|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religion is Evil! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Rahvin writes: "Universal truths" are wishy-washy nonsense. The "golden rule" stems from simple empathy, the ability to see other individuals as similar to oneself. It's "universal" among humans because complex features (like brains) within a species evolve together - there's a reason that smiling is universal, a reason we can all feel sadness and happiness and anxiety and joy, a reason that a psychiatrist can prescribe the same medication to a hundred patients and have it work in roughly similar ways, and the reason is that our brains are all very similar. Morality does not stem from the laws of physics. There is no term for fairness in the laws of motion. There is nothing in the Universe looking out for us, no special meaning from on high. But we don't need that. We give the Universe and our lives meaning, we create fairness, we determine right from wrong by how we want to treat others and how we want others to treat us. The answer to the question "what is the meaning of life" is "whatever you want the meaning of your life to be!" As I said to hooah that may be completely true but it doesn't eliminate the possibility that there truth, such as the Golden Rule that exists whether we are around to put it into practice. This is very much the same as the discussion on evolution. We can observe how evolution has taken place over time but we can't say whether it was caused by an external intelligence or whether it came from completely natural, non-moral, non-intelligent sources. It is the same in this case. Neither of us can say with certainty that we are right. It is simply what we believe to be true.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I was simply trying to point out that is is something that the vast majority of people of any religion or any non-religious person could agree on. No, you specifically mentioned religions then went on to say that "even "you athesits" believe it" as if we should be averse to any and everything religion does just because religions do it, good shit be damned.
I could just as easily say that you would want it to be wrong. I don't "want" it to be anything. I see the evidence and there isn't any evidence for any "higher power" or anything eternal. There IS, however, evidence that human beings need to work together in order to propogate our species.
That could very well be true and it could be that there is nothing but the natural material world.
that doesn't eliminate the possibility that our sense of the golden rule evolved from some greater truth beyond ourselves. Until there is evidence of or you can prove the existence of something "beyond ourselves", you are doing nothing but wishing and dreaming and believing in fairy tales.
We all believe things we can't prove or know. Yea, those people are called religionists. Atheists/skeptics have a tendency to not believe in things we can't prove or know.
Maybe, but there exists forms of co-operation which might be considered "the golden rule lite" amongst animals. In societal animals (like the rest of ourgreat ape cousins) I am sure they do have to cooperate in order to survive otherwise they wouldn't be a societal species.Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
GDR writes: This is very much the same as the discussion on evolution. We can observe how evolution has taken place over time but we can't say whether it was caused by an external intelligence or whether it came from completely natural, non-moral, non-intelligent sources. It is the same in this case. We would have to propose an external intelligence that was bending over backwards in order to give our biosphere the appearance of being the product of completely natural, non-moral, non-intelligent sources, wouldn't we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
hooah212002 writes:
That was meant as tongue in cheek humour. I guess it doesn't translate well in print.
No, you specifically mentioned religions then went on to say that "even "you athesits" believe it" as if we should be averse to any and everything religion does just because religions do it, good shit be damned. hooah212002 writes: I don't "want" it to be anything. I see the evidence and there isn't any evidence for any "higher power" or anything eternal. There IS, however, evidence that human beings need to work together in order to propogate our species. We both have our preconceived beliefs. Yes there is evidence that we need to work together. So what? That would be true whether a higher power exists or not. There is no evidence that a "higher power" doesn't exist either.
hooah212002 writes: Until there is evidence of or you can prove the existence of something "beyond ourselves", you are doing nothing but wishing and dreaming and believing in fairy tales. I never will be able to prove it, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You can't prove that a higher power doesn't exist but I don't claim that for evidence that it does.
hooah212002 writes: Yea, those people are called religionists. Atheists/skeptics have a tendency to not believe in things we can't prove or know. That's obvious but it tells us nothing except to explain how you personally come to your conclusions.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
bluegenes writes: We would have to propose an external intelligence that was bending over backwards in order to give our biosphere the appearance of being the product of completely natural, non-moral, non-intelligent sources, wouldn't we? That wasn't actually my point. Personally, I don't think that our biosphere has the appearance of completely natural. non-moral. non-intelligent sources. IMHO it has all the appearances of being the product the product of a moral intelligence. That however is my subjective belief and I was only pointing out that it is reasonable to come to the other conclusion.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
We both have our preconceived beliefs. I would hardly consider conclusions based on evidence "beliefs". I'll let you religionists "believe" things.
That would be true whether a higher power exists or not. You most certainly have heard of, and are familiar with, Occams Razor. We have explanations (from both myself and Rahvin at least) that do not require some magic jewish pixie.
There is no evidence that a "higher power" doesn't exist either. Until there is sufficient evidence for this divine fairy, it does not need to be disproven. We all know you know this.
You can't prove that a higher power doesn't exist but I don't claim that for evidence that it does. I don't need to prove it doesn't exist because you've not sufficiently proven it does, whereas I have given evidence that this "golden rule" is a mere human construct, a byproduct of our being a societal species. No zombie jews required. Again, Occam's Razor.
That's obvious but it tells us nothing except to explain how you personally come to your conclusions. HUH?? You said "We all believe things we can't prove or know." and I responded saying that only faith heads do that. "Believing" something is an extremely poor way to examine reality let alone come to a conclusion.Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
GDR writes: IMHO it has all the appearances of being the product the product of a moral intelligence. That however is my subjective belief and I was only pointing out that it is reasonable to come to the other conclusion. It seems slightly odd to say that something appears to you to be the product of something, and then to follow it up with the view that that's your subjective belief. Doesn't "appearance" imply observations, and therefore warrant a claim of some degree of objectivity? Also, your comment set me wondering what you think a world that wasn't the product of a moral intelligence would be like. How would you expect it to differ from this one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
bluegenes writes: It seems slightly odd to say that something appears to you to be the product of something, and then to follow it up with the view that that's your subjective belief. Doesn't "appearance" imply observations, and therefore warrant a claim of some degree of objectivity? I did start the statement with IMHO by the way. However, I can objectively observe that we live in a complex universe, with complex life forms, with sentient beings that are able to make moral decisions. I then subjectively conclude that it is more likely that all of that is the result of a pre-existing moral intelligence than not. You and others subjectively conclude the opposite.
bluegenes writes: Also, your comment set me wondering what you think a world that wasn't the product of a moral intelligence would be like. How would you expect it to differ from this one? If we are limiting ourselves to our finite 4 dimensional existence, it is my opinion that it is highly unlikely that intelligent life of any form would exist. If you are talking about an amoral intelligence then I suppose it would be a hell with everyone looking after their self-interest regardless of its impact on others. This is just an opinion that I'm offering up with a couple of minutes of thought. I am probably going to regret answering that question when I get up in the morning. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
Hello Hooah, you touch upon a interesting point.
Hooah writes: I would hardly consider conclusions based on evidence "beliefs". I'll let you religionists "believe" things. In some sense I understand this statement. However it has been my experience that I can not function in life without beliefs. In my daily activities I filter the world through my previous belief systems to come to conclusions about what knowledge is presented. I do not and can not fact check and verify everything and therefore make my decisions based on beliefs. Even empirical evidence that guides our decisions are based on the belief that the data is correct. Or that the source is accurate, etc. There are many kinds of beliefs, some delusional and some rational. The British empiricist David Hume was notorious for challenging our certainties. Anna Rowley"You want your beliefs to change. It's proof that you are keeping your eyes open, living fully, and welcoming everything that the world and people around you can teach you." This means that peoples' beliefs should evolve as they gain new experiences"
hooah writes:
I can not prove or know anything with absolute certainty beyond the indubitable. HUH?? You said "We all believe things we can't prove or know." and I responded saying that only faith heads do that. "Believing" something is an extremely poor way to examine reality let alone come to a conclusion. Philosophy | West Valley Collegehttp://www-phil.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/96class15.html Just my 2 centavos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
In some sense I understand this statement. However it has been my experience that I can not function in life without beliefs. In my daily activities I filter the world through my previous belief systems to come to conclusions about what knowledge is presented. I do not and can not fact check and verify everything and therefore make my decisions based on beliefs. I see your point. It is fair to say that we "believe" the sun will rise tomorrow morning. But is it a belief in this context? I don't think so. "We stand on the shoulders of giants" so they say. I don't think I can conflate trust in the scientific method (because it can be replicated and has proven since it's inception to the absolute most reliable method for observing the world we live in) with belief in the same sense. I don't "believe" that my car will start when I get in it to go to work...I hope like hell it will! And if it does not, I don't "believe" there to be any reason it won't, I have to investigate why it will not. I don't "believe" evolution to be true, I trust those scientists who study because they have yet to give reason to not trust them, unlike the religionists who oppose them. Having said all that, it is because of the current religious crop that I leave even the word belief to religionists. I hate to use the word myself because they have bastardized it beyond recognition.
Even empirical evidence that guides our decisions are based on the belief that the data is correct. I disagree. The data is there and can be tested and retested. The only "belief" in this sense is one that our senses are not lying to us: solopsism. Are you a solopsist?Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't think I can conflate trust in the scientific method (snip) with belief in the same sense. I take my religious hat off when I'm acting as a scientist. I wouldn't say that I believe in evolution, I'd say that I accept it. But sometimes when I'm in the lab doing technical support, investing a customer's problem, I just can't gather enough data to make a strong enough conclusion one way or the other. I'll tell them that, and if I can I'll say things like it seems like this is the problem, or, this is most likely the cause... sometimes, though, they're looking for a professional opinion on the matter, and at that point I'm comfortable saying that I believe that this is the cause. In that sense, I don't have enough information to say for sure, but I've seen enough to convince myself. So there can be instances where a scientist can come to a belief based on evidence rather than a conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
hooah212002 writes: Technically yes. Because we are basing the sun's rising on the previous knowledge that has risen before for the past 4.5 billion years. We can not know it will.
But is it a belief in this context? I don't think I can conflate trust in the scientific method (because it can be replicated and has proven since it's inception to the absolute most reliable method for observing the world we live in) with belief in the same sense. I trust in the scientific method. I believe the scientific method has served humanity well. Do either of these statements ruffle your feathers? Trust and belief are both acceptable uses in this example.
I disagree. The data is there and can be tested and retested. The only "belief" in this sense is one that our senses are not lying to us: solopsism. Are you a solopsist? No. not a solopsist.I contend that the belief or trust in a certain premise or facts presented being true; is tentative on the weight and veracity of the evidence on hand. Since we can not verify every single fact and event presented to us daily, we believe the evidence based on the tentative and current state of our own personal belief system. hooah212002 I leave even the word belief to religionists.
Fair enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I take my religious hat off when I'm acting as a scientist. I have no doubt that most all other intellectually honest scientists who have faith do as well.
I wouldn't say that I believe in evolution, I'd say that I accept it. Precisely my point.
But sometimes when I'm in the lab doing technical support, investing a customer's problem, I just can't gather enough data to make a strong enough conclusion one way or the other. I'll tell them that, and if I can I'll say things like it seems like this is the problem, or, this is most likely the cause... sometimes, though, they're looking for a professional opinion on the matter, and at that point I'm comfortable saying that I believe that this is the cause. In that sense, I don't have enough information to say for sure, but I've seen enough to convince myself. So there can be instances where a scientist can come to a belief based on evidence rather than a conclusion. But you make these educated guess based in prior knowledge, not willy nilly off the cuff shit, right? You are presented with a problem that most likely presents itself in a very similar fashion to a previous problem, however your previous fix may not quite work. You've been in your field enough to have seen some problems that your "gut instinct" on hearing of a particular issue is most often correct not because gut instincts are more often correct, but because you've been trained in your field. You have a working knowledge that lends itself to make good "guesses". I could say that this "belief" you say is a fine way to put it, but I personally do not like to use the word because in my opinion (as I've already said) religionists have made it almost utterly useless and will jump on any and all atheists who even mention belief "see see see YOU DO believe and that justifies MY belief".....Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Do either of these statements ruffle your feathers? In the strict usage of the word: no, they don't. I don't feel as though I have attempted to make any argument that the word belief should never be used outside of godspeak. if I have made it sound as more than a personal preference (and it is very likely that I have), I apologize. However, I do personally feel the need to differentiate between belief and trust and personally cannot stand the word belief simply because of the social stigma I feel it carries.
I contend that the belief or trust in a certain premise or facts presented being true; is tentative on the weight and veracity of the evidence on hand. Since we can not verify every single fact and event presented to us daily, we believe the evidence based on the tentative and current state of our own personal belief system. Fair enough and I tend to agree in that context. I just prefer not to used the word belief.Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I see your point. It is fair to say that we "believe" the sun will rise tomorrow morning. But is it a belief in this context?
It is not at all similar to religious belief. However, "belief" is a term of art in philosophy, and philosophers would call that a belief in the context of their theory of knowledge.Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024