Jump to content

Free Thought Exchange - Is this enough to break the spell?


iNow
 Share

Recommended Posts

You can consider something unlikely, but unless there is strong physical evidence against it, then someone wouldn't be in a delusion for believing it.

You can continue repeating yourself, but you will continue to be wrong if you do.

As I said before, religion can be used to amplify these emotions, or used as some excuse to do something, and the only reason that religion does is because of the fact that the old religions come from humanity's own feelings and emotions, and thus religion itself is not the cause of a war.

You're unfamiliar with the Crusades, I see. I also notice you seem to have no awareness of the Thirty Years War, jihads like the battle of Badr, or even more modern day conflicts like Palestine and Israel. Just because you ignore (or are ignorant of) history doesn't magically make your point somehow valid.

But can't that same power be used for good as well? It was used in many tribes to bring communities together.

Nobody said all religion and all religious teachings are evil, so you're arguing against a bit of a strawman. This thread was started so we could discuss whether or not going into churches and challenging peoples beliefs would be a good thing. We were also talking about the tremendous overlap between religion and superstition as a result of the introduction of a study in the 1950s about pigeons. Now, I don't know WTF you are talking about.

 

With that said, a major source of conflict is ingroup/outgroup separations of people, and the behavior that results from these divisions. Religion very clearly causes groups to form, and those groups (despite each claiming to have the ONE truth or absolute connection with the almighty) disagree on their teachings. They cannot all be right. When you think you are acting on gods will, and you have the one true truth, are you seriously suggesting this won't lead to conflicts with other people who hold different beliefs but who also think they have the one true truth and are acting on the will of some god? Surely, you're too smart to believe that, aren't you? Surely such things cannot be brushed aside as merely "humans being humans."

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Thor did exist but not in the way we thought? Possibly an advanced alien that people would mistake for a god, which just goes to show we can speculate all we want and never prove/disprove it.

 

Maybe Thor is actually element #90.

 

What if the Sarboonicationadoolista really exists, but it isn't actually what you think it is? I say, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of the Sarboonicationadoolista!

 

 

You can question religion all you want, and you do not have to take it seriously, but by nature if it cannot be disproved then it cannot be proven to be a delusion of someone.

 

The Sarboonicationadoolista wants more norenteerica for Borensteinia! Go reinzistigate the pepaltooth!

 

TRANSLATION: The God wants more angels for heaven! Go return the unicorns [oxen] to Noah's ark!

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You can question religion all you want, and you do not have to take it
seriously, but by nature if it cannot be disproved then it cannot be
proven to be a delusion of someone.

Again, you are making an assertion about a general category or abstraction of belief, and its truth depends on that abstraction - in some specific instances, such as some cases of believing that the local faith healer has cured epileptics and cancer victims through the laying on of hands, or that one's specific and named God is at once omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, religious beliefs can be disproved. One can discover and demonstrate fraud on the part of that particular faith healer, or point to pontine tumors in young children of believers, say.

 

 

What if Thor did exist but not in the way we thought?

Then Thor in the way that you thought would not exist. That particular God would have been shown to have been a delusion.

 

 

its
- -"role in freeing communities from such traps as Hardin's Tragedy of the
Commons or the Prisoner's Dilemma should be acknowledged. Logic and
rigorous science alone will not suffice, and such situations afflict us
all regardless of our technological or scientific sophistication."


Could you elaborate on these issues? My thought was that logic in fact was or is instrumental in solving these problems

The great amount of attention those problems have attracted is due precisely because they trap the logical - they are situations in which rigid logic leads to suboptimal behavior, and people reason themselves step by step into disaster.

 

We have a peculiar religion type (Judeo Christian) as the context of this argument, which confuses things: almost all other religions throughout history have inculcated specific religous beliefs and practices that protect the fertility of local farmland against abuse, however strong the temptation or profitable for the few, for example. An example from Christianity would be the prohibition of vengeance, but is harder to get clear.

 

Religion can, and sometimes does, create or regulate communities in which one may reliably count on even a stranger to cooperate rather than dfect in Prisoner's Dilemma type situations, say.

 

 

You can consider something unlikely, but unless there is strong physical
evidence against it, then someone wouldn't be in a delusion for
believing it. You can't just declare something like the Easter bunny is
impossible, you need to have evidence or why it is so unlikely

We do have such evidence against the existence of the Easter Bunny. If an adult aware of that evidence nevertheless continued to believe in said Bunny, claimed to talk to it and take advice from it, made major decisions about their children's health care and education based on the existence of said Bunny even when serious harm was the frequent result, injured other people deliberately in furtherance of the holy Bunny's claimed interests and needs, would you be willing to label them delusional?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can continue repeating yourself, but you will continue to be wrong if you do.

 

You don't have any evidence I'm wrong, you merely insist I am because you don't want entities such as the Easter bunny or Greek gods to be real despite the fact that you cannot disprove them most likely because you are already comfortable with assuming they aren't.

 

 

 

You're unfamiliar with the Crusades, I see. I also notice you seem to have no awareness of the Thirty Years War, jihads like the battle of Badr, or even more modern day conflicts like Palestine and Israel. Just because you ignore (or are ignorant of) history doesn't magically make your point somehow valid.

 

I'm very familiar with the crusades as well as various religious wars, you are just unfamiliar with my posts. You seem to blatantly ignore the fact and logic that wars have easily happened regardless of no constant religion, which suggests that you cannot draw any direct relationship between religion and war. Religion is merely an amplifier or dampener or scapegoat, or excuse because it is based on human emotions and incorporates them. On top of this, any religion can be whatever its members collectively decide it to be, thus if a religion makes people violent, it is because its members have decided that the religion should include violence, which reflects that the problem of violence is in the nature of the members.

 

 

Nobody said all religion and all religious teachings are evil, so you're arguing against a bit of a strawman.

Oh, so you defend the notion that religion isn't always bad and that it can cause equally as much good as bad? Because if not I have not seen anyone else do it, mainly negative assertions.

 

 

 

Religion very clearly causes groups to form, and those groups (despite each claiming to have the ONE truth or absolute connection with the almighty) disagree on their teachings.

So do scientific hypotheses at times. Some people thought color was caused by the rotation of atoms, others such as Newton though it was based on different components of light. Some people believe strings are real, some people believe they don't exist. Some people believe black holes can be wormholes, some people don't. These all create different groups, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, or a good thing. The mere formation of groups in of itself carries no inherent good or evil.

 

 

What if the Sarboonicationadoolista really exists, but it isn't actually what you think it is? I say, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of the Sarboonicationadoolista!

No, I'm afraid I can't. I can however choose to not believe in it.

 

 

TRANSLATION: The God wants more angels for heaven! Go return the unicorns [oxen] to Noah's ark!

Well, I didn't hear god say it, and I here no organized authority, religious or not, acknowledging that command either.

 

Again, you are making an assertion about a general category or abstraction of belief, and its truth depends on that abstraction - in some specific instances, such as some cases of believing that the local faith healer has cured epileptics and cancer victims through the laying on of hands, or that one's specific and named God is at once omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, religious beliefs can be disproved. One can discover and demonstrate fraud on the part of that particular faith healer, or point to pontine tumors in young children of believers, say.

It may be such that a culture would generally believe that without any further knowledge. You cannot 100% rule out that the cancer is not in some way supernatural, but you can tell them of experiments that say super natural phenomena are not directly related to having cancer, but involve cells duplicating too much. They would first however have to understand basic biology, and you cannot shove it in their face just as they would shove their beliefs in yours, otherwise you are not doing anything better.

 

 

Then Thor in the way that you thought would not exist. That particular God would have been shown to have been a delusion.

But if their definition of a god is merely a being of immense power, perhaps they wouldn't be in delusion. Perhaps the technologies of today would to them be godly.

 

 

We have a peculiar religion type (Judeo Christian) as the context of this argument, which confuses things: almost all other religions throughout history have inculcated specific religous beliefs and practices that protect the fertility of local farmland against abuse, however strong the temptation or profitable for the few, for example. An example from Christianity would be the prohibition of vengeance, but is harder to get clear.

Unless it is printed within the printed text of the religion, religion does not confused things. In fact I am pretty sure confusion is a state which only living things may attain. Your notion would seem to suggest one of the points I made earlier anyway.

 

 

We do have such evidence against the existence of the Easter Bunny. If an adult aware of that evidence nevertheless continued to believe in said Bunny, claimed to talk to it and take advice from it, made major decisions about their children's health care and education based on the existence of said Bunny even when serious harm was the frequent result, injured other people deliberately in furtherance of the holy Bunny's claimed interests and needs, would you be willing to label them delusional?

However, the concept of the Easter bunny is passed down mainly orally, and thus we cannot pinpoint it's origin. What if there was a mutation of a humanoid into a rabbit-like creature? Or perhaps a costume and makeup from a long time ago? If someone however did believe in the Easter Bunny in a specific context as a specific form with specific limitations, your point may suffice to call them delusional. Personally I do not directly see what the bunny has to do with the resurrection of Jesus.

Edited by SamBridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have any evidence I'm wrong, you merely insist I am because you don't want entities such as the Easter bunny or greek gods to be real despite the fact that you cannot disprove them.

This is silly. You are making claims now about what I do and do not want, which is irrelevant. You claimed that a person cannot be called delusional if the subject of their delusion cannot be proven false. I have corrected you that this is a flawed understanding of the nature of delusion. Telling me that I don't want "entities such as the easter bunny or greek gods to be real" does nothing to change that.

You seem to blatantly ignore the fact and logic that wars have easily happened regardless of religion.

I do no such thing. I quite readily stipulate that wars happen in the absence of religion. My point is that sometimes they also happen as a result of religion. Your logic is broken. It's as if you're saying that because forest fires happen without humans around that humans cannot start forest fires. Clearly, you can see the flaw in this approach and how it is directly analogous to the discussion we're having about religion?

Religion is merely am amplifier or dampener because it is based on human emotions.

I recognize the argument you are trying to make, but it seems clear to me that religion is about much more than amplifying and dampening existing emotions. It also informs those emotions, and it also often dictates what people should think and feel, and it also lays down mandates as if they come from the creator of the entire universe and threaten punishment for eternity if you fail to follow those dictates. It is more than "merely an amplifier or dampener" of human emotions.

 

While you accuse me of this, it is quite obviously YOU who continues to ignore important facts in this discussion, and to the detriment of your position.

I suggest you actually read my posts.

Frankly, if the logic you've displayed in this thread is representative, I'll probably choose not to... but snark and vitriol aside, you don't know what I have and have not read that you've posted, so YET AGAIN you're relying on baseless assumptions to make some vague and ill-formed point. Listen... I have some experience with your posts and your posting history here, so let's just establish that. Let's also be clear, however, that this experience with your posts does nothing to negate the validity of the points I'm sharing here with you in this thread.

Oh, so you defend the notion that religion isn't always bad

I have never contested that. Perhaps it is MY posts that YOU should begin reading, hmm?

These all create different groups, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, or a good thing. The mere formation of groups in of itself carries no inherent good or evil.

I agree, but that's irrelevant to my point. You were arguing that religion never causes conflict. I discussed ingroup/outgroup behavior to show how self-evidently false that point was. Please stop trying to move the goal posts.

Personally I do not directly see what the bunny has to do with the resurrection of Jesus.

It's been borrowed by missionairies from pagan ritual so as to make christian dogma more palatable to those they were seeking to convert: http://mentalfloss.com/article/21411/where-did-easter-bunny-come Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verificationism is the view that a statement or question is only legitimate if there is some way to determine whether the statement is true or false, or what the answer to the question is. It is a view mostly closely associated with the logical positivists of the early twentieth century, who established and applied this doctrine to distinguish between meaningful and meaningless assertive sentences. However, the core idea of verificationism is much older, dating back at least to Hume and the empiricists, who believed that observation was the only way we can acquire knowledge.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifiability_principle

 

My suggestion is that much religious language is meaningless, and its meaninglessness is why it is not verifiable. Thus the use of religious language is comparable to the babblings of a schizophrenic.

If I'm a physicist or chemist, putting "God" into my hypothesis will have no effect on the predictions of the hypothesis whatsoever. To say we cannot test for God's existence is superficial. We cannot test for his existence because "God" is not part of the language we use to describe the objective world, not because God may exist in some world that is inaccessible to us.

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is silly. You are making claims now about what I do and do not want, which is irrelevant. You claimed that a person cannot be called delusional if the subject of their delusion cannot be proven false. I have corrected you that this is a flawed understanding of the nature of delusion. Telling me that I don't want "entities such as the easter bunny or greek gods to be real" does nothing to change that.

 

The psychiatric definition of delusional is as follows from dictionary.com: "maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness." I have stood by that definition, because if it cannot be strongly proven or disproved, then it cannot be determined to be fact, therefore you are either in error or said what you said with bias.

 

 

I do no such thing. I quite readily stipulate that wars happen in the absence of religion. My point is that sometimes they also happen as a result of religion. Your logic is broken. It's as if you're saying that because forest fires happen without humans around that humans cannot start forest fires. Clearly, you can see the flaw in this approach and how it is directly analogous to the discussion we're having about religion?

I will run a scenario by you. One tribe disagrees with another tribe 4,000 years ago. Tribe A thinks the universe was created from an indefinite number of deities representing each unique type of object or force that exists, while tribe B thinks that the universe was created from a single deity which represents all objects and forces. Both tribes are members comprised of only humans. When confronting each other, both tribes are insulted by the other's suggesting, both being emotionally provoked violently. They enter into a war.

You would argue that this is proof that religion can cause violence, however the situation is more complicated than that. If those tribes were less violent, they would merely agree to disagree and either debate logically, or ignore each other. However, it is because they are inherently violent that they chose to enter into a war over other actions, thus it is not the religion that is the root for the violence, but the nature of those members. The religion merely had to do with an event in which the members of the tribes had a large emotional reactions.

 

 

 

I recognize the argument you are trying to make, but it seems clear to me that religion is about much more than amplifying and dampening existing emotions. It also informs those emotions, and it also often dictates what people should think and feel, and it also lays down mandates as if they come from the creator of the entire universe and threaten punishment for eternity if you fail to follow those dictates. It is more than "merely an amplifier or dampener" of human emotions.

Since it is more than likely that because humans are 99.99% physically identical that all humans have what you refer to as "willpower", thus religion does not dictate anyone's life. This notion of yours is more that the people who attempt to gain power will make actions to try and make other people act in a manner they desire based on their psychological understanding of what they think those other people will do, at least dealing with politics and violence involving religion. If you fail to follow the rules of a religion, it is still the choice of the members to execute a particular punishment, and the choices of previous members if those punishments were severe.

 

 

 

While you accuse me of this, it is quite obviously YOU who continues to ignore important facts in this discussion, and to the detriment of your position.

If you do not contest that, and since I have continuously acknowledged that religions can lead to violence by perhaps amplifying emotions, you would have little reason to debate me, so I can only conclude you must in some way think that religion causes some amount more of bad than good based also on your negative assertions.

 

 

I agree, but that's irrelevant to my point. You were arguing that religion never causes conflict. I discussed ingroup/outgroup behavior to show how self-evidently false that point was. Please stop trying to move the goal posts.It's been borrowed by missionairies from pagan

Religion itself doesn't cause conflict, it's people who do, albeit that religion may make a conflict more likely to happen. If you desire, I can go back and quote myself saying that I acknowledge religion can lead to violence. It seems this misunderstanding may account for previous ones.

 

 

ritual so as to make christian dogma more palatable to those they were seeking to convert: http://mentalfloss.com/article/21411/where-did-easter-bunny-come

I'd like to put my mind at 100% ease of it's existence, too bad I guess.

 

 

My suggestion is that much religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable. Thus the use of religious language is comparable to the babblings of a schizophrenic.

If I'm a physicist or chemist, putting "Yahweh" into my hypothesis will have no effect on the predictions of the hypothesis whatsoever. To say we cannot test for Yahweh's existence is superficial. We cannot test for his existence because "Yahweh" is not part of the language we use to describe the objective world, not because Yahweh may exist in some world that is inaccessible to us.

And they would be correct, religion for the most part is in fact meaningless, though I would argue that ultimately science is just as meaningless, there is nothing forcing us to investigate, and there is no component of the laws of physics that requires our knowledge of it, any value we place on it is merely arbitrary by us. However, this notion is more for if we have a scientific solution vs a belief or new evidence. Since we cannot scientifically verify the existence of the origin of all that exists, this notion may not be applicable to a religion that attempts to describe that. I will however say that it has a slight application in that it means any religion of belief of an origin is equally meaningless, therefore there is no logical reason to regard one religion more than another, which you will find many people doing anyway.

Edited by SamBridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would argue that this is proof that religion can cause violence, however the situation is more complicated than that.

Of course, and I don't contest that either. You have since clarified that you agree religions can lead to violence. It can serve as the catalyst or motivation against a backdrop of human tendencies. Since we agree there, I see no point in continuing the exchange.

 

I have continuously acknowledged that religions can lead to violence by perhaps amplifying emotions

This was not at all clear to me based on your previous posts to this thread, so thanks for clarifying.

 

I can only conclude you must in some way think that religion causes some amount more of bad than good based also on your negative assertions.

Let me be clear. I think religion and the actions of people who ascribe to that religion can lead to both good and bad outcomes, and generally those outcomes can be motivated by religious teachings. I would, however, argue that all of the good some religious behaviors result in are not rooted in the religious belief itself, but are instead rooted in social humanism and our tendency to help others we see as part of our group or tribe... and our desire to please authority figures, whether they be preachers, family members, or even some figurehead like god.

 

I think ultimately that religion hijacks these inherently human (or inherently social) tendencies, and is not the source of them as so many people so often proclaim. You here seem to be suggesting yourself that religion is the cause for so much good, and that is the point I would challenge most ferociously. I think it can catalyze that good, but the source is much deeper than some relatively recent phenomenon like the one we call religious belief and practice.

 

For this reason, I do not ascribe the source of the good done in the name of religion to religion itself, and I am left with a heavy representation of the negatives done by religion, religious institutions, and differing religious beliefs... negatives I'd like to see us do away with as an advanced civilization living in an information age.

 

And they would be correct, religion for the most part is in fact meaningless, though I would argue that ultimately science is just as meaningless, there is nothing forcing us to investigate, and there is no component of the laws of physics that requires our knowledge of it, any value we place on it is merely arbitrary by us. However, this notion is more for if we have a scientific solution vs a belief or new evidence. Since we cannot scientifically verify the existence of the origin of all that exists, this notion may not be applicable to a religion that attempts to describe that. I will however say that it has a slight application in that it means any religion of belief of an origin is equally meaningless, therefore there is no logical reason to regard one religion more than another, which you will find many people doing anyway.

I find nihilism to be boring, but of course that won't matter to you.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, and I don't contest that either. You have since clarified that you agree religions can lead to violence. It can serve as the catalyst or motivation against a backdrop of human tendencies. Since we agree there, I see no point in continuing the exchange.

You said religions often "cause" violence, but they never do, people "choose" to enter into a war. Besides, there are many non-religious things that may encourage violence or amplify emotions such as politics, family, death, even science if someone steal's someone else's idea.

 

 

Let me be clear. I think religion and the actions of people who ascribe to that religion can lead to both good and bad outcomes, and generally those outcomes can be motivated by religious teachings. I would, however, argue that all of the good some religious behaviors result in are not rooted in the religious belief itself, but are instead rooted in social humanism and our tendency to help others we see as part of our group or tribe... and our desire to please authority figures, whether they be preachers, family members, or even some figurehead like god.

 

This is true as well. Just as people may have evil tendencies regardless of religion, they may have good tendencies as well.

 

 

I think ultimately that religion hijacks these inherently human (or inherently social) tendencies, and is not the source of them as so many people so often proclaim. You here seem to be suggesting yourself that religion is the cause for so much good, and that is the point I would challenge most ferociously. I think it can catalyze that good, but the source is much deeper than some relatively recent phenomenon like the one we call religious belief and practice.

While religion may lead to much bad, it still does lead to much good, allows some people to cope with death, can bring communities together, perhaps scare some people into being less violent. But I do think it is true that the good comes from people themselves as well, that the "catalyzation" works both ways, I even wrote an essay on this at once point explaining how the ten commandments are related to the foundation of modern society because they are based on natural social interactions.

 

 

For this reason, I do not ascribe the source of the good done in the name of religion to religion itself, and I am left with a heavy representation of the negatives done by religion, religious institutions, and differing religious beliefs... negatives I'd like to see us do away with as an advanced civilization living in an information age.

You state that you acknowledge that religion uses human emotions for good and bad, but it then it seems you spontaneously think religion only causes bad. I don't exactly see what's going on. For any system it is always easier to see the negatives than the positives, that is why we take so many things for granted. The positives and negatives both the same, both ways. If positive reactions don't solely come from religion, neither do negative ones.

 

 

I find nihilism to be boring, but of course that won't matter to you.

Just because something is meaningless doesn't mean it doesn't exist, things are only meaningless in that they are not more important than any other thing as there is no component of physics forcing them to be, thus any value we place must be arbitrary.

Edited by SamBridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said religions often "cause" violence, but they never do, people "choose" to enter into a war.

Yes, often on the basis of differing religious beliefs. Are you intentionally trying to keep a disagreement going at this point, because if you're not, I'm unsure what point you're trying to make.

While religion may lead to much bad, it still does lead to much good, allows some people to cope with death, can bring communities together, perhaps scare some people into being less violent.

As I've already said more than once, I do not see religion as the source of that good. Instead, I find the source of such good behaviors to exist elsewhere and religion merely hijacks it and/or takes credit where none is really due.

You state that you acknowledge that religion uses human emotions for good and bad, but it then it seems you spontaneously think religion only causes bad.

No. Stop misrepresenting me. Your reading comprehension is clearly flawed. There is much bad in this world that is the direct result of religion, but I have NOT asserted that "religion only causes bad." Again, are you intentionally trying to continue a disagreement where one doesn't need to be?

I don't exactly see what's going on.

Yes, I can tell.

Just because something is meaningless doesn't mean it doesn't exist, things are only meaningless in that they are not more important than any other thing as there is no component of physics forcing them to be, thus any value we place must be arbitrary.

What are you trying to say here, and in what way does it relate to the discussion at hand? It is not clear as currently written.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, often on the basis of differing religious beliefs. Are you intentionally trying to keep a disagreement going at this point, because if you're not, I'm unsure what point you're trying to make.

I am merely re-affirming or re-summarizing where I think we are at in that situation.

 

I do not see religion as the source of that good. Instead, I find the source of such good behaviors to exist elsewhere and religion merely hijacks it and/or takes credit where none is really due.

Then I do not see how you can see religion as a source of bad if you label both good and bad as stemming from human emotions and feelings. I also do not see how religions "hijack" this, they can certainly encourage it or discourage it. Saying all religions hijack emotions which to me doesn't make complete sense seems very biased, I can only think of 3 at most that may or may not do that such as perhaps when an orthodox Christian says goodness is placed in people by God. However, you do not always see this with greek mythology, shintoism, taoism, buddhism, old celtic religions, Native American religions, ect. I suppose Hinduism may do this as well with the many gods representing he different forces, but I am not sure to the extent such that not having gods in Hindu terms would mean there can be no goodness or evil.

 

 

What are you trying to say here, and in what way does it relate to the discussion at hand? It is not clear as currently written.

It doesn't relate necessarily, we went off on a tangent. It means any value or meaning you place on anything is relative and arbitrary which makes any personal value placed on something scientifically meaningless, which is why logically no single religion should be regarded over any other. They are all equally meaningless considering that wiki definition posted.

Edited by SamBridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see how you can see religion as a source of bad if you label both good and bad as stemming from human emotions and feelings.

Because the two are not mutually exclusive in the way you're trying to make them. There can be causative elements stemming from human emotions AND causative elements stemming from religious beliefs, institutions, and group divisions.

 

It doesn't relate necessarily, we went off on a tangent. It means any value or meaning you place on anything is relative and arbitrary which makes any personal value placed on something scientifically meaningless, which is why logically no single religion should be regarded over any other. They are all equally meaningless considering that wiki definition posted.

Yes, and as I said, I find nihilism (or, potentially post modernism if instead that's what you are putting forth here) to be very boring and without much utility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the two are not mutually exclusive in the way you're trying to make them. There can be causative elements stemming from human emotions AND causative elements stemming from religious beliefs, institutions, and group divisions.

But in both instances they have to be equally as effective. Good things are as related to human behavior, emotions and feelings as bad ones, and since religion does not cause those things, it cannot be the root for either of those things. Religion may divide people, but anything more than a grouping similar to any other grouping, like squares and circles, multiples of 3, ect, is by the choice of people of how much they want to separate themselves. By suggesting that religion is ultimately bad yet that "causative" elements come from the sum of both people and religion, you are thereby (regardless of intention) saying that ultimately religion causes only bad and good can only come from humans themselves. You have to pick a compromise somewhere because we know this is not true, your notion of "hijacking" is not one I see much evidence for and even if it did somehow coincidentally exist in all religion in the entire world, based on some of the positive effects of religion, I cannot rule out that it is necessarily a good thing. Either people can be just as bad as good and religion has little effect on that or merely amplifies, or the effects of religion can be just as bad or good on people.

Edited by SamBridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I feel you are grasping at straws at this point and I've lost the thread of your reasoning (if ever there was a thread in fact to be found). I'm unsure what point you're trying to make, or why you're now talking about squares and circles.

Religion is a human institution. Many human institutions have both good and bad elements. Religion has both good and bad elements. I find the good elements people ascribe to religion as better ascribed to humanism and basic social pack infrastructure. I find there are bad elements of religion that are a direct result of its teachings and power hierarchies.

I'm still unclear how any of this has anything whatsoever to do with the idea of talking to people and challenging beliefs... of trying to help ensure that alternative views are represented to those who may otherwise not be exposed to them.

You have to pick a compromise somewhere because we know this is not true, your notion of "hijacking" is not one I see much evidence for


First, your personal incredulity is hardly a valid argument against my position. Second, perhaps this thread will help give you some insight into my mention of hijacking in context of religion (anywhere you see a string of code in the center of the screen in the following thread, put this in front of it to play the video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= ):

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/37248-how-religion-hijacks-neurocortical-mechanisms-and-why-so-many-believe-in-a-deity/

 

 

EDIT: In your defense, I started the above discussion nearly 4 years before you even joined this forum, so you probably weren't aware of it.

Either people can be just as bad as good and religion has little effect on that or merely amplifies, or the effects of religion can be just as bad or good on people.


False dichotomy... aka more broken logic from you.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think ultimately that religion hijacks these inherently human (or inherently social) tendencies, and is not the source of them as so many people so often proclaim. You here seem to be suggesting yourself that religion is the cause for so much good, and that is the point I would challenge most ferociously. I think it can catalyze that good, but the source is much deeper than some relatively recent phenomenon like the one we call religious belief and practice.

 

For this reason, I do not ascribe the source of the good done in the name of religion to religion itself, and I am left with a heavy representation of the negatives done by religion, religious institutions, and differing religious beliefs... negatives I'd like to see us do away with as an advanced civilization living in an information age.

So if I am reading you correctly, when good is done in the name of religion, it actually comes from a deeper "source" in humanity, but when bad is done in the name of religion, it comes from religion. You don't think this is just a little biased? (chuckle chuckle)

 

And what is this "relatively recent phenomenon" of religion? From what I understand, we have examples of anthropomorphism that date back almost 40,000 years, so religion has been here a very long time. Yes, there have been wars fought in the name of religion, and lots of people have died, but you know as well as I do that wars are fought for power--not God. If you want to discuss the bad that is in this world, then you are going to have to stop "cherry picking" your facts. Although religion can be named as a source of discontent leading to war, it could not be very devastating without the advances of science. In less than 1,000 years, science has produced weapons of mass destruction, Nazi concentration camps where horrible experiments were carried out, and pollution encompassing the entire planet--in less than 1,000 years!

 

Religion has always been here, and it will always be here in some form. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. I thought this thread was about how to make religion better, not to play a child's game of pretend.

 

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I am reading you correctly, when good is done in the name of religion, it actually comes from a deeper "source" in humanity, but when bad is done in the name of religion, it comes from religion. You don't think this is just a little biased? (chuckle chuckle)

It's hard to comment whether or not it's biased because you seem to be misunderstanding my point. There are some very bad things that happen in this world even absent religion. There are also some specific negatives that come directly from religion. While it's certainly possible that these negative outcomes might not get expressed were it not for certain fundamentals of human nature, my position is that those negative outcomes (the ones to which I'm referring, at least) still derive from religion itself.

 

However, IMO the good things people ascribe to religion (a sense of belonging to a larger group or collective, a desire to improve ourselves and live better lives, an interest in putting forth efforts to help our neighbors and do good works in other communities, a sense of peace in the idea of death, etc.) cannot accurately be described as stemming from religion, IMO. Most of those actions and behaviors and traits come from being a social species who exist in a community of similar social organisms. The negative aspects of religion to which I've been referring do not derive just from being social creatures in the same way the good ones do. The negative aspects (the ones to which I'm referring, anyway) come from religion itself... Whether it's direct teachings or the problems inherent in accepting anything based on faith alone... absent any evidence whatsoever, and often in the face of directly conflicting evidence... there are bad things that tie directly to religion, whereas the good things tie almost certainly to something else.

 

As I've shared repeatedly, this is my opinion, hardly some established fact. If you disagree, then so be it. That's your prerogative.

 

And what is this "relatively recent phenomenon" of religion? From what I understand, we have examples of anthropomorphism that date back almost 40,000 years, so religion has been here a very long time.

Two things. First, humans have been around for (by conservative estimates) roughly 200,000 years, so even 40k years is relatively recent by that standard. Second, what evidence do you have that religion itself is 40,000 years old, and how are you defining religion? I'm genuinely curious to learn more about these points. Is it possible you're doing a bit of a bait and switch between religion and anthropomorphism? I hope not, as I would like to read about religion existing more than about 10-12,000 years ago if you have anything relevant to share in that regard.

 

Although religion can be named as a source of discontent leading to war, it could not be very devastating without the advances of science. In less than 1,000 years, science has produced weapons of mass destruction, Nazi concentration camps where horrible experiments were carried out, and pollution encompassing the entire planet--in less than 1,000 years!

First, the destructive power of religion and it's capability to inflict damage is completely tangential to my point that there are some very specific negatives that derive directly from religion itself. Second, science may be used to magnify damages, but science itself is a method of testing our ideas against nature in an objective manner. It is ludicrous to blame science when some of those ideas are used against others with negative intent.

 

Discovery of the power of a split atom did not mandate that we use it to bomb people and destroy towns and communities. Discovery that evolution tends to select the organisms best suited to their environments did not mandate that nazis kill jews or people lacking blue eyes. Discovery that certain chemicals react very strongly when mixed did not mandate that we use those chemicals in metal casings to turn them into bullets and kill others.

 

Religion (especially judeo-christian religions), however, does have very specific teachings that mandate the killing of others... The taking of slaves... the stoning of homosexuals... the slaughter of neighbors... the raping of women... the beating of children... the murder of those who believe in other gods, or no gods at all. Further, religion is not a method of testing our ideas against reality and discarding those ideas that are mistaken, but religion is instead a form of indoctrination where local tribal elders dictate what people should think, and how they should act, and what they should do... and it is indisputably true that these mandates very often lead to extreme violence and negative outcomes.

 

While I stipulate that it is believers who act violently and not the vague amorphous concept of religion itself, and while I grasp that you probably think these particular believers are merely misinterpreting the sacred texts and are not representative of YOUR religion, it can be neither sincerely nor validly argued that religion is not a major contributor to bad things in this world... a fairly significant source of suffering and pain and unnecessary evil... and it cannot be validly argued that these things are just "humans being humans." Religion has a real impact, both good and bad, but the bad is more easily ascribed to religion than the good. The so-called "good" aspects of religion are better ascribed to social cohesion and humanism, whereas the "bad" aspects of religion rather often stem directly from religion itself... it's teachings... it's holy texts... and it's structure.

 

I thought this thread was about how to make religion better, not to play a child's game of pretend.

Perhaps you can stay focused on the content of my posts and refrain from aspersions against me or my maturity. This thread was NOT about making religion better, and I'm curious why you would ever suggest that. This thread was about making civilization better, or... perhaps less lofty... whether or not it's a good idea to speak openly with theists and criticize their beliefs... and to remind them that atheists are pretty much exactly like them in terms of feelings and thoughts and moral character... just absent the myth and fairy tale parts of their religion... and whether or not more of us should do this like those people did in the video I shared with the OP.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to risk entering this battle with giants, and hope I do not loose an arm or leg.

 

Right off the bat, I shall ignore the religious aspect of the discussion (I know it is in the Religion forum), by saying people do bad things for other than religious reasons (e.g., gangs of outlaws) who are affected by group-think, including gangs of religious outlaws. Thus, IMO, religion is only one example of social outlaws. The phenomenon is apparently part of the human condition.

 

Now I will try to hide to save my appendages and other exposed spots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to risk entering this battle with giants, and hope I do not loose an arm or leg.

 

Right off the bat, I shall ignore the religious aspect of the discussion (I know it is in the Religion forum), by saying people do bad things for other than religious reasons (e.g., gangs of outlaws) who are affected by group-think, including gangs of religious outlaws. Thus, IMO, religion is only one example of social outlaws. The phenomenon is apparently part of the human condition.

 

Now I will try to hide to save my appendages and other exposed spots.

 

I'm surely no giant, but perhaps my opponents are. Too early to tell, probably. Regardless, it's strange to me that you should feel such trepidation to jump in given that you've essentially repeated a point I've already tried repeatedly to make myself.

 

 

There are some very bad things that happen in this world even absent religion. There are also some specific negatives that come directly from religion. While it's certainly possible that these negative outcomes might not get expressed were it not for certain fundamentals of human nature, my position is that those negative outcomes (the ones to which I'm referring, at least) still derive from religion itself.

 

Pop on your floaties. The water's warm, and we could use another player for the marco polo game. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iNow;

 

It is my thought that you are not a philosopher. Although you may well have studied philosophy, or read philosophy, it takes more than that to think like a philosopher. I base my opinion on two things; first, your response to my post was way to quick (11 minutes); and second, you do not seem to understand the necessity of the "virtues" in philosophy. I understand that this is a Science forum, but we are posting in the Religion section under the heading of Philosophy, so I expect a certain degree of philosophical thought in a person's responses to me. Nonetheless, I will respond to some of your statements.

 

Please forgive me, as I have not yet learned how to break up quotes. I hope this works.

 

iNow stated: It's hard to comment whether or not it's biased because you seem to be misunderstanding my point.

 

G. I am not misunderstanding your point. The good that comes out of religion is from people, the bad is from religion. You made your point very early in this thread when you explained that there would be a "vast" overlapping of religion and superstition in a Venn diagram. You are intelligent, so you know perfectly well that religion is respected and that superstition is synonymous with ignorance. It was an insult--pure and simple. Your thoughts are as clear as a mountain stream.


iNow stated: Two things. First, humans have been around for (by conservative estimates) roughly 200,000 years, so even 40k years is relatively recent by that standard. Second, what evidence do you have that religion itself is 40,000 years old, and how are you defining religion? I'm genuinely curious to learn more about these points. Is it possible you're doing a bit of a bait and switch between religion and anthropomorphism? I hope not, as I would like to read about religion existing more than about 10-12,000 years ago if you have anything relevant to share in that regard.

 

G. One should never lie to a philosopher. You are not curious at all because you know that written language did not exist prior to 10-12,000 years ago, and finding any archeological evidence prior to 40,000 years ago would be almost miraculous.

 

I based my statement on three things that I believe to be true, and reason and deduction. The three truths are that "humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings", that they are social animals, and that the "lionman" statue found by archeologists is believed to be almost 40,000 years old.

 

I deduced that a species that was social and spiritual, would have some kind of belief system, and that if the same species carved anthropomorphized statues, then that species would know a God and incorporate some rituals into their society to ingratiate that God. Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that lionmen walked the earth, and we just don't know about it yet--but I doubt it.


iNow stated: It is ludicrous to blame science when some of those ideas are used against others with negative intent.

 

G. I understand. Only religion can be blamed when some of those ideas are used against others with negative intent.

 

iNow stated: . . .not representative of YOUR religion . .

 

G. I apologize for this misunderstanding. I always end up defending religions in these forums, but I am not religious. I see religion as a social and cultural necessity for people in general, and would like to see some changes in it--which was what I thought this thread was about. But I am not religious myself, also not very social. You may have noticed. (chuckle)

iNow stated: Perhaps you can stay focused on the content of my posts and refrain from aspersions against me or my maturity.

 

G. I sincerely apologize. It was not my intent to insult you, or whatever your age is. People of all ages like to play pretend, so I did not consider that you would find it insulting. My apologies.

 

iNow stated: This thread was NOT about making religion better, and I'm curious why you would ever suggest that. This thread was about making civilization better

 

G. Well, not being an idiot, I also see where there is a problem within religions, and would like to see it corrected. But not being a fool, I know that religions can not simply be disposed of, so I assumed that this was about teaching, learning, improving, "Free Thought Exchange" with regard to religion.

 

G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Spend the night in the hospital and everyone goes gaga....

 

Let us take religion out of the equation for a moment.

 

Let's say we have two groups of humans, one group believes the Earth is flat the other thinks it's oval. this disagreement is the source of much discord between the groups.

 

The leaders of the two groups try to convince each other of the error of their ways and get no place.

 

So they strive to drum up support among the masses to try and convince their neighbors to do the same but it's the end of the harvest season, many young people are coming of age, the coming long winter nights will be easier to pass with a warm body next to you so the leaders get no place with this either other that a few fights in local taverns by hotheads who really just want to fight to begin with and don't really care about what...

 

Now let's insert religious belief, remember this is something the people really believe.

 

The holy scriptures demand that unbelievers in the flat/oval earth must be converted, anyone who believes the wrong way will burn in hell for an eternity. each side is sure it's god is the one true god and not doing god's works will doom you to eternal hell fire. Whipping up a little army to convert the infidels seems like a good thing, especially since these gods make sure that having a warm body next to you in the long winter nights depends on approval from god. Add that god demands that unbelievers be killed and if you refuse there is that pesky hell fire for all eternity to worry about.... and the land of the infidels that refuse to convert can be yours for the taking...

 

Whipping up a army of fervent believers isn't so difficult this time...

 

Religion ruins everything....

 

Power corrupts... absolute power corrupts absolutely.... religion is the quintessential absolute power....

 

A government can make you do many things, torture you, jail you, enslave you, kill you, but only religion can threaten you beyond the grave....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think Sam's criticism on some points was useful, the conversation just wasn't particularly useful though.

 

With regards to religion causing good and bad. Where is the evidence for or against? and how valuable is the evidence (suggestive?, proof?)? can it explain how much religion contributes to the cause of both "good" and "bad" behaviour? Are your conclusions reasonable? and are you being unbiased here?

 

I would take a guess that religion is a factor which can influence behaviour, though in reality there are many other factors which can contribute to an individual's behaviour. This is apparent from various heritability and GWAS studies. The point of Sambridges posts was to stress that one should take care when claiming religion is a direct causative agent of an event.

 

Imo, someone stating they acting in the name of religion is NOT evidence that religion caused the event occur.

 

Regarding the delusional thing. It has already been stated that there are many sects of religions. They can't all be the sole truth, so we can calculate the probability that each variation is correct, and that probability can then become the probability that the description delusional is wrong. Given that the probability the description, delusional, has a low chance of being wrong, it is a reasonable description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my thought that you are not a philosopher. Although you may well have studied philosophy, or read philosophy, it takes more than that to think like a philosopher.

This is not relevant to any of the points I've shared, and it is yet again a personal comment toward me instead of the content of my posts.

I base my opinion on two things; first, your response to my post was way to quick (11 minutes); and second, you do not seem to understand the necessity of the "virtues" in philosophy.

See above in terms of relevance and an inappropriate focus on the messenger instead of the message. So you are aware, it also doesn't matter how quickly I am able to type and address points. NONE of that is relevant here. If you think it is, then perhaps you're in the wrong place.

I understand that this is a Science forum, but we are posting in the Religion section under the heading of Philosophy, so I expect a certain degree of philosophical thought in a person's responses to me.

I'll just be blunt. I really don't care what you do and do not expect. Can you please focus instead on the content of my posts instead of on me? That would be a very welcome change.

iNow stated: It's hard to comment whether or not it's biased because you seem to be misunderstanding my point.

 

G. I am not misunderstanding your point. The good that comes out of religion is from people, the bad is from religion.

I recognize that this thread has a lot of momentum and some of the posts have been a little long, but no. You do not seem to accurately understand my point if the above is how you're choosing to summarize it. I've clarified my point repeatedly. Let me do it again here for your benefit.

 

There are bad things that happen even absent religion. There are also good things that people often ascribe to religion, but those good things are IMO better ascribed to our existence as social creatures in group and pack settings than they are to religion. There are also bad things that are the direct result of religion, not just the result of us being humans. These are the things on which I'm currently focusing. The evidence on this front is indisputable, especially when viewed in context of the world's most popular religions. I have laid out several of these bad things directly tied to religion in previous posts, examples including dictates to murder others, stone children, keep slaves, and even more broadly how so many people are taught to accept something as true based on faith alone, even when all available evidence directly contradicts it. This list is not exhaustive, but it should remind you of my previous points that there are some bad things that DO directly result from religion.

 

To repeat... No, you have NOT demonstrated an accurate understanding of my position if you summarize it as "the good that comes out of religion is due to people and the bad comes from religion." I agree with some of your point that there are some bad things with which religion has nothing to do that people mistakenly ascribe to religion. I'm not challenging that. Many of these bad things (like the good things) do come from people and are not properly ascribed to religion, but it is not those things which I am referencing here. What I am referencing here are the bad things directly tied to religious practice and belief, often inherent in the teachings themselves. The good things, however, cannot be tied together with religion in the same way. It's a subtle point, and perhaps that's why you keep missing it?

iNow stated: Two things. First, humans have been around for (by conservative estimates) roughly 200,000 years, so even 40k years is relatively recent by that standard. Second, what evidence do you have that religion itself is 40,000 years old, and how are you defining religion? I'm genuinely curious to learn more about these points. Is it possible you're doing a bit of a bait and switch between religion and anthropomorphism? I hope not, as I would like to read about religion existing more than about 10-12,000 years ago if you have anything relevant to share in that regard.

 

G. One should never lie to a philosopher. You are not curious at all because you know that written language did not exist prior to 10-12,000 years ago, and finding any archeological evidence prior to 40,000 years ago would be almost miraculous.

You are quite simply wrong. You don't know me, and you have no idea what interests me. You need to stop assuming that you are a better arbiter of what makes me curious than I am. I asked you for more details on your claim because it seemed odd and I was genuinely curious to learn more, and you have no reason to doubt me on this point. I gave you the benefit of the doubt here, and thought, "He might know something that I do not. I'd like to learn more." Instead of responding with additional information or support of your point, you instead chose to call me a liar and suggest that I am "not curious at all." There is no way you can possibly know my motivations and I ask that you avoid ever pretending that you can again. You cannot make claims like this above and be taken seriously. You're suggesting to others that you know me better than I know myself, despite the fact that you have only like 6 posts here in total. This will be like the fifth time I ask, but I will again... Please focus on the content of my posts instead of on me or your wild-assed guesses about my possible motivations.

 

You're wrong suggesting I'm lying and you're wrong for suggesting I'm not curious to learn more about this point. It's really that simple. I genuinely would like to see evidence in support of the suggestion that religion has been around for 40,000 years, and I'd like to know what definition of religion is being used when you make that claim. You mentioned something about lion people, I think, so perhaps you can elaborate on that... but IMO my request has gone unaddressed thus far.

 

I agree that finding such evidence would be hard... or to use your words... "almost miraculous." Regardless, I am not the one who made the claim, so the onus is not on me to support it. YOU claimed that religion has been around for 40,000 years, so YOU need to support it or retract it.

 

Alternatively, perhaps you were doing a bait and switch with the terms religion and anthropomorphism when you made that previous claim, and if that's the case then I have given you... and am giving you again here... an opportunity to clarify yourself. This is more than fair. I asked for evidence in support of your claim, and my request remains unsatisfied. Simply asserting that you think I was being insincere or outright lying with my request does nothing to negate the burden of proof currently with you, and does nothing to change that I have asked you to support your point and you have failed to do so.

I deduced that a species that was social and spiritual, would have some kind of belief system, and that if the same species carved anthropomorphized statues, then that species would know a God and incorporate some rituals into their society to ingratiate that God.

Two things. One - You have not defined the term "spiritual." In my experience, that term tends to be a meaningless catchall for any random mumbo jumbo or woo people happen to be peddling that day... everything from the magical powers of magnets to discussions with dead ancestors to words spelled on a Ouija board. If you are able to offer an operationalized definition of the term "spiritual" that we can all agree on and around which we can form consensus, then please do so. However, until you do, you should know that your argument is effectively baseless because it relies so heavily on one single term that is itself so vague, ambiguous, and historically laden with nonsense.

 

Two - You have just conceded that you have no evidence, and that these are all just your own opinions and personal deductions. That's not good enough. I don't care which folder this thread happened to land in, whether it's philosophy, engineering, or climate science... This is still a science forum and there were certain rules and requirements you agreed to follow when accepting the terms of your membership.

 

You have made a claim, and you have been asked to support that claim. Until you do, that claim can be ignored. What can be asserted without evidence can also be rejected without evidence. If you cannot support your assertion that religion goes back 40,000 years, then you should show some integrity and retract it. I don't want to hear your logic or guesses. I want to hear your definitions and see your evidence supporting it, and then hear how it relates to the discussion at hand.

iNow stated: It is ludicrous to blame science when some of those ideas are used against others with negative intent.

 

G. I understand. Only religion can be blamed when some of those ideas are used against others with negative intent.

Despite your claim to the contrary, you do, in fact, continue to misunderstand me. Please see the repeated clarifications I've shared above in this post and in others.

 

Now, if perhaps instead you actually DO understand me, then the only other possibility here is that you are intentionally misrepresenting me and are arguing against a strawman. Either way, whatever the case may be, please stop.

 

If I clarify a comment of mine for you, then please adjust your assertions accordingly and don't keep repeating your misconceptions even after they've been repeatedly corrected. I stipulate that it's a nuanced point, but I've laid it out now several times. If you have questions, then ask, but if you have to alter my actual words to make some point, then your point is clearly bunk and little more than a waste of everyone's time.

 

 

Edited to fix a grammar error.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Religion is a human institution. Many human institutions have both good and bad elements. Religion has both good and bad elements. I find the good elements people ascribe to religion as better ascribed to humanism and basic social pack infrastructure. I find there are bad elements of religion that are a direct result of its teachings and power hierarchies.

How come no good things can come from the result of teaching religion as well? You need to be more clear because that doesn't make sense. As I stated before, it can possibly bring communities together or scare people into being less violent, allow people to cope with death, ect, these are examples off the effects of religion eventually leading to good things assuming we have a similar standard of good. It seems illogical to say all good must come from humans and none comes from religion, especially while simultaneously stating that evil comes from religion without stating evil comes from humans which implies that only evil must come from religion.

 

First, your personal incredulity is hardly a valid argument against my position. Second, perhaps this thread will help give you some insight into my mention of hijacking in context of religion (anywhere you see a string of code in the center of the screen in the following thread, put this in front of it to play the video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= ):

It is not a personal incredulity if you lack evidence, it is a statement of the nature of your argument. I am familiar with instances where people may claim that goodness may come from a deity or religious construct, but they generally also claim that evil does as well, with demons like Satan and sometimes various gods. Religion as I mentioned before or possibly in another religious thread may also be used by someone to take advantage of people using beliefs, however religion alone is incapable of this, this phenomena is a person choosing to say things in a particular context or skewing information so that people will behave in a way they desire. Since religion is not a living or conscious thing, it cannot have desire and therefore cannot manipulate people for its desire. As I said before, what about religion being manipulated by someone into getting people to act better?

 

False dichotomy... aka more broken logic from you.

 

Stating something is broken logic without any proof of any logical deduction whatsoever is just as bad as the very thing you claim to abhor. Good and evil does not come from religion, it comes from people and their interpretations of the world. If you want to argue that religion causes more bad than good you would have to show in some way bad actions occur more often in an objective manner at least for a start which I believe would require statistics. I have already stated that wars occur all over the world without religion as a constant factor, so I see little room for this, but if you have anything you can bring it up.

Edited by SamBridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems illogical to say all good must come from humans and none comes from religion, especially while simultaneously stating that evil comes from religion without stating evil comes from humans...

Oh, FFS... I'm not going to correct you again. I said exactly what you are saying I did not in my most recent post above, others too.

It is not a personal incredulity if you lack evidence

I agree, but that's not the point of my saying that. You said you didn't understand or couldn't conceive of something. I explained that your lack of understanding is not a valid rebuttal of my point. It's known as an appeal to incredulity, and it is a logical fallacy.

Stating something is broken logic without any proof of any logical deduction whatsoever is just as bad as the very thing you claim to abhor.

It was a false dichotomy, which by definition is a logical fallacy.

I have already stated that wars occur all over the world without religion as a constant factor

Yes, as have I, yet you apparently seem to keep missing that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, FFS... I'm not going to correct you again. I said exactly what you are saying I did not in my most recent post above, others too.

If that was true, then we shouldn't have different conclusions.

 

 

You said you didn't understand or couldn't conceive of something. I explained that your lack of understanding is not a valid rebuttal of my point. It's known as an appeal to incredulity, and it is a logical fallacy.It wa

I did not specify that I did not mis-understand your whole argument, I almost didn't specify at all. Having an issue with a specific piece of your argument does not make every point I make about the whole of your argument invalid.

 

 

.It was a false dichotomy, which by definition is a logical fallacy.

But if you cannot provide evidence that it is a false dichotomy then those words are worthless. The only way it can logically work is in either of those two systems based on whatever logical view you decide to settle on as a viewpoint, which seems to be shifting throughout individual posts. We know it cannot be true that religion only leads to either good or bad, yet you keep insisting on negative assertions that you cannot ultimately withstand religion because it negatively "hijacks" peoples feelings even though there is no statistical proof nor any component of physics that suggests it always is or has to be and that it cannot happen negatively as much as positively if it does happen, and you have still avoided the point of using that "hijacking" for good, the link in your video also does not work. Religion in general not too widely comparable to the marketing a bigmac. People "can" use any belief or system to manipulate others, and furthermore there is no indication that manipulation is always executed. If you could prove that religion was created for the purpose of manipulating others for one's gain, your argument would be better supported, otherwise it seems biased to assume what you have assumed.

 

Yes, as have I, yet you apparently seem to keep missing that.

And you choose to ignore it. You seem to have a large bias against religion regardless of whatever religion it is or its history. It can easily be true that Buddhism in fact discourages violence and makes a culture such as a Tibetan culture more peaceful, yet it is still a religion. However, this does not mean all religions always lead to peace in the same exact way that religions don't always lead to wars. I implore you to objectively consider that religion is not confined to be a tool of manipulation. There are numerous reasons for which one may choose a religion, some people may have little to no influence of others, or start a different religion entirely.

Edited by SamBridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.