Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No offense but the debunking arguments are completely generic. "God " can effortlessly be adapted to "The Great Spirit isn't real because it isn't falsifiable". Effort in debunking them is a terrible excuse. And what about the Jews? There are tons of them. They're just as dogmatic.I'll remind you of this:
The individual words and scriptures that are being used are ancillary to the point."
"I'm not saying Islam is a violent religion. Or Christianity. I'm saying that it is used as such in both cases, as will any religion be that sets itself up as literal truth with divine backing. [b]There's the problem: Religion as dogmatic truth.The very existance of those dogmas is part of the problem. Media allows you to fix the beliefs of Christians en masse. Your time would be much better spent going out to all the other ignorant people and enlightening them about how wrong they are.
Your heart is clearly in the right place (in fact I agree with much of the basic premises) but your methods and rationalizations are, frankly, annoying.[/B]
Debunking a non-falsifiable deity is indeed impossible. But debunking a God that supposedly intervenes in human affairs in a variety of ways, produce miracles, answers prayers, gives us signs, alters evolution, etc. definitely is falsifiable, because it crosses with the physical world. Science can't disprove a god, period. But it sure as heck can say a lot about Christianity.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes it does. Not in the form of all out war, not now at least, but any science that is inconvenient will get viciously attacked. Take religion out of the picture and science will rapidly turn into dogma, it's an inevitable aspect of human nature. Conflicting theories can and do exist simultaneously and in the absence of religion they will be abused in order to rally people to violence ("Hey those guys across the river are Lamarkians! We have to make them listen to reason."😉The entire thrust of arguments seems to move towards absolving humanity of its faults by inventing something to blame (ie Satan made me do it, being Christian made me do it) Religion is not about violence at its core but people use it for that anyway. Science is not about violence at it's core but with a lack of alternatives people will use it for that anyway. It seems like you're trying to assume that current practice will remain identical even if society is fundamentally altered.
Missing the point. It may every well be used as such occasionally. Yet I find it hard to believe that people would throw away their lives over competing theories....they only do so now because their faith promises them a reward. So I think you're wrong to assume that just as much violence would exist. Violence exists in humans, so they'll find an outlet. But science would provide far less an outlet for it than religion.
But my point was espousing a scientific worldview, which is holding things as provisional truths. It promotes listening to other points of view, possibly changing, and is generally hard to draw parallels with violence to. So no, violence wouldn't go away. But someone who truly adopts a scientific approach, rather than simply replace one dogma with another, will indeed become much less prone to intolerance and irrationality.
If they become what you're talking about, then it's not what I'm suggesting at all, but is simply exchanging one irrational faith for another.
....
And hell Sym, we're having a discussion that contains reasonable points and respectful dialogue. If you're annoyed, leave. I have very little patience for those who will flippantly insult viewpoints just because it disagrees with their sensibilities.
Originally posted by Mindship
Historically, it would seem, Christianity and Islam have generated the most fervor, shed the most blood.
Really? I would've guessed the Aztecs, who had to rip out human hearts every day just to ensure that the sun would rise the next morning.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
They're the easiest to debunk, and also have the most adherents. It's trying to reach as many people as possible. Take those two together, and you're talking about over half the world's population. Especially the English-speaking world, a lion's share of which are Christian, it doesn't make as much sense to talk about the others. Native American tribal religions don't help create government policies....so if you see religious influence as a net negative, you speak out against the influential ones.
A single, transcendent existence is easier to debunk then religions that hold that many gods who don't look too far from some Star Wars species who inhabit the tops of certain mountains or the bottom of the ocean?
Also, the greater numbers are irrelevant. If you're gonna call yourself a religious critic, and write a 300-page book that attempts to make religion look like barbaric garbage, cool, I can appreciate a good argument. But at least do yourself and the people buying your book the courtesy of researching more than just 2 or 3 religions.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaI believe the Druids ripped out hearts as well. In any event, I don't think either matched the sheer numbers and historic magnitude of intolerance, persecution and destruction wrought by the "Christian" and "Muslim" MGIBTYG mindsets.
Really? I would've guessed the Aztecs, who had to rip out human hearts every day just to ensure that the sun would rise the next morning.
(I use quotes because I don't think this mindset is inherent in Christianity and Islam. To paraphrase: Religion doesn't kill. People do.)
Originally posted by Mindship
Could very well be; I'm hardly an expert on the matter.
Sure, just adding my 2 cents.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Native American tribal religions don't help create government policies....
I could be wrong but something tells me they might be able to. What exactly are you trying to say? Religon isn't productive in science and politics?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Debunking a non-falsifiable deity is indeed impossible. But debunking a God that supposedly intervenes in human affairs in a variety of ways, produce miracles, answers prayers, gives us signs, alters evolution, etc. definitely is falsifiable, because it crosses with the physical world. Science can't disprove a god, period. But it sure as heck can say a lot about Christianity.
Or any other religion. That's my point. The mentality that Christianity must be attacked while other things that can be addressed the same way should be left alone simply because they're harder to reach is ridiculous in the era of mass communication. In fact it comes off as a vendetta against Christianity not a crusade again dogmatism, even if it isn't.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Missing the point. It may every well be used as such occasionally. Yet I find it hard to believe that people would throw away their lives over competing theories....they only do so now because their faith promises them a reward.
And in many cases they do it because they genuinely think they're doing the right thing, just look at JIA. Once science offers a truth for people to grasp onto (and they will unless you change the basic nature of humanity) it will become something that is used for manipulation. The only reason it doesn't happen now is that there are other outlets.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But my point was espousing a scientific worldview, which is holding things as provisional truths. It promotes listening to other points of view, possibly changing, and is generally hard to draw parallels with violence to.
That would be wonderful. However the very fact that it must be espoused as an ideal shows that it won't happen. If people were prone to that sort of activity wouldn't have to go preach about it.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
If they become what you're talking about, then it's not what I'm suggesting at all, but is simply exchanging one irrational faith for another.
Which is human nature. That's what people do and have been doing for centuries. What you need is a fundamental change in humanity not a fundamental change in society. And seriously expecting that everyone can adopt a truly scientific and pragmatic worldview is a pipe dream.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
And hell Sym, we're having a discussion that contains reasonable points and respectful dialogue. If you're annoyed, leave. I have very little patience for those who will flippantly insult viewpoints just because it disagrees with their sensibilities.
I'm not sure I follow. I don't care what people believe, that sort of pettiness isn't useful. However if the way an individual acts in a way that if find repulsive or offers some sort of absolute solution that flies in the face of history and common sense I feel that pointing that out is well within my rights. I'd also like to point out that when people "flippantly insult viewpoints" of any theist you're hardly trying to stop them.
I don't like insults of any kind, Sym. If you can find me a place where I've tacitly endorsed insults against any belief system, I'll be both shocked and apologetic. The only people I've insulted are possibly not insults at all, but frank observations of those who are either rude, intolerant, bigoted, etc. against a person or group of people, and I also know for a fact that I've defended theists who were receiving undue criticism. Don't assume things in order to attempt to claim the moral high ground.
And where did I say that everyone will convert to what I was talking about, creating some sort of utopian society? Do you really think I'm that naive? No, I spoke out against what I see to be a negative influence in the world, then you attacked the position not on its merits, but on the fact that you don't think it will ever become the norm for humanity. Of course it won't. But the alternative is never trying to influence the world in a positive way. Heck, why not just give up, since we'll never have a utopia.
Change can happen. Not universal change, but change. Why else would anyone evangelize for their beliefs? Your position seems cynical to me. And the fact that someone can be bereft of beliefs based on faith and dogmas, and use that to achieve a better grasp of tolerance and love for others, is all the proof I need to know that positive change can take place. The fact that an "ideal" will never be attained (which is fairly obvious) doesn't mean that the pursuit of such is fruitless or foolhardy. It just means we measure success in smaller increments.
So please don't take my words outside their original intent in order to knock down a straw man. I'm in near-full agreement with your last post. Yet the irony is that it debunks a non-existent argument.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't like insults of any kind, Sym. If you can find me a place where I've tacitly endorsed insults against any belief system, I'll be both shocked and apologetic.
How about page after page of the "Can You Handle The Truth" thread? JIA hasn't done much of anything recently to result in the amount of bashing he's recieved for simple virtue of his beliefs. How about your response to the "How Did Christ Handle Rejection?" thread which was not only prefaced by a rude and irrelevant paragraph but continued to lace additional bits of hatred into the entire rest of the post.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
The only people I've insulted are possibly not insults at all, but frank observations of those who are either rude, intolerant, bigoted, etc. against a person or group of people
You've also started that you are intolerant of beliefs in spite of any actions or thoughts by the individuals. You also went off on starter of the "How Did Christ Handle Rejection?" thread without any provocation.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Don't assume things in order to attempt to claim the moral high ground.
I don't. You seem to be making things up though.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
you attacked the position not on its merits, but on the fact that you don't think it will ever become the norm for humanity
I think it would be wonderful if everyone could fly through space and live for millions of years. But if someone decided to base a philosophy on that I would be honest and point out the flaws in the argument to that person especially if they thought that logic had brought them to that position.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But the alternative is never trying to influence the world in a positive way.
Which is your problem and JIA's problem and the problem of everyone who is as dogmatic as both of you. Any rational person can see that the world doesn't have to be utterly black and white. Rather than doing something you know will never really accomplish anything there is in fact the option of looking for a different way of solving the problem you perceive. Basing a system on something that you know can never reach the level of acceptance where it is relevant in any way is foolish. For some reason you don't seem to want to even consider that there might be an alternative way of making your hatred more state sanctioned.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Your position seems cynical to me.
And your position seems hopeless and willfully blind.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
And the fact that someone can be bereft of beliefs based on faith and dogmas, and use that to achieve a better grasp of tolerance and love for others, is all the proof I need to know that positive change can take place.
I know that be can have beliefs based on faith and dogma, and use that to be more tolerant and loving; which is all the proof I need for a counter argument. You need a platform that doesn't work perfectly for any view point before you start proselytizing.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
It just means we measure success in smaller increments.
Like what? There's a threshold where the increment is small enough that no matter how many victories you win you'll never manage to change anything.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How about page after page of the "Can You Handle The Truth" thread? JIA hasn't done much of anything recently to result in the amount of bashing he's recieved for simple virtue of his beliefs. How about your response to the "How Did Christ Handle Rejection?" thread which was not only prefaced by a rude and irrelevant paragraph but continued to lace additional bits of hatred into the entire rest of the post.
I barely post in any of JIA's threads. Not sure how that's relevant. But yes, he takes a lot of undue criticism, though part of it is because he refuses to address the points of others and mainly just says what he wants to.
As for the latter, I had a serious response to his question, and yes there was some sarcasm in it. It wasn't insulting, however. It was some sarcasm for levity before addressing the issue. If "additional bits of hatred" refers to how I view Christianity, then, um, not sure what to say. I have nothing against the religion on a personal, emotional level. My problems with it are purely intellectual. If disagreeing with something is tantamount to insulting it, then yes.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've also started that you are intolerant of beliefs in spite of any actions or thoughts by the individuals. You also went off on starter of the "How Did Christ Handle Rejection?" thread without any provocation.
um. wut? I'm intolerant of beliefs in spite of any actions or thoughts by the individuals.???! Thanks for telling me. I didn't know. I'm actually on record as saying numerous times that I'm not so concerned with a person's belief system as how they use those beliefs to either positive or negative ends in the world. And I know that's true because, well, I read my own posts and know what I've written. Your accusation there is nothing more than slander, and is frankly starting to turn me off from talking to you at all.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think it would be wonderful if everyone could fly through space and live for millions of years. But if someone decided to base a philosophy on that I would be honest and point out the flaws in the argument to that person especially if they thought that logic had brought them to that position.
Good. Remaining logical and critical of every viewpoint until firmly established is a good quality to have imo.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is your problem and JIA's problem and the problem of everyone who is as dogmatic as both of you. Any rational person can see that the world doesn't have to be utterly black and white. Rather than doing something you know will never really accomplish anything there is in fact the option of looking for a different way of solving the problem you perceive. Basing a system on something that you know can never reach the level of acceptance where it is relevant in any way is foolish. For some reason you don't seem to want to even consider that there might be an alternative way of making your hatred more state sanctioned.
I don't hate. At all. And it's not just a coy phrase to seem altruistic. I literally can't bring myself to loathe an individual. A deterministic worldview, in which all happens as it must and nothing should or could be different, engenders an acceptance of all people and occurrences, regardless of their nature. So let's get that out of the way.
I'm also not in the business of mixing religious views with political platforms. So the state sanctioned part is more made-up nonsense.
And let me see if I understand this: we should only work for positive change in the world if we think it's possible for all of humanity to accept it? Kinda nihilistic, isn't it? Mind you, I'm not talking about positive change as "pushing an agenda" as you seem to imply. Positive change, to me, is the elimination or prevention of any form of suffering, and the promotion of any form of happiness. I have to do so within the framework of my religious views, true, but it is not the views themselves I am trying to push.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I know that be can have beliefs based on faith and dogma, and use that to be more tolerant and loving; which is all the proof I need for a counter argument. You need a platform that doesn't work perfectly for any view point before you start proselytizing.
Fair enough. It can work both ways. But again, despite my differences with theism, it isn't the views I'm pushing but just a genuine desire to see happiness in the world, regardless of one's beliefs. I often think religious belief creates more negativity and suffering than it prevents, so yes I'll sometimes speak against it. But the goal remains the same.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Like what? There's a threshold where the increment is small enough that no matter how many victories you win you'll never manage to change anything.
I can be happy in my own life, and hopefully create it for others. That's an achievable goal. Maybe I won't "change anything" in terms of the movement of history or the world, but that's never been the aim, nor would it be possible for all but the most influential people. By your definition, none of us will ever "change anything," so we should all just give up, right? I sincerely hope that isn't your message, because it seems to be from your words.