Religious Absurdity And Modern Psychological Baggage.

[islandclimber]

I really could jump in here with some great arguments for not eating meat 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?!

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.

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...

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.