# People who believe in God are "NOT" broken

## Recommended Posts

That's the problem. You don't understand why a belief in the Sky Fairy should not be given the same respect as science.

Where, on the scale of "respect" do you think that Zeus should be, or Ra or the FSM?

Do you consider them all equal?

I think most atheists do so, when it comes to a lack of respect, at least I'm consistent.

I respect evidence.

Incidentally, there was a discussion earlier about arrogance and atheism.

Well, I'm an atheist and I'm arrogant.

But I'm not arrogant enough to think that the entire Universe was created for the benefit of me and my species.

Let me reword my statement. I never intended my stance to be more respected than the other stance. Religion and science are to be separated into two categories.

• Replies 184
• Created

#### Posted Images

Let me reword my statement. I never intended my stance to be more respected than the other stance. Religion and science are to be separated into two categories.

But the idea of non-overlapping magisteria fails because religion DOES make positive assertions about the reality in which we exist, and is only too happy to suggest that material evidence from science supports their beliefs.

Whether you realize it or not, you're here now referencing an argument put forth by Stephen Jay Gould called "non-overlapping magisteria." It is deeply flawed on a very fundamental level.

Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority," and these two domains do not overlap.[1] He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."[2] Despite this there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be.

<snip>

"it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."[9] Gould's observation that "These two magisteria do not overlap..." does not consider the claims of many religions upon material reality, such as miracles or prayer.

##### Share on other sites

Well, you don't have to go on about it. I ended my part of the debate, whether we agree on something or not. We agree to disagree.

I am not asking for any stance to be respected more than the other. In fact, I intend that both stances are respected equally, whether there is an agreement or not.

So you give equal respect to Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Neo Paganism, Jewish, and all other god concepts?

##### Share on other sites

So you give equal respect to Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Neo Paganism, Jewish, and all other god concepts?

I have respect for those people yes.

##### Share on other sites

I have respect for those people yes.

I did not ask about people, Do you respect their beliefs enough to admit they are as justifiable as yours?

##### Share on other sites

I did not ask about people, Do you respect their beliefs enough to admit they are as justifiable as yours?

In any case, yes if you put it that way.

##### Share on other sites

I should have asked if you respect the validity of those other gods as much as you do yours....

In any case, yes if you put it that way.

In that case i would refer you to the 1st commandment...

##### Share on other sites

I should have asked if you respect the validity of those other gods as much as you do yours....

In that case i would refer you to the 1st commandment...

What do you mean? I respect what they believe, does not mean that I believe what they believe.

The first commandment states that he is God and the second states that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

I believe that God is the only one. Simply because I respect someone's opinions doesn't mean I believe what they believe. Now, since this is just going to go on forever with you trying to mess with me, this ends the discussion.

EDIT: If you are going to try word play on me to try to trick me into stating something that I do not mean, don't do it.

I should have asked if you respect the validity of those other gods as much as you do yours....

In that case i would refer you to the 1st commandment...

Also, one other thing: "Do not preach what you do not believe"

Edited by Unity+
##### Share on other sites

Where does it say such a thing?

That ends my point on that statement.

Yes, and this is the religion section.

I apologize if it seemed I was attacking you. I was just trying to get a clearer understanding of the argument.

I think that can be more in the broader sense of opinion rather than just religion. For example, believing in something in some government that is against the idea would be an example, though yes there are religions(especially some Christian sects) that believe medicine is bad and evil. I particularly find them ignorant because they clearly haven't read the Bible at all.

That is one thing I actually do dislike or find uncomfortable about certain religious people, which is the fact that they believe something without even reading what was behind the whole belief in the first place. If i remember correctly, there are only 40% of Christians who have read the Bible all the way through(I have read almost the whole Bible). Igorance is what led to the corruption of the Catholic church and government within England(correct me if I am wrong). They made it impossible or improbably for people to gain access to a readable Bible to actually see what the Bible had stated, which lead to false teachings.

I can see and understand where all the "hate" towards religion came from that aspect and yes many disasters in history, with religion and war, have been caused by ignorance and I think that is the main attack towards religion; the aspect of things that clearly if A happened, than B must be true. If millions of people were killed because of false teachings of a religion then clearly the religion must be hogwash, which is entirely false because the religion itself doesn't even teach violence at all.

This was meant for you but I posted it in another thread, I'd blame it on the pain pills I'm taking for an ear infection but they don't seem to be working anyway.

What astonishes me is the arrogance of the theist to argue something they really know nothing about. "I've read most or some of the bible" "I know my god doesn't promote violence" and yet there are passages where god demands the deaths of not only armies but the women children and babies of the enemy, god demands the deaths of witches, homosexuals and unruly children. In one passage god tells his people to kill all the men women and male children but to keep the female children for their own pleasure. Another passage tells of god calling two she bears out of the woods to kill several children because they made fun of his prophets bald head... If you are going to argue for theism you should do much more that just read some of it... and then there is the arrogance of assuming your particular god is the only god and having no evidence what so ever to confirm that train of thought. Theism is the height of arrogance based on nothing...

##### Share on other sites

Much of this contraversy would go away if Folks particularily the Scientific community realized the vast differences between God and Religion. Religion has done more damage to the belief in GOD than the damage it has done to Modern Sciences. : examples....

More Christians have been killed by other Christians than anything else.

The war on Terrosim forments the Civil World against God.

The Crusaded were mostly a Barbarian massacre attack on other Christians of Byzantium.

Inquisition

Jim Jones "Jonestown" poisoned his own flock.

Orthodox split from the Catholic and the infighting of the Council of Nicaea has yet to end.

Europeans consume Jews.

Jews Massacre Islam and viceversa.

Evangelic preachers convicted of Graft, sex crimes and others

Priests convicted of sex crimes with children.

.......... on and on and on.

This is not anyones God, .... this is pure evil.

God Folks should be judged on breakage (Madness) based on whats is left of them after a "Religious" experiences.

God is: one, loving and ...... created everything from nothing.

The Ancient of Days by William Blake

Edited by zorro
##### Share on other sites

I say again, religion is about belief regardless of the facts and science is about the facts regardless of belief.

##### Share on other sites

This is not anyones God, .... this is pure evil.

No true Scotsman fallacy

##### Share on other sites

No NO. this supportive fact assertions on Religion in keeping with forum rules, Not an A then .... c.

Edited by zorro
##### Share on other sites

No NO. this supportive fact assertions on Religion in keeping with forum rules, Not an A then .... c.

Actually it's a rather textbook example: You start with the premise that no one's version of God is evil - therefore doing evil acts in the name of God is not possible. When presented with evil acts done in the name of God, you make a false distinction between religion and belief in God (belief in God is a FORM of religion) and claim that they were done in the name of religion, not God. Classic no true Scotsman fallacy.

##### Share on other sites

Actually it's a rather textbook example: You start with the premise that no one's version of God is evil - therefore doing evil acts in the name of God is not possible. When presented with evil acts done in the name of God, you make a false distinction between religion and belief in God (belief in God is a FORM of religion) and claim that they were done in the name of religion, not God. Classic no true Scotsman fallacy.

thanx, You may have taught me something here. ...... zorro

##### Share on other sites

Much of this contraversy would go away if Folks particularily the Scientific community realized the vast differences between God and Religion.

That difference being that religion actually exists?
##### Share on other sites

How great is God--beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out. – Job 36:26 (many other verses)

Are you aware that an internally inconsistent and self-contradicting anthology written back in the iron age is not sufficient proof in favor of the existence of a god or gods?

When a person claims that god(s) exists, that is an extraordinary claim, and such claims require extraordinary evidence in support of them before they deserve to be taken seriously or treated as credible by anyone with a rational, reasonable, (mostly) unbroken mind. A verse from the bible simply does not surpass that hurdle... it does not even come close to meeting the inherent evidence-based requirement set by these claims.

That is why discussions of belief in god(s) always revert back to basic faith... Faith being perhaps one of the single worst possible reasons to accept something as true. It has no value, as your "faith" in Yahweh is in no way functionally different from someone else's faith that the Smurfs actually exist outside of fiction and cartoons.

I have suggested here and elsewhere that to accept such self-evidently ludicrous claims based on such vacuous and hollow and effectively nonexistent evidence is broken... and broken in a way that is significantly and meaningfully different from the various other ways humans are broken.

You have suggested the contrary. You have suggested that people who accept such self-evidently ludicrous claims based on such vacuous and hollow and effectively nonexistent evidence are somehow LESS broken than those who dismiss such claims as nonsense. Can you elaborate on why that is, and perhaps defend your position in a way that might make someone like me question my own?

The popularity of a belief is in no way relevant to whether or not that belief can accurately be described as broken.

I could be mistaken, but I believe you thought you were responding to the gentleman whom created the thread when you wrote this. The quote you attribute me from Job, for example, comes from post 11 which I don't think I quoted or repeated.

I can agree with you to an extraordinary extent as far as God being illogical, unreasonable, and even childlike and ridiculous. I just mean that those are attributes of humanity as well. They aren't good attributes. A belief in god is always something I would try to persuade someone against, but I wouldn't call them broken for it.

Broken things need fixed or trashed, and I firmly believe that most people aren't that.

##### Share on other sites

A belief in god is always something I would try to persuade someone against, but I wouldn't call them broken for it.

But they are. They believe something only because someone else told them so. Something there is no evidence for. Something on faith with no skepticism. Their rationality is fractured.

##### Share on other sites

But they are. They believe something only because someone else told them so. Something there is no evidence for. Something on faith with no skepticism. Their rationality is fractured.

How did you come to know what 'they' believe?

##### Share on other sites

But they are. They believe something only because someone else told them so. Something there is no evidence for. Something on faith with no skepticism. Their rationality is fractured.

And how did you come to know that they believe it only because someone else told them so?

##### Share on other sites

A belief in god is always something I would try to persuade someone against, but I wouldn't call them broken for it.

But they are.

Shall we fix them?

They believe something only because someone else told them so.

Although they do go on a lot about having personal experiences.

I wonder if you've ever believed something only because someone told you.

Edited by Iggy
##### Share on other sites

I wonder if you've ever believed something only because someone told you.

While I'm not trying to speak for doG, we all believe things because we've been told by someone else.The difference is, I choose to only believe stuff that could be verified independently. Let's face it, I have to take my doctor's word for it when he says I have an aneurysm - I'm not a medical professional, so I depend on him to know his stuff. However, I could, if I so chose, go ask another medical professional about it. And another. And another. If they all start telling me the same thing, I find that the propensity of the evidence lends credence to the claim.

Faith, on the other hand, does not provide evidence. By definition, it demands belief without or in spite of evidence or support.

On the other hand, I don't believe that people who believe in religion are "broken" necessarily. They're largely harmless in small numbers - it's only when they gather in large groups and try and use their influence to affect my life that I get irritated. Having faith isn't a problem. Using it as a critical thinking tool may be a problem, depending on the issue at hand.

##### Share on other sites

While I'm not trying to speak for doG, we all believe things because we've been told by someone else.

But we also believe things that we have come up with on our own. The best ice cream flavor. Human rights. Murder is wrong. There is someone out there for everybody.

If I believe God has spoken to me, it is not really that difficult to independently verify that God does speak to people. All I have to do is ask around.

Let's face it, I have to take my doctor's word for it when he says I have an aneurysm - I'm not a medical professional, so I depend on him to know his stuff. However, I could, if I so chose, go ask another medical professional about it. And another. And another. If they all start telling me the same thing, I find that the propensity of the evidence lends credence to the claim.

And if I'm just your run of the mill believer and not a priest, I would have to rely on theologians to know their stuff. And if I choose I can ask another, and another, and another. If they all start telling me the same thing, I find that lends credence to the claim.

Faith, on the other hand, does not provide evidence. By definition, it demands belief without or in spite of evidence or support.

Faith of course is not the only reason to believe. Being 'touched' by God, experiencing a miracle, etc., don't require faith.

On the other hand, I don't believe that people who believe in religion are "broken" necessarily. They're largely harmless in small numbers - it's only when they gather in large groups and try and use their influence to affect my life that I get irritated. Having faith isn't a problem. Using it as a critical thinking tool may be a problem, depending on the issue at hand.

I agree completely.
##### Share on other sites

While I'm not trying to speak for doG, we all believe things because we've been told by someone else.The difference is, I choose to only believe stuff that could be verified independently. Let's face it, I have to take my doctor's word for it when he says I have an aneurysm - I'm not a medical professional, so I depend on him to know his stuff. However, I could, if I so chose, go ask another medical professional about it. And another. And another. If they all start telling me the same thing, I find that the propensity of the evidence lends credence to the claim.

So if 90% of Earth's population told you that there was a God then you would tend to believe even if you hadn't personally met the guy?

That is where your logic ends you up.

Faith, on the other hand, does not provide evidence.

Faith isn't necessarily the problem either. If you want to have a committed relationship with a partner then you're going to need faith.

I know faith in god isn't the same as faith in your partner's fidelity, but in both cases it is faith that is not independently verified. So, "faith that isn't independently verified" isn't necessarily a bad or broken thing. I think it is contextual like you're about to say...

On the other hand, I don't believe that people who believe in religion are "broken" necessarily. They're largely harmless in small numbers - it's only when they gather in large groups and try and use their influence to affect my life that I get irritated. Having faith isn't a problem. Using it as a critical thinking tool may be a problem, depending on the issue at hand.

Very well put. I couldn't agree more.

##### Share on other sites

Let me clarify something based on the responses I got. When I say "a number of people telling me the same thing" I do not simply mean they're wandering around spouting anything at all. They need to have something to back up the claim they're making - and to clarify even further, it needs to be something tangible that I can then take to someone else and say "Hey, what do you think of this?" The doctor, in my example, would use CT Scans, MRI's, etc, which I could take the results of to another doctor and say, "So, is that an aneurysm?"

My previous example could probably best be summarized by saying that the level of my skepticism is inversely proportional to the quanity and the square of the quality of the evidence supporting it.

$S_{me} = O \times \frac{1}{Q_1 \times Q_2^2}$

Where: Q1 = quantity, Q2 = quality and O is the outlandishness of the claim.

God spoke to you? Great! He's never even sent me a Get Well Soon card. More importantly - how do you know it's God? There's no evidence that it actually is God speaking to you - for all we know, everyone that's heard the voice of God is really just receiving signals from an NSA satellite and should probably invest in a quantity of tin foil.

Edited to add a new factor: outlandishness.

Edited by Greg H.

## Create an account

Register a new account