religion

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

science has the responsibility of informing us on a fundamental level what is good and what is bad.

Rereading this, I think I'd change "good and bad" to "natural and unnatural". Good and bad are probably more subject to human rationality, although science can certainly tell us how some things are obviously good for us or obviously bad for us.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It seems your answer is very shifty. And you don't really know what to believe in.

Do I really need to make another post demonstrating what intellectual honesty is? Instead of just believing that a supreme infallible creator is responsible for everything and also decides for us what is moral and immoral - a worldview that is immoral by definition - I allow myself to learn things.

Crazy concept, huh? It's pretty weird how this science thing works, I know. It goes out into the real world and observes and discovers things, and changes the way we think about things in the process. It's called learning.

I believe we know nothing, and I believe that anyone who thinks they have the answers to the universe, just like religion does, is very likely wrong and definitely immoral.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do I really need to make another post demonstrating what intellectual honesty is? Instead of just believing that a supreme infallible creator is responsible for everything and also decides for us what is moral and immoral - a worldview that is immoral by definition - I allow myself to learn things.

Crazy concept, huh? It's pretty weird how this science thing works, I know. It goes out into the real world and observes and discovers things, and changes the way we think about things in the process. It's called learning.

I believe we know nothing, and I believe that anyone who thinks they have the answers to the universe, just like religion does, is very likely wrong and definitely immoral.

You got me. I don't know what intellectual honesty is. I can only read one book, my holy book. I have never learned what science really is. I look forward to your ranting post describing it. It will teach me morality, thank you so much. *sarcasm*

Your biggest problem seems to be that you think because of your world view you are somehow intellectually and morally superior to any and all that do not share same world view. That is the exact opposite of free thinking and honest.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your biggest problem seems to be that you think because of your world view you are somehow intellectually and morally superior to any and all that do not share same world view.

Not an accurate representation of any of my posts, so I'll just quote myself in hopes that you'll actually read and learn something.

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Atheism doesn't mean exemption from immorality - I've attacked Kagatob plenty of times, and I've questioned leewong as well. More importantly, I question my own morality every single day that I'm alive. I like to debate and I like to argue, but I'm not trying to be condescending or project an air of moral superiority around anyone here. No one is perfect, but this also doesn't mean everyone is equal in their morals - I try to avoid false balance at all costs. Just because two people are arguing doesn't mean you can simply cancel them out and assume they're both equally wrong or equally right. Objectivity has nothing to do with impartiality. I am extremely skeptical of people who are unbiased or impartial about everything.

[Archalen]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My entire argument is for rationality.
1. How is it rational to judge other people? If anyone is honestly arrogant enough to believe that they have this life figured out, then I feel sorry for them. Let people choose their own beliefs.
2. You said markets don't self-correct. I'm not going to debate that, but what would you advocate in their place? Communism? I'm not going to make that leap without you stating it, but I'd ask for clarification. To me, that statement, which sounds like a critique of capitalism, sounds entirely irrational.
3. I believe that my religion is rational for several reasons. Why would it be rational to hurt my mother? She's deeply religious, and if her children became agnostic / atheist, it would destroy her. Hurting one's mother is not a rational course of action. In addition, I already talked about Seventh Day Adventists and how their religion helps them to become healthier. Mormons have BETTER FAMILY STRUCTURES than everyone in the US. Their religious beliefs are very rational compared to so many one parent households in the US. Don't believe me? Look at how many criminals come from households from single mothers. Let me be clear, Mormonism and a two parent household does not preclude poverty, and it certainly isn't the only path to success. I'm just saying, as someone rational, you should take data and statistics for what they say. Strong families produce children that are more likely to become productive members of society.

All of that is to say, rationality isn't as objective as you think. I just gave you my interpretation of statistics, conditions, and the social milieu. If you're telling me that 2 + 2 = 4, then sure, I agree with you. If you're telling me that religion automatically leads to a gullible populace likely to believe in the persecution of gays or lesbians, for example, I don't agree. I believe in God. I don't hate gays. In fact, I support gay marriage. I also thing that a strong two parent household, gay or straight, is much better than a single parent home. Am I unequivocally wrong, and if you believe I am, do you have objective proof of your assertion, or are you, like me, bringing your own biased interpretation of statistics, facts, and life experiences that no human being can separate from judgments that they make every day?

I don't see the arguments against religion, presented in this thread, as being rational at all. Basically, you guys are assuming a lot about religious people, which makes your arguments anything but logical. Logic isn't based on assumption.

Finally, I would like to say that I at elast consider you to be someone who doesn't seem like a bigot. When I hear Kagatob talk about 80% of Christians being trash (2 billions christians meaning ~1.6 billion people are trash in his estimation when he almost certainly hasn't met these people), I really can't even fathom how someone could be so ignorant. At least when you present a point, I see where you're coming from. You sound like many of my friends who don't understand my beliefs. And yes, shocker, I have atheist friends. I think the biggest issue here, is that a lot of people can't agree to disagree. Let me be clear, I do not care whether you believe in my religion. I don't preach it, I don't hand out pamphlets... I am no evangelist. At the same time, I don't appreciate being mocked or derided because I see value in morality and belief in God. I am a rational human being who doesn't take persecution of others lightly. I wish some of you could see that the things you say are:
1. Deeply offensive
2. Based upon crude assumptions of religious people, most likely caricatures of Al-Qaeda and the Westboro Baptist Church. Most religious people are neither them nor saints; most lie somewhere in the moral gray area, like most atheists / agnostics I might add.

I won't claim to be offended; I'm not. But I honestly don't understand how bigotry, even if its against a religion that you believe is vile, is anything other than pure irrationality.

1.) How is it rational to judge other people?

For the most part, it's not emotionally intelligent to waste your focus on judging other people, when you could be focus on improving on your own faults and can focus on positive things. If you are referring to atheists who make it a point to debate with the religious regularly, well they have a very real grievance that religious beliefs can be used to commit acts which otherwise would be obviously ethically questionable. I think it should be a movement for reason rather than a movement for atheism.

2.) I'll talk about markets later if I have time. But that's a last priority for me.

3.) Would it be rational to hurt my mother? You are arguing on pragmatic grounds, since this has nothing to do with whether a god really exists or not (just because something is comforting or easy doesn't make it true). I could make long arguments on this point, including one of being an atheist and having to stay in the closet because some Christians in the bible belt equate atheism with evil. I've had personal experiences where people immediately think I'm a bad person because I don't believe in their god and take great personal offense. So if you really are an atheist, there's a systemic argument that you should come clean and tell everybody (to pave the way for future atheists by making it more socially acceptable). However, it might not be rational to tell your mother; it won't hurt to not tell one person whom you know will be deeply affected, but this doesn't prove that a god exists. Neither rational reason given above involves you staying religious because it will make your mother feel better.

Again about the Seventh Day Adventists. Their belief in God does not directly influence their health. It indirectly influences their health because of their specific interpretation of The Bible. Almost every single Christian I've talked to interprets the verse as "dominion" over animals, not "stewardship" over animals. I personally like the latter better. Just the other day, I talked to a Christian who told me "I eat animals because I am Christian." I am not lying to you, he said exactly that, in response to talking to somebody who was vegan. This is relevant because a vegetarian diet is proven to be healthier, and that is what is crucial about the Seventh Day Adventist...many are vegetarian (I discussed this more previously). So you can interpret The Bible in one way and be as unhealthy as any other American, or interpret it in a certain way and become healthier. I am vegan, and I am not religious.

You say "we" are assuming a lot about religious people before making our assertions. I don't know about others, but my core reasons for remaining agnostic require no assumptions about anybody.

I have more to say but not enough time! Thanks.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do I really need to make another post demonstrating what intellectual honesty is? Instead of just believing that a supreme infallible creator is responsible for everything and also decides for us what is moral and immoral - a worldview that is immoral by definition - I allow myself to learn things.

Crazy concept, huh? It's pretty weird how this science thing works, I know. It goes out into the real world and observes and discovers things, and changes the way we think about things in the process. It's called learning.

I believe we know nothing, and I believe that anyone who thinks they have the answers to the universe, just like religion does, is very likely wrong and definitely immoral.

You claim to strive for truth and intellectual honesty. You claim you love to learn new things and expand your knowledge. Yet, you admit that your worldview is based off of lack of knowledge, as if that somehow makes you intellectually superior by leaving room for advancement. Well have fun with your lack of knowledge of the universe. You won't offend me by remaining willfully ignorant of anything that might challenge your lack of knowledge. I am confident in my knowledge of the universe. I don't feel that i know everything about everything, but i don't need to in order to form a concrete belief in God and morality. I don't feel the need to backpedal and speak in half measures about subjects like morality and right and wrong. And for that I am thankful.
If you admit you have no clue about the universe, then why is it that you feel so vehemently that the bible or any other holy book is wrong? Maybe your lack of knowledge is restricting you from seeing an obvious truth.

[paulgiamatti]

That's not even worth responding to. Complete misconstrual of anything I've written, and if the only person that can subscribe to your fundamentally flawed line of thinking is RobotElvis, then I have nothing else to say.

But sure, yeah, you happen to know that there is a creator of the universe because you thought long and hard about it while taking a shit one morning. It just happened to occur to you based on no evidence and no rationality that that is the way things are. Never mind science and observation and experimentation and physics and cosmology, we don't need any of that nonsense. Let's just imagine things are the way they are, because it sounds nice to us, and then accuse anyone else who doesn't subscribe to the same notions as being close-minded.

Never mind actually admitting to the things we don't know, we can just pretend we know things! Then we'll try to convince others to do the same, but get this - instead of calling it willful ignorance, let's call it confidence!

[Aviann]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's not even worth responding to. Complete misconstrual of anything I've written, and if the only person that can subscribe to your fundamentally flawed line of thinking is RobotElvis, then I have nothing else to say.

But sure, yeah, you happen to know that there is a creator of the universe because you thought long and hard about it while taking a shit one morning. It just happened to occur to you based on no evidence and no rationality that that is the way things are. Never mind science and observation and experimentation and physics and cosmology, we don't need any of that nonsense. Let's just imagine things are the way they are, because it sounds nice to us, and then accuse anyone else who doesn't subscribe to the same notions as being close-minded.

Never mind actually admitting to the things we don't know, we can just pretend we know things! Then we'll try to convince others to do the same, but get this - instead of calling it willful ignorance, let's call it confidence!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's not even worth responding to. Complete misconstrual of anything I've written, and if the only person that can subscribe to your fundamentally flawed line of thinking is RobotElvis, then I have nothing else to say.

But sure, yeah, you happen to know that there is a creator of the universe because you thought long and hard about it while taking a shit one morning. It just happened to occur to you based on no evidence and no rationality that that is the way things are. Never mind science and observation and experimentation and physics and cosmology, we don't need any of that nonsense. Let's just imagine things are the way they are, because it sounds nice to us, and then accuse anyone else who doesn't subscribe to the same notions as being close-minded.

Never mind actually admitting to the things we don't know, we can just pretend we know things! Then we'll try to convince others to do the same, but get this - instead of calling it willful ignorance, let's call it confidence!

You can be dismissive all you want. It doesn't sway my beliefs one bit. My belief isn't based on a sudden feeling or emotional revelation. I've studied long and hard on many different subjects including science, philosophy, religion (not just my own, but as many as I can find time for), history, mythology. I try very hard not to be dismissive of others beliefs or points of view, something you obviously struggle with. I also am not opposed to reading or listening material that is juxtaposed to my own beliefs, something you have shown you are unwilling to do by mentally shutting off anything you view as an ignorant or misinformed. You're stance seems to be one of predetermined rigidity. Its actually pretty sad. Its the very antithesis of open mindedness and critical thinking.
I'm sure my viewpoint doesn't change your beliefs either. And I can live with that. I would never want to force anyone to believe a certain way about anything. Something you seem to be fairly comfortable with.

[paulgiamatti]

And now the ad hominems - the desperate last resort of the side that knows they've lost the argument. You can mischaracterize me all you want, but no one's buying it.