Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Maybe it does.
The point is that merely being a systematic belief in something via faith does not warrant 'respect' in any sense but the most general. And again, that respect is no longer warranted when you use that belief system to impose on others or attempt to make them see your viewpoint. They are well within their rights to critique your reasoning.
I would agree that conflicts of this nature are definitely side effects, but I never argued that those things should be condoned, merely respected. Here I must be defining respect as much less agreeable than you and others might. To respect and not condone, I would argue that speaking out against such acts is fine and even necessary. But the means of speaking and the words chosen should not seek to destroy or condemn the beliefs associated with it. In hopefully simpler terms for myself and everyone else, blame the interpreter, not the idea.
Compare this scenario:
Someone makes a faith-based assumption that people with red hair spread this new disease that cropped up which has stumped scientists. So a small group of people round up gingers and murder them.
Should I blame only the people who rounded up the red heads, or should I also blame the blind faith assertion by someone who is not in a position to know any better than the rest of us?
I do not know the subject, so it does not seem fair to comment on Pastafarianism.
Google "Flying Spaghetti Monster".
I meant that there could be no crusades because of my understanding of the definition of the term crusade.
That's a semantic difference though. A jihad, or crusade, or pogrom are all very similar, despite the religious or belief system agent behind each. The point was that agnostics and atheists are not systematically doing bad things to people in the name of baseless assertions or old books. Religious people have done this for thousands of years, and in some parts of the world still do.
I wouldn't say religion is unadaptable. No religion has ever remained the complete same. They have been faced with conflicts that from what I understand usually arise from another religion's growing popularity, or a change in general social standing.
True, some religions are co-opted by local traditions. But the underlying faith premise remains intact and prohibits actual rational discussion of other premises which rely on this foundation.
For example, if the only way to the Father is through the Son, it would be unChristian to question Jesus's divinity or origins. Heresy in some ways. This is because the religion does not lend itself to evaluation but blind acceptance, and this is the problem. In parts of the world were people are systematically subjected to various religions and denied education (which makes them great puppets for interested religious leaders) they literally do not question it because to do so invites punishment.
And it is here that again I have to say that they are not illogical. What they are is hard or impossible to prove through scientific means, and that definitely seems to be an important thing to note.
If you understand exactly what a scientific process requires, it's easy to see that no religion can ever meet these standards, since once they did, they would cease to be religions and instead be theories up for debate by other educated members of the world and scientific community. Religion is by definition presupposing faith over reason. That's why it can't be reasonable.
Take any religious argument, and somewhere at the bottom of that inductive scrapheap is this premise:
"God exists."
And no one can prove this.
And here I want to highlight what I see as a habit of mind that I find incorrect. Why would you tell someone they are stupid or silly, when you could simply tell them that you don't believe in a lucky rabbit's foot? I am not assuming whoever is telling you to get one is perfectly in the right to shove it in your face, the door must swing both ways, and they in turn should respect the belief or lack of belief that you have stated.
I think you're confusing the situation here. If a friend said "Look, I have a lucky rabbit's foot" I'd say "that's nice" or "Wow, hate rabbits much?". But if my friend said "This rabbit foot is very lucky, because it is blessed by the Easter Bunny. If you don't believe, you are going to Tartarus for all eternity", then I'm perfectly within my rights to go "LOLNOPE".
Because I am arguing that neither is unreasonable.
Then you'll need to demonstrate your reasoning for this. I've demonstrated multiple times that religion does not use a rational foundation and presupposes truth without proof and then builds an entire system of law, ethics, and behavior around this. It tells people how to live their life and treat others. It's not always the end-result which is the problem; there are some good Christians, good Muslims, good Jews, etc. Rather liberal in each case, because they don't apply the rules universally or literally, but being a good person is not dependent on religion. If someone has to have metaphysical punishment force them to be good, they aren't good to begin with.
Okay, I now may or may not have my point nailed down finally. Hah. Yeah, forgive me, I am not exactly what you'd call highly intelligent or very smart, I just think a lot.I am going back to what I have replied earlier in this post, that religious beliefs are not unreasonable, they are difficult or hard to prove through scientific or logical means with the information we have available that can be documented or proven to be factual.
Maybe you could compare it to a language barrier when it comes to translating one sentence into another language. One word's meaning in English does not have the same context and thoughts associated with it as the translation does in Russian or Mandarin.
Except this analogy does not hold water. Reason is the lens through which truth is viewed. Everything you hold as valid in your life, from gravity to the passing of time to cause and effect is based on logical principles and axiomatic arguments that are reinforced throughout your life and by many many other people besides.
When someone posits "God exists, because this book says so and this group who supports this book by interpreting it say so", you're not viewing anything through the lens of reason by accepting "truth" prepackaged for you. When you then refuse to examine it for yourself for validity and attack others who are skeptical, this is the absence of reason entirely.
Yes, and religious beliefs are not based on nothing. There was actual reasoning for the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe as you know. When you look up at the sun and the moon and stars, they look like they are the ones doing the moving. So naturally, everybody thinks that they are the ones doing the moving. In this case, it is still not illogical, it is simply uninformed.
"Look, John - there's a volcano!"
"No, fool, that is Surtr, the giant of fire, sleeping and bellowing smoke until the Ragnarok comes!"
"Oh okay, sounds legit!"
^ Is that what you're saying? Someone come up with an explanation, which could fit reality closely upon shallow examination or from a very ignorant standpoint. But you wouldn't try to argue this in court, I'd hope. And the reason being that because you make a good excuse for something doesn't make it so. Another example would be saying "The earth is round because our feet are arched." This is a valid conclusion with an invalid premise.
Well, typically, most people aren't quoted as living under an overpass. I worked with what you gave me.But yes, they are different. Because the guy talking about the Man in the Moon likely does not function well in regular society. Christians can believe and still function as logical and reasonable people, because they are not identical in mindset with the man designed to pretty much be insane.
Or the guy could require medical treatment and his lack of reason is attributed to his untreated condition. But that's reading too far into the example, and missing the forest for the trees as it were.
The point here is that his systematic belief is faith-bound and without a rational basis. In this respect, it is identical to a religious belief system which is equally faith-bound and without a rational basis. Remember, just because an argument looks "logical" doesn't mean it truly is so. At the bottom of most arguments is a single piece of inductive reason holding it up, and that must be examined closely before anything else can be considered valid.
As with the above example, if I conclude that the earth is round, but I make assumptions as to why regarding the shape of our feet, or how boomerangs fly, or how water flows downhill, none of these premises hold up to scrutiny, and my entire methodology is suspect. This becomes especially problematic if I am asserting something that is empiracally not findable. Like an invisible deity who wrote a book ages before I was capable of conscious thought.
I appreciate it, and this is pretty darn enjoyable. I intend to keep posting, especially because I'm sure I still don't make as much sense as I should be. So until next time!
Thank you for waiting until I had ample time to respond. Your turn!