whether it is literally true is missing the point of religion altogether, the same goes for comedy.

Comedy must bear a passing resemblance to reality, but its value lies more in the intentional irony and hyperbole. In other words, it's an elaborate falsehood that illuminates the truth rather than being the truth itself. The best part is that it can appear true to people with opposite views of the truth.

Religion = "My invisible magic giant's better than your invisible magic giant, he told me so!" + "My invisible magic giant says if you don't stop worshipping your invisible magic giant and start worksipping my invisible magic giant I'll have to kill you, your family and your dogs, then take your land and stuff."

Quote from: James McMurrayAnyone who tells you his strong atheism is not a faith doesn't understand his own belief system. It's akin to saying that before 1932 Neutrons didn't exist because there was no proof that they existed. You cannot prove the absence of a being that is all powerful (or close to it) and doesn't want to be found. Hence, if you believe he does not exist, you are working on faith.

No you festering twatmonkey. You're working on evidence.
Another advantage of the scientific viewpoint over the irrational religious viewpoint is that it is far more capable of incorporating and adapting to new evidence. You go with what is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This, of course, opens the door for the irrationally religious to go 'aha! so we just need to prove god!' - go ahead.

Quote from: James McMurrayOr patriotism. Or false information. Or having had enough BS and looking to strike back. Or any of a number of other reasons. The quote sounds nice, and it makes rabid fundamentalist atheists want to wet themselves with glee, but it only tells a fraction of the story.

All faith. I don't limit my loathing of faith to religion.

Right, brief interlude over, back to work.

Quote from: Dominus NoxReligion = "My invisible magic giant's better than your invisible magic giant, he told me so!" + "My invisible magic giant says if you don't stop worshipping your invisible magic giant and start worksipping my invisible magic giant I'll have to kill you, your family and your dogs, then take your land and stuff."

No.

Quote from: GRIMNo you festering twatmonkey.

No need for the insults, and it won't further your cause. You won't get off easily thinking you can turn a discussion into an insult war when your postiion starts to flounder. :)

QuoteYou're working on evidence.

I'm assuming this means evidence that strong atheism (the belief that there is no god) is true and not just a belief. So then, where is your proof that there is no God?

QuoteAnother advantage of the scientific viewpoint over the irrational religious viewpoint is that it is far more capable of incorporating and adapting to new evidence.

Again you mention evidence. Where is it? You are correct in that science generally accepts change faster than faith, but by espousing a viewpoint with no proof you've stepped outside the realm of science.

QuoteYou go with what is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Courts go with "beyond reasonable doubt." Science goes with proof. When a court says "We believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe robbed Steve" we take it on faith that they're correct. However, history gives ample proof of countless times that "beyond reasonable doubt" is wrong.

Quoteof course, opens the door for the irrationally religious to go 'aha! so we just need to prove god!' - go ahead.

I'd love to see them prove it. I'd love to see you disprove it. But until there's proof anyone who lands themselves firmly on either side is act not on knowledge, but on faith.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm assuming this means evidence that strong atheism (the belief that there is no god) is true and not just a belief. So then, where is your proof that there is no God?

I'd love to see them prove it. I'd love to see you disprove it. But until there's proof anyone who lands themselves firmly on either side is act not on knowledge, but on faith.

Two points:

One, proving a negative is an impossibility. Maybe I should say PROVING a negative, but you should get my point. You don't prove nothing, you prove something. If there is no evidance that I killed Joe, it doesn't mean I didn't, only that there is no evidence. Now, we can prove I killed Joe, as there is evidence to be found, see?

If Doug exists we can prove it.  If Doug, however, does not exist, than there is no proof.



That said let me address the second part of the quoted text.  If God were proven, faith would not exist. The very term, as religions define it, would become meaningless.  Beware the righteous man who KNOWS God exists, for he has no faith at all. Too many religious types forget that, and that just gives fuel to the rabid atheists like Grim.

You are 100% correct that you cannot prove a negative. That's what makes atheism a faith. It's even a faith that some fundamentalists feel the need to proselytize to the masses, all the time not realizing they're taking part in what they think they're railing against. It's really kinda funny.

QuoteIf Doug exists we can prove it. If Doug, however, does not exist, than there is no proof.

Very true. Of course, this presupposes two things:

1) We are capable of detecting the things that would count as proof. This may or may not be true, and may or may not be possible with our current level of technology.

2) Doug, an omnipotent being, wants us to prove he exists. Since many religions have their Dougs (I prefer Hanks) wanting to stay hidden, the inability to prove their existence doesn't mean a thing.

I disagree that with proof faith would go away. Proof doesn't matter to the deeply religious, and they will discount or ignore it. Likewise proof doesn't matter to those using religion as a tool, they too will ignore or discount it.

Quote from: James McMurrayI disagree that with proof faith would go away. Proof doesn't matter to the deeply religious, and they will discount or ignore it. Likewise proof doesn't matter to those using religion as a tool, they too will ignore or discount it.

Faith is belief in the abscence of proof. If something is proven you don't have faith that it exists, you have knowledge.

That is something that scares me about fundamentalists. They generally don't ask if you believe something, they ask if you 'know God' or whatever.

If I KNOW something, than I don't have to doubt the correctness of my actions.  If I KNOW that Doug exists, and He tells me that Hank worshippers are deluded psychotics, then I have no qualms doing anything I want to 'correct' the Hank Worshippers. Murder, torture... sending them all to mental instituitions... :rolleyes:

What I'm saying is that the groups of people that either a) believe in the god that was disproven or b) believe in a different god, will continue their faith. So, if Doug is proven to exist, faith in Doug goes away, but faith in anything but Doug (including "there is no Doug") will not go away.

Quote from: James McMurrayWhat I'm saying is that the groups of people that either a) believe in the god that was disproven or b) believe in a different god, will continue their faith. So, if Doug is proven to exist, faith in Doug goes away, but faith in anything but Doug (including "there is no Doug") will not go away.

It could be argued that proof of Doug does not likewise disprove Hank. Frankly, I'm more concerned with the behavior of Doug worshippers than Hank worshippers in case Doug is proven.  Unless Doug is proven by striding forth and taking charge of his own worship it is very likely, nay inevitable that Doug worshippers, replacing belief with knowledge will become the worst sort of fanatics.

I am a Jew because, born of Israel and having lost her,

I have felt her live again in me, more living than myself.

I am a Jew because, born of Israel and having regained her,

I wish her to live after me, more living than in myself.

I am a Jew because the faith of Israel demands of me no abdication of the mind.

I am a Jew because the faith of Israel requires of me all the devotion of my heart.

I am a Jew because in every place where suffering weeps, the Jew weeps.

I am a Jew because at every time when despair cries out, the Jew hopes.

I am a Jew because the word of Israel is the oldest and the newest.

I am a Jew because the promise of Israel if the universal promise.

I am a Jew because, for Israel, the world is not yet completed; men are completing it.

I am a Jew because, above the nations and Israel, Israel places man and his Unity.

I am a Jew because above man, image of the divine Unity, Israel places the divine Unity, and its divinity.

- Edmond Fleg, 1927

For me, the key points are,

I am a Jew because the faith of Israel demands of me no abdication of the mind.

I am a Jew because, for Israel, the world is not yet completed; men are completing it.

Judaism does not, in fact, require belief in God. It simply requires that a person follow the Law. This is the same as our civil society. If a man says to a police officer, "I don't believe Parliament exists", the police officer may reply, "okay, you're crazy, but will you obey the Law?" So long as people obey the law, Parliament does not care if people believe it exists or not (though if everyone believed it didn't exist, it might make voting difficult, but that just shows that not every analogy is perfect).

Jews are not required to believe in God, because belief doesn't matter - only actions matter. Belief is only important insofar as it affects actions. If your faith causes you to do bad things, then you are a bad person, and your actions are bad; if your lack of faith causes you to do good things, then you are a good person, and your actions are good.

A piece of bread given to a starving man by an atheist fills the man's belly as well as that given by a devout Jew, or Trappist monk, or Sunni walking about the Qaba in Mecca. It's still bread in the belly.

Belief doesn't matter, only actions matter. Judaism emphasises this - the world is not completed, people are here to complete it.

This kind of faith - in a God who has given us capacities to reason, to create, to care for one another, to complete the world, and in a code of laws which, if followed, will lead to better lives for all - does not require an abdication of reason.

Werd.

No abdication of intellect need be necessary for faith.

Believing anything short of a certainty requires faith.  

The fact that you cannot prove a negative does not change the requirement that the belief in anything short of a certainty requires faith.

Even if you know everything about 1% of the universe, there is still the possibility (one could even argue the probability) that the proof of God's existance lies in the 99% that is unknown to you.

Thus, to believe there is no God is an act of faith.  

You either have dishonest atheists or honest agnostics.  Frankly, I have respect for the man who says "I believe there is no God.  That is my fath.  That is my religion."

I have absolutely no respect for the man who claims to be an atheist and that it is not his religious faith.

Atheism is just as much a religion as Voodoo, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Wicca.

Word up homedog.

From the movie SERENITY :

QuoteShepherd Book: When I talk about belief, why do you always assume I'm talking about God?

...and ....

QuoteShepherd Book: I don't care what you believe in, just believe in it

- E.W.C.

Yeah.  'Cause this was a thread that REALLY neede to be necro'd.  :rolleyes:

After that I feel like seeing the Serenity film just so I can watch Book die.

Quote from: VellorianI have absolutely no respect for the man who claims to be an atheist and that it is not his religious faith.

For the record, there is sometimes a difference between not believing that there is a god and believing that there is no god. Just a thought.

Quote from: beejazzFor the record, there is sometimes a difference between not believing that there is a god and believing that there is no god. Just a thought.

 Interesting thought for mulling over.

 Okay, I looked at the bottom of the page and clicked on "who is currently active" section. Someone else was browsing at this thread. I got curious - so I clicked and started reading.  Last post appeared to be less than 6 months old.

 To "me" thats not a Necro.

 One forum treats 2 years as a "necro" time range , The Big Purple & Pink treats 1 week as a "necro" at times.  I really haven't seen an  internet-wide standard to this.

 Its an interesting topic to me  - alright?

 For the record...I used to be atheist, but I now believe in God.
 I do not go to a church regularly .

- E.W.C.

Quote from: KoltarFor the record...I used to be atheist, but I now believe in God.
 I do not go to a church regularly .

What convinced you there was a god?
Or do you go for the chicks ;)
(Or were you dropped on your head? Brain tumour? Drugs experience?)

Thanks to beejazz for a great thread.

QuoteGRIM said : What convinced you there was a god?
Or do you go for the chicks ;)

 Some Women of Faith are pretty damn HOT!.  So - good question there.  Sex does lead to moments of  screams like : "Oh GOd!! Yes !!! Thank You Jesus!!  Oh Gawd...Oh God...Oh God.."  and similiar sounds of joy.

QuoteOr were you dropped on your head?

 No  -   I wasn't. Just some stuff happened 5 or 6 years ago and I started feeling like there might be a "God"(or deity)  after all. Personal shit - okay?

QuoteBrain tumour?

 Nope - Brain works fine  - body was banged up quite a bit in the last year or two. Car accident - stuff/shit like that.  (I'm still getting used to being able to cuss on a forum)

 

QuoteDrugs experience?

Never did Drugs. Unless you count caffeine too much - then maybe.
 
 My only serious addictions are  : caffeine, interesting music, around-the-table Role Playing Games,  Good Friends,  Good Sex.
The order of priority of those changes from week to week without predictability.

 Even when I was an Atheist - I tended to respect other people's beliefs , didn't always understand their beliefs  -but I didn't give them any shit about it.

- E.W.C.

Quote from: KoltarEven when I was an Atheist - I tended to respect other people's beliefs , didn't always understand their beliefs  -but I didn't give them any shit about it.

Believe me, I'd rather not but internal beliefs have external effect and people make decisions about their (and other people's) lives on an irrational basis scares the crap out of me.

Quote from: GRIMBelieve me, I'd rather not but internal beliefs have external effect and people make decisions about their (and other people's) lives on an irrational basis scares the crap out of me.

And yet you're the one babbling about rationality . . .

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd yet you're the one babbling about rationality . . .

Religious beliefs are completely irrational and have absolutely no basis upon which to draw. Decisions come to rationally may end up being wrong for lack of evidence or unforseen factors, but they at least start from logic and an attempt to think.

Frankly I don't really understand what you're trying to get at with this comment so I'm trying to hit what might be the point of it with a fairly broad brush. Explain?

Quote from: GRIMReligious beliefs are completely irrational and have absolutely no basis upon which to draw. Decisions come to rationally may end up being wrong for lack of evidence or unforseen factors, but they at least start from logic and an attempt to think.

Frankly I don't really understand what you're trying to get at with this comment so I'm trying to hit what might be the point of it with a fairly broad brush. Explain?

Bigotry based on fear is not rational.

Unless you're going to tell me that Nox's ramblings about Islam are rational, because frankly your behavior and statements regarding the subject are remarkably similar, and just as ignorant.

Quote from: SpikeFaith is belief in the abscence of proof. If something is proven you don't have faith that it exists, you have knowledge.

The problem is that absolute proof is a very rare thing.  It's why there are so few laws in science and mathematics.  The whole reason the movie The Matrix works on a philosophical level is that we can't even be 100% sure that anything is real.

Quote from: J ArcaneBigotry based on fear is not rational.

Unless you're going to tell me that Nox's ramblings about Islam are rational, because frankly your behavior and statements regarding the subject are remarkably similar, and just as ignorant.

*snort*

No, but fear based upon a rational examination of the evidence is.

An irrational fear is a phobia.

Nox exhibits an irrational fear of 'Islam', there is plenty to be worried about in that as with other religions, but Nox's fear is that of an uninformed Fox viewer. There aren't 'Jihaddies under the bed' who are going to sneak out and behead us all in the night but in a much broader context the clash between rational and irrational thought has nothing less at stake than the survival of the human species.

I don't fear suicide bombings or screaming scimitar wielders. I fear the undermining of science and education. I fear people voting on important issues based upon what some hallucinating desert wanderer said over 2,000 years ago (or rather what they said after its been put through the historical equivalent of the Google language translator a few dozen times). I fear people who fervently believe in an afterlife and so devalue this life.

I fear ID, I fear 'Creation Science', I fear the incompatibility of religious points of view, I fear nationalism, I fear all this irrationality and the process of non-thinking that threatens us all.

That's a rational fear.

You fear an imagined global conspiracy based on rampantly generalizing an entire body of people based on a smaller subset of it, with healthy dose of standard xenophobia tossed in the mix of course.

Yup.  That's irrational.  And bigoted.  As well as just plain fucking stupid.

You deserve the Nox comparison in every way.

Except Nox at least talks about rpgs a lot, too.

Quote from: JimBobOzExcept Nox at least talks about rpgs a lot, too.

Grim talks about RPGs too!  They just have to be 3dgy enough, and rip off artwork from GTA games.

This is like the religion and philosophy thread Lite, isn't it?

My creed: I don't care what you believe, it's what you do that's important. As long as you're not blowing up tube trains or sending letter bombs to the DVLA, you're quite free to think that Claudia Winkleman is sending you messages through your shoes or whatever you like. When you cross that line, though, it's the re-education camps for you!

Ned

Quote from: GRIMReligious beliefs are completely irrational and have absolutely no basis upon which to draw. Decisions come to rationally may end up being wrong for lack of evidence or unforseen factors, but they at least start from logic and an attempt to think.

If you can see material benefits from acting in a particular way, it is rational to act in that way - correct?

Faith is acting as if something is true (you might quibble over this definition, but it's the one used by me, CS Lewis and the Archbishop of Cantebury).  If faith inspires you to take an action of which you can also see the material benefits, is it not also rational to act in that way?

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonFaith is acting as if something is true (you might quibble over this definition, but it's the one used by me, CS Lewis and the Archbishop of Cantebury).  If faith inspires you to take an action of which you can also see the material benefits, is it not also rational to act in that way?

Hastur,
 You just remind me of the movie Shadowlands , where Anthony Hopkins portrays C.S. Lewis. and Debra Winger plays the woman who becomes his wife.  Lots of good stuff in there about faith and belief.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0108101/quotes

- E.W.C.

Thanks for necroing this... I'd actually forgotten why I had J Arcane on my ignore list.  That was a close call.

Quote from: J ArcaneGrim talks about RPGs too!  They just have to be 3dgy enough, and rip off artwork from GTA games.

Oh look, an incorrigable twat, and outside of its natural habitat too.

In that instance it was the idiotic and kneejerk reaction by the White Knight lobby that drew my ire. Things that piss me off tend to draw my attention, and postings, more - oddly enough.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonFaith is acting as if something is true (you might quibble over this definition, but it's the one used by me, CS Lewis and the Archbishop of Cantebury).  If faith inspires you to take an action of which you can also see the material benefits, is it not also rational to act in that way?

Faith is believing what you know ain't so. ;)
Or belief without evidence.

It still isn't rational to act on the basis of the faith, no.

Quote from: KoltarYou just remind me of the movie Shadowlands , where Anthony Hopkins portrays C.S. Lewis. and Debra Winger plays the woman who becomes his wife.  Lots of good stuff in there about faith and belief.

I haven't seen the movie - which is weird because I've heard it's good and I'm a huge CS Lewis fan

Quote from: GRIMbelief without evidence.

That's not the definition of faith that I use, that I'm using on this thread or that is used by any religious figure that I'm aware of.  If the reviews I've read are correct, you're making that same mistake that caused Dawkins to make such a mess of his latest book

Quote from: GRIMIt still isn't rational to act on the basis of the faith, no.

I think you misunderstand me.  Faith is a tool, a tool used to inspire.  To keep you hoping when all looks hopeless, to push you into taking actions that you know are right, but wouldn't have the guts to do on your own.  It took seventy years for Wilberforce to pass a bill to abolish slavery across the British Empire.  Would he have kept pushing on if he didn't have faith in the inherent rights and dignity of all human beings?  He didn't think so

That's a different meaning of faith, closer to 'trust and hope'. Not that of religious belief or faith.

That's why I define religious belief (faith), very precisely, as belief without evidence. Beleif in such things as (using Christian examples) god the creator, heaven, the flood, the existence, life and miracles of Jesus and the whole Judeo Christian morality play.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI think you misunderstand me.  Faith is a tool, a tool used to inspire.  To keep you hoping when all looks hopeless, to push you into taking actions that you know are right, but wouldn't have the guts to do on your own.  It took seventy years for Wilberforce to pass a bill to abolish slavery across the British Empire.  Would he have kept pushing on if he didn't have faith in the inherent rights and dignity of all human beings?  He didn't think so

Oh, and as counterexamples take dominionism and manifest destiny.

Quote from: GRIMThat's why I define religious belief (faith), very precisely, as belief without evidence.

I'm sorry GRIM, but you're wrong.  Wrong-diddly-wrong-wrong.  Please name one significant religious figure, particularly in the Judeo-Christian tradition who uses the word in this way.

It's what the writer of Hebrews is talking about in Hebrews 11 and what Paul is talking about in the second half of James 2.  Faith isn't passive assent to an intellectual proposition.  Faith is belief in action.

Quote from: GRIMOh, and as counterexamples take dominionism and manifest destiny.

And that's exactly why the action is important.  It's a judgement call - do the beliefs held by an individual lead them to take rational and moral actions?

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonAnd that's exactly why the action is important.  It's a judgement call - do the beliefs held by an individual lead them to take rational and moral actions?

If I am EXTREMELY generous I might say they CAN lead them to moral actions. They can also lead them to horrendously immoral actions. Moderate Christians tend to pick and choose from the bible, ironically the likes of the Westboro baptists are actually more 'intellectually' honest and complete. Moderates apply their own modern learned value system to the bible and discard what they don't like.

Which is interesting, if somewhat tragic.

Someone who uses the term faith in that fashion? That's one of the dictionary definitions, 'belief that is not based on proof'. Fideism explictly states this in a religious context, there are examples of passages in the bible and talmud that support it (and, as ever, ones that contradict it).

The catholic dictionary defines it from St Thomas' words

"the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God"

In essence the yielding of intellect to supernatural belief by an act of will. Deliberately ignoring and suppressing that which might lead you to question the religious assertion.

1 Cor. 1:21, 25 and Luke 10:21 would be some of the passages cited in support of this idea BTW, at least biblically. Hebrews 11:1 as well.

This blind belief is the most necessary part of it because reality can and will constantly contradict the qualities and attributed deeds of any deity and the supernatural tenets held to by religious philosophies. This isn't necessarily a direct problem until the specifics of those beliefs and the nature of actual reality collide.

Quote from: GRIMModerate Christians tend to pick and choose from the bible, ironically the likes of the Westboro baptists are actually more 'intellectually' honest and complete. Moderates apply their own modern learned value system to the bible and discard what they don't like.

That's not what we're doing, but I can understand why your prejudices would lead you to think this

Quote from: GRIMSomeone who uses the term faith in that fashion?

Not "someone", a religious authority using it in a theological context.  The dictionary doesn't count because theological language is more precise than everyday language

Quote from: GRIMFideism explictly states this in a religious context

I regard Fideism is borderline heresy and it's been explicitly rejected by (among others) the Roman Catholic Church (though I'm not comfortable with the Catholics reasons for rejecting it) and Orthodoxy (though I'd have to do some digging to find the exact Ecumenical Council)

Quote from: GRIM"the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God"

How does this differ from "acting as if something is true"?

Quote from: GRIM1 Cor. 1:21, 25 and Luke 10:21 would be some of the passages cited in support of this idea BTW, at least biblically.

I have no idea what those two passages have got to do with what we are talking about unless you are trying to use the Bible to support anti-intellectualism

Quote from: GRIMHebrews 11:1 as well.

Hebrews 11 is all about how the heroes of the Faith acted as if the truth claims of Christianity were real

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonHebrews 11 is all about how the heroes of the Faith acted as if the truth claims of Christianity were real

Well, that's my point too.
Acting as if they were real, without proof that they were.

Maybe our paradigms are just too different and we're passing like ships in the night.

Quote from: GRIMMaybe our paradigms are just too different and we're passing like ships in the night.

Possibly

Let's back up a bit and try again

If the action is rational and beneficial, is the motivation important?

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonPossibly

Let's back up a bit and try again

If the action is rational and beneficial, is the motivation important?

Not for that particular, singular, action - necessarily - though irrational motivation can still backfire.

Hmmm. still not entirely convinced even with those provisions. Carry on while I think about it a bit more. I need an example situation.

Didn't you already have this argument in that 10 myths about atheism (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3503) thread?

GRIM hates the religious and thinks they're all mad and murderous, and also he likes Nobilis. Mate, we get it! Can't you just put it in your sig and get on with more productive discussions? How many times do we have to have the same conversation?

Quote from: JimBobOzDidn't you already have this argument in that 10 myths about atheism (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3503) thread?

GRIM hates the religious and thinks they're all mad and murderous, and also he likes Nobilis. Mate, we get it! Can't you just put it in your sig and get on with more productive discussions? How many times do we have to have the same conversation?

I think you're confusing me with Grimgent.

I think Nobilis is an unplayable but beautiful book.

Due to an eyesight problem reading the spine of the old pink edition, we call it 'Noblins'.

Here's a hint, kids, the meaning of the word "faith" in English has changed as different religious traditions rise and fall in influence. One can define it within a tradition at a specific period of time but not provide a general definition that fits all uses in all traditions.

Quote from: GRIM*snort*

No, but fear based upon a rational examination of the evidence is.

An irrational fear is a phobia.

Nox exhibits an irrational fear of 'Islam', there is plenty to be worried about in that as with other religions, but Nox's fear is that of an uninformed Fox viewer. There aren't 'Jihaddies under the bed' who are going to sneak out and behead us all in the night but in a much broader context the clash between rational and irrational thought has nothing less at stake than the survival of the human species.

I don't fear suicide bombings or screaming scimitar wielders. I fear the undermining of science and education. I fear people voting on important issues based upon what some hallucinating desert wanderer said over 2,000 years ago (or rather what they said after its been put through the historical equivalent of the Google language translator a few dozen times). I fear people who fervently believe in an afterlife and so devalue this life.

I fear ID, I fear 'Creation Science', I fear the incompatibility of religious points of view, I fear nationalism, I fear all this irrationality and the process of non-thinking that threatens us all.

That's a rational fear.

You know... I don't believe in ID, but at worst I only find it silly. I'm curious as to why it should be frightening?

The devaluation of life on the basis of afterlife is one of the scarier sides of bad theology. If there were an afterlife, I wouldn't count on it to resemble this one in the slightest. I'm going to live this one as well as I can with the knowledge that whatever happens when you die, it'll be a pretty fucking big change and not just more of the same.

As for "creation science" are you referring to the Christian attempts to scientifically rationallize creation or the Japanese attempts to create universes in the lab back in June? I see the latter as mildly more alarming than the former.

Quote from: ZalmoxisThanks to beejazz for a great thread.

I'd like to take credit, but this started a WHILE ago. I don't make alot of threads, but when I see three or four all getting derailed in the same direction, I know what to do.

I still don't know if a catch-all "Middle East" thread would be a good idea.

Quote from: GRIMModerate Christians tend to pick and choose from the bible, ironically the likes of the Westboro baptists are actually more 'intellectually' honest and complete. Moderates apply their own modern learned value system to the bible and discard what they don't like.

Which is interesting, if somewhat tragic.

See, I don't see it as remotely dishonest to pick and choose the parts of religion you like. On the one hand, you can say that people aren't thinking any differently than they were prior to exposure to religion, but you'd be giving people too much credit. This is thousands of years of experience talking to readers who don't have thousands of years to figure this shit out. Surely, with study, a person can build up a philosophy of things he likes but wouldn't have thought of on his own. And to say that a person should figure all this stuff out on his own is about on par with saying the same of science. It's simply more convenient and efficient to know the results of past study and experimentation than to have to repeat it all yourself.

And even the obsolete parts can become applicable. We had damned well better know the moral implications of Lamarckian evolution before we start to cybernetically adapt, for example.

Would you hold a grudge if I picked and chose what I liked from Greek or French or Indian philosophers?

Quote from: beejazzYou know... I don't believe in ID, but at worst I only find it silly. I'm curious as to why it should be frightening?

Politicised, faith-based science? You should read up on Lysenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism).

It is frightening because it is attempting to destroy the science education of entire generations, to undermine not the findings of science but the scientific process itself and to replace it with completely irrational and unsupported thinking.

How would you feel if English lessons were replaced with Newspeak lessons?
Or if ALL art classes were still life?
Or if mathematics lessons were changed to the idea that pi was exactly 3?

Quote from: beejazzAs for "creation science" are you referring to the Christian attempts to scientifically rationallize creation or the Japanese attempts to create universes in the lab back in June? I see the latter as mildly more alarming than the former.

The Christian side, which I find far more frightening for humanity's future than attempts to understand the universe.

Quote from: beejazzSee, I don't see it as remotely dishonest to pick and choose the parts of religion you like. On the one hand, you can say that people aren't thinking any differently than they were prior to exposure to religion, but you'd be giving people too much credit. This is thousands of years of experience talking to readers who don't have thousands of years to figure this shit out. Surely, with study, a person can build up a philosophy of things he likes but wouldn't have thought of on his own. And to say that a person should figure all this stuff out on his own is about on par with saying the same of science. It's simply more convenient and efficient to know the results of past study and experimentation than to have to repeat it all yourself.

They surely can.
But then, why call yourself a Christian, or whatever?
There's a massive difference between saying... say... 'Hey, these Jesus stories say some pretty cool things about how we should all be excellent to each other' and 'Jesus is the only way into heaven'.

If you're going to be a follower of that religion then cutting and pasting from the manual into your own philosophical guidebook IS dishonest, not least of all because the manual itself says it must be taken literally and mustn't be strayed from. If you're still picking and choosing, taking the 'meek shall inherit the earth' and leaving out all the rape, human sacrifice and putting to the sword that goes on in that vile collection of ploddingly written nonsense then you're being dishonest with yourself - and others.

Quote from: beejazzWould you hold a grudge if I picked and chose what I liked from Greek or French or Indian philosophers?

Philosophers? No.
Religions. Yes.

Quote from: GRIMThey surely can.
But then, why call yourself a Christian, or whatever?
There's a massive difference between saying... say... 'Hey, these Jesus stories say some pretty cool things about how we should all be excellent to each other' and 'Jesus is the only way into heaven'.

I'm not fully Christian an don't claim to be, so I see that as besides the point. My point is the value of the ground religion has covered, even if the value is mitigated somewhat by its flaws (both of which can be attributed to age)

QuoteIf you're going to be a follower of that religion then cutting and pasting from the manual into your own philosophical guidebook IS dishonest, not least of all because the manual itself says it must be taken literally and mustn't be strayed from. If you're still picking and choosing, taking the 'meek shall inherit the earth' and leaving out all the rape, human sacrifice and putting to the sword that goes on in that vile collection of ploddingly written nonsense then you're being dishonest with yourself - and others.

The scriptures aren't purely a historical account, but they are that too. Leaving out all the bad shit would be ridiculously naive, and scriptures that did this would be forgotten pretty quickly.

Also, think about how deviation from God's will is actually kind of glamorized in many parts. Fuck's sake, look at Moses. God and Moses bickered constantly. Crazy part is, sometimes Moses wins. God didn't hand out free will just to trap us into using it incorrectly. And while biblically, people take reason for themselves (as opposed to having it given to them), given will we are expected to use it. A member of a faith realizes the mitigating circumstances. And if they don't, this is stupidity. Like virtue (in my argument above), stupidity presupposes faith. However, to say that ignorance has the open mind to be informed by study is a bit of a stretch.

QuotePhilosophers? No.
Religions. Yes.

But where do you draw the line? Eastern philosophy and religion have some very fuzzy boundaries, and alot of Western thought is rooted in assumptions on the basis of faith (the sanctity of life for example... though it's pretty valuable on the basis of scarcity even without religion, many thinkers are first informed of the sanctity of life through religion).

Quote from: GRIMPoliticised, faith-based science? You should read up on Lysenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism).

It is frightening because it is attempting to destroy the science education of entire generations, to undermine not the findings of science but the scientific process itself and to replace it with completely irrational and unsupported thinking.

How would you feel if English lessons were replaced with Newspeak lessons?
Or if ALL art classes were still life?
Or if mathematics lessons were changed to the idea that pi was exactly 3?

English: A bastardized language to begin with, and it's actually changing its contents and definitions as I type this.
Art: That is closer to the case than I am willing to acknowledge. At least in public schooling.
Math: I'm not going to be a bastard and say that it's the same as rounding to 3.14. But I have been told to substitute 3 on occasion.

But besides that, yeah... I'm pro-education. People need science. Especially now. If anything, I'd say those analogies aren't strong enough, because each offers an approximation of the original... It's more like playing four square in art class (although, I have to confess to having done that too).

QuoteThe Christian side, which I find far more frightening for humanity's future than attempts to understand the universe.

You see an attempt to understand. I see people learning how to stabilize wormholes and weaponizing this shit.

Quote from: GRIMNot for that particular, singular, action - necessarily - though irrational motivation can still backfire.

Hmmm. still not entirely convinced even with those provisions. Carry on while I think about it a bit more. I need an example situation.

It took Wilberforce fifty years to pass a bill to abolish slavery across the British Empire.  This was a rational, moral action by most formal systems of morality that I am aware of.  His motivation for making this his life's work (didn't he die a few days later?) was that this was what he believed God wanted him to do

Edit: Shaftsbury got the Factory Acts passed.  Mrs Boyd (my Middle School history teacher) would be ashamed of me