Religious Absurdity And Modern Psychological Baggage.

[Mr Hyde]

Why is it that when some people fervently believe in ghosts or when they follow commanding ‘voices in their head’, these people are treated as delusional, crazy or even psychopathic? These people are given medical treatment and brain-chemical balancing drugs in order to manage their mental illness. Yet when people profess the most intense beliefs in certain other things no one has ever really seen, such as demons, Allah, God, angels, heaven, hell, and so on, these people are treated with the greatest of reverence and social respect and even made into leaders and wise gurus who become rich from the donations of their faithful followers!

What is the difference here? The fantasies and delusions are equally foolish whether it’s the belief and obedience to a psychotic voice in the head or an imaginary deity residing in some magical place no one can see. Religious beliefs should be placed in the same class as mental sickness or any other serious psychological disorder that degrades the quality of life and the individual's ability to deal with reality.

One of the fundamental (but understandable) flaws with modern psychology is its assumption that sanity is defined using the mental character of the majority as a benchmark. But this standard isn’t really objective, it’s subjective and merely based on a relational comparison that is used incorrectly to define an aberrant standard for mental health. Just because many people believe in something that doesn’t make it valid, and just because a lie is repeated a billion times that doesn’t make it any more truthful than it was to begin with!



http://www.counterorder.com/belief.html

What are people's opinion on all of this?

[Sweets America]

That seems quite accurate, in a way. That reminds me why I quit psychology, because I could not stand the idea of having to believe in theories which decide who is sane and who is not. Scary.

[billyjack]

the religiously enlightened person is sated in reality while the delusional mental case is starved of it. however, most religious folks arent enlightened and therefore could use a reality check too.

when i say enlightened i most certainly do not mean "saved."

[The Atheist]

What are people's opinion on all of this?

That it's extremely close to the mark, if not 100% correct.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Take it even further than that. Why should I believe that I am an evolved orangutan? Why should I believe that I had ancestors from Europe? Why should I believe there is such a thing as China? Aren't these abstract concepts also just as ridiculous as religious ones? We take for granted a lot of things which we shouldn't.

[The Atheist]

Take it even further than that. Why should I believe that I am an evolved orangutan?

You shouldn't, we didn't.


Why should I believe that I had ancestors from Europe? Why should I believe there is such a thing as China? Aren't these abstract concepts also just as ridiculous as religious ones?

No.

The only path which goes that way is solipsism.


We take for granted a lot of things which we shouldn't.

Who's this "we" you speak of? If you mean humans in general, I'll buy that!

[NikolaiI]

well, I believe in God, so I don't think I'm insane for doing so. thank you for the pleasant sentiments.

[The Atheist]

well, I believe in God, so I don't think I'm insane for doing so. thank you for the pleasant sentiments.

I don't think the quote actually says that.

[JCamilo]

It is bs.
I know several individuals (and I bet most people will consider with calm and see they do also) that believe in ghosts or anything similar (The author of the quoted part does not even consider that several religions believe in ghosts communication, voices in their head) and are not treated like someone with mental illiness because they live as ground in the reality as any normal religious guy (or girl). At sametime I know people who dellusions are religious based and they are treated.
I won't dismiss one or another case of medical incompetence but I doubt anyone would give to someone heavy medical treatment if the case wasnt serious enough, putting in danger the person interation with society and justifiable since as a normal human being we are allowed our degree of insanity.

[Mr Hyde]

That seems quite accurate, in a way. That reminds me why I quit psychology, because I could not stand the idea of having to believe in theories which decide who is sane and who is not. Scary.

Psychology is based off of the assumption that the majority of humans dictate what sane behavior should be. ( A rather broad assumption.)

Of course I can think of many instances where the majority is flawed yet psychology for security's sake rather not go into detail about all that. ( It never does.)


the religiously enlightened person is sated in reality while the delusional mental case is starved of it.

In what comparison or detail?



however, most religious folks arent enlightened and therefore could use a reality check too. Interesting.


when i say enlightened i most certainly do not mean "saved."

What do you mean exactly?

The atheist said:


No.

The only path which goes that way is solipsism.

Is not all of existence guided by subjective expirience?

I don't think man can quite escape from solipsism.


well, I believe in God, so I don't think I'm insane for doing so. thank you for the pleasant sentiments.

Don't mind me. I'm just being analytical.


It is bs.
I know several individuals (and I bet most people will consider with calm and see they do also) that believe in ghosts or anything similar (The author of the quoted part does not even consider that several religions believe in ghosts communication, voices in their head) and are not treated like someone with mental illiness because they live as ground in the reality as any normal religious guy (or girl). At sametime I know people who dellusions are religious based and they are treated.
I won't dismiss one or another case of medical incompetence but I doubt anyone would give to someone heavy medical treatment if the case wasnt serious enough, putting in danger the person interation with society and justifiable since as a normal human being we are allowed our degree of insanity.

Tell me when a person believes in god, gods, angels, devils, spirits and demons which he cannot prove to exist exactly how is that religious person any different from a man who lays in a padded room amongst an asylum?

In both cases they are conversing and interacting with invisible non-existent entities that cannot be proven to exist physically.

The only difference I can see is that for some reason one is called more sane than the other of course I can't even begin to tell you what that reason is as it is beyond my understanding.

[billyjack]

In what comparison or detail?


What do you mean exactly?

i'd call spinoza(sometimes), thoreau, nietzche, winny the pooh, ect enlightened bc they take sense perception and experience as their basis for reality, rather than concepts/ theories.

christians throw the term saved around like its identical to enlightenment. its not. in fact, they're polar opposites. being that their reasoning for contentment lies in scripture, not experience

[Psycheinaboat]

Tell me when a person believes in god, gods, angels, devils, spirits and demons which he cannot prove to exist exactly how is that religious person any different from a man who lays in a padded room amongst an asylum?

In both cases they are conversing and interacting with invisible non-existent entities that cannot be proven to exist physically.

The only difference I can see is that for some reason one is called more sane than the other of course I can't even begin to tell you what that reason is as it is beyond my understanding.

I think the difference is cause or motivation. What makes young children talk to invisible friends? Are they insane? No.

If I talk to invisible beings as a symptom of Schizophrenia, I probably need treatment, someone to intercede on my behalf. If I am praying, but everything else seems to be working as it should (mentally and emotionally), why would I need intercession?

Would you say praying is indicative of a disorder that is harmful to myself or others? I am not asking about the Crusades or some broad example of religious fervor, and mostly greed, run amok; I mean, is the individual more dangerous or disordered because he prays and believes fervently in God?

[JCamilo]

Yes, that is a complete clueless reaction. People are only confined to asylums if they cannt control they behaviador thus putting other or themselves in danger. You are being over simplistic if you think capacity of imagination or fictionalization is considered insanity or even, as religious maybe, a case for for cultural education.
That is like jumping over a dude that coughs because he may be turbeculosis while it can just be caused by dust.
People are not treated because of symthoms but because of what cause it (there will several exams to decide if the hormones, if the brain, etc will show something) and just talking with imaginary things is not enough.
This attack against religion is simple minded, not bright and even compared to the "evolved from orangotangos"... in other worlds, completely unecessary.

[Mr Hyde]

I think the difference is cause or motivation. What makes young children talk to invisible friends? Are they insane? No.

If I talk to invisible beings as a symptom of Schizophrenia, I probably need treatment, someone to intercede on my behalf. If I am praying, but everything else seems to be working as it should (mentally and emotionally), why would I need intercession?

Would you say praying is indicative of a disorder that is harmful to myself or others? I am not asking about the Crusades or some broad example of religious fervor, and mostly greed, run amok; I mean, is the individual more dangerous or disordered because he prays and believes fervently in God?

Are you saying there is a right way to converse and interact with invisible non-existing entities where sanity is determined on the socially acceptable way of doing it?

{edit}

[JCamilo]

No, he is saying that talking with invisible beings does not put you in a padded cell, You are going to be examinated and if they find anything wrong with you - biologically wise - they may give you medicine.
He is telling you that beliving in eastern bunny, in god or my invisible friend does not classify us - in medical terms - insane.
He is telling you that what cause you to believe in imaginary beings is what can be classificated as disease. Either you have a disease (like schizophrenia), or you are just imaginative as a writer, or you are a child, or you follow a religion, etc. They all may appear to be the samething, but they are obviously not. It is rather naive and uniformed to judge they are all the same or treated all the same.

[NikolaiI]

One thought occurs to me is that perhaps the writer of that offensive article has made some errors themself. Perhaps they've reinforced their own belief with too many emotions to think rationally or logically about the issue. For instance let me ask you if you believe in reality. What is reality? Is reality one thing, or all things? If you say reality is the sum of all that exists, can you then tell me if reality is visible? Can it be proven? In fact, reality is not something that is physically seen or proven, yet we all agree that reality exists. Or some quantum scientists say we actually have no clue! But they're not to be discarded because they have new information. So I am not talking about "speaking" or praying to reality but perhaps even sensing it. You sense and feel this invisible thing, that you cannot prove, yet we all agree it's okay. Now, that you're thinking logically, let me try to explain something else to you. Many people believe in God as the source of reality, where reality came from, and where it would return... this is called to many Brahman. Others don't have a name for it; of course many have so many different ideas about it. We believe that there are levels like anything, and reality came from somewhere else, that it has a source in something, call it the Upper Force or Consciousness Force or God or anything. Many philosophers call it the Absolute Truth... etc. It's not illogical or irrational because it's precisely the fulfilling of rational or logical-- it's super-logical. I know this is very abstract. It does not need to be called super-logical. It's only my view but I believe that many believe God to be the source of reality-- in whatever form or with whatever labels; and I am speaking for any that hold this view. It is a valid philosophical standing. Thank you.

If you still disagree because you think it's wrong to believe in something non-phsyical, let me ask you again why you believe in reality. Prove what reality is to me. Prove what the sun is to a culture of bacteria.

To clarify what I think of this article, it's offensive and needlessly divisive. We sometimes are scared by what we don't understand, which is possibly why there is racism, etc., this is another instance of that.

[The Atheist]

I don't think man can quite escape from solipsism.

Yeah he can. It's not that hard.


If you still disagree because you think it's wrong to believe in something non-phsyical, let me ask you again why you believe in reality. Prove what reality is to me. Prove what the sun is to a culture of bacteria.

If you can get past the fact that things are real and not just sensory perecptions driven by beliefs, I can do just that.

The sun is bigger and hotter than bacteria.


To clarify what I think of this article, it's offensive and needlessly divisive. We sometimes are scared by what we don't understand, which is possibly why there is racism, etc., this is another instance of that.

Nothing to do with lack of understanding as far as I can see. I usually find people who write that sort of article to be very well versed in what causes religious thought and feelings.

Fear is possible, because some theists are downright scary: Fred Phelps, the people behind Jesus Camp, several sects of islam, YECs, lots of 'em. The fear isn't based on lack of understanding, but instead a complete understanding of how beliefs in invisible beings can be perverted to cause violence and bloodshed. Fear is a correct response to extremism.

It is no relation whatsoever to racism, which is completely irrational.

[Psycheinaboat]

I'll have to blog about my fascinating conversations with dead people sometime. :lol:

[NikolaiI]

Fear is possible, because some theists are downright scary: Fred Phelps, the people behind Jesus Camp, several sects of islam, YECs, lots of 'em. The fear isn't based on lack of understanding, but instead a complete understanding of how beliefs in invisible beings can be perverted to cause violence and bloodshed. Fear is a correct response to extremism.

It is no relation whatsoever to racism, which is completely irrational.

I wasn't talking about him, but about normal people.

[The Atheist]

I wasn't talking about him, but about normal people.

Define "normal".



.

[Pendragon]

i'd call spinoza(sometimes), thoreau, nietzche, winny the pooh, ect enlightened bc they take sense perception and experience as their basis for reality, rather than concepts/ theories.

christians throw the term saved around like its identical to enlightenment. its not. in fact, they're polar opposites. being that their reasoning for contentment lies in scripture, not experience
How easily one forgets that Nietzche actually was insane, and died that way. I respect the man's philosophy, and consider him largely misunderstood by many religious folk, but facts are facts, and he was certifible. I had to accept the fact of my own Bi-Polarism and take steps to control it. Religion didn't make me that way, I was born with it, as Nietzche was with his problem. His philosophy didn't drive him insane. So careful with whom you group as mentally incompetent.

God Bless

Pen

[Drkshadow03]

I was unimpressed by the guy's arguments.

1) He starts with your stereotypical approach of reaching for low-hanging fruit by attacking the most extreme and ridiculous portions of religious society as opposed to the mainstream, but then applies those results to the mainstream.

2) Poorly footnoted. So unless I have prior knowledge about a topic I have to take much of his evidence on belief, such as his comment about the Amish and lightning rods, the various African groups. Sure, I am a reference librarian and know how to research any of those topics on my own. However, that's not the point. He expects me to accept his evidence on faith without pointing to any real documents that in fact demonstrates this is what group X believes. In other words, I have to rely solely on his word and authority. The problem here is actually one of style. I am a firm believer that style and content should mimic each other whether in fiction or an essay. It doesn't make sense to write an essay questioning authoritarianism underlying religious belief and doctrine, and then force the reader to rely on your authority by not properly footnoting.

3) I fundamentally disagree with the guy's nihilistic philosophy. Even if it didn't go against my religious beliefs, I would still disagree because it would go against the thoughts of the other philosophers I admire. I see the world as a much more positive place than he seems to, and I see the importance of helping other people as one of the key components to the meaning of life.

4) he turns to psychological constructions like the "ego." At least, I think he drew on some Freud. Why would anyone attacking the underpinnings of belief turn to Freud whose many ideas consist of one unproveable assertion after another?

5) He makes a lot of assumptions about what motivates religious belief, which are ultimately situated in his philosophy.

[Jozanny]

I think one thing to remember is that Freud was one of the first theorists to show that mental illness is a matter of degree, and that human feelings have certain universalist traits. It may be a perfectly normal reaction to feel hurt if a superior betrays you, but if that hurt becomes a feedback loop which creates vengeance fantasies, then intervention might be useful against that emotional pain. In the same vein, your sense of spirituality is not in itself a symptom, but may become so if it is not tempered with some degree of a rational check.

I have always had a clash with metaphysical sensibility. I doubt I would have been driven to become a writer if I did not--the difference, however, between my struggle with metaphysical query, and a believers, is that I reject religion and a deity as a rational answer to any sense of being exceptional beyond my biology. There is a new study going on about the briefly dead, and near death experiences, about why in some cases it seems that the mind survives the dying brain of the patient in surgery. Whatever discoveries this study may lead to, unlike some of the doctors involved, this experience doesn't freak me out, because sub-atomic particle behavior is counter-intuitive. At the quantum level, a particle can be a particle or a wave, and all kinds of bizarre interactions go on; it is in this sense that I think consciousness, and the mind, is in some way tied to quantum theory.

If it is now coming out that the universe is in fact not symmetrical, then living matter may be equally asymmetrical in the process of its motion and cessation. Maybe one day to be fully understood, or not--but insanity is tied to excess, not to what we might or can imagine.

[islandclimber]

i love the religion section discussions/arguments that at some point or other always get personal.. I have been called stupid, and ignorant in nicer ways so many times in this forum haha... this one seems to be going on in a quite a pleasant manner so far...

a question.. who is more delusional, the religious man who believes in a god, or a supernatural idea, or some infinite concept.. or the scientist who believes in theories just as ridiculous, subatomic theories, string theories, quantum mechanics???

Is the religious man that claims to converse with god delusional, or is the scientist who follows absurd theories using words and ideas and machines we created???

My point is science is just as faith based as any religion, it is just drilled into us, and accepted by the majority as being real, even though theories that we believe in are falling flat on their faces all the time, new ones popping up in multitudes to replace...

I myself follow no religion, don't really believe in science and it's ideas either, I choose to accept that the universe is infinite and timeless in some way and both these terms are beyond our comprehension.. but I also do not judge others by what science/religion they choose to have faith in... as long as it satisfies them and makes them happy, more power to them...

people who ridicule other's faiths and beliefs are just insecure in their own... in my opinion... cheers

[Virgil]

And then there's the scientist who believes in subatomic theories, string theories, quantum mechanics and still believes in God. That's me. :D Only I'm an engineer, not a scientist. :) Good post Islandclimber. I haven't seen you around much.

[The Atheist]

a question.. who is more delusional, the religious man who believes in a god, or a supernatural idea, or some infinite concept.. or the scientist who believes in theories just as ridiculous, subatomic theories, string theories, quantum mechanics???

That's a tough one, but I'll play.

First off, I don't know of any scientists who "believe" in theories as ridiculous as the supernatural. Some scientific theories may seem as silly as the supernatural, but scientists don't usually believe in them until they've been shown to be testable and consistently so. Science isn't about belief, it's about observation and testing.

Unlike the supernatural.


Is the religious man that claims to converse with god delusional, or is the scientist who follows absurd theories using words and ideas and machines we created???

What "absurd theories" do sientists follow? As I've just explained, because they seem absurd to a layman, it doesn't mean it is absurd. The proof is in the testing and observation. It would be absurd to say the sun orbited the earth. If it was observed to be orbiting the earth, it wouldn't be absurd at all. Scientists tend to state their observations rather than dream up absurd theories. That's the realm of pseudoscience.


My point is science is just as faith based as any religion, it is just drilled into us, and accepted by the majority as being real, even though theories that we believe in and falling flat on their faces all the time, new ones popping up in multitudes to replace...

I'll ignore the faith basis of science, because you're hopefully realising now that faith doesn't enter into observation and testing.

The important part is that you realise that sometimes, scientific theory is found to be wrong. When that happens, science changes to accommodate the facts. That scientific theory can be proven wrong and therefore updated is a good thing. This is why we don't have scientists trying to turn lead into gold any more. We know it doesn't work.

Just out of interest, you claim there are multitudes of scientific theories falling on their faces and being replaced ann the time. Could you name just a couple? Just two scientific theories which have fallen over and been replaced recently.

Thanks.


I myself follow no religion, don't really believe in science and it's ideas either,...

This is interesting. You've used so much of science to make that post. 1000 years ago, you might have written something one person could read - in the unlikely event that you were one of the chosen very few who were literate. Now, you can sit at a keyboard, manufactured entirely by machines, using computer software encoded with laser beams onto a silicon chip smaller than your little fingernail, sending the message instantaneously across thousands of computer cables, optic fibres and shortwaves to other people.

But you don't believe in science.

[Sweets America]

i love the religion section discussions/arguments that at some point or other always get personal.. I have been called stupid, and ignorant in nicer ways so many times in this forum haha... this one seems to be going on in a quite a pleasant manner so far...

a question.. who is more delusional, the religious man who believes in a god, or a supernatural idea, or some infinite concept.. or the scientist who believes in theories just as ridiculous, subatomic theories, string theories, quantum mechanics???

Is the religious man that claims to converse with god delusional, or is the scientist who follows absurd theories using words and ideas and machines we created???

My point is science is just as faith based as any religion, it is just drilled into us, and accepted by the majority as being real, even though theories that we believe in are falling flat on their faces all the time, new ones popping up in multitudes to replace...

I myself follow no religion, don't really believe in science and it's ideas either, I choose to accept that the universe is infinite and timeless in some way and both these terms are beyond our comprehension.. but I also do not judge others by what science/religion they choose to have faith in... as long as it satisfies them and makes them happy, more power to them...

people who ridicule other's faiths and beliefs are just insecure in their own... in my opinion... cheers

Hey you, get out of my mind! ;)

I totally agree with you. You rock, my friend. :thumbs_up

[islandclimber]

You speak of testing and observation.. observing things we cannot see, testing with instruments we created to detect and observe things we thought might exist.. so little faith needed there... to say science requires no faith is absurd... we create the language used to describe the things we see... we create the instruments used to dissect these things, to tear them apart and see what is supposedly behind.. anything in science requires a huge degree of faith to believe in if you think about it... it requires the astonishing presumption that human language is correct in it's definitions of the universe, that these instruments we created to detect things we had already presupposed to exist do actually work on detecting something real, and not a bunch of imaginary things that scientists created long before we even had the instruments to detect them.. but no, of course, no faith is needed at all.. just relying on observation and testing of absurd theories is enough... okay... scientist's observe sure, they also create ridiculous theories on things they can't possibly have almost any knowledge of.. any scientific theory on the origin of the universe is garbage... I have heard scientific theories on the idea that universe is finite and time is finite.. interesting... so tell me what came before the universe??? it is absolutely necessary that existence, or non existence is infinite... time either does not exist or it is infinite... there can be no starting or ending point.. and if science argues I would like any logical argument put forth against either of those statements... please... science falls flat on it's face every time it attempts to provide theories on existence, on beginnings, on ideas of infinite and timeless... and this is because these things are beyond human comprehension.. that is where religion steps in, the possibility becoming closer to infinite existence, to infinite awareness, to enlightenment, nirvana, heaven, and so many other things science can't comprehend or understand...

theories that have fallen on their faces.... hmmmm... well about a zillion different string theories, special relativity has been shown to have holes in it in certain situations unless modified... there was a string theory where the universe must have 26 dimensions, most of them hidden.. hmmm.. absurd>>>??? yes.. did this scientist use observation and testing to come up with this theory.. no.. not really... the big bang theory has fallen in and out of favour so many times by this point it is absurd to even think about it... and to say the big bang was the start of the universe because we see the universe might possibly be expanding, even though we don't where the edge of this supposedly finite universe is, well that is absurd.. and if the universe is infinite... well how does an infinite thing expand.. please tell me.. i am quite interested in gaining knowledge on these well observed and tested theories.... like how we observed the big bang..

but thanks again for convincing me of the error of my ways.. i will be a good little citizen now and believe exactly what science tells me cause I would be lost without it.. as shown by me using this computer here... by the way, I have actually just finished work for good and am going to live in a tent... so you won't have to worry about me using all that science has to offer for too much longer... instead i will be wandering around the earth the way it is was meant to be wild and pristine, beautiful, and hopefully in places still untouched by the destructive hands of science, which has done more to ruin the world than all religions put together...

but to tell the truth i have argued this same thing in this part of the forum so many times now, that it has become kind of pointless to do so again... there will always be people who think that what they believe in is better and superior to what others believe in.. people who don't realize that faith brings much more happiness and peace than science ever will.. maybe it brings problems too but so does science.. buddhism is a completely peaceful religion that is about total faith in infinite awareness... what siddhartha and christ originally taught is so much different from what has come to be... but anyways, i digress, and i have to go, so cheers...

Hi Virgil, see i like that, someone who has faith and believes in many things... :) maybe just the best way to be.. instead of believing that everything is nothing, and nothing is everything, like me...

thanks sweets.. :)

[Jozanny]

science falls flat on it's face every time it attempts to provide theories on existence, on beginnings, on ideas of infinite and timeless... and this is because these things are beyond human comprehension.. that is where religion steps in, the possibility becoming closer to infinite existence, to infinite awareness, to enlightenment, nirvana, heaven, and so many other things science can't comprehend or understand...

So a non-believer is to be resented because he or she seriously questions what enlightment or achieving nirvana means? I don't get this type of sing-song chip on the shoulder. Scientific explanation isn't perfect. At the end of the day, things are the way there are because that is how it is, and the primate mind evolved around the notion of agency, probably as a survival skill, and so the lack of an agency in the face of material evidence is probably difficult for the primate mind to accept, but that doesn't mean that existence has all these different levels and planes of advancement either. If it did I think it would be fairly evident by now. God doesn't seem to progress like a historical narrative, and that is rather odd to my way of thinking. To the Hebrews deity was a Hebrew patriarch, but to Indians deity has a multitude of configurations, similar to African totem, and to the Christians deity is a human it is permissible to eat for salvation. Technological progress is flawed, certainly, but it has helped this species far more than doctrine or new age mysticism makes sense.

However, psychiatric illness and religious belief or lack of it has no correlation, and that is what this thread is about.

[Pendragon]

However, psychiatric illness and religious belief or lack of it has no correlation, and that is what this thread is about. Exactly. There are several things people have mentioned I might argue with, but the point of this thread doesn't go their direction, and we really should try to stick to the subject matter for once.

Religious beliefs, philosophy, and science: None of these determine if someone is delusional. If they are, they got that way on their own either through heritage or through simply refusing to accept things as they are.

One can be, as I am, a Minister, and still accept that few things will prove my faith, and not be rocked by it.

The Philosopher will come to realize that not everything suits his or her philosophy and continue on.

The scientist will recognize that theory is theory, but won't stop with his or her experiments to prove them.

Delusion sets in when one refuses to see anything other than one's own cherished belief.

God Bless

Pen

[Mr Hyde]

Delusion sets in when one refuses to see anything other than one's own cherished belief.

You've just described every human belief structure going by that definition.

I think a important question for this thread is to answer the question: What is delusion?

[The Atheist]

You speak of testing and observation.. observing things we cannot see, testing with instruments we created to detect and observe things we thought might exist.. so little faith needed there... to say science requires no faith is absurd...

No, but to claim that shows a complete lack of understanding of science. The proposition goes with your post - you clearly don't understand it. That's fine, but attacking something you don't understand is generally not all that clever.


... it requires the astonishing presumption that human language is correct in it's definitions of the universe, that these instruments we created to detect things we had already presupposed to exist do actually work on detecting something real, and not a bunch of imaginary things that scientists created long before we even had the instruments to detect them..

Please refer to this paragraph occasionally. It makes no sense whatsoever. Language is completely irrelevant; what things are called and whether words are made up to describe them has no bearing on anything. You're at a literature forum - you should know that already.


...but to tell the truth i have argued this same thing in this part of the forum so many times now, that it has become kind of pointless to do so again...

I can understand exactly why that is.

[Sweets America]

I perfectly agree with islandclimber and think he's thought about those things in a very intelligent way, with the necessary detachement.


observing things we cannot see, testing with instruments we created to detect and observe things we thought might exist.. so little faith needed there... to say science requires no faith is absurd... we create the language used to describe the things we see... we create the instruments used to dissect these things, to tear them apart and see what is supposedly behind.. anything in science requires a huge degree of faith to believe in if you think about it... it requires the astonishing presumption that human language is correct in it's definitions of the universe, that these instruments we created to detect things we had already presupposed to exist do actually work on detecting something real

This is at the core of what he says and it is so so true. Not to admit this is really being blind. It is easy for humans to say that this or that exists by measuring it with instruments they themselves created! Of course science requires faith: scientists must accept and believe that the instruments they created are actually accurate to prove things. What if the instruments were not accurate? And about things that peope claim do not exist, what if it just meant that those things just cannot be measured with instruments created by humans? That's what he meant. If you cannot understand this or accept the possibility that instruments have been created and might not be the accurate tools, then it means that your faith in science blinds you. Just like the faith in God blinds people who are absolutely sure that God exists. That's where science and religion meet.

I find it pretty ironic that you think Islandclimber is not clever...

[JCamilo]

Ok, so you two just managed to say that faith on the knife being able to cut an animal open is equal to human faith on God or all set of believes. I am amazed, but language is just wonderful.
Either you are awfully unable to describe faith or you just described science as experimentation.

[The Atheist]

I perfectly agree with islandclimber and think he's thought about those things in a very intelligent way, with the necessary detachement.

No.

What he's done is perfectly describe why solipsism is such an ugly position to hold.

If we can be said to have "faith" that the we, the world around us and the universe actually exist, then claim it as faith, but as JCamillo points out, that's either a complete twisting of the word, or a refusal to accept that reality exists.

I don't think he's thought about them at all. The statements are a meandering rendition of a solpsist universe where all perceptions are just perceptions. Children of 8 or 9 can see that that's silly.


Just like the faith in God blinds people who are absolutely sure that God exists. That's where science and religion meet.

Just like islandclimber, this statement is actually self-contradictory.

Those of us, who in your decription, have "faith" in it are binded by science as our god. We refuse to see that science that can be wrong.

How is it then that those of us who worship the science-god change our beliefs so often? Although he couldn't point to any specific examples, islandclimber did point out that scientific theories often arise and are later changed or debunked.

That proves beyond any question that science requires no faith, otherwise the challenges to theories wouldn't exist! You can't have it both ways.

QED!

[Mr Hyde]

It is interesting how people have this mentality that anything can go or be real yet at the same time also acknowledge that other people's perspectives can be delusional if not real at all. Sounds hypocritical if you don't mind me saying so.

[Sweets America]

No.

What he's done is perfectly describe why solipsism is such an ugly position to hold.

That's not because you disagree that it's "ugly". ;) I am sorry that I accused you of being blind because maybe you're right, I just don't know.


If we can be said to have "faith" that the we, the world around us and the universe actually exist, then claim it as faith, but as JCamillo points out, that's either a complete twisting of the word, or a refusal to accept that reality exists.

How can you be sure that you exist and that you're not the product of someone else's mind?


I don't think he's thought about them at all. The statements are a meandering rendition of a solpsist universe where all perceptions are just perceptions. Children of 8 or 9 can see that that's silly.

I think he did think about them. I did too. You just think differently, that's all, not a problem. Now if you think it's silly, that's your problem. Islandclimber and I are just not afraid to admit that we just don't know anything for sure.



Just like islandclimber, this statement is actually self-contradictory.

Those of us, who in your decription, have "faith" in it are binded by science as our god. We refuse to see that science that can be wrong.

How is it then that those of us who worship the science-god change our beliefs so often? Although he couldn't point to any specific examples, islandclimber did point out that scientific theories often arise and are later changed or debunked.

That proves beyond any question that science requires no faith, otherwise the challenges to theories wouldn't exist! You can't have it both ways.

I see what you mean, but you still have faith in the fact that the world exists and in many bases which are the starting point of how you analyse the world. You change your theories and perhaps adapt your instruments but you still believe in your ability to understand and make sense of the world with tools.

[JCamilo]

It is silly because the argument is silly, old, outdated and the way it is presented here lacks a lot of reference with the history of philosophy and shows a lot of misuse of therminology (As for example, you may believe in something which does not mean the same as having faith on something).

Individual perceptions are not what define reality and this argument is only about what one person perceive as reality. Yet you can conceive that ideas or objects (the ideas of objects since I do not want to take sides) can be perceived by anyone more than you. Almost in a crude way, I can poke you not matter how much you are unsure of your existence.
The argument that you defend was presented in such ways that one could not stop but call it ugly. It seems to not know the difference between knowing what an object is, what Faith is, basic tenets of religion... It is just not a matter of what you think or not, it is just wrong. Both sides (religion and science would find it).
It may be shocking, but reality and knowledge are not prone to anything is possible. Just because you can think something, that something does not turn in possible, plausible or real. It does not hurt your freedom hearing it is wrong and it is just silly to defend it by relativism and trying to input the other sides that they are not tolerant of your view because they blind instead of considering the possibilty : there is more people who know more than you and that is why those people are relutant to accept anything goes.

[Drkshadow03]

It is interesting how people have this mentality that anything can go or be real yet at the same time also acknowledge that other people's perspectives can be delusional if not real at all. Sounds hypocritical if you don't mind me saying so.

Why? It is perfectly possible for phenomena X, Y, or Z to be real; however, only for Z to be actually real. The keyword here being "possible." It basically relies on understanding the difference between imagination, possibility, and what I believe to be correct based off my own experiences, reasoning, and observations.

I can perfectly entertain Plato's ideas, understand how his thinking works, even see that their is a kind of logic to them within their own argument, while ultimately thinking Aristotle is mostly correct and Plato is mostly wrong (though occasionally useful).

This is exactly the kind of thinking I found distasteful in the article and the website you linked to. It presumes that just because multiple perspectives or answers have been put forth that the existence of these multiple perspectives somehow negate each other, so the universe and the various philosophies people believe in must all be wrong since there is so many. They can't all be right, after all. So none of them must be. Except this fails to consider that one of them may in fact might be right.

[Pendragon]

You've just described every human belief structure going by that definition.



Yes. I fail to see a problem. Tell me measuring things too small to even see at all doesn't take faith in man-made science.

[The Atheist]

It is interesting how people have this mentality that anything can go or be real yet at the same time also acknowledge that other people's perspectives can be delusional if not real at all. Sounds hypocritical if you don't mind me saying so.

It's not though.

When the perceptions are consistent through a variety of replicators, I think we can say for certain that it happens.


How can you be sure that you exist and that you're not the product of someone else's mind?

This is really Philosophy 101.

Thousands of books have been written on the subject over a period of many centuries. I don't see any point arguing the subject, so I'll just stick at reality being real. If you doubt reality, why do you bother asking questions? It would all be pre-determined and pointless.


I think he did think about them. I did too. You just think differently, that's all, not a problem. Now if you think it's silly, that's your problem. Islandclimber and I are just not afraid to admit that we just don't know anything for sure.

I don't claim to have 100% certainty on anything, but I do accept that when I switch a light on that it's going to work. (barring breakages, obviously) This does segue well into the OP, however, because I can't understand minds which find solipsism attractive enough to subscribe to.


Yes. I fail to see a problem. Tell me measuring things too small to even see at all doesn't take faith in man-made science.

Certainly.

Take bacteria and viruses as a classic example. We can't see them without help, but we can see the physical effects of them with simple observation - fruit rots, people get sick and sometimes die from bacterial and viral diseases. No faith at all is necessary to figure that they are real and that what we think we see in electon microscopy is real.

Again, this shows the beauty of science. No one observation or method is accpetable. If we see something in an electron microscope, we don't claim to know what it is until we understand what it does, how it interacts with everything else and what causes those things to happen.

I repeat - use your computer as an example. Every time you turn it on, it is invisible electrical impulses which drive it. Unless it's broken, it will behave the same way every time, connecting to the internet with invisible transmissions which turn up as written words at the other end. Another is atomic energy; we can't see any of the bits which create the chain reaction, but it works, every single time, which is why we build nuclear power stations. Those power stations, reuslting from an invisible, yet completely-understood reaction generates the electricity coming out of your wall socket - it is real, but invisible.

I do not recommend testing this theory by sticking your fingers in the outet!

:D


And then there's the scientist who believes in subatomic theories, string theories, quantum mechanics and still believes in God.

I'd been meaning to answer this.

It's great evidence of one thing lots of people on both sides tend to overlook: science and religion can coexist quite nicely.

[Pendragon]

It's not though.


I do not recommend testing this theory by sticking your fingers in the outet!

:D :lol::lol: No, I have been zapped by a 440 once and don't care to repeat the experiment! I was thinking more in terms of sub-atomic particle measurement, say a quark for example. Some one discovers these, and then it sounds a lot like "Horton Hears a Who." No one else knows about them or can see them and argument about their existence ensues. Measuring them is taking machines built by men, whom others must trust not to defraud them. So everything takes faith to some extent. Yes, science and religion can co-exist nicely.

In a world like ours, of total wonder, everything that can help should. Go back to the final three points I made:

One can be, as I am, a Minister, and still accept that few things will prove my faith, and not be rocked by it.

The Philosopher will come to realize that not everything suits his or her philosophy and continue on.

The scientist will recognize that theory is theory, but won't stop with his or her experiments to prove them.

Add to that that each can borrow from the other if they choose. No Monopoly on the truth from anyone.

You see for me to deny science or philosophy would be to deny natural process and creative thinking. I can't do this in good faith.

Yet neither do I think that science disproves the existence of God, nor that creative thinkers can't come to a place where God just might be the best explanation.

A good quote from Star Wars; "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." I could always be wrong.

God Bless

Pen

[Drkshadow03]

I'd been meaning to answer this.

It's great evidence of one thing lots of people on both sides tend to overlook: science and religion can coexist quite nicely.

Exactly!

[Wintermute]

[QUOTE=Pendragon;629029Yet neither do I think that science disproves the existence of God, nor that creative thinkers can't come to a place where God just might be the best explanation.
Pen[/QUOTE]

Hi Dale,

I'm kinda with you here my friend. You didn't specify a particular God, which I like. Science definately does not disprove a universal creator.

However, basic logic kinda works against any of the Gods created by humanity thus far. Only speaking for my logic naturally, hehe.

None of the explanations I've heard over my many years for why God created the universe about 14 billion years ago after existing for infinity makes any sense at all to me.

And none of the explanations for why God needed to send a son to the planet to get nailed to a cross to fix a mistake that it made when creating our little planet has ever made any sense to me.

The fact that we seem to exist is proof enough (for me) that something really amzing is going on. There should be nothing--yet here we are discussing fantastic things on an electronic bullitin board! As I've said before, I just don't think it gives a damn if I eat meat on Fridays, shave my beard, or prefer the intimate company of the same sex.

Blessings,
Doug

[The Atheist]

:lol::lol: No, I have been zapped by a 440 once and don't care to repeat the experiment! I was thinking more in terms of sub-atomic particle measurement, say a quark for example. Some one discovers these, and then it sounds a lot like "Horton Hears a Who." No one else knows about them or can see them and argument about their existence ensues. Measuring them is taking machines built by men, whom others must trust not to defraud them. So everything takes faith to some extent. Yes, science and religion can co-exist nicely.

I think you're still getting it wrong:

Quarks are an excellent example, because they're highly misunderstood.

You have it back to front in terms of their discovery, for starters. Nobody shouted "eureka" and asked his colleagues to come and see what he'd found, it was in fact a group of scientists observing subatomic particles and noticing that something was happened which they could neither quantify or qualify.

Thus began the observation. When thousands of different methods of observation had been used by thousands of different scientists, a picture gradually started to appear as to what was really going on. These things aren't measurable by any kind of microscope we have, so we can't have a look at one. This is why observation is the mainstay of science; all matter interacts with other matter, and that interaction leaves results we can quantify. It's why we built the hadron collider.

Arguments against the existence of quarks are few and far between nowadays, as far as I've seen, because scienctists ultimately don't need to argue too much once sufficient evidence has been presented. At that stage, opposition moves to the lunatic fringe. Because scientists don't trust each other as far as you clearly don't trust them, they repeat experiments rather than go, "oh goody, someone's discovered some quark things, I must believe in that now."

This is replication and it really does emphasise the beauty of science. Anyone who disagrees with scientific findings only needs enough money to buy equipment to repeat the same observation with their very own eyes/ears/brains. It is that simple.

And even better, do you like the way science is presented as "theory"? That's because science doesn't concern itself with absolutes.

As a result, all the christian scientists I've ever known of are able to happily accept that science is almost always right, while not affecting their theology one iota. That's what I meant about religion and science co-existing. Not because they both require faith, but especially because one doesn't. With science not needing faith, christians able to understand the science don't find it interferes with their god and religion at all. YEC/creationists are the exception, and Behe himself was forced to admit it isn't science, so even that argument disappears.

You do realise that many of the greatests scientists ever were confirmed theists, don't you?

(And as a member of the atheist minority on the planet, I DO have to point out that lots more of them were atheists! :D)


:In a world like ours, of total wonder, everything that can help should. Go back to the final three points I made:

One can be, as I am, a Minister, and still accept that few things will prove my faith, and not be rocked by it.

As it should. You'd be a lousy christian otherwise!

:)


:The Philosopher will come to realize that not everything suits his or her philosophy and continue on.

They never bother me. If you know the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams treats philosophy to the derision I am certain it deserves. A career for blokes with insufficient brains to be a scientist and insufficient balls to be an engineer. I really, really, really don't like philosphers!


:The scientist will recognize that theory is theory, but won't stop with his or her experiments to prove them.

Yep, that's what I keep saying.


:Add to that that each can borrow from the other if they choose. No Monopoly on the truth from anyone.

Only philosophers and theists try to deal in the truth. Scientists are happy just sitting and observing while the philosphers and theists argue the eternal verities.


:You see for me to deny science or philosophy would be to deny natural process and creative thinking. I can't do this in good faith.

Oh I can!

(As you may have guessed.)

I can deny philosphy anytime and frequently do. I lost one of my most treasured possessions, a letter from a full professor of psychology at NYU. He was responding to my article, Philosophy - the Science of ******** (where ******** has the first four letters: bull....) He agreed with my premise that philosophies should result from real-world observations, not an empty bag, as most philosophers are wont to use.


Yet neither do I think that science disproves the existence of God, nor that creative thinkers can't come to a place where God just might be the best explanation.

I don't think science disproves god either and have argued that very point against hundreds of other atheists. Science doesn't want to disprove god, and it can't anyway. As I said, science doesn't deal in absolutes, so only an idiot would try to disprove something as it requires an absoluteness just not available. What science does is produce results of observations. Those observations are used by people like myself (and hopefully yourself) to ask whether there's room in our knowledge for a god. I don't think there is, you do.

That's fine by me, but if a theist's version of god requires that some science is wrong, fabricated or straight fantasy, then science and religion are about to have a head-on crash. This is why mainstream churches embrace science - because it's real and doesn't interfere with how they see god, because they realise that their god must also be a real-world god and the real world demands that science is pretty close to absolute.


:A good quote from Star Wars; "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." I could always be wrong.

God Bless

Pen

Whoever it was was right, anyway, although you could certainly add theists and philosophers into the Sith pot.

As I just ended above, science can take us close enough that I'm comfortable in taking most of it for granted. The real world I inhabit allows the science I use 24 hours a day to work the same way every day, so until that changes, I'm not about to.

Cheers.

[Mr. Vandemar]

That proves beyond any question that science requires no faith

It most certainly does not!

You have faith in reason and your own intellect.


The real world I inhabit allows the science I use 24 hours a day to work the same way every day, so until that changes, I'm not about to.

How is it then that those of us who worship the science-god change our beliefs so often? Although he couldn't point to any specific examples, islandclimber did point out that scientific theories often arise and are later changed or debunked.


Do I even need to point out the obvious contradiction here? Please explain. You've acknowledged that science changes often, and yet you say that this science works 24 hours a day, everyday. What what?

[Pendragon]

Dear Doug and The Atheist:

We probably have a lot less to argue about than you think. If we accept that each of us is comfortable where we are. then that settles that. I would that all were believers in God, but I cannot force folks to see it my way, and perhaps I would be wrong to even try.

Ours is a world of wonder, of extremes and minutiae. We are the blind men with the elephant, sometimes partially in the right, but missing a large portion of the picture, which we fill in with our own or others observations.

God Bless

Pen

[Wintermute]

Hi Pen,

Well said. Have a great week.

Doug


It most certainly does not!
Do I even need to point out the obvious contradiction here? Please explain. You've acknowledged that science changes often, and yet you say that this science works 24 hours a day, everyday. What what?

Mr. Vandemar! The science changes constantly--that's a good thing! The method stays the same--generate a theory based on an observation. Test the theory through experimentation. If the experiment contradicts the theory, revise the theory. If not, make another experiment. See the difference?

For example:

Observation: The sky is blue.
Theory #1: The sky is blue because there is blue stuff in the sky.
Experiment: Go get some sky and look at it.
Results: No blue Stuff, Theory #1 in the trash can
Theory #2: The sky is blue because other colors are filtered out.
And on . . . .

The method stays the same. The theories change with the evidence. Simple.

Blessings,
Doug

[absurda]

I think some people who hear voices in their heads are not treated as mentally ill, only those whose actions, which are driven by those voices, hurt others or themselves. And religious people usually don't harm anyone.

[JCamilo]

It most certainly does not!
You have faith in reason and your own intellect.

That is manipulating the meaning of faith a lot. Faith, so you can compare with religious faith, is trust or belief without the need of evidence. A human certainly trust his intellect because he consider the evidences of his capacity to think. (Plus it is too simplistic even to use this argument, anyways).
As Reason, that thing was defined and evidenced by Philosophy, Science does not uphold Reason because they see no evidence of it is use, rather otherwise.

If I was a religious individual I would not like to see Faith reduced to trust on objects or concepts. It is like reducing God to a fork.

[dzebra]

Observation: The sky is blue.
Theory #1: The sky is blue because there is blue stuff in the sky.
Experiment: Go get some sky and look at it.
Results: No blue Stuff, Theory #1 in the trash can
Theory #2: The sky is blue because other colors are filtered out.
And on . . . .

The method stays the same. The theories change with the evidence. Simple.


The theories are guesses based on things that are observed. The observations are true, the theories are not always true.

Scientific theories are dangerous because they propose to answer the entire reason why something occurs. I also think that the observations have a chance of being a little misguided.

For instance, with the observation that "the sky is blue," the mystery is out in the sky. Suppose the observation was described "when I look up into the sky, my mind tells me I see blue." That allows the mystery to be either in the sky or in the mind, or even in the eyes, or the way the head is tilted.

I think that observations made by humans can miss things that are important to what was seen, then the theories are guesses based on things that may only play a minor role in causing the occurrence.

If scientists knew everything, and took all of existence into account when making their guesses, then scientific theories would be more reliable. As things stand, they are little more than guesses by humans with an incomplete understanding of things.

[The Atheist]

The theories are guesses based on things that are observed.

"Guess" is not right. A scientist will develop a hypothesis based on observations, then hone it to theory by further observation and testing. Guessing doesn't come into it.


Scientific theories are dangerous because they propose to answer the entire reason why something occurs.

How is that dangerous?


I also think that the observations have a chance of being a little misguided.

They certainly do, which is why replication is so important to science. Real science includes replicability, thus ensuring consistency. Misguided observations are quickly noticed.


For instance, with the observation that "the sky is blue," the mystery is out in the sky. Suppose the observation was described "when I look up into the sky, my mind tells me I see blue." That allows the mystery to be either in the sky or in the mind, or even in the eyes, or the way the head is tilted.

Fortunately, scientists don't work that way. If you want to perpetuate mystery in your life, why not choose some real mysteries, like the beginnings of the universe and subatomic theory?


I think that observations made by humans can miss things that are important to what was seen, then the theories are guesses based on things that may only play a minor role in causing the occurrence.

That's easy - you're just wrong.


If scientists knew everything, and took all of existence into account when making their guesses, then scientific theories would be more reliable. As things stand, they are little more than guesses by humans with an incomplete understanding of things.

Nope, this is completely wrong. Pythagoras' method of comuting the length of the hypotenuse doesn't need to use quantum mechanics to ensure it's right. If things worked as you suggest, the wheel would never have been invented because quantum mechanics may change the value of pi. We'd still be living in caves and hunting animals with branches as weapons.

The reliability of science is displayed daily when every time you turn your computer on, it works exactly the same way every time.

You clearly have no understanding of science and how it works, which is no problem at all, but it means that you really ought not to come in and try to use your view of it as having any authority whatsoever.

[SleepyWitch]

I haven't read all of this thread, so I hope I'm not bringing up a question that's already been asked:
do most religious people actually claim to hear the voice of God/ Satan/ demons/ angels/ etc. and follow their commands? I don't know any fundamentalists myself, but some of my friends are Christians at any rate and none of them ever talks about hearing voices etc. Maybe they feel some communion with God or think he can hear them when they pray, but I don't think any of them ever heard voices. So does this article talk about your average believer or only people who claim to have had an epiphany or vision or something?
What about when a non-religious person ponders some problem or dilemma and "hears" their own "voice" in their head, i.e. when they are actively thinking? Would you call that hearing voices? Now what if a religious person does the same, only that for them God is part of the equation, as in "What would the Bible/ Jesus/ God/ Allah/ .... say about this moral problem?". They'd then probably think of some answer based on their knowledge of the bible etc and would "hear" an answer. but that's just your average process of thinking isn't it, only they included religious considerations in their line of argument.
So, does this article talk about "normal" religious people or only those who had unusual religious experiences?

[Wintermute]

So, does this article talk about "normal" religious people or only those who had unusual religious experiences?

Hi Sleepy,

I'm in Georgia (US). Currently I'm sitting in my office in the IT department of a large manufacturing firm. I am within 'hollering' distance of three people, friends, who claim to have heard the voice of God talking to them--different voice than their own thoughts. One is female and she says her 'voice' is male. I bet if you ask the specific question, you'd find more folks than you think who actually 'hear' God's voice.

Being agnostic, this kinda bothers me. All it would take would be one little whisper and I'd be down off this fence in a microsecond.

I tend to think your explanation makes much more sense. But I could be wrong.

Peace,
Doug

[dzebra]

"Guess" is not right. A scientist will develop a hypothesis based on observations, then hone it to theory by further observation and testing. Guessing doesn't come into it.

If it's not known, then it's a guess. A hypothesis is a suggested solution, an educated guess, which is a guess.




How is that dangerous?


It is dangerous because proposing to know the entire reason that something happens is suggesting that one has absolute knowledge. No one does. I see untruths as dangerous.




That's easy - you're just wrong.


So human observations never miss anything important? Don't be silly.



Nope, this is completely wrong.



If scientists knew everything, they would equally or less reliable?
Humans have a complete understanding of things?
Hypotheses are known truths?

The answer to all of those is "no." Those were all the claims I made. Therefore that is not completely wrong.




If things worked as you suggest, the wheel would never have been invented because quantum mechanics may change the value of pi. We'd still be living in caves and hunting animals with branches as weapons.


I disagree, and I think it is because of a misunderstanding of what I am suggesting. I don't doubt the ability of science to reproduce results. I doubt the ability of science to come up with reasons why things are as they are.




The reliability of science is displayed daily when every time you turn your computer on, it works exactly the same way every time.


Unless it crashes.

[The Atheist]

If it's not known, then it's a guess. A hypothesis is a suggested solution, an educated guess, which is a guess.

You're still wrong, but I'm happy to leave it there and agree to differ as the subject has returned to the OP which is a lot more interesting anyway.


Unless it crashes.

Yes, well that was so obvious and irrelevant that I didn't bother to add it.


I'm in Georgia (US). Currently I'm sitting in my office in the IT department of a large manufacturing firm. I am within 'hollering' distance of three people, friends, who claim to have heard the voice of God talking to them--different voice than their own thoughts. One is female and she says her 'voice' is male. I bet if you ask the specific question, you'd find more folks than you think who actually 'hear' God's voice.

Being agnostic, this kinda bothers me. All it would take would be one little whisper and I'd be down off this fence in a microsecond.


Isn't it odd that so many people in USA claim to hear god but so few elsewhere? Have you asked your friends whether their god speaks with an American accent?

[Pendragon]

Isn't it odd that so many people in USA claim to hear god but so few elsewhere? Have you asked your friends whether their god speaks with an American accent?Many in the Muslim world apparently hear from God as well, as do many others.

A good question would be: Why would God talk to me in a voice I couldn't understand?

I myself know so few foreign phrases that if we all didn't use English, I would never make it on this forum. Not that I couldn't learn or be taught to understand other languages.

But if God is all-powerful, wouldn't He know my very accent as well as language? I wouldn't expect God to speak to me in say, Bantu. :)

[The Atheist]

Many in the Muslim world apparently hear from God as well, as do many others.

True, but since I don't even know any muslims, I was meaning christians. A much larger percentage of christians in USA claim to have a "personal relationship" with a god than in almost all other European-dominated (ethnically speaking) countries.


A good question would be: Why would God talk to me in a voice I couldn't understand?

Can you not understand Canadian, English, Scottish, Australian and New Zealanders speaking English? I can understand using the same language, but you're saying that a Texan will hear god in a different accent to a New York christian? (assuming there are such things! :D)

[JCamilo]

You're still wrong, but I'm happy to leave it there and agree to differ as the subject has returned to the OP which is a lot more interesting anyway.

Don't it is dangerous. I went to a doctor and he told me I had diabetis after all exams, but I told him that would prefer the following answer:
You may have diabets, but you paid for all exams for nothing,because it is dangerous to know so I give you the possibility of a flu.
So, do not leave, it may sound that you are rude and full of yourself because as it seems, not knowing nothing is reason enough to doubt from those who spent 40 years of their life working hard to know a little.

[SleepyWitch]

Hi Sleepy,

I'm in Georgia (US). Currently I'm sitting in my office in the IT department of a large manufacturing firm. I am within 'hollering' distance of three people, friends, who claim to have heard the voice of God talking to them--different voice than their own thoughts. One is female and she says her 'voice' is male. I bet if you ask the specific question, you'd find more folks than you think who actually 'hear' God's voice.


that's a good idea, I'll give it a try. but I tend to think religious people in the U.S. are more "extreme" on average than over here, so it may take me longer to find someone willing to admit that they here voices (other than their own).
on the other hand, maybe some religious people do not hear strange voices but pretend they do, because they believe this is what's supposed to be happening when you are a believer and don't won't anyone to think that God does not talk to them.

[The Atheist]

Don't it is dangerous. I went to a doctor and he told me I had diabetis after all exams, but I told him that would prefer the following answer:
You may have diabets, but you paid for all exams for nothing,because it is dangerous to know so I give you the possibility of a flu.
So, do not leave, it may sound that you are rude and full of yourself because as it seems, not knowing nothing is reason enough to doubt from those who spent 40 years of their life working hard to know a little.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Excellent!

There comes a point where I know further discussion is always going to be fruitless, and therefore somewhat frustrating.

I find the time to get to that point shortens as the calendar turns.

(I'm keeping that masterpiece)


on the other hand, maybe some religious people do not hear strange voices but pretend they do, because they believe this is what's supposed to be happening when you are a believer and don't won't anyone to think that God does not talk to them.

Ask any stage hypnotist about that effect.

Maybe another possibility is just that they want to hear it so badly, they do - since it appears to come from in their own head anyway, I'd see that as pretty likely.

The thing is, voices in your head isn't necessarily a sign of madness or god.

It just depends what the voices have to say.

[SleepyWitch]

leaving the question of insanity aside, does religious faith actually require each and every follower of a particular religion to hear the voice of their deity? e.g. does it say in the Bible that every Christian needs to be able to hear the voice of God, i.e. a distinct voice rather than just a vague awareness of God's existence / presence? this is genuine question, not a rhetorical one. maybe one of our Christian friends could provide some quotes from the Bible about this?
the way I see it, "hearing voices" is a kind of proof of the existence of God. Still leaving the question of insanity aside, I have trouble with this idea, because Christians keep telling atheists that faith means believing without a proof. Strictly speaking, this should not only include scientific evidence and proofs of the existence of God, but also non-scientific ones, like miracles, voices, epiphanies, God's sending Jesus to earth as his "son". All of these seem to be proofs of his existence, even though they are not scientific proofs. So this whole business of hearing voices seems contradictory to me. Maybe God has better things to do than to talk to each and every single one of his followers and just expects them to believe in him anyway? maybe those who hear voices have more doubts about their faith than they care to admit? or maybe they feel pissed off because God neglects them and they want more attention from him?

[Drkshadow03]

SleepyWitch: That's now two posts where you referred to religion broadly (religious faith and religious people) when quite clearly you're talking almost strictly about Christians. I can't think of too many Jews that I know who claim to hear G-d's voice in their head.

[SleepyWitch]

SleepyWitch: That's now two posts where you referred to religion broadly (religious faith and religious people) when quite clearly you're talking almost strictly about Christians. I can't think of too many Jews that I know who claim to hear G-d's voice in their head.

thanks, that's interesting. I referred to Christianity because it's the religion I know most about (although I don't know very much about it), I didn't mean to generalize.

[JCamilo]

Even among Christians, Joannas Darcs are rare. Religious systems are full of rituals, preparations, etc. and most of them do not accept just anyone can hear God, as you must be a special one, be part of iniciation (hence the concept of priest), ect.
Even Christians are not going to accept just anyone (Catholic Church them is very carefull with that) and the "hear voices, talked with god, etc" can also be a figure of speech used to reffer to other external signals. Religious systems are born from very poetical sources with mythological backgrounds, so we have not indulge the same mistake some religious people to of taking everything as literal.

[Wintermute]

that's a good idea, I'll give it a try. but I tend to think religious people in the U.S. are more "extreme" on average than over here, so it may take me longer to find someone willing to admit that they here voices (other than their own).

Oh Sleepy, I'm a goober! I didn't notice you were in Germany and made the typical American assumption that you were in the US. My apologies.

I lived in Norway for 13+ years in the 60's and 70's. And yeah, I agree with you. Europeans, including the catholic south tend to be much less zealous. I can only wish that the US will eventually grow up.

Cheers,
Doug

[Mr Hyde]

When religious people do not talk to god on a personal basis some instead will construct god to be a grand metaphor or symbol with other worldly powers which they describe as spirituality or the spirit. Either way religion is about the unseen as being real through mystification or hypnosis.

It requires blind faith and assumptions without physical substance.

And that is all I will say on the subject. ( As I'm sure the religious will come and tear me apart for my heresies.)


There comes a point where I know further discussion is always going to be fruitless,

Now you know why I've been quiet in this thread.

[SleepyWitch]

Even among Christians, Joannas Darcs are rare. Religious systems are full of rituals, preparations, etc. and most of them do not accept just anyone can hear God, as you must be a special one, be part of iniciation (hence the concept of priest), ect.
Even Christians are not going to accept just anyone (Catholic Church them is very carefull with that) and the "hear voices, talked with god, etc" can also be a figure of speech used to reffer to other external signals. Religious systems are born from very poetical sources with mythological backgrounds, so we have not indulge the same mistake some religious people to of taking everything as literal.

in this case, it would be interesting to see whether "hearing voices" is more common among Christian denominations that oppose episcopal hierarchy, such as the Quakers or Presbyterians. We don't have these in continental Europe, so that might explain the difference to the U.S.
on the other hand, if "hearing voices" is more common in all denominations in the U.S. it might just be a general characteristic of American culture. As in, any (American) Tom, Dick and Harry who has painted a picture or written a poem may call himself a "painter" or a "writer", even though he may be an accountant by profession. so in the same way, each and every church-goer wants to be a prophet???

[The Atheist]

in this case, it would be interesting to see whether "hearing voices" is more common among Christian denominations that oppose episcopal hierarchy, such as the Quakers or Presbyterians. We don't have these in continental Europe, so that might explain the difference to the U.S.

I'm not even in USA, but I'd stake a very large bet that more charismatic/evangelical church members hear god than other christian denominations.

I had an interesting discussion with a load of christians on this subject some time back and an Orthodox priest was asked how he replied when he heard the voice of god. He said "Satan, get thee hence!", believing people who actually hear god are doing no such thing.

Each to their own.

[Countess]

I'm a Hegelian, so I see both sides of the fence (possible/necessary). What I want to know is the psychology behind hating people with religious beliefs to the point of labeling them "mad". What makes people hate so dearly those who merely wish to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience while harming no one? Why is that so threatening to some?
Should we label them "mad"? Who is to say whether they are mad or not?

[The Atheist]

I'm a Hegelian, so I see both sides of the fence (possible/necessary). What I want to know is the psychology behind hating people with religious beliefs to the point of labeling them "mad".

Who's done that?

I think that recognising the similarities between some kinds of mental disorder and hearing voices and claiming them to be gods is fair without being judgemental.

No hatred involved.

You do know people other than Hegelians can often see two sides of an argument as well?


What makes people hate so dearly those who merely wish to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience while harming no one?

You mean the way theists hate atheists? How the theists' handbook states that god will damn families of unbelievers "even unto the fourth generation", despite atheists being no danger to an omnipotent god? Or the way that atheists are perceived in USA as the lowest grouping on the trust scale?

Yeah, that stuff annoys the hell out of me too.

You really do see both sides of an argument, because you clearly can't mean that the other way around - that atheists hate theists who just want to live according to their consciences. I'm sure you don't mean that, because, as I've already said, atheists don't usually hate theists, but more importantly, theists certainly don't live their lives according to their consciences, they live it according to the purported desires of an invisible entity. Surely, you wouldn't suggest that theists harm no-one, either; that being demonstrably wrong. (murder of abortionists should suffice for evidence)


Why is that so threatening to some?

If you're talking about threat, then atheists do indeed have fears - especially in USA, where murders of atheists because they are atheists has definitely happened while the reverse has not. Also, when a much larger group (US theists) class the other (US atheists) as untrustworthy and undesirable simply on the basis of non-adherence to a doctrine, I think fear is an appropriate response. It's stuff like that that makes me exceedingly glad not to be living there.

As to what threat atheists might be to theists, I have no idea, unless they're so weak in their own belief that they can bolster it by attacking atheism.


Should we label them "mad"? Who is to say whether they are mad or not?

Refer above - I don't think anyone has.

[Pendragon]

leaving the question of insanity aside, does religious faith actually require each and every follower of a particular religion to hear the voice of their deity? e.g. does it say in the Bible that every Christian needs to be able to hear the voice of God, i.e. a distinct voice rather than just a vague awareness of God's existence / presence? this is genuine question, not a rhetorical one. maybe one of our Christian friends could provide some quotes from the Bible about this?

No direct voice that I know of, an awareness of presence.





the way I see it, "hearing voices" is a kind of proof of the existence of God. Still leaving the question of insanity aside, I have trouble with this idea, because Christians keep telling atheists that faith means believing without a proof. Strictly speaking, this should not only include scientific evidence and proofs of the existence of God, but also non-scientific ones, like miracles, voices, epiphanies, God's sending Jesus to earth as his "son". All of these seem to be proofs of his existence, even though they are not scientific proofs. So this whole business of hearing voices seems contradictory to me. Maybe God has better things to do than to talk to each and every single one of his followers and just expects them to believe in him anyway? maybe those who hear voices have more doubts about their faith than they care to admit? or maybe they feel pissed off because God neglects them and they want more attention from him?Long list just to say "Maybe, maybe not" which even I admit is how I feel. I may believe I have heard God speak, yet Voices can't reassure me, since I am bi-polar and might think I have went from bad to worse. Do I actually need proof? Not always, and when I do, faith dictates to believe anyway, so I require no proof. Do I feel neglected? Sometimes, but this isn't "the sweet by and by" but "the nasty now and now." You have to learn to deal with it, and play the hand you are dealt. Do I get ticked, to use another word? Yeah, and perhaps I just don't always understand the entire point. Happens to all of us. Maybe people hear God speak, maybe not. I believe the Hebrew word is something like timshel "it may be".

God Bless,

and Atheist

Righto, mate! Throw a shrimp on the barbie, Bob's your Uncle.

Pen

[The Atheist]

...and Atheist

Righto, mate! Throw a shrimp on the barbie, Bob's your Uncle.

Pen

Cheers!

(Although throwing shrimp on the barbie is strictly Australian, and it's prawn, not shrimp. Good effort, though! :D)

[Drkshadow03]

Who's done that?

I think that recognising the similarities between some kinds of mental disorder and hearing voices and claiming them to be gods is fair without being judgemental.

uhm, the original post said the following:


Why is it that when some people fervently believe in ghosts or when they follow commanding ‘voices in their head’, these people are treated as delusional, crazy or even psychopathic? These people are given medical treatment and brain-chemical balancing drugs in order to manage their mental illness. Yet when people profess the most intense beliefs in certain other things no one has ever really seen, such as demons, Allah, God, angels, heaven, hell, and so on, these people are treated with the greatest of reverence and social respect and even made into leaders and wise gurus who become rich from the donations of their faithful followers!

What is the difference here? The fantasies and delusions are equally foolish whether it’s the belief and obedience to a psychotic voice in the head or an imaginary deity residing in some magical place no one can see. Religious beliefs should be placed in the same class as mental sickness or any other serious psychological disorder that degrades the quality of life and the individual's ability to deal with reality.

If you read the original post very closely it never once talks about religious people hearing voices, but instead compares a general population who hear voices with the AVERAGE religious person. The original post states quite bluntly that "religious beliefs should be placed in the same class as mental sickness."

Since The Countess didn't quote anyone so as to be replying to anyone's point specifically your "who's done that?" response is an odd given the opening post of this thread.


You mean the way theists hate atheists?

How did The Countess's excellent points about a general group of people (whoever they may be since she never used the word "atheist" once in the post) hating those "who merely wish to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience" by practicing their religion come to be about you again exactly? ;)

[The Atheist]

The original post states quite bluntly that "religious beliefs should be placed in the same class as mental sickness."

Correct; which hardly relates as saying they're "all mad".


How did The Countess's excellent points about a general group of people (whoever they may be since she never used the word "atheist" once in the post) hating those "who merely wish to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience" by practicing their religion come to be about you again exactly? ;)

It didn't.

I'm actually reasonably sure she was meaning theists rather than atheists, which I why I answered it as I did. I'll await clarification from her rather than you though.

[Drkshadow03]

Correct; which hardly relates as saying they're "all mad".

Uhm, it seems to be pretty much saying the same thing to me no matter what way you split it. But tell you what. I was just looking through the comments and saw you responded the same way to someone else.

What do YOU think the original quote is actually saying?



It didn't.

I'm actually reasonably sure she was meaning theists rather than atheists, which I why I answered it as I did. I'll await clarification from her rather than you though.

I'm a Hegelian, so I see both sides of the fence (possible/necessary). What I want to know is the psychology behind hating people with religious beliefs to the point of labeling them "mad". What makes people hate so dearly those who merely wish to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience while harming no one? Why is that so threatening to some?
Should we label them "mad"? Who is to say whether they are mad or not?

The rest of the posts context can be understood after reading the material I emphasized. She was talking about how some people for some reason can't seem to sleep at night because there's someone out there who happens to believe in G-d! ::gasp::

[The Atheist]

Uhm, it seems to be pretty much saying the same thing to me no matter what way you split it. But tell you what. I was just looking through the comments and saw you responded the same way to someone else.

What do YOU think the original quote is actually saying?

That there is a similarity between psychosis and "hearing god". (Funnily enough, the same thing has recently been shown graphically with MRI scanning)

It's not the same as saying they're all mad, however.


She was talking about how some people for some reason can't seem to sleep at night because there's someone out there who happens to believe in G-d! ::gasp::

Add this to your comment:

What makes people hate so dearly those who merely wish to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience while harming no one? Why is that so threatening to some?

In the case of both comments, there is a serious category error, which is why I was disingenuous the first time. Neither statement is even close to the truth. I know of no atheists kept awake by religious belief in others and I don't know anyone who hates people who wish to just live their lives according to doctrine. That's why I presented the alternative of non-theists being on the receiving end.

The category error is that many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone. If that were true, I doubt atheists would even exist in any kind of organised resistance as they do now, let alone lose sleep over it. Far from being content to just worship, theists are wont to tell atheists that they and their children are going to burn in hell for not believing in their particular sky-daddy. That's not really keeping it to themselves, is it?

Then we get to Fred Phelps, Benny Hinn, Bert Potter, Brian Tamaki, the late and completely unlamented Jerry Falwell, et al, young earth creationists, anti-abortionists, suicide bombers and the stoning of adulterers and rape victims: these things exist because of belief in gods. That's not really lying down and allowing the world to go on, is it?

If there were any part of your or the Countess' comments which made any sense or which portrayed life as it works, I wouldn't have answered the way I did in the first place.

If christians were prepared to live their lives according to their doctrines and not seek to propagate their beliefs, knock on our doors, demand creationism be taught in schools, demand that women bear children of rape and incest by not allowing abortion, and all of the other things which christians often do, I wouldn't go around calling myself "The Atheist".

Note: I am not saying that all christians or theists act in those ways, but it's clear that in many places, a majority does.

[Redzeppelin]

Note: I am not saying that all christians or theists act in those ways, but it's clear that in many places, a majority does.

By what method is the "clearness" of your assertion verified? Personal experience? Statistical study? Published polls? Or is this simply a generalization that fits your view of Christianity?

And, is your generalization any fairer than this generalization: "Not all atheists are as hostile and aggressive towards Christianity as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, but the majority are"?

Thanks

[Drkshadow03]

That there is a similarity between psychosis and "hearing god". (Funnily enough, the same thing has recently been shown graphically with MRI scanning)

It's not the same as saying they're all mad, however.


Okay. Now I see how you read it. The only thing I can suggest is that you re-read the original post closer. It never once talks about "hearing G-d." It specifically compares psychosis with BELIEF in religion.

1) Why is it that when some people fervently believe in ghosts or when they follow commanding ‘voices in their head’, these people are treated as delusional, crazy or even psychopathic? These people are given medical treatment and brain-chemical balancing drugs in order to manage their mental illness.

2) Yet when people profess the most intense beliefs in certain other things no one has ever really seen, such as demons, Allah, God, angels, heaven, hell, and so on, these people are treated with the greatest of reverence and social respect and even made into leaders and wise gurus who become rich from the donations of their faithful followers!

Commentary:

Group 1: Psychotic people who follow voices in their head or believe in ghosts, etc. By what you’re talking about people who “hear G-d” would fall under here.

Group 2: Any religious person who believes in G-d, demons, angels, heaven, or hell. In other words, the average religious person of any of the major world religions.

Conclusion: The author is explicitly comparing psychotic people who hear voices in their head with ANY religious person who believes in G-d, demons, angels, heaven, or hell, regardless of whether they hear the voice of G-d or not. In fact, he didn’t even MENTION religious people who hear the voice of G-d in this paragraph at all. Let me repeat. He makes NO MENTION of HEARING G-D, but only about “intense belief.”

The Next Paragraph:

What is the difference here?

Comment: Apparently he sees no difference between “people [who] profess . . . intense beliefs . . . in [G-d]” (i.e. the average Theist) and people who hear voices in their head. He is again not talking specifically about religious people who hear voices in their head. In fact, he still hasn’t mentioned them.

The rest of the paragraph reads:

The fantasies and delusions are equally foolish whether it’s the belief and obedience to a psychotic voice in the head or an imaginary deity residing in some magical place no one can see.

Comment: He starts by talking about fantasies and delusions ambiguously implying them to the next two clauses:

1) belief and obedience to a psychotic voice in the head.
2) Belief in an imaginary deity residing in some magical place no one can see.

Comment: note that he separates these two options with an “or” implying that he is not talking about people who “hear G-d,” but rather two separate concepts. Concept 1 is someone who believes and obeys a psychotic voice in their head, while concept 2 applies (removing his rude assertions) pretty much applies to any Theist. Once again he compared such people to a belief and obedience to a psychotic voice in the head. Once again no mention yet of religious people who hear G-d in their head, but rather he is talking at the moment about two separate groups.

He follows this up with:

Religious beliefs should be placed in the same class as mental sickness or any other serious psychological disorder that degrades the quality of life and the individual's ability to deal with reality.

Comment: In case we are still confused about his intent, he explicitly states here that any religious beliefs (that he earlier gave examples of as belief in G-d, hell, heaven, etc.) should be classified in the same class as mental sickness or any other serious psychological disorder.

Quite clearly he is NOT strictly talking about religious people who “hear G-d” as being equivalent to psychotic people. In fact, he hasn’t mentioned them at all. He is talking about ALL theists or even anyone with spiritual beliefs of some sort, seeing their beliefs as equivalent to psychosis.

The only way one could possibly wiggle out that he isn’t implying that religious people are “all mad” is to make a lame attempt to separate the act from the individual. See, the guy only things religious beliefs is a kind of mental sickness, it’s the act of believing these things, not the actual person Him or herself.

As I already said, that’s a pretty lame way to defend his offensive and absolutely wrong-headed remarks.


Add this to your comment:

What makes people hate so dearly those who merely wish to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience while harming no one? Why is that so threatening to some?

In the case of both comments, there is a serious category error, which is why I was disingenuous the first time.

Well, it's good to know you were being disingenuous.



Neither statement is even close to the truth. I know of no atheists kept awake by religious belief in others and I don't know anyone who hates people who wish to just live their lives according to doctrine. That's why I presented the alternative of non-theists being on the receiving end.

This is a strawman. Neither she nor I ever once used the word, "atheist." I said, "some people" and she also used the word "people." I am only referring to groups who fit under that umbrella. Most likely anti-Religious folks. If you or your friends don't fit that statement the reason is probably because it wasn't geared towards you. As I stated before I really have no problem with atheists.

But quite clearly many anti-Religious folk do take issue with the fact that some people have religious belief and believe in G-d. (see the opening paragraph of this thread where the dude thinks religious belief should be classified as a mental illness).

Secondly, my statement was obviously hyperbole. I don't think people literally can't fall asleep so the literalness is irrelavent. What I meant was they get a bug up their @ss. Not only do we have evidence in the opening of this thread of this, but I imagine that any number of the religious people here can tell you about interactions with anti-Religious folks that rubbed them the wrong way. I imagine this is one of the reasons they fight back with atheists on this board. Most have no problem with someone not believing in G-d; the problem comes when someone mocks their religion or their beliefs in the most rude fashion possible.

It is a fact that some people can't seem to be happy unless they consistently attack religion.


The category error is that many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone.

Since she never once mentioned the word, "atheist" why do you assume she was talking about atheists?


Far from being content to just worship, theists are wont to tell atheists that they and their children are going to burn in hell for not believing in their particular sky-daddy. That's not really keeping it to themselves, is it?

I don't believe in hell actually, but thanks for equating my religion to Christianity and Islam! It's not like I don't see the anti-Religious folk do that all the time.

Also your categories are still confused. Christians tell everyone that they and their children are going to burn in hell, not specifically atheists.


Then we get to Fred Phelps, Benny Hinn, Bert Potter, Brian Tamaki, the late and completely unlamented Jerry Falwell, et al, young earth creationists, anti-abortionists, suicide bombers and the stoning of adulterers and rape victims: these things exist because of belief in gods. That's not really lying down and allowing the world to go on, is it?

You're confusing certain extemist elements with the whole. Most religious people that I know just want to be left alone to go about their business.

Secondly, you're making a large assumption that these things wouldn't exist without religion. Certainly many of these things are justified, even perhaps caused, by extremist interpretations of religion, but it is still a large assumption to sugges that these things wouldn't exist without religion. It's perfectly possible in a world without religion that some other means would have been used to justify these horrific things.


If there were any part of your or the Countess' comments which made any sense or which portrayed life as it works, I wouldn't have answered the way I did in the first place.

Except our comments made complete sense, so I have no idea what you're talking about.


If christians were prepared to live their lives according to their doctrines and not seek to propagate their beliefs, knock on our doors, demand creationism be taught in schools, demand that women bear children of rape and incest by not allowing abortion, and all of the other things which christians often do, I wouldn't go around calling myself "The Atheist".

::shrugs:: I am opposed to all those things as well, except the first. I consider the propagating of religious beliefs to be one more discourse in the free market of ideas. They have every right to try and convince others to become Christians, as annoying as that can sometimes be. You also have every right to shut the door on their faces, ignore them, or add your own discourse to the conversation about how annoying you find Christian proselytizers or Theists in general. In turn, the Theists have every right to critique your critiques right back at you. You then have the right to critique the critique of the critiques, and so on . . . :D

[Redzeppelin]

::shrugs:: I am opposed to all those things as well, except the first. I consider the propagating of religious beliefs to be one more discourse in the free market of ideas. They have every right to try and convince others to become Christians, as annoying as that can sometimes be. You also have every right to shut the door on their faces, ignore them, or add your own discourse to the conversation about how annoying you find Christian proselytizers or Theists in general. In turn, the Theists have every right to critique your critiques right back at you. You then have the right to critique the critique of the critiques, and so on . . . :D

This is 100% correct: Christians do not share their beliefs so that others can believe as they do simply for the sake of being in agreement; for the Christian, the choice to reject God is a slow-motion form of suicide - it leads to certain death. For the Christian, telling nonbelievers to believe in God and avoid hell is the equivalent of saying "Don't do drugs," "Don't drive down that road - the bridge is out!" "Don't drink bleach - it will kill you." We share to save - not so that everybody thinks like we do. Remember: we seriously believe that choosing God is choosing life - choosing to serve self is death (if not now, definitely later).

And, as I said before: if the atheists are right - neither of us will know better - because death is annihilation; but if the Christians are right, both of us will know - because we each get an "encore."

[JCamilo]

Yes, Religious propaganda have never been related to material power. THey never killed, oppressed, tortured non-believers. They do not have political lobbies trying to input their dogmas to everyone in basic school. We didn't had any religious war - To-day! They do not have access and control to major mass communication channels. That was all an Orwelling nightmare.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes, Religious propaganda have never been related to material power. THey never killed, oppressed, tortured non-believers. They do not have political lobbies trying to input their dogmas to everyone in basic school. We didn't had any religious war - To-day! They do not have access and control to major mass communication channels. That was all an Orwelling nightmare.

Who are you responding to? And what are you trying to say exactly?

[JCamilo]

Mostly you that seems to be very naive about the influences of ideas and how discurse can be used as oppression and how it was used by every human with power and your generalization about what a religious person is.
Nobody shut the door open if the Church is using their dogmas to make poor people not to use condoms, or safe sex. It is one example and made by religious people. Who are just humans as anyone.

[Drkshadow03]

Mostly you that seems to be very naive about the influences of ideas and how discurse can be used as oppression and how it was used by every human with power and your generalization about what a religious person is.
Nobody shut the door open if the Church is using their dogmas to make poor people not to use condoms, or safe sex. It is one example and made by religious people. Who are just humans as anyone.

Oh? What did I say that you found particularly naive? What generalization did I make about religious people?

I'm pretty sure I challenged a few generalizations about religious people. I'm pretty sure you made quite a few yourself, but I don't believe I made any.

[JCamilo]

I am pretty sure I have no generalization.

"I consider the propagating of religious beliefs to be one more discourse in the free market of ideas. They have every right to try and convince others to become Christians, as annoying as that can sometimes be. You also have every right to shut the door on their faces, ignore them, or add your own discourse to the conversation about how annoying you find Christian proselytizers or Theists in general. In turn, the Theists have every right to critique your critiques right back at you. You then have the right to critique the critique of the critiques, and so on"

This is the naive part. Sure, free market of ideas, owning a huge tv channel. You can just turn your back of it.

[Drkshadow03]

This is the naive part. Sure, free market of ideas, owning a huge tv channel. You can just turn your back of it.

You could always not watch the 700 club if it bothers you that much. There's only like a bagillion other channels having nothing to do with religion to choose from. ;)

[JCamilo]

as I talked about naiveness: free option is manipulated. That is why several millions are paid to tv (radie, jornal) etc writers, adversting, etc. They know techniques of discuss and strategies of exposition to deal with the reaction of the public even the expect I will zap the channels.
Plus, you are thinking of countries like US. For brazil, until 90's there is only a handful of tv channels and even now just about 20 open to all public. And the church is behind a few of them, so their influence behind opinion producers is reasonable.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, Religious propaganda have never been related to material power. THey never killed, oppressed, tortured non-believers. They do not have political lobbies trying to input their dogmas to everyone in basic school. We didn't had any religious war - To-day! They do not have access and control to major mass communication channels. That was all an Orwelling nightmare.

You would be hard-pressed to find any institution today without some black-marks on its record. As always, those who dislike Christianity can find plenty of evidence to slam it; unfortunately, God doesn't force those who claim the title "Christian" to actually be good people - just like the reality that not all cops are good, not all lawyers honest, not all doctors caring, etc, etc, etc; however, none of those exceptions seems to negate the reality that cops, lawyers, and doctors do much more good than harm in this world.

As well, much of what you say above consists of generalizations and the worst stereotypes about what Christians do/are (because the term "religion" is too broad a brush to paint with - many things are included under the title "religion" that do not advocate what Christianity does - so be specific in what you attack, please).

[The Atheist]

By what method is the "clearness" of your assertion verified? Personal experience? Statistical study? Published polls? Or is this simply a generalization that fits your view of Christianity?

Did you miss that I said "christians and theists"? Are you also seeking to play the persecution card?

To verify what I said, find out how many countries stone adulterers and rape victims, then add in countries where abortion is banned for religious reasons and toss in several parts of USA which have tried to force creationism into the classroom. For heaven's sake, you're a fan of Behe, you know very well that these things have happened.

No generalisation involved, those things are factual - in many places.


And, is your generalization any fairer than this generalization: "Not all atheists are as hostile and aggressive towards Christianity as Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, but the majority are"?

Thanks

Red, you can make whatever generalisations you like, but as I've just explained, I didn't need to use any generalisations, what I wrote was demonstrably correct.


Okay. Now I see how you read it. The only thing I can suggest is that you re-read the original post closer. It never once talks about "hearing G-d." It specifically compares psychosis with BELIEF in religion....

Seems to me that our mild disagreement is two things:

1 Whether the article tries to say "all religious people are mad"

2 Whether it's deserved, or whether attacks should be made on religion.

In the case of #1, you think it does, while I think it doesn't. Maybe we're just srguing different interpretations what we're reading based on our own individual stances?

Not worth arguing about, from my seat.

I'm assuming by the "G-d" that you're Jewish? I've only ever seen that done by people of Jewish faith is why I ask.


This is a strawman. Neither she nor I ever once used the word, "atheist." I said, "some people" and she also used the word "people." I am only referring to groups who fit under that umbrella. Most likely anti-Religious folks. If you or your friends don't fit that statement the reason is probably because it wasn't geared towards you. As I stated before I really have no problem with atheists.

It's no strawman.

If people are attacking theists, I'd say it's 100% likely that they will be atheists, since she specifically referred to people not holding those beliefs, and as we've discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, atheist = "does not believe in god", so people attacking theists must surely be atheists?


But quite clearly many anti-Religious folk do take issue with the fact that some people have religious belief and believe in G-d. (see the opening paragraph of this thread where the dude thinks religious belief should be classified as a mental illness).

To me, this seems like the persecution card. If you are, as I suspect, Jewish, you should have a great grounding in what it feels like to actually be persecuted because of cultural association. (Not you personally, but Jews have been persecuted on and off for quite a large number of centuries.)

The number of atheists who attack religion simply because it's religion is incredibly small. Richard Dawkins and his 300 fans, plus the bloke who wrote the article in the OP, I imagine.

On the other side of that, check out Red's attitude to it all:

And, as I said before: if the atheists are right - neither of us will know better - because death is annihilation; but if the Christians are right, both of us will know - because we each get an "encore."

On one hand, it is a reminder - completely unnecessary - that his brand of theism sees atheists sent to hell. There may or may not be an element of schadenfreude in the comment, but it's something which atheists hear with startling regularity. You talk of hatred, well what kind of hatred does it require to to suggest that an entire family is going to go to hell because someone thinks gods are childish? I don't know whether you live in USA, but it's an extremely common response to atheists in that country and they probably get sick of it.

I can forgive them the odd harsher-than-necessary commentary on christians.

Even in our delightfully secualr land, I have a horror story. My kid was at high school as a senior last year. He told me how groups of Samoan christians would go around his school in search of atheists and if they ever found one, would beat the crap out of them. Fortunately, most atheists are smart and when asked by eight 120-kilogram (280lbs) Samoans whether they believed in god or not, were smart enough to hand out a little white lie.

Now, please tell me wherever such a thing would happen in reverse.

I must say that I find it incredibly ironic, theists trying to play the persecution card.


Not only do we have evidence in the opening of this thread of this, but I imagine that any number of the religious people here can tell you about interactions with anti-Religious folks that rubbed them the wrong way.

And I bet you the atheists would have as good or better stories themselves. I guess it's abit of tit-for-tat, but the theists did start it.

:D

Maybe we should declare a cease-fire and see who gives in first? Theists stop preaching, stop protesting abortion clinincs, stop a whole lot of other stuff and atheists will leave them alone. What's your bet?


I imagine this is one of the reasons they fight back with atheists on this board. Most have no problem with someone not believing in G-d; the problem comes when someone mocks their religion or their beliefs in the most rude fashion possible.

Well, two prongs to that, I think; it's a handy form of written attack and because lots of atheists do see the premise of religion as outrageously silly, mockery seems an apt reply. Probably another case of tit-for-tat to some degree - childish vs childish?

I also haven't really seen much in the way of attacks on this board. Crikey, some places I go...


It is a fact that some people can't seem to be happy unless they consistently attack religion.

Nah, that's going a bit far.


Since she never once mentioned the word, "atheist" why do you assume she was talking about atheists?

See above, they have to be, don't they?


I don't believe in hell actually, but thanks for equating my religion to Christianity and Islam! It's not like I don't see the anti-Religious folk do that all the time.

No, I'm not confusing your religion with those, I just didn't separate it as the exception. See what I said about persecution before, though? You obviously at least see the bigotry.

I'll finish later, hit send in error.

[JCamilo]

You would be hard-pressed to find any institution today without some black-marks on its record. As always, those who dislike Christianity can find plenty of evidence to slam it; unfortunately, God doesn't force those who claim the title "Christian" to actually be good people - just like the reality that not all cops are good, not all lawyers honest, not all doctors caring, etc, etc, etc; however, none of those exceptions seems to negate the reality that cops, lawyers, and doctors do much more good than harm in this world.

Meh, no. That is why it is a gross generalization when someone claims that religious people are gentle and tolerant, because God does not force anyone doing anything. Since I am the one claiming you will find religious people doing the "Nicest" things ever not otherwise, you could just pretend you agree with me. (Someone who does all things that we condem are still religious people , either you say "religious" Or religious, since it is not your judgment that will made them be or not).
And I would hardly do any effort. Catholic church still condem people who use condoms. My father cann't marry a second time because Catholic church wont accept it since for them he would still be married with my mother, despite the fact they do not tolerate each other anymore. The open channel (not public) that fights for the second place in Brazil belongs to the Universal Church (a protestant church) and they are filled with crime records accusations and only the protection brazilian law give to churchs keep them safely. A catholic doctrine (creationism) still pushed in US schools. Sarah Palin. Osama Bin Laden. India social lawyer based on religious status. The second biggest universitary system in brazil belongs to Catholic Church. The women who work for my father still kicked her daugher out of her house and humilated her in public because caugth her with her fiancee having sex before the wedding under the guindance of the priest of the church. It was not that hard.


As well, much of what you say above consists of generalizations and the worst stereotypes about what Christians do/are (because the term "religion" is too broad a brush to paint with - many things are included under the title "religion" that do not advocate what Christianity does - so be specific in what you attack, please).

Son, this is the internet. My posts are registered. Anyone can read them. You do not have to pretend you are answering to me, but if you do, at least talk about things I have not even said.
Saying that I used sterytypes about Christians when I did not even talked specifically (Or even used the therm Christian, something dumb when I mention religious war which would mean two different religious groups) about Christians is ridiculous. It is a bit ridiculous pretending to have an argument if you do not even bother to know or read what you are replying.

[The Atheist]

And back for part 2.


You're confusing certain extemist elements with the whole. Most religious people that I know just want to be left alone to go about their business.

Again, so do atheists. More tit-for-tat.

I'm not confusing extremist elements with the whole at all - if you check, I'm pretty sure I've been careful not to tar them all with the same brush.


Secondly, you're making a large assumption that these things wouldn't exist without religion. Certainly many of these things are justified, even perhaps caused, by extremist interpretations of religion, but it is still a large assumption to sugges that these things wouldn't exist without religion. It's perfectly possible in a world without religion that some other means would have been used to justify these horrific things.

Nope, that's just wrong. Those things exist solely because of religion. If there were secular anti-abortionists, we'd see them now. There are small numbers of atheists who believe the earth is made out of dragon fossils, but I can't imagine them demanding it be taught in schools. I know a few atheist misogynists (mostly because they're complete geeks!), but I've never seen one demanding his Mrs wears the ninja costume or tells her she can't even talk to another man.

There are 1.5 billion atheists in the world, so that's plenty to find extremists in - where are they?

Phelps/Hinn/Potter/Tamaki could not exist in a secular world. Certainly other frauds like Sylvia Browne and Kelvin Cruickshank would exist, but while those people are insane, they aren't telling anyone they're going to hell.

I think it's a very small assumption to think those things I quoted wouldn't exist - in noteworthy numbers - in a secular world.


Except our comments made complete sense, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

I meant making sense as in reflecting reality.

Not to belabour the point, but to equate tolerance of religion with tolerance of atheism, you'd need to show where atheists do any more than sneer at theists. As I've explained, theists often do a lot more than sneer.


I am opposed to all those things as well, except the first. I consider the propagating of religious beliefs to be one more discourse in the free market of ideas. They have every right to try and convince others to become Christians, as annoying as that can sometimes be. You also have every right to shut the door on their faces, ignore them, or add your own discourse to the conversation about how annoying you find Christian proselytizers or Theists in general.

Which is what we do here, don't we? Anyone feeling threatened or upset by the topic, the initial article, or any kind of anti-theism is free not to join in.

Going by the numbers who visit Religion against visitor numbers, it seems that most people take that advice!

[Redzeppelin]

Did you miss that I said "christians and theists"? Are you also seeking to play the persecution card?

No and No.


To verify what I said, find out how many countries stone adulterers and rape victims, then add in countries where abortion is banned for religious reasons and toss in several parts of USA which have tried to force creationism into the classroom. For heaven's sake, you're a fan of Behe, you know very well that these things have happened.

No generalisation involved, those things are factual - in many places.

You stated that it was "clear" that in "many places" the "majority" of "[C]hristians and [T]heists behave" in ways that you find objectionable ("demanding" various things). I simply challenged the source of the "clearness" of your knowledge of the "majority."

Secondly, "stoning adulterers and rape victims" is not part of Christian theology. So either you are mixing Islam and Christianity together (a serious error in precision in a debate) or you're discussing a country where culture has infected Christianity in a horrible way. Abortion isn't really a solution to the majority of complications that can arrive from unwanted sex/unintentional pregnancy. Christians see all life as valuable (not sure why you find fault with the idea of valuing all life) not just life which we wanted here or that is convenient to have here. What's wrong with a balanced view of how we got here? What makes evolution any more credible? Neither one is ultimately provable; and, a truly "open-minded" person would consdier all options, not just the ones that strike them as more "reasonable" or "scientific." That's one of the biggest fallacies atheists often toss around - that they're more "open-minded" than Christians - yet they are just as quick to reject theories/explanations that don't fit their world view.



Red, you can make whatever generalisations you like, but as I've just explained, I didn't need to use any generalisations, what I wrote was demonstrably correct.

I suggested a hypothetical statement and asked you to explain how it was different from yours, if you found such a statement equally as fair as yours. Typically, you didn't respond. That says all I need to know.



Meh, no. That is why it is a gross generalization when someone claims that religious people are gentle and tolerant, because God does not force anyone doing anything. Since I am the one claiming you will find religious people doing the "Nicest" things ever not otherwise, you could just pretend you agree with me. (Someone who does all things that we condem are still religious people , either you say "religious" Or religious, since it is not your judgment that will made them be or not).
And I would hardly do any effort. Catholic church still condem people who use condoms. My father cann't marry a second time because Catholic church wont accept it since for them he would still be married with my mother, despite the fact they do not tolerate each other anymore. The open channel (not public) that fights for the second place in Brazil belongs to the Universal Church (a protestant church) and they are filled with crime records accusations and only the protection brazilian law give to churchs keep them safely. A catholic doctrine (creationism) still pushed in US schools. Sarah Palin. Osama Bin Laden. India social lawyer based on religious status. The second biggest universitary system in brazil belongs to Catholic Church. The women who work for my father still kicked her daugher out of her house and humilated her in public because caugth her with her fiancee having sex before the wedding under the guindance of the priest of the church. It was not that hard.



Son, this is the internet. My posts are registered. Anyone can read them. You do not have to pretend you are answering to me, but if you do, at least talk about things I have not even said.
Saying that I used sterytypes about Christians when I did not even talked specifically (Or even used the therm Christian, something dumb when I mention religious war which would mean two different religious groups) about Christians is ridiculous. It is a bit ridiculous pretending to have an argument if you do not even bother to know or read what you are replying.

1. I am not your "son."
2. I understand you have some issues with the Catholic church. No one forces anybody to be a Catholic. You are free to not be a Catholic and are free to avoid them and reject their doctrines. Slamming all Christianity or all religion is misguided and involves you making huge generalizations based upon your problems with one denomination.
3. As far as your 2nd paragraph, I have no idea what you're saying. Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible. I simply asked that you be precise in whom you are attacking: is it Catholicism? Christianity? Or religion in general? Your argument's validity changes depending upon which one you choose.

[Pendragon]

1. People who kill abortion doctors are not practicing true Christianity.
2. How much of abortion is actually for rape and incest victims? Most is for people who should have made the decision about children before they got pregnant

[Wintermute]

1. People who kill abortion doctors are not practicing true Christianity.
2. How much of abortion is actually for rape and incest victims? Most is for people who should have made the decision about children before they got pregnant

Hi Dale,

I hope the today finds you well and happy.

1. I agree. Is capital punishment Christian?

2. Beats me, but I bet you are correct. I still don't think I have a right to tell someone else not to have an abortion though because I don't think life is precious or a rare gift given by a universal creator, and I don't consider a fetus a human being. I could be wrong about this and if so, I invite the universal creator to come into my heart and present evidence of its existence and then I might change my opinion.

From my admittedly human, agnostic perspective, it would seem to be an act of absolute love and utter selflessness for a Christian woman to have an abortion. From what I understand, she would be guaranteeing her baby a place in heaven. Instead of having to roll the dice between heaven or hell here on this violent little planet, the soul would get a direct pass to the promised land. And she would be doing so at great risk to herself--not only physically, but mentally and spiritually. And, she risks going to hell herself, no?

Be safe my friend,
Doug

[JCamilo]

1. I am not your "son."
2. I understand you have some issues with the Catholic church. No one forces anybody to be a Catholic. You are free to not be a Catholic and are free to avoid them and reject their doctrines. Slamming all Christianity or all religion is misguided and involves you making huge generalizations based upon your problems with one denomination.

Sorry for the son, but I assumed you are very young since your capacity of interpretation is a bit... limited. For example, I did not slammed any christian - Again I did not even used the word. I did not even said anything as something all christians did. You said It would hard to find black spots - As anyone can understand, it is very hard to find black spots in the back of a black panther, so only you, because it is your only way to argument, can consider that list as if I was saying all christians (Despite the simple fact I liked member of hindus and muslims also) are the samething there.

So, I will repeat for the sake or good education: I have made no generalization. The word means using a part of the whole to define the whole. I have not even defined this whole. I have done no such thing and the post are there for anyone to quote. Other that , as you obssessive use of christians shows, you are just giving mechanical answers based on your own biased views.



3. As far as your 2nd paragraph, I have no idea what you're saying. Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible. I simply asked that you be precise in whom you are attacking: is it Catholicism? Christianity? Or religion in general? Your argument's validity changes depending upon which one you choose.

You seems to not know the meaning of the world generalization and seems to see Christian written where it is not. So, do not blame myself alone for the lack of understandment between us.
As far I must say:
You have never asked anything at all (I suppose you cannt even understand your own posts?) Drkshadow asked to me and I answered him (Her, sorry, No idea). You accused me straigth away of generalization and attacking christians despite no such things ever happened.

[The Atheist]

Secondly, "stoning adulterers and rape victims" is not part of Christian theology. So either you are mixing Islam and Christianity together (a serious error in precision in a debate) or you're discussing a country where culture has infected Christianity in a horrible way.

Fortunately, it isn't a debate, it's simple fact.

As to theism (which isn't a proper noun in any way) whether you like it or not, muslims believe in exactly the same Abrahamic god that you do. I'm not blaming christianity for the sins of islam, but it is true that interpretation of divine messages is used for justification of islamic sins just as it is in christianity.

That's why I asked whther you'd read what I said, because you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of rather than because I was wrong - which I wasn't.


Abortion isn't really a solution to the majority of complications that can arrive from unwanted sex/unintentional pregnancy. Christians see all life as valuable (not sure why you find fault with the idea of valuing all life) not just life which we wanted here or that is convenient to have here.

Not a word of which answers the statement I made about abortion. I find it the idea that abortion would be withheld from a rape victim to be at least as abhorrent as stoning adulterers. I never made any comment about abortion in general - aside from christians attacking abortion doctors. I also made no comment on valuing life - I am looking at one specific reason for abortion: rape.


What's wrong with a balanced view of how we got here? What makes evolution any more credible?

What makes evolution more credible than creationism?

Let me see... try this:

One - evolution - is a scientific theory backed by millions of items of evidence and believed to be largely right by almost all scientists in the world. The other - creationism - is a bad joke supported by no evidence whatsoever, and whose prime driver, Michael Behe, has admitted is not science.

There is nothing balanced about putting non-scientific theories next to scientific ones.

And don't be fooled that I'm going to be drawn into a debate on creationism - the above is all I have to say on the subject as it isn't worth discussing.


3. As far as your 2nd paragraph, I have no idea what you're saying. Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible. I simply asked that you be precise in whom you are attacking: is it Catholicism? Christianity? Or religion in general? Your argument's validity changes depending upon which one you choose.

I know that this is directed at JCam.

Red, this is extremely rude.

JCamillo is clearly a Brazilian writing in English. Before griping about his standard of English, would you please respond to him in your second language to see how comprehensible it is. (I strongly suggest an apology is in order. I have no trouble understanding what he means)


1. People who kill abortion doctors are not practicing true Christianity.

I didn't say they were, but they sure aren't atheists!


2. How much of abortion is actually for rape and incest victims? Most is for people who should have made the decision about children before they got pregnant

This is exactly the same as Red's red herring. I don't seek to argue the rights and wrongs of abortion in general, but am focusing on one specific piece.

Do you believe a rape victim who gets pregnant should be forced to bear and give birth to a child?

[Nightshade]

OK how is this for a compromise can we not agree that history paints very few people in overwhelmingly positive light and that far too many have far too much blood on their hands. And that in the over whelming majority of cases In group-out group psychology comes into play and that for alot people anything that is different can and often is perceived as alien threatening and wrong, and is often hated and despised merely because it is different.

Fanaticism is a word too liberally used to describe a certain category of person when in fact fanatsism is more of a personality type I think, and people can be fantaical about anything from an ideology to a brand of cheese.




Then we get to Fred Phelps, Benny Hinn, Bert Potter, Brian Tamaki, the late and completely unlamented Jerry Falwell, et al, young earth creationists, anti-abortionists, suicide bombers and the stoning of adulterers and rape victims: these things exist because of belief in gods.

.
Now see that is a point I cant agree with, I dont think religion created them I think that there are types of people who just need an excuse and that if it wasnt religion it would be something else like race or another completely arbitrary point of argument.

[togre]

Do you believe a rape victim who gets pregnant should be forced to bear and give birth to a child?


Should a person was mugged, stabbed and ultimately lost his/her arm be forced to go throw life with that terrible reminder and suffering? Naturally no. What if the only way to remove the reminder and alleviate the suffering (provide a new arm) involved killing some stranger off the street and taking his arm and sewing it on? Who would sanction such an act?

Is it a tragedy, not only that a woman was raped, but that a pregnancy creates additional mental and physical anguish? Most certainly! But if the "solution" involves taking a life, how can that be sanctioned? If life begins at conception (as I am convinced it does) the resulting relief for the rape victim cannot negate that fact that a life is being taken.

[Drkshadow03]

Seems to me that our mild disagreement is two things:

1 Whether the article tries to say "all religious people are mad"

2 Whether it's deserved, or whether attacks should be made on religion.

In the case of #1, you think it does, while I think it doesn't. Maybe we're just srguing different interpretations what we're reading based on our own individual stances?

Not worth arguing about, from my seat.

I'm assuming by the "G-d" that you're Jewish? I've only ever seen that done by people of Jewish faith is why I ask.

I am Jewish as I already indicated in a previous post in this thread.

The “mild disagreement” was where the argument originally began so it does have significance. As I claimed The Countess post was a reasonable response to the original post. I was correct on this assertion as I already demonstrated.

This isn’t a matter of interpretation. I didn’t go through the post paragraph by paragraph for my health. Your “interpretation” is untenable. It’s not an interpretation, it’s a blatant misreading.




It's no strawman.

If people are attacking theists, I'd say it's 100% likely that they will be atheists, since she specifically referred to people not holding those beliefs, and as we've discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, atheist = "does not believe in god", so people attacking theists must surely be atheists?

It is a Strawman because I’m specifically only including atheists who espouse anti-religious viewpoints. I’m not including EVERY atheist, meaning anyone who simply “does not believe in G-d.”

Your response to my original quote was the following:

“I know of no atheists kept awake by religious belief in others and I don't know anyone who hates people who wish to just live their lives according to doctrine.”

You attack my quote by using the EVERY atheist. Of course, there are atheists that don’t care about the existence of religious folk. However, I wasn’t talking about every atheist. But there quite obviously are many who do care that religious folk do exist and that we don’t live in a secular world, that don’t mind their own business, that are consistently patronizing simply because you happen to believe in G-d. I was addressing those latter people.

In other words, your response is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with the group I am talking about. The fact that you personally know of no atheists who are anti-Religion (except you admit you do later in the post I’m currently replying to when you mention Dawkins, making your point here even more irrelevant than it already was) has no bearing on the topic, and is especially disingenuous from someone who I am pretty sure has claimed in past discussions over in other threads that they get frustrated in some atheist forums because there is a fervent anti-Religious attitude.

To restate this I am talking about anti-Religious atheist only. You are reading it as if I am talking about atheists generally and responding. Since I am not talking about that group and your response only has validity if I were, you are committing a strawman.


To me, this seems like the persecution card. If you are, as I suspect, Jewish, you should have a great grounding in what it feels like to actually be persecuted because of cultural association. (Not you personally, but Jews have been persecuted on and off for quite a large number of centuries.)

Is the persecution card sort of like the race card? What exactly are you trying to say? Also, labeling a “card” doesn’t invalidate the comment, though it is offensive.

And what do you call this:

“You mean the way theists hate atheists? How the theists' handbook states that god will damn families of unbelievers "even unto the fourth generation", despite atheists being no danger to an omnipotent god? Or the way that atheists are perceived in USA as the lowest grouping on the trust scale?”

Divine Truth by appealing to your authority? Or just plain being a hypocrite.


The number of atheists who attack religion simply because it's religion is incredibly small. Richard Dawkins and his 300 fans, plus the bloke who wrote the article in the OP, I imagine.

So you do admit there are some atheists who attack religion simply because it’s religion. You haven’t, however, demonstrated in any fashion that their number is that small. You simply assert it. Assertion does not equal demonstration. In all fairness, I imagine something like this would be very difficult to prove one or another.


On the other side of that, check out Red's attitude to it all:

. . .

On one hand, it is a reminder - completely unnecessary - that his brand of theism sees atheists sent to hell. There may or may not be an element of schadenfreude in the comment, but it's something which atheists hear with startling regularity. You talk of hatred, well what kind of hatred does it require to to suggest that an entire family is going to go to hell because someone thinks gods are childish? I don't know whether you live in USA, but it's an extremely common response to atheists in that country and they probably get sick of it.

No, it’s a completely common response to non-Christians, not specifically atheists. Believe me I have to hear this crap too. On the other hand, nothing Red said came off as hatred towards you, just his genuine cosmological beliefs. What he genuinely thinks is going to happen to non-believers. I’m not disagreeing that one can easily get sick of it and find it offensive.

I have no problem with you responding back as I already stated. We’ll get to what specifically I have a problem with at the very end of this post.



Even in our delightfully secualr land, I have a horror story. My kid was at high school as a senior last year. He told me how groups of Samoan christians would go around his school in search of atheists and if they ever found one, would beat the crap out of them. Fortunately, most atheists are smart and when asked by eight 120-kilogram (280lbs) Samoans whether they believed in god or not, were smart enough to hand out a little white lie.

Now, please tell me wherever such a thing would happen in reverse.

Well, we could bring up Communism again, but then you’d start appealing to your own authority again.


I must say that I find it incredibly ironic, theists trying to play the persecution card.

Why Theists can’t be persecuted? You assume just because the persecutions rarely turn physical--I also have my doubts that the anecdote you provided above is a frequent occurrence in most secular countries—that Theists cannot be persecuted by atheists verbally.

Now I’m not necessarily saying atheists are persecuting theists, but personally I don’t see someone telling me that “I am destined for hell” to be all that much more annoying than an atheist informing me “all religious people are stupid and unintelligent” (something I have heard before).





No, I'm not confusing your religion with those, I just didn't separate it as the exception. See what I said about persecution before, though? You obviously at least see the bigotry.

I'll finish later, hit send in error.

I’m going to skip the rest of your comments and get to the main point as I think your quote here is nice jumping off point for why we are still having this conversation.

You wrote some posts back:

“The category error is that many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone.”

Comment: Your claim here is that it is an error to believe that many theists just wish to live their lives and leave other alone. Not Christians, not Islam, not Hinduism, not specifically Judaism, but ALL groups of theists. That is in fact what this says based off how it is worded. Somehow it is an error to believe that many theists just wish to live their lives and leave others alone, despite the fact that it probably is true that the majority of Theists just want to worship in peace and be left alone.

“If that were true, I doubt atheists would even exist in any kind of organised resistance as they do now, let alone lose sleep over it. Far from being content to just worship, theists are wont to tell atheists that they and their children are going to burn in hell for not believing in their particular sky-daddy. That's not really keeping it to themselves, is it?”

Commentary: I am skipping the first sentence because it has little to do with my point. It’s there to explain atheist motivation to resist Theism.

More importantly is the second line. You’re still talking about a general group of theists without differentiating specific religions as evidence that Theists, not necessarily only Christians, do not keep to themselves.

“Then we get to Fred Phelps, Benny Hinn, Bert Potter, Brian Tamaki, the late and completely unlamented Jerry Falwell, et al, young earth creationists, anti-abortionists, suicide bombers and the stoning of adulterers and rape victims: these things exist because of belief in gods. That's not really lying down and allowing the world to go on, is it?”

Comment: Then in your next paragraph you bring up a variety of Christian figures (some of whom I don’t recognize, but I’m too lazy to google at the moment), and then throw in suicide bombers (particularly a tactic of Islamic extremists) and the stoning of adulterers and rape victims (which predominantly happens in Muslim countries). But then your last sentence builds on the previous paragraphs, which was talking about Theists in general. The group not “lying down and allowing the world to go on” that you established are theists. You have differentiated other groups. The extreme examples are meant to be representative somehow since what you're centrally trying to prove the following Thesis statement: "The category error is that many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone.” You're implying that Theists in general are not "lying down and allowing the world to go on."


The Problems are pretty obvious and glaring: Not all Theists are Christian or Muslims. Most Theists that I know and interact with do in fact just want to be left alone to worship. Providing extreme examples of some Christians and some Muslims does not demonstrate that there is an error in the belief that “many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone.” The reason being that Theism does not consist ONLY of Christians and Muslims, or of the particular extremists you mentioned within those sub-groups. This is blatantly confusing the parts with the whole because of poor choice words since you seem to be implying in your most recent post that this wasn't your INTENT. Fair enough. Then have the good grace to admit you had a poor choice of words and none of that was what you meant.

Ironically, I’m reacting to the very thing that in the other thread you claimed to hate that people do to atheists. Stop lumping my particular brand of Theism with all the others! Thank you!

[Redzeppelin]

Fortunately, it isn't a debate, it's simple fact.

*sigh*
A "debate" is what happens when one poster (say you, for example) posts something and another poster (say me, for example) challenges the assertions of the above mentioned post. Your conflation of the Christian God and Islam is an imprecision in debate.


As to theism (which isn't a proper noun in any way) whether you like it or not, muslims believe in exactly the same Abrahamic god that you do. I'm not blaming christianity for the sins of islam, but it is true that interpretation of divine messages is used for justification of islamic sins just as it is in christianity.

Sloppy and imprecise. I'm not defending Islam - their vision of who God is in in opposition in a number of crucial ways with how Christians see God. I think your use of "theist" and "Christian" lacks specificity, which allows you to make claims that may only connect in a tangetial way. If you wish to say "radical Islam condones the stoning of adulterers and rape victims" you will find no challenge from me, except to say that their vision of God is wrong. Perhaps part of the problem between you and I is that your terminology is imprecise and - as such - prone to being misunderstood.


That's why I asked whther you'd read what I said, because you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of rather than because I was wrong - which I wasn't.

Of course not, good sir - from what I've seen you never are.




Not a word of which answers the statement I made about abortion. I find it the idea that abortion would be withheld from a rape victim to be at least as abhorrent as stoning adulterers. I never made any comment about abortion in general - aside from christians attacking abortion doctors. I also made no comment on valuing life - I am looking at one specific reason for abortion: rape.

The assumption that killing a potential life somehow erases the trauma of rape is unfounded. The potential person is also partly the woman. I'm not going to deny the horrible nature of the experience; I would suggest that abortion - while it erases the "problem" does little to actually heal the victim. But some people would contend that in bringing a new life into this world and letting someone else adopt it, that the victim has turned a tragedy into a thing of beauty in someone else's life.

Advocating abortion suggests a disregard for the sanctity of life.




What makes evolution more credible than creationism?

The fallacious view that it is more "scientific" than creationism leads many to believe it is a more valid view of our origins.


Let me see... try this:

One - evolution - is a scientific theory backed by millions of items of evidence and believed to be largely right by almost all scientists in the world. The other - creationism - is a bad joke supported by no evidence whatsoever, and whose prime driver, Michael Behe, has admitted is not science.

I'm not interested in a discussion of evolution - it has been discussed ad nauseum in other (now locked) threads. Like it or not, the "millions of items of evidence" have not proven evolution as a fact. Those who think so are simply revealing their presuppositional idea that materialism/naturalism is the proper philosophic view of the universe.

Mr. Behe is a proponent of intelligent design - that would be the more precise term.


There is nothing balanced about putting non-scientific theories next to scientific ones.

Again: your use of "scientific" suggests that empiricism is the basis of our knowledge. Not all knowledge is empirically understood/established. Intelligent Design uses science to verify the existence of a designer. That the chain of logic ends with "God" doesn't make the process any less "scientific."


And don't be fooled that I'm going to be drawn into a debate on creationism - the above is all I have to say on the subject as it isn't worth discussing.

I'm no more interested than you in doing so - hearing you say how right you always are and how wrong I always am is indeed tiresome.




Red, this is extremely rude.

JCamillo is clearly a Brazilian writing in English. Before griping about his standard of English, would you please respond to him in your second language to see how comprehensible it is. (I strongly suggest an apology is in order. I have no trouble understanding what he means)

Calling a post "incomprehensible" is not a value judgment on JC; nor is it a critique of his/her writing ability. It is a statement of fact: I cannot understand some of his/her points because of the way they are phrased. There are sentences that directly contradict what I said and I'm lost in some of the points he/she is making. No harm was intended (though s/he came out of the gate as pretty critical of me).




This is exactly the same as Red's red herring. I don't seek to argue the rights and wrongs of abortion in general, but am focusing on one specific piece.

Do you believe a rape victim who gets pregnant should be forced to bear and give birth to a child?

And since you butted into another conversation, I'll do the same: no red herring, my friend - the trauma of rape doesn't justify the response of killing a potential life. That innocent child-to-be is not the problem - why should it suffer? Why doesn't it get a chance at life as well? Why does the life of a child-to-be become expendable simply because "dad" was a scumbag?

[Bitterfly]

the trauma of rape doesn't justify the response of killing a potential life

There you are, you said it yourself: a "potential life", not a life in itself. If something really gets my goat, it's anti-abortionists. Why should a "child-to-be" (not yet a child, therefore) have more value than a woman's choice? And what about free will?

[The Atheist]

OK how is this for a compromise can we not agree that history paints very few people in overwhelmingly positive light and that far too many have far too much blood on their hands. And that in the over whelming majority of cases In group-out group psychology comes into play and that for alot people anything that is different can and often is perceived as alien threatening and wrong, and is often hated and despised merely because it is different.

Nope.

1 If only history were the problem, there wouldn't be a problem. I have no worries about the history of the church; it's the way they behave now which bothers me.

2 At what stage do we stop fighting ignorance and oppression? The ultimate slippery slope is a world where everyone believes everything to the detriment of all. You may or may not accept this point, but it might be worth your while in asking "What's the Harm?" (http://whatstheharm.net/)in irrational beliefs.

You seem to be arguing that no matter how crazy something is - demanding creationism be taught in schools, for instance - that we should let it happen.

Doesn't work.


Fanaticism is a word too liberally used to describe a certain category of person when in fact fanatsism is more of a personality type I think, and people can be fantaical about anything from an ideology to a brand of cheese.

Funny you should mention that - I am indeed fanatical about cheese. In fact entire continents are fanatical about things just like that. Try going to Europe and attempt to sell some mis-labelled camembert!


Now see that is a point I cant agree with, I dont think religion created them I think that there are types of people who just need an excuse and that if it wasnt religion it would be something else like race or another completely arbitrary point of argument.

I agree that religion didn't create them - they were created by men under the guise of corrupted religion. The point stands that they exist solely because the religion of the majority leaves them room to do so.


Should a person was mugged, stabbed and ultimately lost his/her arm be forced to go throw life with that terrible reminder and suffering? Naturally no.

This is an excellent example.

If you are beaten and disfigured, just about every government in the world provides for its hospital and medical systems to repair the damage as far as possible. If you lose an arm, you will be given an artificial one. Obviously, damage can't yet be repaired to original specifications, but every attempt is made to alleviate the suffering of the victim.

Perfect analogy. In the case of a rape victim, the system, instead of looking to alleviate the damage, increases it by forcing the woman to go through months of pregnancy and ultimately a labour - both of which tend to leave permanent scars, in case you didn't know.


What if the only way to remove the reminder and alleviate the suffering (provide a new arm) involved killing some stranger off the street and taking his arm and sewing it on? Who would sanction such an act?

This, however, isn't an analogy of any kind whatsoever. You might make a case for removing the assailant's arm and replacing the victim's with it - that would make sense and I'd agree wholeheartedly. Pretty good plan in fact. Can't say I've ever heard of someone losing an arm in an assault, but when it happens, you have the perfect answer!


Is it a tragedy, not only that a woman was raped, but that a pregnancy creates additional mental and physical anguish? Most certainly!

That's good, you see that it causes additional and ongoing harm to the woman. Wouldn't "causing mental and physical anguish" quite deliberately be basically torture?


But if the "solution" involves taking a life, how can that be sanctioned? If life begins at conception (as I am convinced it does) the resulting relief for the rape victim cannot negate that fact that a life is being taken.

I'm glad you claim to know when life counts as life. That you believe it to be so doesn't make it right, unfortunately.

How do you get on with a case of incestual rape? It is by far the most common cause of pregnancy in rape victims as the rapes are usually ongoing and frequent, giving high likelihood of pregnancy. Do you still just apply the biblical rule against abortion, or does the biblical rule against incest overrule it?


This isn’t a matter of interpretation. I didn’t go through the post paragraph by paragraph for my health. Your “interpretation” is untenable. It’s not an interpretation, it’s a blatant misreading.

I'm going to leave you with this subject as you're basically saying I'm lying. I know how I interpret it and if you choose to do so differently, you're welcome. Subject closed.


You attack my quote by using the EVERY atheist. Of course, there are atheists that don’t care about the existence of religious folk. However, I wasn’t talking about every atheist. But there quite obviously are many who do care that religious folk do exist and that we don’t live in a secular world, that don’t mind their own business, that are consistently patronizing simply because you happen to believe in G-d. I was addressing those latter people.

Here, you've definitely missed my point. My meaning was that atheists who attack religion solely because theists believe in god are an incredible minority. The atheists I know - lots and lots - who attack religion do so because they think it's bad for exactly the reasons I've stated.


....and is especially disingenuous from someone who I am pretty sure has claimed in past discussions over in other threads that they get frustrated in some atheist forums because there is a fervent anti-Religious attitude.

Conflating two different ideas incorrectly. The reasons I get annoyed at atheists have nothing to do with what you're saying.


To restate this I am talking about anti-Religious atheist only. You are reading it as if I am talking about atheists generally and responding. Since I am not talking about that group and your response only has validity if I were, you are committing a strawman.

Yes, but as noted time and again, anti-theists are almost all switched on by outrage against religion for reasons which have nothing to do with people calmly believing in god and nothing else.


Divine Truth by appealing to your authority? Or just plain being a hypocrite.No.

This shows what I mean. (http://exchristian.net/2/2006/03/atheists-identified-as-americas-most.html)

Sorry, but I find clear bigotry to be a long way away from respectfully worshipping and minding their own business.


The Problems: Not all Theists are Christian or Muslim. Most Theists that I know and interact with do in fact just want to be left alone to worship. Providing extreme examples of some Christians and some Muslims does not demonstrate that there is an error in the belief that “many theists just wish to just live their lives and leave others alone.”

Which is not what I was trying to do. I'm giving lots of different reasons to show that people despise religion for reasons vastly different to the kind you're espousing.

We clearly disagree on what constitutes a majority of theists, so I'll leave this subject as well.

[Drkshadow03]

Calling a post "incomprehensible" is not a value judgment on JC; nor is it a critique of his/her writing ability. It is a statement of fact: I cannot understand some of his/her points because of the way they are phrased. There are sentences that directly contradict what I said and I'm lost in some of the points he/she is making. No harm was intended (though s/he came out of the gate as pretty critical of me).



Red, I agree with The Atheist. Writing: "Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible" is rude. If you were speaking in a second-language I doubt you would want someone in that language to respond to you in such a way.

You easily could have restated it: "I am not sure what you are trying to say. I am not certain who you are attacking: is it Catholicism? Christianity? Or religion in general? Your argument's validity changes depending upon which one you choose. Can you please be more precise?"




I'm going to leave you with this subject as you're basically saying I'm lying. I know how I interpret it and if you choose to do so differently, you're welcome. Subject closed.

Never accused you of lying. I'm not saying you made up your interpretation and that you don't sincerely believe that is what it says. I am saying you misread the original quote, that there is no way one could interpret it the way you did from what it ACTUALLY DOES SAY. The interpretation is invalid because the quote is not amibiguous at all; it straightforwardly claims that religious belief should be classified as mental sickness. It never once talks about religious people hearing voices in their head. Simple as that.

To put it another way there is nothing in the text to support your interpretation, no matter how much you fervently believe that's what the guy was saying.

Also, you don't get to decide when a subject is closed. This is not your blog, your own moderated forum, your website, nor are you my mother, my father, or anyone with any authority over me. If you don't wish to continue talking about a subject that you're clearly wrong about, then stop responding to me on this particular point.


Here, you've definitely missed my point. My meaning was that atheists who attack religion solely because theists believe in god are an incredible minority. The atheists I know - lots and lots - who attack religion do so because they think it's bad for exactly the reasons I've stated.

That's probably true.


Conflating two different ideas incorrectly. The reasons I get annoyed at atheists have nothing to do with what you're saying.

This is definitely true. I admit I didn't bother to look up what you had said here and I probably should have spent the time because I figured something like this would happen.


Yes, but as noted time and again, anti-theists are almost all switched on by outrage against religion for reasons which have nothing to do with people calmly believing in god and nothing else.

Again probably true, but why must the average religious moderate who DO just want to mind their own business have to listen to atheists incessantly railing against them and anyone who believes in G-d.

I find when these people get switched on so to speak it never stops with just the extremists, orthodox, or fundamentalists, but they then move on to the moderates. In fact, certain atheists have blamed the existence of moderates for being the bigger problem that allows the extremists to exist.

So how exactly is that letting the people who do want to practice their religion in peace live without being bothered?

Instead of excusing the behavior or rationalizing it, we should all agree with the basic principle that everyone should be able to practice what they wish assuming it causes no harm to others (in a realistic sense of the word "harm"). If you think violating this basic principle is wrong, then it doesn't suddenly become right when you do it (by "you" I mean anti-religious atheists in general).
If your problem is with Christians proselytizing and condemning your family to a hell you don't believe in, then criticize THEM, not Theists in general.

If I am expected to talk about which groups of atheists I mean, don't be surprised that you're held to that same standard.

I don't disagree with you on most of your specifics as I already stated. I don't want Creationism taught in my schools I want Evolution, I don't particularly relish the idea of living in a Christian Theocracy anymore than you do, and many of your other points that you made. The problem comes when opposing these extremisms and generally bad ideas, one makes generalizations about Theists, particularly the moderates. I do think your dichotomy between Atheism and Theism is problematic becauses it's not an atheist versus Theist issue at all really. Almost all the issues you oppose affect me and my hypothetical future children too, the only difference being I happen to believe in G-d and practice a particular religion.

[The Atheist]

Of course not, good sir - from what I've seen you never are.

Nah, I'd go with almost never.

:D


The assumption that killing a potential life somehow erases the trauma of rape is unfounded.

That assumption hasn't even been made, has it?

I contended that forcing a woman to carry and deliver the baby is more trauma.


But some people would contend that in bringing a new life into this world and letting someone else adopt it, that the victim has turned a tragedy into a thing of beauty in someone else's life.

I'm glad I don't know any of those "some people", because - to me - the idea is completely unpalatable.


... - the trauma of rape doesn't justify the response of killing a potential life.

But religious views can justify forcing ongoing trauma to the victim.

Nice.

[JCamilo]

Red, I agree with The Atheist. Writing: "Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible" is rude. If you were speaking in a second-language I doubt you would want someone in that language to respond to you in such a way.

You easily could have restated it: "I am not sure what you are trying to say. I am not certain who you are attacking: is it Catholicism? Christianity? Or religion in general? Your argument's validity changes depending upon which one you choose. Can you please be more precise?"

I do not get offended by it at all. I know, specially while writing on the internet, where I am faster than carefull, that the flowing of the text is not convencional. Also I like to write, even in portuguese, in a certain style that some may call confusing.

So, it is rather easier for people who have absolute no wish to debate with anyone to take jabs at that. I really do not mind.

RZ managed to throw an interpretation of what I said and in the next paragraph attacked the text as incomprehensible. It is strange to imagine that he consider that I am talking about christians and catholics (while I never used those therms while talking here) and I use generalizations about them and then claim that he have no idea about what I was talking.

You, when in doubt, asked me what I meant. As it seems you are more interessed on exchanging ideas because Interpretation is job meant to both sides, not just one. RZ throwed a answer that have nothing to do with what I said at any point of this thread which just means it is some defensive discuss that is repeated ad nauseum and as The Atheist said, there is a point of no debate. So, I really am not offended as It is ridiculous to throw offenses against people you do not know, more even to be offended by those.

[dzebra]

I'm only posting this because I think togre made a very good point and I think The Atheist missed that point.

togre's post posed this scenario:



Should a person was mugged, stabbed and ultimately lost his/her arm be forced to go throw life with that terrible reminder and suffering? Naturally no. What if the only way to remove the reminder and alleviate the suffering (provide a new arm) involved killing some stranger off the street and taking his arm and sewing it on? Who would sanction such an act?




If you are beaten and disfigured, just about every government in the world provides for its hospital and medical systems to repair the damage as far as possible. If you lose an arm, you will be given an artificial one.


This doesn't follow the "what if." This is not a valid response to the point togre made. The scenario was that the only way to stop the suffering is to kill an innocent guy off the street and take his arm.

The point of the argument was to express togre's view that there is no way to end the rape victim's suffering except by killing an innocent.




In the case of a rape victim, the system, instead of looking to alleviate the damage, increases it by forcing the woman to go through months of pregnancy and ultimately a labour - both of which tend to leave permanent scars.


I would argue that it is not the system that forces the woman to go through labor, it is the rapist. The natural result of rape (frequently) is pregnancy. The system is not at fault for the labor, the rapist is. The damage is already set in motion. The system is trying to prevent the death of an innocent (the system is assuming the baby's life has already begun).




This, however, isn't an analogy of any kind whatsoever.


The sentence to which this was your response, incidentally, was the entire basis of the only analogy in togre's post.




Do you still just apply the biblical rule against abortion, or does the biblical rule against incest overrule it?


As for this, the act of incest would have already occurred before the option of abortion is available. Preferably, the incest would be avoided, but after that has taken place, the act of carrying the child of incest is not bad.

[Drkshadow03]

You, when in doubt, asked me what I meant. As it seems you are more interessed on exchanging ideas because Interpretation is job meant to both sides, not just one. RZ throwed a answer that have nothing to do with what I said at any point of this thread which just means it is some defensive discuss that is repeated ad nauseum and as The Atheist said, there is a point of no debate. So, I really am not offended as It is ridiculous to throw offenses against people you do not know, more even to be offended by those.

By the way, I'm curious based on our exchange, are you a Marxist?

[Redzeppelin]

There you are, you said it yourself: a "potential life", not a life in itself. If something really gets my goat, it's anti-abortionists. Why should a "child-to-be" (not yet a child, therefore) have more value than a woman's choice? And what about free will?

A woman's "choice" is mitigated by the consequences of that choice. If nothing happens to intervene, a life will result - period. Why should the woman's "choice" outweigh the value of a human life?




Red, I agree with The Atheist. Writing: "Much of your posts are generally a few degrees shy of being incomprehensible" is rude. If you were speaking in a second-language I doubt you would want someone in that language to respond to you in such a way.

Fine - no harm was meant, and I think JC was less than courteous in his response. Nonetheless: JC - I am sorry. I did not intend to insult you. Please accept this apology.





I contended that forcing a woman to carry and deliver the baby is more trauma.

I have no doubt that carrying the child who is the result of rape isn't a horrible experience - but life is full of these things and we often find that there is value in trying to turn the curse into a blessing. The child who gets to be born and the couple who gets to adopt him/her would greatly appreciate the sacrifice of the mother - and how can someone who provides such happiness into the world not somehow see at least a glimmer of value in her noble action?




I'm glad I don't know any of those "some people", because - to me - the idea is completely unpalatable.

Right - but apparently you find the idea of a fetus destroyed as being much more "palatable." An emotionally traumatized life is not healed by the termination of another one. It attempts to erradicate the rapist but does nothing of the sort - it erradicates the innocent victim of the crime.





But religious views can justify forcing ongoing trauma to the victim.

The rapist traumatized the victim. You speak on the assumption that abortion somehow "fixes" something - what exactly does it fix for the violated woman?

[JCamilo]

By the way, I'm curious based on our exchange, are you a Marxist?

Well, I like some Bourdier and Foucault stuff, but I do not adhere to any political side, in fact I would describe myself more as some short of anarchist, as delluded this position may be.

[Drkshadow03]

Well, I like some Bourdier and Foucault stuff, but I do not adhere to any political side, in fact I would describe myself more as some short of anarchist, as delluded this position may be.

Ah, I thought I sensed Foucault when you kept bringing up discourse, but your opening comment about "material power" threw me off and made me think Marxist. That's one of the ways I think Foucault challenges traditional Marxism, by deemphasizing material power.

[Bitterfly]

God, Redzeppelin, your thought is so foreign to me that's its almost interesting to see it, even if it makes me see red.


A woman's "choice" is mitigated by the consequences of that choice. If nothing happens to intervene, a life will result - period. Why should the woman's "choice" outweigh the value of a human life?

Because she's alive and the foetus is not? Seems simple to me. Why is it almost always men who argue against abortion, by the way? Is it because they feel left out of the decision process and therefore try to regain mastery by trying to tell women what their "sacred duty" is to do?


I have no doubt that carrying the child who is the result of rape isn't a horrible experience - but life is full of these things and we often find that there is value in trying to turn the curse into a blessing. The child who gets to be born and the couple who gets to adopt him/her would greatly appreciate the sacrifice of the mother - and how can someone who provides such happiness into the world not somehow see at least a glimmer of value in her noble action?

I think there are already far too many children out there waiting for adoptive parents for raped women to "sacrifice" themselves in order to procure some more. And that notion of sacrifice?!!! What's sacred about all this? Why on earth should a woman who's been through rape go through another ordeal if she chooses not to? Do you think it's easy to bear a child, let alone one that has been forced on you by someone you can only remember with hatred? Please, use a little common sense...



Right - but apparently you find the idea of a fetus destroyed as being much more "palatable." An emotionally traumatized life is not healed by the termination of another one. It attempts to erradicate the rapist but does nothing of the sort - it erradicates the innocent victim of the crime.

You admitted yourself a foetus is not a life, but a potential life.


The rapist traumatized the victim. You speak on the assumption that abortion somehow "fixes" something - what exactly does it fix for the violated woman?

It at least eliminates a very powerful trace of the rapist's passage in her body. I should think anyone could understand that...

[Pendragon]

Do you believe a rape victim who gets pregnant should be forced to bear and give birth to a child?
Frankly, no. But I don't have to make the decision, they would. I don't know what I would do in their situation.

More could be done if Christians offered to adopt the kids and raise them, help scared teenagers who have messed up with medical bills and counseling than shooting every abortion doctor in the world.

And Doug, yes, I am anti-death penalty, but I understand the desire for revenge very well, so if it were my kid killed by some maniac I couldn't say what I would do. But it's up to the country or state as to what to do.

I have always advocated this: If we are going to have it, use it, and don't waste time with it dragging on for years until everyone except maybe the victim's family has forgotten! Let the chips now fly...

God Bless

Pen

[Jozanny]

I, for one, don't really know what this debate is about anymore. What you all share in common, to my observation, is either a strident need to be right or impose your own schematic on the other which all of you know full well isn't going to happen, but I am reminded of one thing from my days in MH with my Jewish bosses who had the amazing talent of making me laugh and frightening me at the same time.

The Executive Director was sitting at the table with the President, who was also the founder of MRI, and the former asked the latter: "Before Jesus Christ appeared on the scene, who did the delusional think they were?" It struck me as a pertinent cultural question.

Can any of you step out of your belief systems for five minutes and make relevant observations? Or is Religious Texts simply a game of sticks and stones? Really, what is to be learned here, or appreciated? Without singling out anyone, and you can trust that I have no specific member in mind, the threads in this forum simply devolve into a value argument, and I find it tinder dry after a while, indeed.

[JCamilo]

Ah, I thought I sensed Foucault when you kept bringing up discourse, but your opening comment about "material power" threw me off and made me think Marxist. That's one of the ways I think Foucault challenges traditional Marxism, by deemphasizing material power.

I like the notion of the power of ideologies, because in the end it is true, just do not like the notion of idelogions only being linking with the dominant class. Bourdier is more reasonable than Foucault, IMO.

I am up for the notion of culture, a comple failure in Marx analyses, the power of culture as not a source of oppression only.

[The Atheist]

I'm only posting this because I think togre made a very good point and I think The Atheist missed that point.

....

The point of the argument was to express togre's view that there is no way to end the rape victim's suffering except by killing an innocent.

Nope. No points missed, just total disagreement. Your & togre's contention only works if you equate a living, walking human with a bundle of unrecognisable cells which may (if not spontaneously aborted by miscarriage) grow into a human being.

That's an argument I'm not going to get into beyond stating that my personal belief is that it's a really bad argument and I cannot compare the two.

[
As for this, the act of incest would have already occurred before the option of abortion is available. Preferably, the incest would be avoided, but after that has taken place, the act of carrying the child of incest is not bad.

Thanks.

All I can say to this is that it's exactly the reason why I call myself "The Atheist", to show that there is an alternative to religion. Your premise is so repugnant to me that I won't even argue the point on it. I'm happy to just agree to disagree.


A woman's "choice" is mitigated by the consequences of that choice. If nothing happens to intervene, a life will result - period. Why should the woman's "choice" outweigh the value of a human life?

As above, the central thesis to your argument is that a human embryo/early-term foetus is equivalent to an extant life. I disagree with that and will cheerfully leave it there.


The rapist traumatized the victim. You speak on the assumption that abortion somehow "fixes" something - what exactly does it fix for the violated woman?

No.

I repeat, it doesn't fix anything. What it does is stop the trauma continuing.


Why is it almost always men who argue against abortion, by the way? Is it because they feel left out of the decision process and therefore try to regain mastery by trying to tell women what their "sacred duty" is to do?

This is a question I have pondered for many years, having never seen a female spokesperson for anti-abortion groups in this country. I always get an enormous sense of irony watching debates between women - for whom the possibility of rape-pregnancy demonstrably exists - who are pro-choice, and men - for whom the outcome is, of course, an impossibility - arguing against abortion.

Truly bizarre.

If I had to guess, I'd just go with the control theme.


Do you think it's easy to bear a child, let alone one that has been forced on you by someone you can only remember with hatred?

This is why not many women ever support the idea. I suggest that the blokes who take this stance have never been in a delivery suite, watching and hearing the effects of the trauma from a wanted baby, nor seen the hoorendous effects of the highly-likely episiotomy, where the woman's vaginal and anal tissue is cut with scissors like so much rump steak. A little blood creates a lot of reality, in my opinion.

How a woman would go through that with a child she has will almost certainly not want, I don't know, but I would think that a large dose of part-traumatic stress would be the least of it.

To be honest, I find it hard to believe that the attitude exists in 2008.


Frankly, no. But I don't have to make the decision, they would. I don't know what I would do in their situation.

:thumbs_up

Mate, you're a champ!

That's why I usually stay out abortion debates, but I know from talking to rape survivors that carrying a pregnancy is possibly the most traumatic thing they could think of. I also balance my view with a confirmed christian I know who carried and still mothers the child of her rape.


More could be done if Christians offered to adopt the kids and raise them, help scared teenagers who have messed up with medical bills and counseling than shooting every abortion doctor in the world.

Again, realism over dogma - "you're a top bloke" is what we say about you in Kiwi vernacular. I could not agree with you more.

[Redzeppelin]

God, Redzeppelin, your thought is so foreign to me that's its almost interesting to see it, even if it makes me see red.

I feel the same, except that your belief system doesn't make me angry.




Because she's alive and the foetus is not? Seems simple to me.

Simple only because of the central assumption of your argument - that the fetus is not alive. That issue is the crux - but there is no way to prove that the fetus is alive or not alive, so you don't get to simply default to your position. As I said - without intervention of some kind, that fetus will become a person - period. Someone who should be here won't be here. No amount of semantic quibbles changes that. Once an egg and sperm unite, life is formed.


Why is it almost always men who argue against abortion, by the way? Is it because they feel left out of the decision process and therefore try to regain mastery by trying to tell women what their "sacred duty" is to do?

The better question is why are you resorting to the ad hominem argument here? There are plenty of women (some who had abortions) who think likewise - that life is worth preserving, and that having an abortion solves one "problem" but creates others.

Why don't you back off the straw man argument because it really looks bad for you to twist my points into some sort of "battle of the sexes" thing. Surely you can do better.




I think there are already far too many children out there waiting for adoptive parents for raped women to "sacrifice" themselves in order to procure some more. And that notion of sacrifice?!!! What's sacred about all this? Why on earth should a woman who's been through rape go through another ordeal if she chooses not to? Do you think it's easy to bear a child, let alone one that has been forced on you by someone you can only remember with hatred? Please, use a little common sense...

Your argument is the equivalent saying that we should let starving people die because the world is overpopulated anyway (something the Atheist would most certainly protest).

People who suffer terrible experiences have a number of ways to respond to that experience. I suggest that the harder road is ultimately the more healing of the two choices. Studies have shown that women experience significant emotional trauma from choosing to have an abortion. I am unaware of any studies that suggest that an abortion as a response to a rape has any healing effect whatsoever. Bringing life into existence is an amazing thing - and sometimes, the way we bring healing to ourselves is to put our energies into something greater than ourselves. I have no doubt that bearing a child who is the product of a violation is extraordinarily difficult - but many people here on earth make extraordinary sacrifices for a greater good. Yes the mother hates the rapist - but the rape isn't the child's fault - why should she/he pay the ultimate price for the crime?



You admitted yourself a foetus is not a life, but a potential life.

A misstatement; a fetus is alive from the moment of conception - it is a potential person. Sorry.




It at least eliminates a very powerful trace of the rapist's passage in her body. I should think anyone could understand that...

But is doesn't take away the trauma of the experience - and the fetus is HALF HERS so she wipes out something which is part her. Removing the reminder doesn't mitigate the pain and it adds to that pain the knowledge that a potential person has been destroyed. I should think anyone could understand that...





As above, the central thesis to your argument is that a human embryo/early-term foetus is equivalent to an extant life. I disagree with that and will cheerfully leave it there.

Like I said above - you have no evidence for that position - that is the crux of the abortion debate. To allow it with good conscience, you have to believe that that potential person isn't alive at conception. It is.





I repeat, it doesn't fix anything. What it does is stop the trauma continuing.

Completely false. Studies show that even women who have abortions voluntarily suffer emotional consequences for years to come. Don't expect me to believe that exterminating the product of a rape changes that in any degree.




This is a question I have pondered for many years, having never seen a female spokesperson for anti-abortion groups in this country. I always get an enormous sense of irony watching debates between women - for whom the possibility of rape-pregnancy demonstrably exists - who are pro-choice, and men - for whom the outcome is, of course, an impossibility - arguing against abortion.

Once again, instead of dealing with the argument at hand and assessing its logic, you - like Bitterfly - resort to a weak ad hominem in order to suggest that the argument has no merit and is merely gender based. That's fallacious thinking. Obviously it is easier for men to take the pro-life position, but that doesn't invalidate the position. Deal with the argument and lay off the logical fallacies.

[Virgil]

A misstatement; a fetus is alive from the moment of conception - it is a potential person. Sorry.


I'm not jumping into the middle of this debate, but I do disagree here. It is only a "potential person" until the heart starts beating. Once the heart starts beating (around five to six weeks) it is a person. If the heart is beating there is nothing to distiguish it with a person outside the womb. It is a stage of dvelopment, much like an infant is at a stage in development with respect to an adult. The fact that it is inside a womb makes no difference. It is a person.

[NikolaiI]

I'm not jumping into the middle of this debate, but I do disagree here. It is only a "potential person" until the heart starts beating. Once the heart starts beating (around five to six weeks) it is a person. If the heart is beating there is nothing to distiguish it with a person outside the womb. It is a stage of dvelopment, much like an infant is at a stage in development with respect to an adult. The fact that it is inside a womb makes no difference. It is a person.

I really could jump in here with some great arguments for not eating meat :D :D for instance, they may have less intelligence, but so do mentally retarded people???

But, I am just posting to respond to Jozanny's... yes, it got off topic. I just wanted to say Darkshadow made excellent points, and before him/her, islandclimber, and from the responses they got, Darkshadow was misunderstooad and islandclimber is completely inconceivable... ;)

Um, Jozanny, you are intelligent... you will not call someone mentally sick because they profess belief in something invisible, will you? That's what the article said, which Hyde was asking our opinions of. It's quite offensive!

I think it's surprising/awful that people would think and say such a thing. Everyone I know or is in my life, who is a person of faith, is a wonderful person.

[The Atheist]

Like I said above - you have no evidence for that position - that is the crux of the abortion debate. To allow it with good conscience, you have to believe that that potential person isn't alive at conception. It is.

Yes, that's your opinion. Mine differs.

Nothing's going to change that, so as I said, I will agree to disagree, so will you please qualify the "It is." with an "in my opinion". There is no evidence for anything, since there is no position on when "life" starts, can be valued as human, or even what constitutes life - that isn't based on a bible.

Gosh, you accuse me of being an absolutist often enough.


Completely false. Studies show that even women who have abortions voluntarily suffer emotional consequences for years to come. Don't expect me to believe that exterminating the product of a rape changes that in any degree.

Same again. How on earth can you say "completely false"? You're comparing two entirely different things - one done by choice, one forced through violence. I haven't made any statements on the effects of abortion since they are irrelevant. If a woman is allowed to choose, she can choose. You would have her choice taken away.


Once again, instead of dealing with the argument at hand and assessing its logic, you - like Bitterfly - resort to a weak ad hominem in order to suggest that the argument has no merit and is merely gender based. That's fallacious thinking. Obviously it is easier for men to take the pro-life position, but that doesn't invalidate the position. Deal with the argument and lay off the logical fallacies.

Several points here:

While I knew you'd read it, the message wasn't to, or aimed at, you. It was stating an obvious fact to Bitterfly, who had also noted the same problem - men trying to make rules about something which will never, ever affect them - and finding it ironic, to say the least.

Would you tell black people why they cannot do something? Would you deny muslims the right to face Mecca and worship outside of their own country? Do we allow Jews to carry out genital mutilation?

Personally, I find the idea that men should have any say in abortion completely repugnant, so your claim of logical fallacy is simply wrong. You're welcome to disagree with how I see it, but fallacious, it ain't.

I don't accept any male arguments on abortion. That's one reason why I don't make any beyond asking women to sort it out. Fortunately, in the developed world, the laws and moral support position is given to women choosing for themselves. Men who are anti-abortion seem to me to have far too much in common with men who make their wives wear burqas - control rather than compassion.

[Jozanny]

But, I am just posting to respond to Jozanny's... yes, it got off topic. I just wanted to say Darkshadow made excellent points, and before him/her, islandclimber, and from the responses they got, Darkshadow was misunderstooad and islandclimber is completely inconceivable... ;)

Um, Jozanny, you are intelligent... you will not call someone mentally sick because they profess belief in something invisible, will you? That's what the article said, which Hyde was asking our opinions of. It's quite offensive!

Niko, if I may shorten your handle without giving offense--I did not read what Hyde posted, not because the author may not be right about believers, but because the author is wrong solely on the basis of mental health, case closed.

Religious Texts and Philosophical Literature are the weakest forums on this network, and I may stop visiting here soon, because the polemicists really want to fall in love and get married, advancing same sex monogamy and polygamy in a simultaneous gesture of good will toward kumbaya coalitions.

I think mental illness and religious faith is actually an interesting topic, only no one here cares a flying flick. The only thing that matters is the relentless self-justification of the more frequent member arguments, which I can read in hundreds of prior posts. Beats me why any of them need to constantly reiterate.

Some, some of the literary discussions are worth having, which is why I stay--being *down* here makes me want to leave, for the sheer myopia of the view, if nothing else. No one posts about religious texts or literature with a philosophical edge, although I should correct myself, as you did post about the Gita, which is good, but I have only the barest glimmer into the eastern dialectic of spiritual advancement, so I did not voice in that thread.

[islandclimber]

I really could jump in here with some great arguments for not eating meat :D :D for instance, they may have less intelligence, but so do mentally retarded people???

But, I am just posting to respond to Jozanny's... yes, it got off topic. I just wanted to say Darkshadow made excellent points, and before him/her, islandclimber, and from the responses they got, Darkshadow was misunderstooad and islandclimber is completely inconceivable... ;)

Um, Jozanny, you are intelligent... you will not call someone mentally sick because they profess belief in something invisible, will you? That's what the article said, which Hyde was asking our opinions of. It's quite offensive!

I think it's surprising awful that people would think and say such a thing. Everyone I know or is in my life, who is a person of faith, is a wonderful person.

I agree Nikolai.. you are completely right...

hehe.. I don't mind being inconcievable.. I don't mind people like "The Atheist" comparing me to 8 or 9 year olds... because he/she can live in a little box and think about how they know everything and that is okay... I don't claim to know anything... I also see no difference between any form of faith for anything... including science and religion and even the fact we do exist... wow.. I must be an ignorant 8 year old right mr Atheist??? isn't that what you said before???

delusions are only delusions to people outside your own experience.. if I believe I can levitate who is to say I can't??? if I walk off the edge of a cliff and you think I die, how do you know I just don't keep flying in my own mind?? maybe in my mind continues and I still exist?? how do you know I cease to exist?? same with religion.. what good does it do for some ignorant atheist to say the fact some of us believe we are talking to God, or some form of infinite being means we are delusional... I don't believe in any religion's god, I believe in my own idea of infinite existence... I believe in whatever I believe in at the moment, it can change by the minute, by the second even, with every new thought I might believe something different... and if my mind brings something new into existence, well for me it exists... and that is all that matters... but yes atheists can go on trying to claim that anything they can't percieve and test and experiment with isn't real.. well okay, it isn't real to you, but it is to me, so it is entirely irrelevant what you think.. so maybe atheists just need to respect people's right to believe in what they want a bit more... keep it to yourself if you don't agree... i won't argue with what you believe in, for I really don't care... if you have supreme faith in science and technology, congratulations, I respect your right to do so... so for the most part I could really care less whether some atheist thinks I am delusional because I believe and have faith in things that science can't percieve, explain, or even begin to understand...

each of us is in our own separate delusional state of existence.. no 2 people see and percieve things in the exact same way.. and if you try to do so, well in my opinion you are the most boring person on the planet... learn to dream, to imagine, to have some kind of faith in something other than what science says is real...

I agree with Jozanny about this section of the forum, same with the philosophy section..

in my opinion though, the religious ""texts"" section is just where the atheists come to attack religious belief and faith.. and to ridicule it.. but I guess that is their right to try to ridicule and destroy what others believe in and they will never understand... oh well..

this is the religious text section, not the attack religion section, so maybe if you think religion is so absurd and useless and detrimental to everything, well, just maybe you should not visit this section of the forum.. maybe we should leave this section for those who actually want to discuss religious texts, and religious thought.. not those who just want to out and out attack everything anyone who is religious says...just a thought...

[Nightshade]

I think mental illness and religious faith is actually an interesting topic,


Actually JOzanny Im going to agree with you here- Have you ever read The Story of Adam and Eve, How schizophrenia shaped the world? Its quite an intresting book, not in terms that it discusses reliioon because it doesnt but it does talk about people who are 'different' and the labeling of them and how they impact society, and ten you get to the question how is a 'crazy' person supposedly crazy, how do you know they are not right after all, and everyone else is living with blinkers on- which then feeds into both the ideas of religion and atheism because either way cant be proven correct completly 100% in fact there is nothing in the world that is completly provable 100% but that is another matter entirly, both stands require a measure of belief by the holder. Most holders of s called revolutionary ideas have been mocked as 'insane'... its all very interesting.

[NikolaiI]

Niko, if I may shorten your handle without giving offense--I did not read what Hyde posted, not because the author may not be right about believers, but because the author is wrong solely on the basis of mental health, case closed.

Religious Texts and Philosophical Literature are the weakest forums on this network, and I may stop visiting here soon, because the polemicists really want to fall in love and get married, advancing same sex monogamy and polygamy in a simultaneous gesture of good will toward kumbaya coalitions.

I think mental illness and religious faith is actually an interesting topic, only no one here cares a flying flick. The only thing that matters is the relentless self-justification of the more frequent member arguments, which I can read in hundreds of prior posts. Beats me why any of them need to constantly reiterate.

Some, some of the literary discussions are worth having, which is why I stay--being *down* here makes me want to leave, for the sheer myopia of the view, if nothing else. No one posts about religious texts or literature with a philosophical edge, although I should correct myself, as you did post about the Gita, which is good, but I have only the barest glimmer into the eastern dialectic of spiritual advancement, so I did not voice in that thread.

Myopia is a good word. Sometimes I think that all human thought, if it were really understood, would be little more than grunts, or us going "dur...". Which is why some people take vows of silence for the rest of their lives!


hehe.. I don't mind being inconcievable.. I don't mind people like "The Atheist" comparing me to 8 or 9 year olds... because he/she can live in a little box and think about how they know everything and that is okay... I don't claim to know anything... I also see no difference between any form of faith for anything... including science and religion and even the fact we do exist... wow.. I must be an ignorant 8 year old right mr Atheist??? isn't that what you said before??? . . .

I meant inconceivable in the best possible way. :)
Also, mail for you.

[Redzeppelin]

Same again. How on earth can you say "completely false"? You're comparing two entirely different things - one done by choice, one forced through violence. I haven't made any statements on the effects of abortion since they are irrelevant. If a woman is allowed to choose, she can choose. You would have her choice taken away.

But the results are the same: a woman has chosen to terminate a life germinating inside her - and (as a Christian) I believe that cutting that life short has emotional/spiritual consequences. Research shows that there are serious emotional consequences for terminating a pregnancy. I am simply suggesting that the violent beginning does not ultimately change those emotional consequences. The victim is able to eliminate the physical reminder - and I understand completely that there is a comfort in that - but the emotional consequences of having been raped do not disappear with the fetus - and now the victim also lives with the consequences of destroying a life. The benefit of eliminating the physical evidence of the rape is compromised by the knowledge that a baby is not alive in this world because of the choice to abort it for no fault of its own.

The effects are not irrelevant; any "cure" that brings about negligible (or worse, more severe) consequences ought to be carefully considered. How can you say the effects are "irrelevant"? So as long as the fetus is gone, who cares what happens to the woman emotionally? What?

Secondly, here's where you are definitely wrong: nowhere here have I argued that a woman should not have the choice - I have said nothing about making abortion illegal. I am putting forth a philosophical argument on why I think abortion does not solve any problem without bringing with it an added (and perhaps more serious) problem. I'm not arguing against a woman's right to choose - I'm arguing against the validity of the choice.




Would you tell black people why they cannot do something? Would you deny muslims the right to face Mecca and worship outside of their own country? Do we allow Jews to carry out genital mutilation?

See above.

Another fallacious comparison. Pregnancy is a physical condition - being black, or Muslin, or Jewish is not. The former concerns a physiological change, the latter examples constitute either a genetic make-up or a theological choice. By "genital mutilation" are you referring to circumcision? Nothing like a little loaded language to make your point.


Personally, I find the idea that men should have any say in abortion completely repugnant, so your claim of logical fallacy is simply wrong. You're welcome to disagree with how I see it, but fallacious, it ain't.

Here's an obverse statement to the one you just made: Women should have no input on raising boys, since only a man can turn a boy into a man - is that comparative to what you just said? Would you suggest that women should have no opinion or say in matters that are uniquely male in nature?

Again you fall into faulty logic - my gender does not invalidate my opinion. It means that my opinion will be more philosophical than practical, but it doesn't make it totally invalid. Discounting my view because I'm male is as bad as mine dismissing a female view on something masculine - if I made a statement equivalent to what you just did (with genders reversed) boy would I be hearing about it. Reverse sexism, anybody?

Arguments are to be evaluated by their merit - not the gender/ethnicity of the arguer. That's basic debating logic, and using the ad hominem as you have done weakens your position considerably (whether you care to acknowledge it or not).


I don't accept any male arguments on abortion. That's one reason why I don't make any beyond asking women to sort it out. Fortunately, in the developed world, the laws and moral support position is given to women choosing for themselves. Men who are anti-abortion seem to me to have far too much in common with men who make their wives wear burqas - control rather than compassion.

And this is supposed to make you seem open-minded and fair? Really? Discounting an opinion based solely on gender is the heart of ugly sexism. I'm surprised, really, that you're willing to put that in print. Men who are anti-abortion may not necessarily be candidates for the Taliban - they may simply have chosen what they believe to be the lesser of two evils: the loss of a personal choice is harsh - but the loss of life is worse. Neither choice is good, but I think one is definitely worse.

[JCamilo]

Niko, if I may shorten your handle without giving offense--I did not read what Hyde posted, not because the author may not be right about believers, but because the author is wrong solely on the basis of mental health, case closed.

So, do you also saw that text as not only an attempt to attack religiousity (or imagination for all that matters) but also to the pratice of psychiatry?
It is not the only example, sadly, where the weapons used to "attack" the other side are exactly the same kind of intolerant attack, which was supposed ot be avoided.

[Bitterfly]

To Jozanny: it seems that this debate is more on topic than you think - I've read Americans would be ready to go back on abortion rights. Even the fact that we can actually have this debate, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, is worrying. Isn't that a proof of "religious absurdity"?


I feel the same, except that your belief system doesn't make me angry.

Well, I'm not trying to deny you a right, am I?! :p


Why don't you back off the straw man argument because it really looks bad for you to twist my points into some sort of "battle of the sexes" thing. Surely you can do better.

I'm not twisting anything. I didn't say all men feel the same way as you do, I just said that it was strange to see how vocal they are, when it doesn't seem to be a problem that concerns them directly. The same goes for contraception, by the way.



Your argument is the equivalent saying that we should let starving people die because the world is overpopulated anyway (something the Atheist would most certainly protest).

No, it would be the equivalent of saying we should help people in overpopulated and starving region to use contraception. Seems rational to me.


But is doesn't take away the trauma of the experience - and the fetus is HALF HERS so she wipes out something which is part her. Removing the reminder doesn't mitigate the pain and it adds to that pain the knowledge that a potential person has been destroyed. I should think anyone could understand that...

It seems to me abortion is painful only when you consider that the foetus is a person in its own rights. I totally accept that some women would prefer not to abort - each to her own beliefs, and forcing someone to undergo an abortion is bound to be traumatic (have you ever thought that maybe women who experience abortion as traumatic do so because they were forced to abort - by boyfriend, husband, or parent?). But what I don't like in your ideas is that you would rather women NOT have the choice.


Completely false. Studies show that even women who have abortions voluntarily suffer emotional consequences for years to come. Don't expect me to believe that exterminating the product of a rape changes that in any degree.

That's not true. I know people who've had abortions and are not in the least traumatised, and who have gone on to have babies when the time was right! What are those studies?!!!!



Once again, instead of dealing with the argument at hand and assessing its logic, you - like Bitterfly - resort to a weak ad hominem in order to suggest that the argument has no merit and is merely gender based. That's fallacious thinking. Obviously it is easier for men to take the pro-life position, but that doesn't invalidate the position. Deal with the argument and lay off the logical fallacies.

The mere fact that it is "easier for men to take the anti-abortion position" invalidates their opinion, in my eyes as well.
And it's not sexist to believe that men should not be allowed to decide about what only women will have to choose. Do woen go about imposing laws about what men should do with their bodies? The only reason they were and still are laws about abortion is because women's bodies seem to be considered as part of the public sphere - ie women are in this world primarily to make children. Well no. That's not women's only function, and a woman should be able to decide the fate of her own body, just like a man.

And before you wonder, I am for euthanasia and for suicide. They're questions of individual choice, in my opinion.


Arguments are to be evaluated by their merit - not the gender/ethnicity of the arguer. That's basic debating logic, and using the ad hominem as you have done weakens your position considerably (whether you care to acknowledge it or not).

And what if your own arguments were gender-based? You said yourself that it's easier for men to be anti-abortion. Is that acceptable in debating? Just try to imagine yourself as, oh I don't know a fourteen-year-old girl who's pregnant because she wasn't careful. Would you appreciate being forced to go through your pregnancy?
And by the way, have you read Irving's The Cider House Rules?

[The Atheist]

I'm not arguing against a woman's right to choose - I'm arguing against the validity of the choice.

Ah, so underneath it all you're pro-choice?

We have no argument then.




By "genital mutilation" are you referring to circumcision? Nothing like a little loaded language to make your point.

No loaded language involved; whether you like it or not, it is genital mutilation. That Jews give it a friendly-sounding name makes it no less a mutilation.


Here's an obverse statement to the one you just made: Women should have no input on raising boys, since only a man can turn a boy into a man - is that comparative to what you just said?

Wow; I hope - if you think there's even the slightest grain of truth in the bolded part - that you're disabused of the notion long before you ever have a son.


Would you suggest that women should have no opinion or say in matters that are uniquely male in nature?

Name one and I'll see what I think about it.


Again you fall into faulty logic - my gender does not invalidate my opinion.

To me, and fortunately, most women, it absolutely does. Logic doesn't make any headway here - we're talking about women. ;)


And this is supposed to make you seem open-minded and fair?

No.

[Mr Hyde]

Good posts The Atheist. I would of gave up a long time ago.

[Redzeppelin]

Ah, so underneath it all you're pro-choice?

We have no argument then.

Must I explain everything? I'm not arguing against a woman's right to choose - but that doesn't mean I agree with that right. I "tolerate" it. I'm making an argument about the validity of abortion as a response to rape - I'm not arguing that it should or should not be legal. My language on the matter is quite clear.



No loaded language involved; whether you like it or not, it is genital mutilation. That Jews give it a friendly-sounding name makes it no less a mutilation.

I could easily put plastic surgery under the same category.



Wow; I hope - if you think there's even the slightest grain of truth in the bolded part - that you're disabused of the notion long before you ever have a son.

Boys need input from their mothers - both genders need the input from both genders; but, moms cannot turn boys into men because they aren't men, anymore than a father can turn a daughter into a woman. Only masculinity can bestow masculinity.




Name one and I'll see what I think about it.

A clever duck; but the question can be answered philosophically. Your refusal to engage is telling indeed.




To me, and fortunately, most women, it absolutely does. Logic doesn't make any headway here - we're talking about women. ;)

A sexist statement if I ever heard one. Wow - and you put that in print too! If I admire nothing else, I admire your courage.

More generalizations: "most women"? Got stats on that number?

Now you're extending the fallacy to include women and imply that they use faulty logic (and worse, are sexist!) by discounting arguments based on the gender of the arguer - but the idea that my gender renders my opinion or logic invalid is the worst form of sexism and - dare I say? - intolerance.

The "open-mindedness" that Dawkins' claims atheists possess is in short supply here.



No.

Good. Then we're in agreement (at last!).


Good posts The Atheist. I would of gave up a long time ago.

Buddhism teaches (if I recall correctly) that to suffer is to exist; perhaps the Atheist and I enjoy our existence. :)

[Drkshadow03]

Niko, if I may shorten your handle without giving offense--I did not read what Hyde posted, not because the author may not be right about believers, but because the author is wrong solely on the basis of mental health, case closed.

Religious Texts and Philosophical Literature are the weakest forums on this network, and I may stop visiting here soon, because the polemicists really want to fall in love and get married, advancing same sex monogamy and polygamy in a simultaneous gesture of good will toward kumbaya coalitions.

I think mental illness and religious faith is actually an interesting topic, only no one here cares a flying flick. The only thing that matters is the relentless self-justification of the more frequent member arguments, which I can read in hundreds of prior posts. Beats me why any of them need to constantly reiterate.

Some, some of the literary discussions are worth having, which is why I stay--being *down* here makes me want to leave, for the sheer myopia of the view, if nothing else. No one posts about religious texts or literature with a philosophical edge, although I should correct myself, as you did post about the Gita, which is good, but I have only the barest glimmer into the eastern dialectic of spiritual advancement, so I did not voice in that thread.

I personally would LOVE to have intellectual discussions about the Bible or other religious texts as literature from an objective scholarly discourse. I am far more interested in it in this regard than in my own spiritual faith.

But it's hard getting a scholarly discourse like that going. We've had a few and I participated in most of them, and they were my favorite discussions here so far; much better than the "can we trust science?," "Why don't you believe in G-d?," "Why do religious people hate atheists?!" But seriously, beginning a topic with all religious people are mental DOES NOT constitute the kind of scholarly discourse I am talking about.

[The Atheist]

I could easily put plastic surgery under the same category.

You'd be making an enormous mistake if you did. I don't need to explain why that is.


Only masculinity can bestow masculinity.

This is wrong on more levels than I can actually figure out, so I'm just leaving it alone. Please do re-consider this position prior to having children.


A clever duck; but the question can be answered philosophically. Your refusal to engage is telling indeed.

What clever duck? My refusal to engage tells you that there's nothing to discuss. You tried to come up with one hypothetical situation which was completely wrong. I see no analalogous situation for men.

It's your question, you define it.


A sexist statement if I ever heard one. Wow - and you put that in print too! If I admire nothing else, I admire your courage.

Red, seriously...

Your inflamed and outraged resonse is waaaaay off the mark. You obviously saw the emoticon at the end of the sentence because you copied it in your quote. Mea culpa for trying to raise a laugh on what has become a tedious subject.

[Redzeppelin]

You'd be making an enormous mistake if you did. I don't need to explain why that is.

Of course - you never need explain your position on anything. Your simple assertion of rightness is apparently sufficient to quell all doubt.


This is wrong on more levels than I can actually figure out, so I'm just leaving it alone. Please do re-consider this position prior to having children.

Once again - you deliver a judgment, but can provide no basis for it. If you were a lawyer, your client would be doomed. Are you, good sir, being intolerant of my view of childraising without being able to offer any legitimate criticism of it? I tell my students that "X is right because I say so" is never a legitimate form of argument. If it's wrong, articulate an argument. A failure to even attempt to do so is - in my book - an admission of having no argument at all.



What clever duck? My refusal to engage tells you that there's nothing to discuss. You tried to come up with one hypothetical situation which was completely wrong. I see no analalogous situation for men.

"Nothing to discuss" from your side of the table. I've got plenty to discuss. All I lack is a willing disputant.

It is clear you're in a corner because the question is not a difficult one - you, surely, know how to answer hypothetical questions. I need not provide real-life examples for you to consider a hyptothetical question.



Red, seriously...

Your inflamed and outraged resonse is waaaaay off the mark. You obviously saw the emoticon at the end of the sentence because you copied it in your quote. Mea culpa for trying to raise a laugh on what has become a tedious subject.

The humor is not funny to all women...for those in an verbally abusive relationships who are told that they are "illogical," your attempt at humor might be well nigh offensive.

I'm not outraged - I'm pointing out an attitude that can easily be interpreted as sexist in nature. Nothing more.

[islandclimber]

I personally would LOVE to have intellectual discussions about the Bible or other religious texts as literature from an objective scholarly discourse. I am far more interested in it in this regard than in my own spiritual faith.

But it's hard getting a scholarly discourse like that going. We've had a few and I participated in most of them, and they were my favorite discussions here so far; much better than the "can we trust science?," "Why don't you believe in G-d?," "Why do religious people hate atheists?!" But seriously, beginning a topic with all religious people are mental DOES NOT constitute the kind of scholarly discourse I am talking about.

:thumbs_up

the threads in this section, or at least quite a few seem to be all about trying to start arguments with people who are religious... and conversely there are some that are meant to do the opposite...

and then we get off into long winded arguments about abortion.. why don't you take that into the general chat section.. seems like it would fit better there.. for it does not have a whole lot to do with religious texts and literature...

but seriously, why in a religious text section is there a thread called the atheists corner..... what does that have to do with religious texts and the discussion of them... :goof:

same with most of the threads in this section, I mean look at the arguments going back and forth here.. it is basically just personal opinions and biases flying back and forth with no justification or explanation at all.. arguments like "that is wrong and I don't need to explain why"... maybe it is because you can't refute it, it is just your personal opinion that it is wrong... just a thought... humans see reality differently always, and arguing over who's reality is right or wrong is silly and has nothing to do with religious texts...

secondly those who generally call themselves atheists and like to run around telling everyone they are atheists, are for the most part just trying to create a polemic against religion... they just want to attack religion and faith in the supernatural every chance they get... and I agree religion can deserve it at times (and so can science and atheism) but attacking the very idea of faith in things we can't perceive is absurd... you can attack certain points of a religion as they can be harmful at times (and again so can science, which imo has done more to damage the world than religion by far), but attacking the very idea of religious faith and that infinite love that most religion's are supposed to have at their very essence is ridiculous... that is just making inflammatory comments with no other purpose than to ridicule other's beliefs and ideas, and to try to create arguments and fights over things that are personal beliefs and should therefore be respected as such... you can be an atheist who hasn't experienced anything out of the ordinary, anything supernatural, anything that breaks all ideas of science and therefore it is your choice to choose not to have faith or believe in any god/godhead/supernatural entity.. but I may have experienced things beyond the realm of science, I may have experienced the supernatural, and that is my basis and my reason for having faith... so why do you feel the need to ridicule this... are you that insecure in your own beliefs that you need to have everyone think the exact same way as you... seriously...

theism versus atheism will never end, as people always feel the need to attack other people's beliefs, but maybe take it out of the religious text section as this is supposed to be where we discuss religious texts... not where we attack each other's personal beliefs... again, this is just a thought...

[weltanschauung]

this is quite simple, really.
the world needs standards in order to function in a way people that control it can keep controling it with no disturbance. concepts are arbitrarily defined, so that the majority of people can follow, and the order prevails. people that profess things that go outside the order are obviously seen as disturbers or the status quo, and must be stopped. what a better way to stop a person than to say that person is insane or disturbed? its not solving the problem, its ostracising it, so that it wont bother.
i think erasmus and foucault have written wonderful things about this topic, insanity. what is it really? its not something we can define but its something we can point when we see it, right? RIGHT?
no, i dont think so. as a matter of fact, i think the world has gone insane a long time ago, and the great majority of people are flowing in a sea of oblivion and madness, and the authorities that control it are having a wank over it.
did i go off topic?

[JCamilo]

Thank you, I see that you are right, most people here just want to attack the other side. So, I am really trying to tell everyone that I am atheist and only this. You just opened my eyes.

[islandclimber]

generalizations obviously have exceptions.. but what good does it do for people to come into a section about religious texts to say they are atheists and that all religious people or people who have faith in things outside of sacience, are delusional and insane, and basically stupid?? I've been called stupid in politer terms in this section multiple times... and each and every time it is by someone who is talking about how they are an atheist and how only science has any real value and how faith in any religion or supernatural idea is stupid and absurd.. very constructive argument that one.. very helpful and of course I will definitely abandon my ideas, my values and my faith now, because someone called me delusional... :D if you just want to come here and argue that theists are delusional, what exactly is the point?? please do let me know??


good point weltanschauung.. foucault has written some very interesting things on insanity... I haven't read any erasmus but I may have to take a look... as you say no we cannot define insanity or point at it when we see it, because who is to say what is insane or not.. you can say the majority is sane and the minority is not, but there are many cases where the majority is wrong, or you could say that scientific explanations for the world are sane, and religious explanations are not.. but then let us know when science can explain how something can be infinite, how the world began.. let us know when science can even have a clue of how the universe all of a sudden began for no reason, or if not how it is has always been here without end... insanity is a ridiculous term that just used to describe people who exist in alternate realities.. what's to say you are right and they are not?

[Drkshadow03]

:thumbs_up

the threads in this section, or at least quite a few seem to be all about trying to start arguments with people who are religious... and conversely there are some that are meant to do the opposite...

and then we get off into long winded arguments about abortion.. why don't you take that into the general chat section.. seems like it would fit better there.. for it does not have a whole lot to do with religious texts and literature...

but seriously, why in a religious text section is there a thread called the atheists corner..... what does that have to do with religious texts and the discussion of them... :goof:

same with most of the threads in this section, I mean look at the arguments going back and forth here.. it is basically just personal opinions and biases flying back and forth with no justification or explanation at all.. arguments like "that is wrong and I don't need to explain why"... maybe it is because you can't refute it, it is just your personal opinion that it is wrong... just a thought... humans see reality differently always, and arguing over who's reality is right or wrong is silly and has nothing to do with religious texts...

secondly those who generally call themselves atheists and like to run around telling everyone they are atheists, are for the most part just trying to create a polemic against religion... they just want to attack religion and faith in the supernatural every chance they get... and I agree religion can deserve it at times (and so can science and atheism) but attacking the very idea of faith in things we can't perceive is absurd... you can attack certain points of a religion as they can be harmful at times (and again so can science, which imo has done more to damage the world than religion by far), but attacking the very idea of religious faith and that infinite love that most religion's are supposed to have at their very essence is ridiculous... that is just making inflammatory comments with no other purpose than to ridicule other's beliefs and ideas, and to try to create arguments and fights over things that are personal beliefs and should therefore be respected as such... you can be an atheist who hasn't experienced anything out of the ordinary, anything supernatural, anything that breaks all ideas of science and therefore it is your choice to choose not to have faith or believe in any god/godhead/supernatural entity.. but I may have experienced things beyond the realm of science, I may have experienced the supernatural, and that is my basis and my reason for having faith... so why do you feel the need to ridicule this... are you that insecure in your own beliefs that you need to have everyone think the exact same way as you... seriously...

theism versus atheism will never end, as people always feel the need to attack other people's beliefs, but maybe take it out of the religious text section as this is supposed to be where we discuss religious texts... not where we attack each other's personal beliefs... again, this is just a thought...

But this misses my point. We shouldn't be talking about the merits of religion X or the evils that sometimes get committed in the name of religion Y. We shouldnt be talking about subjective/uncertain questions like: "where does evil come from? Okay, discuss among yourselves and provide me with an answer." We shouldn't be discussing theology.

We should be talking about typology and symbolism and characterization and structure and inter-textual allusions and style. Questions like "where does evil come from?" should be confined strictly to intellectual discussions of what the various biblical books are trying to say textually. After all the theodicy question is central to the Book of Job. It doesn't matter whether you personally believe in evil or not, but rather it's more important to figure what the book is trying to say, how the poetics express it, who may have written the book and why, etc.

Perhaps we should start a book club dedicated strictly to doing this kind of critical analysis. We could discuss a section in small chunks (Genesis 1-3) every weekend. Then eventually we could move on to different religious books in the same format. I imagine the Bible itself in this small portion format will take some time to get through.

But if people want to keep arguing the merits or problems with abortion, whether religious people are nuts, or if religion = teh stupidz or teh awesomz be my guest.

Anyone who may be interested in the bookclub PM me. If I think we have enough core people, I'll make a thread to announce our intentions to anyone who wants to follow along and isn't reading this thread (though, you need not formally join).

[weltanschauung]

religious argument, imo, always loses credibility because it often brings about the image of jehovah frankenstein into it. good and bad and evil and sin and damnation, all these images are always and only used in order to manipulate by terror or fear, because its the easiest and quickest way to submit others. the question of "what is right and what is not" could be easily answered with "if everyone did this, would it be a good thing?", instead of any bizarre and comical argument used by the saviours of the world to submit those who are only waiting for a leader to take them wherever, place which often is "collective existencial shipsink auschwitz".

[Jozanny]

but seriously, why in a religious text section is there a thread called the atheists corner..

Because atheism is the antithesis of theism. You do not have the one without the other; I am still interested in modern atheism as a cultural phenomenon, but my opening post that started The Corner was too reactionary and the thread itself never settled between abstract thesis and social commentary. Though I may still reference it if I am pitching to an editor of a publication like Reason Magazine and similar markets. I admire American Atheist, but the magazine doesn't pay.



But this misses my point. We shouldn't be talking about the merits of religion X or the evils that sometimes get committed in the name of religion Y. We shouldnt be talking about subjective/uncertain questions like: "where does evil come from? Okay, discuss among yourselves and provide me with an answer." We shouldn't be discussing theology.

We should be talking about typology and symbolism and characterization and structure and inter-textual allusions and style. Questions like "where does evil come from?" should be confined strictly to intellectual discussions of what the various biblical books are trying to say textually. After all the theodicy question is central to the Book of Job. It doesn't matter whether you personally believe in evil or not, but rather it's more important to figure what the book is trying to say, how the poetics express it, who may have written the book and why, etc.

Perhaps we should start a book club dedicated strictly to doing this kind of critical analysis. We could discuss a section in small chunks (Genesis 1-3) every weekend. Then eventually we could move on to different religious books in the same format. I imagine the Bible itself in this small portion format will take some time to get through.

Exactly--but do we have more than the Bible to examine? I would be as much interested in textual diversity, and even similar motifs--if I remember there is an alternate polytheist flood myth in conjunction to the Noah tale.

I would be interested in such a club Drk; I will pm when I feel more well than I do this evening.

[islandclimber]

so buddhism manipulates by inspiring fear and terror in the masses??? that's a pretty sweeping generalization to make about all religion...

Drk, I agree with you... I wasn't saying we should be comparing religions and deciding which one is the best... or deciding where evil comes from.. you missed my point.. I was saying we should be discussing religious texts here, or religious questions with regard to religious texts, not just our own often biased personal opinions... but no matter...

[Redzeppelin]

religious argument, imo, always loses credibility because it often brings about the image of jehovah frankenstein into it.

Anyone who presents God like this has obviously not read the Bible very closely.


good and bad and evil and sin and damnation, all these images are always and only used in order to manipulate by terror or fear, because its the easiest and quickest way to submit others.

THe terms you quoted are not "images"; rather, they are concepts that religions are generally concerned with. First, no one converted out of fear stays converted for long. Second, if you read the Bible, it makes it very clear that manipulation is not an acceptable way to evangelize. Third, it is not manipulation to tell people the consequences of their choices. If you are smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day, it is not manipulation for me (your doctor) to tell you that your habit will eventually kill you. If you don't believe that I have any knowledge about health, you might assume I'm just trying to manipulate you. But if I'm telling you the truth, it's a caution rather than a manipulation.




the question of "what is right and what is not" could be easily answered with "if everyone did this, would it be a good thing?", instead of any bizarre and comical argument used by the saviours of the world to submit those who are only waiting for a leader to take them wherever, place which often is "collective existencial shipsink auschwitz".

Without a transcendent morality (one that exists beyond human creation and revision), there is no reason for any law of human beings to be binding on each other. While Kant's categorical impreative is a handy tool, it presupposes that people actually bother to consider the ramifications of their behavior multiplied out through all humanity. It doesn't account for the existence of selfish people who do not bother with reflective questions about the consequences of their behavior; they feel entitled and do not bother with the reality that they would not like their behavior committed against them; if they actually thought about it, they might refrain; or they might not.

[The Atheist]

Of course - you never need explain your position on anything. Your simple assertion of rightness is apparently sufficient to quell all doubt.

That, and it being a clearly failed analogy. If I need to explain things that simple, I don't bother.


Once again - you deliver a judgment, but can provide no basis for it. If you were a lawyer, your client would be doomed.

What an extraordinary statement. Why would I have any regard for the working of a court of law during a discussion on the internet?

I'll give you a small hint on this one - what is "masculinity"? How is it desirable and how do fathers teach it?

Don't bother answering, they are questions for you to consider before you have children, I'm not going to offer opinions on them.


Are you, good sir, being intolerant of my view of childraising without being able to offer any legitimate criticism of it?

Not so much intolerant as completely dismissive. You are clearly not a parent and I have no regard whatsoever for your philosophical position on something you have no experience of. Sorry, but I have kids [almost certainly] your age.


I tell my students that "X is right because I say so" is never a legitimate form of argument. If it's wrong, articulate an argument. A failure to even attempt to do so is - in my book - an admission of having no argument at all.

That's fine. As I'm sure you're aware, I have no regard for what you have in your book. What you tell your students is immaterial. (I'm sure you actually know that.)


It is clear you're in a corner because the question is not a difficult one - you, surely, know how to answer hypothetical questions. I need not provide real-life examples for you to consider a hyptothetical question.

Unfortunately, you do if you want to pursue it. I don't bother with hypothetical questions which are meaningless. I'm a prgamatist above all and see no need to dispute positions which can't arise. Did you not see my Martian analogy? If you want to discuss, find a real world example. Otherwise, why would I waste carbon on it?


The humor is not funny to all women...for those in an verbally abusive relationships who are told that they are "illogical," your attempt at humor might be well nigh offensive.

Well, when a woman complains about it, I'll let it worry me. Regardless of gender, race, religion or species, anyone unable to laugh at him/herself gets short shrift from me.

Sorry, but I do see just a touch of irony in these two bits:


I tell my students that "X is right because I say so" is never a legitimate form of argument.


Without a transcendent morality (one that exists beyond human creation and revision), there is no reason for any law of human beings to be binding on each other.

[Jozanny]

This is from an Emily Yoffe (http://www.slate.com/id/2202303/pagenum/3/) behavioral piece at Slate, and it is much more in sync with what I care to examine in both believers and non-believers, and the models we use, as opposed to saying "religious group X is nuts" or giving atheists positive or negative attributes:


Many of the researchers studying the origins of human moral emotions and behaviors say religion does not create morality; it is building on pre-existing patterns. University of Cambridge scientist Robert Hinde notes in Why Gods Persist that every human society has a code of conduct, and that code is usually "legitimated, purveyed, and stabilised by the religious system." Both Hinde and Haidt warn of the dangers of believing that new research on evolutionary morality means science has made religion obsolete. Haidt writes that natural selection must have "favored the success of individuals and groups that found ways (genetic or cultural or both) to use these gods to their advantage, for example as commitment devices that enhanced cooperation, trust, and mutual aid."

I have been thinking a great deal about ridicule and the personality driven columnist, like Hitchens, since I have become a regular in these forums as opposed to working (and conversely despise myself for this, in all honesty, as I know I'm a powerful author capable of better than I am doing here in juvie-land)...and I am wondering if ridicule is actually the bonding force for the non-believer, almost a safe-guard, of sorts, since religious extremism can be frightening. I have no firm conclusions to offer, not yet.

[The Atheist]

This is from an Emily Yoffe (http://www.slate.com/id/2202303/pagenum/3/) behavioral piece at Slate, and it is much more in sync with what I care to examine in both believers and non-believers, and the models we use, as opposed to saying "religious group X is nuts" or giving atheists positive or negative attributes:

Good article. I've always seen religious texts written that way; men using the authority of a deity to impose their own morality.

This piece goes a step too far:

Haidt writes that natural selection must have "favored the success of individuals and groups that found ways (genetic or cultural or both) to use these gods to their advantage, for example as commitment devices that enhanced cooperation, trust, and mutual aid."

I think this is drawing conclusions from casual connections rather than causal ones. I'd agree that the cohesive factors are probably societally beneficial, but whether it's the driver for success is just a little too big a gap to bridge just yet.


I have been thinking a great deal about ridicule and the personality driven columnist, like Hitchens, since I have become a regular in these forums as opposed to working (and conversely despise myself for this, in all honesty, as I know I'm a powerful author capable of better than I am doing here in juvie-land)...

?

Jo.

I can only be up-front here and say what I feel.

If you're this bitter about it, it might be better for you to take the plunge and not come back here.

Red and I might snip at each other's heels, but neither of us is going to budge an inch and I really don't think either of us is going to cry into our beer (or whatever Red drinks) over it. I dunno about Red, but it's a just a game to me. You know that anyway.

In case you hadn't noticed, Pen has managed to gain my respect in this very thread, and that ain't an easy task for a bloke who's not just a bible-thumper, but a damn preacher/pastor as well! That alone shows the value of things like this forum, and neither Pen nor myself is any kind of juvie.

On that basis, I think you're too emotionally charged on the subject - and mostly at how you view your own involvement - to really get anything beyond further grief out of these threads.

Just take a step back and see where you want to be and whether this is that place.

My main involvement with LitNet is helping out kids in the Orwell forums - even now teachers are still askin' dumb questions about George. I don't know whether you do other forums here, but maybe if you could get involved in the more positive side of the place.

Just my thoughts - please take with a grain of salt as required.

You're a top chick; don't let it get to you.


and I am wondering if ridicule is actually the bonding force for the non-believer, almost a safe-guard, of sorts, since religious extremism can be frightening. I have no firm conclusions to offer, not yet.

It might well be.

When reason and rationality don't work, I often think scorn & derision are all we have.

On that basis, I can't wait to see Religulous.

[Jozanny]

Jo.

I can only be up-front here and say what I feel.

If you're this bitter about it, it might be better for you to take the plunge and not come back here.

Context man, context:) The *despise* isn't about lack of topic discipline. One gets that surfing anywhere, and my poor group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabilityinArts/) suffers because I won't let the crips who want to rant about activism rant about activism without applying activism to the topic, which is disability in the fine arts.

I am nearly 46. I have done some fine things, but at the moment I cannot stop surfing my political sites and/or shut my posting mouth and bunker down. Like the say about the fellow himself, I have a relentless internal narrative driving me, and that is all fine and dandy but I am 46 and no doubt have an occlusion I am neglecting along with other physical-wearing obsessions. It is my own behavior that I am hard on A. Context.

[Redzeppelin]

That, and it being a clearly failed analogy. If I need to explain things that simple, I don't bother.

Like saying "I can lift that 500 pound weight with one hand, but since that's no real challenge for me, I'm not doing it. I only accept real challenges."

Ho-hum. Perhaps the reality is you have no refutation.


What an extraordinary statement. Why would I have any regard for the working of a court of law during a discussion on the internet?

Red Herring. I made an analogy assessing your argumentative ability. Would you like to explain how an analogy works?


I'll give you a small hint on this one - what is "masculinity"? How is it desirable and how do fathers teach it?

I think it makes sense that the difference in genders means that - at its core - both masculinity and femininity are difficult for the opposite genders to understand. If women could confir masculinity on their sons and fathers femininity on their daughters, I don't think you'd see the "battle of the sexes" we see in cultures around the world. Men and women don't understand each other very well. That's why women can't make boys into men, and men can't make girls into women.


Don't bother answering, they are questions for you to consider before you have children, I'm not going to offer opinions on them.

You are far from qualified to give me advice about parenting.

And again, your refusal to engage is simply another forfeit disguised as a "this is beneath me and I am above responding" comment.


Not so much intolerant as completely dismissive. You are clearly not a parent and I have no regard whatsoever for your philosophical position on something you have no experience of. Sorry, but I have kids [almost certainly] your age.

Here's where you get to be wrong again. I am a parent of three boys - so you would be clearly wrong on your assumption. I've got plenty of experience.

And, "dismissing" a point without showing the basis of that dismissal would simply be another tactical retreat.


That's fine. As I'm sure you're aware, I have no regard for what you have in your book. What you tell your students is immaterial. (I'm sure you actually know that.)

But unless you can produce some convincing argument at to why "my book" ought not be regarded, you're simply spouting off your opinions, which in and of themselves carry no weight whatsoever.


Unfortunately, you do if you want to pursue it. I don't bother with hypothetical questions which are meaningless. I'm a prgamatist above all and see no need to dispute positions which can't arise. Did you not see my Martian analogy? If you want to discuss, find a real world example. Otherwise, why would I waste carbon on it?

Same old song and dance: you avoid dealing with my arguments by dismissing them as irrelevant, silly, meaningless - the tactic you use most often in these dialogues with me - but you never bother to prove to me (or anybody else here for that matter) that basis of your dismissal. I'm sorry, my friend, you seem like an intelligent man, but this constant retreat under the guise of "your arguments are not even worth considering" is tiresome and I will now respectfully leave our discussion - it's clear you have no real defense, no real argument, no legitimate refutation, and no clear basis for any of your comments. I had hoped for better. In my book (the one you dismiss), anybody who comes out with such strong opinions/denunciations/judgments as yourself ought to be ready to be called upon those and bring forth a convincing and cogent defense.

You have not done so, and I'm disappointed. Thanks anyway.

[weltanschauung]

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;630732]Anyone who presents God like this has obviously not read the Bible very closely.[QUOTE]

anyone who uses that as an argument obviously is the one who knows more about anything.


" we know that the great majority of people have a strong need for authority which they can admire, to which they can submit, and which dominates and sometimes even ill-threats them. we have learned from the psychology of the individual whence comes this need of the masses. it is the longing for the father that lives in each of us from his childhood days, for the same father whom the hero of legend boasts of having overcome. and now it begins to dawn on us that all the features with which we furnish the great man are traits of the father, that in similarity lies the essence, which so far has eluded us, of the great man. the deciveness of thought, the strength of will, the forcefulness of his deeds, belong to the picture of the father; above all other things, however, the self-reliance and independence of doing the right thing, which may pass into ruthlessness. he must be admired, he may be trusted, but one cannot help also being afraid of him. we should have taken a cue from the word itself; who else but the father should in childhood have been the great man?

without doubt it must have been a tremendous father imago that stooped in the person of moses to tell the poor jewish labourers that they were his dear children. and the conception of a unique, eternal, omnipotent god could not have been less overwhelming for them; he who thought them worthy to make a bond with him promised to take care of them if only they remained faithful to his worship. probably they did not find it easy to separate the image of the man moses from that of his god, and their instinct was right in this, since moses might very well have incorporated into the character of his god some of his own traits, such as his irascibility and implacability. and when they killed this great man they only repeated an evil deed which in primeval times had been a law directed against the divine king and which, as we know, derives from still older prototype." (freud- moses and monotheism)

from the holy bible, i can quote:
"34:13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves
34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: " (exodus)


"It shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of the body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine and the flocks of thy sheep. Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation and rebuke in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do. The Lord shall smite thee with consumption, and with a fever, with blasting and mildew; etc. In the morning thou shalt say: Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say: Would God it were morning!"--Deut.xxviii:15-29, 67.


"Enter ye in at the strait gate, for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because, strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."Matt. vii:13,14.


"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world, the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from the just; and shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.--Matt.xiii:47-50.

etc etc etc.
goDzilla-jehovah fails. that kind of argument is the typical kind of threat we use to submit children.

[Drkshadow03]

from the holy bible, i can quote:

Congratulations. But uhm, what exactly are you trying to prove by your endless quoting?

[The Atheist]

Context man, context:) The *despise* isn't about lack of topic discipline. ...
It is my own behavior that I am hard on A. Context.

I did realise that, which is what I think you should ease up on.

You'll be right.


Like saying "I can lift that 500 pound weight with one hand, but since that's no real challenge for me, I'm not doing it. I only accept real challenges."

Red, the analogy is simply wrong. If you need me to tell you why rape and plastic surgery are different, then you shouldn't be writing on the internet. Interestingly enough, the only person I know of who claims to be able to lift enormous weights but refuses to show evidence is Pat Robertson, a well-known christian.


Red Herring. I made an analogy assessing your argumentative ability.

You seem to be in love with poor analogies. I'm not about to pander to your whims on them.

If you don't like my style of writing, don't bother commenting.


Men and women don't understand each other very well. That's why women can't make boys into men, and men can't make girls into women.

That is one of the scariest statements I've ever read on the internet, in the context of the next statement:


I am a parent of three boys - so you would be clearly wrong on your assumption. I've got plenty of experience.

Apologies for the incorrect assumption.


And, "dismissing" a point without showing the basis of that dismissal would simply be another tactical retreat.

You mean the way you've completely overlooked the double-quote of yours I posted?

This is what really scares me about you, Red, you complain about absolutism while making the most outrageous abnsolute statements yourself. The two I quoted were completely contradictory posts, one after the other - and the contradiction in them is far more important than the small fish we've been chasing.

[weltanschauung]

Congratulations. But uhm, what exactly are you trying to prove by your endless quoting?


hm, i dont know, i guess im trying to prove im talking about stuff i have no idea about!

[Jozanny]

Good article. I've always seen religious texts written that way; men using the authority of a deity to impose their own morality.

This piece goes a step too far:

Haidt writes that natural selection must have "favored the success of individuals and groups that found ways (genetic or cultural or both) to use these gods to their advantage, for example as commitment devices that enhanced cooperation, trust, and mutual aid."

I think this is drawing conclusions from casual connections rather than causal ones. I'd agree that the cohesive factors are probably societally beneficial, but whether it's the driver for success is just a little too big a gap to bridge just yet.

Atheist: In the context of the article itself, I am not sure, since I do not know the book and my statistical training comes from what The New Republic teaches me. If you read the whole article, it is about why we're *touchy*--which certainly fits many indicators. The faithful get defensive, and the atheists get incredulous at faithful close-mindedness, and on it goes, but, in the context of advanced primate behavior, Emily makes some useful insights about status, the brain work it takes. Church has a great deal of this in it. Alpha leaders mediating negative self-interest for the sake of social cohesion (yes, when I wake up my body needs about an hour to convince itself it isn't dead, so this distraction is permissible:D).

[JCamilo]

[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]I have been thinking a great deal about ridicule and the personality driven columnist, like Hitchens, since I have become a regular in these forums as opposed to working (and conversely despise myself for this, in all honesty, as I know I'm a powerful author capable of better than I am doing here in juvie-land)...and I am wondering if ridicule is actually the bonding force for the non-believer, almost a safe-guard, of sorts, since religious extremism can be frightening. I have no firm conclusions to offer, not yet.


Humor is often as sense of disregard with the reality or with the stabilished positions. Maybe that.
Maybe we can think in what the Ancient Comedy was meant to be
Or that Irony was first developed as a questioning tool.

[Pendragon]

In case you hadn't noticed, Pen has managed to gain my respect in this very thread, and that ain't an easy task for a bloke who's not just a bible-thumper, but a damn preacher/pastor as well! That alone shows the value of things like this forum, and neither Pen nor myself is any kind of juvie.

.Um, thank you! I didn't gain that respect by being either a crawfish or a bully. You have to find ways to talk to people without seeming to be forcing them to see your point of view. Share don't cram it down their throats.

And be honest to yourself and them as well. Twain wrote: "You can't pray a lie." You can't convince anyone of anything unless you give honest feelings.

The phrase "Let God sort 'em out." might be a great point. Here we have atheists and theists in argument over who is right. One will go the way one chooses, irregardless of whether or not they hear a ton of things to the contrary.

A case in point: Fearful of the effect public schools might have on his six children, a friend of mine who is a fellow minister home schooled his through graduation. Only one remains in church or believing any sort of religious feelings. School had nothing to do with it.

I and my siblings were public schooled and only my brother refuses to go to church. My sisters are married to preachers.

Of my own kids, my daughter has quit church and my son goes to a different church. They have to find their own path, not mine.

God bless

Pen

[Redzeppelin]

Red, the analogy is simply wrong. If you need me to tell you why rape and plastic surgery are different, then you shouldn't be writing on the internet. Interestingly enough, the only person I know of who claims to be able to lift enormous weights but refuses to show evidence is Pat Robertson, a well-known christian.

You seem to be in love with poor analogies. I'm not about to pander to your whims on them.

If you don't like my style of writing, don't bother commenting.

That is one of the scariest statements I've ever read on the internet, in the context of the next statement:

Apologies for the incorrect assumption.

You mean the way you've completely overlooked the double-quote of yours I posted?

This is what really scares me about you, Red, you complain about absolutism while making the most outrageous abnsolute statements yourself. The two I quoted were completely contradictory posts, one after the other - and the contradiction in them is far more important than the small fish we've been chasing.

My friend, the longer I correspond with you the more I become convinced that you cannot maintain any coherent argument with me. You conflate together different threads of an argument in order to accuse me of bad analogies (see your 1st comment above), refuse to engage or explain the validity of your evaluations (yet again! see 2nd comment), created a straw man in order to bypass my assertion about yoru arguing style (by changing it into an attack on your writing style - which I have no problem with - you write lucidly - you just don't argue clearly), and then spend more time evaluating me as a parent rather than deal with the philosophic points I've made. I'm sorry, I am now fully convinced that you cannot sustain an argument without twisting it into something it clearly is not.

Good luck to you in your conversations - if you were able to back up the statements you make (including assertions of my errors) in a way that showed that there was some sort of merit in your unsubstantiated charges, we might have a conversation. Clearly, at least right now, that is asking more than you are either willing, or capable, of giving.

Bye.

[The Atheist]

Clearly, at least right now, that is asking more than you are either willing, ....

Willing is quite right; I've said to you many times that I'm unwilling to converse with you on many subjects.

If we can maybe get to the stage of completely ignoring each other, it's probably going to be for the betterment of LitNet.

My suggestion - and I'm encouraged by the challenge to atheists to just ignore vocal christians - is that let's both undertake to just ignore the hell out of each other. I think I can extend that to not sniping at you by discussing you with others as well, so let's avoid that, too.

That's how I'd like to play it and I'll even leave the last post to you. We'll accept that each other is as far from own our position that any kind of meaningful or even polite discussion is impossible.

Red, I wish you all the best in life.

[islandclimber]

We'll accept that each other is as far from own our position that any kind of meaningful or even polite discussion is impossible.


I know what you mean here, but the way you put it is quite the improper use of the english language... hahah.. just teasing :p

[Redzeppelin]

Willing is quite right; I've said to you many times that I'm unwilling to converse with you on many subjects.

If we can maybe get to the stage of completely ignoring each other, it's probably going to be for the betterment of LitNet.

My suggestion - and I'm encouraged by the challenge to atheists to just ignore vocal christians - is that let's both undertake to just ignore the hell out of each other. I think I can extend that to not sniping at you by discussing you with others as well, so let's avoid that, too.

That's how I'd like to play it and I'll even leave the last post to you. We'll accept that each other is as far from own our position that any kind of meaningful or even polite discussion is impossible.

Red, I wish you all the best in life.

But I'm willing to talk about any subject with a willing discussion partner.

I think Christians and atheists "ignoring" each other accomplishes little. Disparate groups have been able to understand (not necessarily "accept") each other better through shared conversations and a willingness to talk through the differences. I understand what you're saying, but "ignoring" each other strikes me as a good way to only increase the "otherness" of each group to the other, and I don't think that's a good idea. The only way to stop the "militant" strain present in both Christianity and atheism is to learn to accord proper respect to the separate beliefs and then dialogue about those differences in reasoned, respectful discourse. Disconnecting only increases the odds that the militant strains of both camps will only get moreso. Oh well...

And I guess that's where you and I are different; I do not believe that the distance between two positions makes conversation difficult; I believe it is the attitude of one towards the other that contributes to that problem.

Either way, I wish you the best as well.

[Jozanny]

And I guess that's where you and I are different; I do not believe that the distance between two positions makes conversation difficult; I believe it is the attitude of one towards the other that contributes to that problem.

Against my better judgment, I am going to be frank, since I am the one who raised my voice about it in the first place. Both you and Atheist are at constant loggerheads with each other, with no end in sight, and no, I do not think it is particularly conducive to the discussion of texts or religious culture, precious little of which goes on in this forum, in any case. You once posted that I seemed to show little tolerance for your beliefs--well, do you ever stop creating anything but justifications for them as opposed to looking at other worldviews? I do. I read Jewish literature and enjoy its culture. I have a profound respect for Asian Indian mysticism and am fascinated by how it extends into the social fabric and the acceptance of individuals dealing with conflict. I've even taught myself a good deal about Mormonism so as to know what I'm up against.

But most discussions here never deal with observation and cultural exchange, and or discussion of the text itself. It always comes down to a debate about points for or against the supernatural, and in your case, your theological version of it, and that is a very self-limiting way to learn about anything. You do not always need to be right, neither does Atheist, but that is what the game is always about, to the point of being strident and tone deaf.

[Logos]

Closed because this has been off-topic long enough :)