NationStates Jolt Archive

Or could it be that I believe what I believe? Oh wait! In your universe, that cannot be the case. Everyone has to agree to you or they are morons.

I respect other people's beliefs and a few of my friends are not of the christian faith. Hell, my best man is a Jew and we get along very well. Hell he is even a democrat to boot.

So no. I am not the prime reason. The prime reason is morons who shove it down others throats and say accept it or face the consequences. I do not shove my religion down others throats Neo.

For an idea to have merit, it must have a rational backing. It must have a rational argument in favor-- and burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim. Saying "Nuh-uh, you're wrong" without refuting evidence is the reason people dislike religion. Religionists think "Nuh-uh, you're wrong, I'm right, you stupid atheist" is a logical argument. I find it hard not to be a bit "hostile" (though, as I quoted myself earlier, I don't think that what atheists do qualifies as hostile-- it takes a lot less for an atheist to be labeled hostile than it does for a theist.) towards people who can't see how repeating your claim multiple times doesn't constitute a rational argument.

You do speak some truth. As to those who predict the Apocolypse, I pretty much ignore those idiots because all the signs are not there yet.

So if they were all there you'd believe right?


As to Hitler...he thought he was right but remember, he was defeated by primarily white armies of the United States, Russia, Free French, Polish, Canadian, British and others.

Well he hated Canada and the USA for being a kind of mongrel race, concocted of other races and the Slavs in Poland and Russia were actually below blacks in the totem pole of Eugenics.

France he disliked for the 1st world war and Britain he was actually pretty fond of.

For an idea to have merit, it must have a rational backing. It must have a rational argument in favor-- and burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim. Saying "Nuh-uh, you're wrong" without refuting evidence is the reason people dislike religion. Religionists think "Nuh-uh, you're wrong, I'm right, you stupid atheist" is a logical argument. I find it hard not to be a bit "hostile" (though, as I quoted myself earlier, I don't think that what atheists do qualifies as hostile-- it takes a lot less for an atheist to be labeled hostile than it does for a theist.) towards people who can't see how repeating your claim multiple times doesn't constitute a rational argument.

This is true, but consider the alternative.

People were baiting me HARD to debate the truth or not truth of Mormonism in the Mormonism thread. As that wasn't the point of the thread I declined, but what if I had? Suppose I broke away from the religious believer stereotype and offered a bunch of proof.

Honestly, truly, in your heart, do you think that would have convinced ANYBODY? People believe what they believe not based on evidence but based on their feelings. Yes, even atheists. How many times have you seen a weak debater on either side overwhelmed by contrary evidence and still walk away with their mind unchanged? Every. single. time. You don't convince people by pounding evidence into their head, no matter how strong it is.

For an idea to have merit, it must have a rational backing.

Art, music, poetry, literature and every other subjective quality and experience of mankind have no rational backing. I hardly think they have no merit.

This is true, but consider the alternative.

People were baiting me HARD to debate the truth or not truth of Mormonism in the Mormonism thread. As that wasn't the point of the thread I declined, but what if I had? Suppose I broke away from the religious believer stereotype and offered a bunch of proof.

Honestly, truly, in your heart, do you think that would have convinced ANYBODY? People believe what they believe not based on evidence but based on their feelings. Yes, even atheists. How many times have you seen a weak debater on either side overwhelmed by contrary evidence and still walk away with their mind unchanged? Every. single. time. You don't convince people by pounding evidence into their head, no matter how strong it is.
Well, I was brought from religion to agnosticism(my leanings going back and forth based on the arguments I heard) to atheism by rational debate and discussion. If the proper evidence were presented to me, I'd certainly consider it. Now, I would be unlikely to convert on the spot-- I'd have to do my research for any possible counterpoints (and of course any possible counterpoints to the counterpoints, etc.) until I came to a conclusion.

Art, music, poetry, literature and every other subjective quality and experience of mankind have no rational backing. I hardly think they have no merit.

My apologies, I should have been more clear. For an idea about what is or is not objectively true there should be a rational backing. For example, there is an objective answer to whether God exists, which could, in principle, be found, even if it were not findable in practice. Either God exists, or he does not. It's not like "what flavor of ice cream is the best" which has no true or false answer.

For an idea of that type-- a truth statement-- there must be rational backing to have merit. Indeed, you can even apply that to art, music, literature, &c. For example, when searching for themes and such in a book, you have to look for evidence in the book and draw rationally supportable conclusions. Yes, it's somewhat subjective with more than one possible (and contradicting) answer, but when debating which interpretation you believe is correct, you don't say "Well, mine is. And yours is wrong," you point to the passages of the book that support your claim and those that counter the alternate interpretation.

Make more sense? I'm always afraid I don't explain things clearly. :(

I have personal experiences and experiences of others that tells me there is something beyond this life. I take it on faith which is just that. One does not need evidence beyond doubt to believe something.

and here we go around the merry go round

"I'm right"
"how do you know you're right?"
"because I am."
"but how do you know that?"
"because I believe it."
"why do you believe it?"
"because it's true."
"how do you know it's true?"
"because it is."

And THAT is why religion deserves a good deal of hostility. Because its very function is an anathma to rational thought. Sure, you're free to believe whatever childish make believe thing you want to believe. But just because you believe it, doesn't make it right. Just because you believe it doesn't mean I have to respect that belief.

I have to respect your right to believe it, and you certainly have that right. But just as you have the right to believe it, I have the right to think you an abhorant monster for subscribing to a belief system that states that non believers shall burn in agony for all eternity.

Well, I was brought from religion to agnosticism(my leanings going back and forth based on the arguments I heard) to atheism by rational debate and discussion. If the proper evidence were presented to me, I'd certainly consider it. Now, I would be unlikely to convert on the spot-- I'd have to do my research for any possible counterpoints (and of course any possible counterpoints to the counterpoints, etc.) until I came to a conclusion.


I'll grant you that over time, sufficient exposure to arguments for one side or another will tend to cause someone to change their mind, but that's as much due to psychology as it is to emotion.

It's a fact of human psychology that we make decisions based on emotion, not reason. A prime example is magazine ads for ciagerettes:

You might see a bunch of young, attractive, healthy looking peopl e having a great time, laughing, smiling, engaged in some kind of fun recreational activity. The ad implies that this is the lifestyle of folks who smoke that brand. And yet there, at the bottom, legislated by law to be nice and big, is the Surgeon General's Warning that says, in effect, "If you smoke, you die."

And yet the ad works. Why? because the photo appeals to your emotion, the warning appeals to your reason.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying religion is irrational and I'm not saying atheism is rational. I'm not attempting to evaluate either one. What I'm saying is, people who claim to believe what they do based purely on reason are deluding themselves on some level.

And THAT is why religion deserves a good deal of hostility.


Not all religious people believe for the same reason.


I have the right to think you an abhorant monster for subscribing to a belief system that states that non believers shall burn in agony for all eternity.

Not all religions believe in an eternal hell. Probably only around half of Christianity believe in hell as a fiery place.

Not all religions believe in an eternal hell. Probably only around half of Christianity believe in hell as a fiery place.

only half huh? That's what....120 million people in this country alone?

and here we go around the merry go round

"I'm right"
"how do you know you're right?"
"because I am."
"but how do you know that?"
"because I believe it."
"why do you believe it?"
"because it's true."
"how do you know it's true?"
"because it is."


You know, from where I sit, the two debaters in that script there could be from either side.


And THAT is why religion deserves a good deal of hostility. Because its very function is an anathma to rational thought. Sure, you're free to believe whatever childish make believe thing you want to believe. But just because you believe it, doesn't make it right. Just because you believe it doesn't mean I have to respect that belief.


And yet there's this sort of mentality where that admonishment applies only to the religious, and nobody else.


I have to respect your right to believe it, and you certainly have that right. But just as you have the right to believe it, I have the right to think you an abhorant monster for subscribing to a belief system that states that non believers shall burn in agony for all eternity.

And if your approach is to make broad generalizations like that, you step fully into the realm of irrationality, and prove my point.

And yet there's this sort of mentality where that admonishment applies only to the religious, and nobody else.

Do me a favor, and look at this thread. It's not about racism, or politics, or homophobia, or any other things that it could apply to. This thread is about faith, and thus I apply it, in this context, to faith.

If it gets your feathers ruffled that I don't make the effort to go "oh, we can apply it to racists and mysoginists and homophobics too" I'm sorry, I assumed that people of faith wouldn't want to be included with the other people this admonishment applies to, but very well.

Yes, it doesn't just apply to the religious. It also applies to homophobes, racists, and others like that.


And if your approach is to make broad generalizations like that, you step fully into the realm of irrationality, and prove my point.

Make broad generalization? Answer me this. Does christianity as a dogma believe that failure to accept jesus christ as a divine figure is a sin which is deserving of hell, or no?

only half huh? That's what....120 million people in this country alone?

I still don't see how this makes them monsters. They arn't sending people to hell.

I still don't see how this makes them monsters. They arn't sending people to hell.

I think believing that a person deserves eternal, never ending agonizing torment because they believe differently is a monsterous proposition.

I think believing that a person deserves eternal, never ending agonizing torment because they believe differently is a monsterous proposition.

Yeah, but I think deserved is the wrong word. Because they don't actually want you to go to hell, far from it, so that is why some people like to push their beliefs down your throat so to speak.

Answer me this. Does christianity as a dogma believe that failure to accept jesus christ as a divine figure is a sin which is deserving of hell, or no?

OK, I will. No, it's not a dogmatic belief of Christianity as a whole. For one, I know the Catholic Church does not think that way, and it is my understanding that neither do several other Protestant churches. But that's alright. A lot of people are confusing the views of the fringe extremists for the views of the whole lately, and not just in Christianity (Islam, anyone?).

What kind of "hostility"?

If you make claims about what is true that other people find absurd, you should expect responses in accordance with that... especially on a discussion forum.

If you believe in a religion that's bigoted against non-believers, gays, women, etc. (not all of them are), you should expect hostility in response... and probably deserve it too.

Yes you should. However my religion is none of these things and I am CONSTANTLY being lumped in with them by posters making blanket statements about religion in general.

You don't have to be religious in order to stuff your idea of morality down someone's throat, including censoring TV, the Internet, and punishing people.

http://africa.reuters.com/odd/news/usnT253952.html

Looks like the Chinese have a view on "vulgarity" (they evidently believe that transvestites are vulgar), and a view on what kinds of songs are "unhealthy" in a moral sense.

Considering that they're atheists, I see this as proof positive that this problem is not the sole province of religious people.

*And by the way, I never got the idea of omnipotency. Whenever I present the old paradox (can God microwave a Burito so hot he can't eat it?) people answer with things like "well, human logic doesn't apply to God". I suppose that's where faith kicks in, but still, it's a pretty unsatisfying answer.

According to Marvel Comics series "Runaways" the correct answer is "Yes, and then he would eat it anyway." Kinda like a Zen koan (hope I spelled that right it's not in spellcheck).

For a very simple reason. Religion has been openly hostile. Which is frankly all that needs to be said, despite apologetics like we find in the OP.

The fact is, no matter how much you try to clammor that the central tenant of your faith is respect and people who believe as you do really do respect gays and nonbelievers, by and large you don't.

Once again I ask you, if what you meant to say was Christianity then SAY IT instead of making a blanket statement about all religions.

Do me a favor, and look at this thread. It's not about racism, or politics, or homophobia, or any other things that it could apply to. This thread is about faith, and thus I apply it, in this context, to faith.

If it gets your feathers ruffled that I don't make the effort to go "oh, we can apply it to racists and mysoginists and homophobics too" I'm sorry, I assumed that people of faith wouldn't want to be included with the other people this admonishment applies to, but very well.

Yes, it doesn't just apply to the religious. It also applies to homophobes, racists, and others like that.

Don't assume my feathers are ruffled just because I make a point to disagree with you. I do understand that's a tactic that often gets used to portray a debate opponent as overreacting or immature, but I assure you (and this may sound more confrontational than it's meant to) it takes a lot more than your arguments to get my feathers ruffled.



Make broad generalization? Answer me this. Does christianity as a dogma believe that failure to accept jesus christ as a divine figure is a sin which is deserving of hell, or no?

Not always, no.

Your right and most of us try

The problem is that too many people think a vigorous attack on a prominent religion is an attack on them personally.

Only when said attack is aimed, in the words of the poster themselves, at RELIGION IN GENERAL and not at a "prominent religion".

I think believing that a person deserves eternal, never ending agonizing torment because they believe differently is a monsterous proposition.

As do I. Once more your problem seems to be with Christianity as it is commonly practiced. Yet your statements attack ALL religions, even when they believe the opposite of what you find abhorrent about common Christian beliefs.

I have nothing against faith. There are faiths I don't agree with, but I hold nothing against the idea in general. I just get mad when people claim to be of a certain faith just because they think it'll help them brainwash people into following their sick agenda.
I'm a Christian, and I have respect for Christianity and God and therefor I'll never jump on the hate bandwagon that so many others have. Seems to me that what God expects of us is to enjoy our lives and respect one another.
So in short I don't hate faith, I just hate it when sickos disrespect faith by claiming it follows their stupid agenda.

I think it's been said time and again, but I don't mind repeating it again :

Believe what you want, just don't try to force me to behave according to your beliefs.


Exactly. So get your hands out of my pocketbook, stop forcing me to hand my hard-earned money to charity at the point of a gun, and keep your hands and moral beliefs to yourself.






Upward-- Communism and Fascism are both religions. From Stalin's birthplace:

"On the freshly painted walls of the newly restored school, Stalin's photograph is featured among pictures of the former seminary's spiritual and cultural leaders.

Gela Mchedlishvili, an administrator at the school, sees no apparent conflict in honoring a political leader responsible for the death of millions alongside religious leaders whose faith was often the target of Stalin's repressions.

"God's will, and this school, teach us forgiveness," Mchedlishvili says. "This man might have done a few bad things, but some say he may also have done thousands of good things. The destruction was a result of the era. We can't blame it on individuals. Maybe there was oppression, the destruction of churches, the persecution of priests... and of course, in 1937 people were being executed. But we can't deny the good things he did as well."

..."It's a kind of idol-worship that we can't seem to get rid of," Zurab adds."
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/08/9c771836-1431-44d6-88a0-21f92cc4ee2f.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism
"In terms of body count, socialism is by far the most evil religion, the most evil ideology of any sort, of all time."
http://markhumphrys.com/communism.html

"As an atheist, I am completely on the side of the religious in their war on communism. Communism is an ultra-violent, irrational, barbarous state religion. No evidence supports its major claims. Indeed, they have all been proved wrong by history. Because no evidence supports their faith, the communist state attacks freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Apart from their brutality, torture and murder, it is the cowardice that is so striking. The communists know that their own stupid, ignorant ideas could not survive if people were free to discuss them."
http://markhumphrys.com/communism.html#right.travel

Hitler was worshiped with more religious zeal than Jesus, as a living God. Secular Progressivism is a religion. Environmentalism is a religion. Each have a standard set of moral beliefs approved of by a certain group of people, and each try to push their agenda on others. Unfortunately, most religious groups attempt to use the government to make their morality mandatory.

Exactly. So get your hands out of my pocketbook, stop forcing me to hand my hard-earned money to charity at the point of a gun, and keep your hands and moral beliefs to yourself.



If you want to be part of society, pay your share. If you don't, find youself a nice island to live on by yourself. Nobody's forcing you to pay anything, you can leave the club anytime you like. But as long as you're a member, you pay your share.

Only when said attack is aimed, in the words of the poster themselves, at RELIGION IN GENERAL and not at a "prominent religion".
When I bitch about racism, I often bitch about RACISM IN GENERAL and not about a specific racist organization.

I'm must be missing something, because I don't see the problem with that.

If you want to be part of society, pay your share. If you don't, find youself a nice island to live on by yourself.
Care to suggest one?

Care to suggest one?

I hear the Skelligs are currently uninhabited.

When I bitch about racism, I often bitch about RACISM IN GENERAL and not about a specific racist organization.

I'm must be missing something, because I don't see the problem with that.

I see a massive problem with comparing Racism to Religion. Huge problem. For one thing there is no inherent imperative with religion, no one ideal shared by every different religion. Unlike racism, where every racist organisation shares at least the idea that other races are not the same.

I see a massive problem with comparing Racism to Religion. Huge problem. For one thing there is no inherent imperative with religion, no one ideal shared by every different religion. Unlike racism, where every racist organisation shares at least the idea that other races are not the same.

So not all religions share the idea that there are supernatural aspects to reality?

So not all religions share the idea that there are supernatural aspects to reality?

No, not all religions share that idea.

EDIT: Many eastern traditions that function as religions do not have elemnets of the supernatural, so if you define religion to include these traditions, then my above statement is correct. If your definition of religion is narrower, then you could easily have the definition include only those belief systems that include the supernatural. This is also a definition that is used a lot.

No, not all religions share that idea.

EDIT: Many eastern traditions that function as religions do not have elemnets of the supernatural, so if you define religion to include these traditions, then my above statement is correct. If your definition of religion is narrower, then you could easily have the definition include only those belief systems that include the supernatural. This is also a definition that is used a lot.

Which eastern tradition are you thinking of?

So not all religions share the idea that there are supernatural aspects to reality?

No, but that's debatable. But what I said in my previous quote is that religion does not shares the same set of imperatives, there is nothing required to do in the real world or believe about the real world (not supernatural) and no moral absolutes inherent in all religion. This is why you cannot compare it to racism, as racism has beliefs about the physical world and therefore is important to people and possibly affects people who are not racist, the only inherent belief religion has (possibly) is belief about the metaphysical. This alone cannot change political opinion like racism, and is irrelevant to people who are not religious. I don't mind someone attacking all religion as long as it's because of their dislike of belief in the metaphysical in general (the only semi consistent reason to attack religion in general), as long as you acknowledge that it is not anything like racism or any other set beliefs about the physical world.

Sorry for the general wishy washyness of that post, I can't really articulate what I'm thinking properly right now.

Which eastern tradition are you thinking of?

Taoism and Confucianism spring to mind.

No, but that's debatable. But what I said in my previous quote is that religion does not shares the same set of imperatives, there is nothing required to do in the real world or believe about the real world (not supernatural) and no moral absolutes inherent in all religion. This is why you cannot compare it to racism, as racism has beliefs about the physical world and therefore is important to people and possibly affects people who are not racist, the only inherent belief religion has (possibly) is belief about the metaphysical. This alone cannot change political opinion like racism, and is irrelevant to people who are not religious. I don't mind someone attacking all religion as long as it's because of their dislike of belief in the metaphysical in general (the only semi consistent reason to attack religion in general), as long as you acknowledge that it is not anything like racism or any other set beliefs about the physical world.

Sorry for the general wishy washyness of that post, I can't really articulate what I'm thinking properly right now.

I have yet to see a religion that is completely contained in the metaphysical realm without intruding into the physical (some of us would say it is contained within the physical as there is no metaphysical so there is no other option)

You are right there are no moral absolutes necessary between religions but there are no absolutes between racists either that does not disqualify if from being critiqued in the same manor

Why do so many posters have such hostility towards faith?
Before I start, yes, I realise I skipped over a shit load of responses so nyah!

Now then, I believe that many posters are hostile towards faith because there are people of faith who are hostile towards those of us who are lacking in such faith or have a different faith.

There is little or no understanding because the bridge that connects those with faith and those without was fire bombed and the reconciliation process is on the fritz because there is often a lack of willingness to understand that those of us without faith aren't doomed to go to hell; that we are not somehow going to wreck the rest of society simply because we don't go to church or follow doctrine.

I imagine there is something in there about is faithless not understanding why the faithful do what they do...

I have yet to see a religion that is completely contained in the metaphysical realm without intruding into the physical (some of us would say it is contained within the physical as there is no metaphysical so there is no other option)


But the point is there are no shared beliefs about the physical world, unlike racism.


You are right there are no moral absolutes necessary between religions but there are no absolutes between racists either that does not disqualify if from being critiqued in the same manor

All racist organisations share the belief that other races are inferior, or at least different. If they didn't, they wouldn't be racist.

You are right there are no moral absolutes necessary between religions but there are no absolutes between racists either that does not disqualify if from being critiqued in the same manor

The only thing I don't like about the comparison is that, at first glance, it looks like someone's trying to insult religious thought by comparing it to racist thought.

But since Bottle clarified it for me, I don't feel offended anymore. And aside from that, I don't see too much wrong with the phrase.

I liked the bolded phrase, though. A computer would never catch that error.

But the point is there are no shared beliefs about the physical world, unlike racism.



All racist organisations share the belief that other races are inferior, or at least different. If they didn't, they wouldn't be racist.

I guess I am confused as to the thrust of your argument here ... what is the point? like any analogy there are similarities and differences so what?

The only thing I don't like about the comparison is that, at first glance, it looks like someone's trying to insult religious thought by comparing it to racist thought.

But since Bottle clarified it for me, I don't feel offended anymore. And aside from that, I don't see too much wrong with the phrase.

I liked the bolded phrase, though. A computer would never catch that error.

You are right my computer did not catch that error lol

Taoism and Confucianism spring to mind.

Are those religions, though? Or philosophical ideologies.

Are those religions, though? Or philosophical ideologies.

Religions. They do make specific metaphysical claims, even if a deity is not explicitly included. Also, Taoism/Confucianism as practiced by the average person is far different from the esoteric form practiced by the literati and priests throughout the belief systems' history. In practice, it is often a mix of Taoist philosophies as well as ancestor worship and Chinese polytheistic beliefs.

Religions. They do make specific metaphysical claims, even if a deity is not explicitly included. Also, Taoism/Confucianism as practiced by the average person is far different from the esoteric form practiced by the literati and priests throughout the belief systems' history. In practice, it is often a mix of Taoist philosophies as well as ancestor worship and Chinese polytheistic beliefs.

So it does incorporate the supernatural into itself.

So it does incorporate the supernatural into itself.

Pretty much. But that also brings up the question of whether it is necessarily a religion or spirituality. Taoism is pretty open to interpretation and lacks a true centralized hierarchy for administration, so it might not even be accurate to call it a "religion" in the same sense as Christianity or Islam.

Pretty much.

So going back to the original line of reasoning, we've put Taoism and Confucianism back into the "supernatural beliefs" category and are back to 0 religions that don't have supernatural beliefs.

I guess I am confused as to the thrust of your argument here ... what is the point? like any analogy there are similarities and differences so what?

I just think that it doesn't help debate when a comparison is made between religion and racism. There was no reason to use racism as an example as you could compare liberalism to racism in the same way, reading back I guess I was confused and thought that Bottle was saying that the two are just as bad. Whatever.

So going back to the original line of reasoning, we've put Taoism and Confucianism back into the "supernatural beliefs" category and are back to 0 religions that don't have supernatural beliefs.

Are you willing to accept that marxism is not a religion? And Stalinism, and Maoism.

Are you willing to accept that marxism is not a religion? And Stalinism, and Maoism.

I'd say they're socio-political ideologies, but that is strictly my opinion.

I'd say they're socio-political ideologies, but that is strictly my opinion.

So then are you further willing to accept that it's ideology that is the problem, and not just religion?

So then are you further willing to accept that it's ideology that is the problem, and not just religion?

I've never said any different.

Edit: In fact, that wasn't even the issue here. The issue was whether or not all religion have one, particular commonality among them, much like Racism has one particular commonality among itself, at least.

I've never said any different.


Ok, I could have sworn you did but maybe I had you confused with someone else.


Edit: In fact, that wasn't even the issue here. The issue was whether or not all religion have one, particular commonality among them, much like Racism has one particular commonality among itself, at least.

I felt like changing the issue, since the other one I feel has been resolved.

What kind of "hostility"?

If you believe in a religion that's bigoted against non-believers, gays, women, etc. (not all of them are), you should expect hostility in response... and probably deserve it too.

Not all of them are? Despite what you may have gathered from the mainstream media, most of "them" are NOT. It is a clear example of the fact that most people believe that the loudest voice in the room is the one that fully represents the whole. The truth is that most people that ascribe to our sect of the Jewish faith known as Christianity agree with its founder when he said "Blessed are the peacemakers." The only problem is that the ones who conveniently ignore that tenet of our faith are the ones that get on TV, which leads to a wonderfully false attribution error (look it up). Most Christians are NOT violent, bigoted miscogynists, just as most Muslims are not violent, suicide-bombing terrorists. But that's not what you are meant to believe. It is easy to categorize and dismiss, but much harder to accept the truth that it is impossible to categorize while maintaining your intellectual integrity.

Which leads me to another thing the founder of Christianity said: "Judge not, or you will be judged. For whatever standard you hold, God will hold you to that same standard." Meaning that those who categorize and dismiss an entire group of people will ultimately be categorized and dismissed themselves. Is this not a great moral standard to live by, even if you don't believe that Christ was the Son of God?

I hear the Skelligs are currently uninhabited.
Nice.

Though will they let me live there, considering UNESCO and all the birds and the old monastery? And if I do, won't the Irish government still try to tax me if they can?

Because religion is an anachronistic comfort blanket against the unremitting, uncaring emptiness of reality. It is an outdated construct that only has any merits as a guarantor of moral rectitude.

Because religion is an anachronistic comfort blanket against the unremitting, uncaring emptiness of reality. It is an outdated construct that only has any merits as a guarantor of moral rectitude.

Been reading Dawkins lately?

Nice.

Though will they let me live there, considering UNESCO and all the birds and the old monastery?
Doubtful.

And if I do, won't the Irish government still try to tax me if they can?
You live in the State, you pay your way. Try creating your own country a la Sealand. I hear Iceland has the odd new island crop up out of the sea from time to time - geothermal heating, fish, fresh water, solar/wind power.

Been reading Dawkins lately?

No. I take my atheism from a different source; my own fucking considerations.:p

There's little point reading Dawkins anyway, what with religion being discussed here every hour of the day....

Faith is irrational, hence my hostility towards it.

Hostility is irrational.
Scrabble is irrational.
Kung-Fu-Westerns are irrational.

See, I can make claims too.


Fnord.

Hostility is irrational.
Scrabble is irrational.
Kung-Fu-Westerns are irrational.

See, I can make claims too.


Fnord.

But faith is, by definition, irrational. Faith is believing something without any evidence. A rational belief requires evidence for its foundation, not blind guesses or gut feelings.

But faith is, by definition, irrational. Faith is believing something without any evidence. A rational belief requires evidence for its foundation, not blind guesses or gut feelings.

faith–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

Touche. Which is much less impressive without the accent.

But it isn't by definition, irrational.

Been reading Dawkins lately?

So? Its still true. Still if people want to cling to a delusion then they can go right ahead. Just as long as they don't try to force it on me or think they deserve special treatment because their beliefs come from religion.

But faith is, by definition, irrational. Faith is believing something without any evidence. A rational belief requires evidence for its foundation, not blind guesses or gut feelings.

The irrational faith also requires evidence, i.e. something to have faith in. "Blind guesses and gut feelings" are another matter, entirely.

And as Sam Harris points out, those who are religious "moderates" are no better than the fundamentalists. The moderates are just people who are not willing to follow their own religion, yet condone and support the radicalism of the fundamentalists.

Such a statement, whether made by you or Harris, indicates a belief that religion actually has nothing to do with belief.

The irrational faith also requires evidence, i.e. something to have faith in. "Blind guesses and gut feelings" are another matter, entirely.
Well, strictly speaking rationality just requires weighing up the alternatives and choosing the one that makes most sense/benefits you most.

Faith is irrational in so far as this weighing up procedure isn't used or is ignored. For example, there could be plenty of evidence for evolution and none for creation. A rational person would weigh those up and decide that evolution is what in all likelihood happened and continues to happen.

So I think there is completely irrational faith, such as denying the obvious evidence in favour of spurious religious explanations, and a more rational kind in which people believe in religious explanations in areas where there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

Of course, stricly speaking I still wouldn't call that completely rational because you'd still be adding baseless assumptions that aren't necessary to complete the picture. But it's less irrational.

Hostility is irrational.
Scrabble is irrational.
Kung-Fu-Westerns are irrational.

See, I can make claims too.

Fnord.

Congratulations, however I fail to see your point.

Genuine spiritual belief is few and far between these days, for the most part (especially referring to America) the spiritual content of faith is replaced by political ideology. I don't have hostility to political ideology, but I would like a clear separation.

Quite a few of them are "internet atheists," the ones who think that religion is evil and is mostly the cause of evil. (I call them internet atheists because you never meet them in real life.)

Uh, what?

When Christians are a tiny minority like here, the attacks against Christianity are many, but the defenders are few, so you see more open hostility because not many can refute it.

I don't think... it was about... 40 percent? would be exactly a 'tiny' minority.

I don't think... it was about... 40 percent? would be exactly a 'tiny' minority.40 percent of the forum folks are Christians?

Genuine spiritual belief ...That is what? When a person forgets all education and logic?

40 percent of the forum folks are Christians?

Yep, or close to it. IIRC that's the number that comes up in the religion poll threads, anyway.

That is what? When a person forgets all education and logic?

Well in the context of these days I would say it's when someone has a clear separation in their mind between their traditional religion and other more practical and logical views in life, plenty of people do this, but I guess your right in that the only really true religion was when we all thought the world was flat and worshiped fire.

That is what? When a person forgets all education and logic?

You know I spent some time thinking about this over the weekend, and my conclusion was that some religous people really do have the best of both world. Haveing access to more than one mode of thought gives some people a more rounded appreatiation of life etc...

You know I spent some time thinking about this over the weekend, and my conclusion was that some religous people really do have the best of both world. Haveing access to more than one mode of thought gives some people a more rounded appreatiation of life etc...

Actually I wouldn't advise it, being able to be satisfied with massive contradictions in your thinking isn't good.

After reading some of the posts on the Mormonism thread, I was very curious.

Why do so many posters have such hostility towards faith? I am not Mormon myself (Protestant), but was pretty offended by some of the comments posed to those who went on to explain their faith. I am also too computer illiterate to figure out how to put a poll on here, so I'll give a few options that I suspect may be the problem that many have with people of faith. I will also give my thoughts on why these reasons aren't valid grounds for attacking an entire group of people who happen to share common beliefs. Although my answers may lean more towards a defense of western theologies, I mean this post to inquire more generally about hostility towards all faith.

1) Religions have caused a great deal of war and oppression throughout time, including in our present time. (My response: So have perfectly secular ideologies such as facism and communism. Not that this makes it okay for people to go to war or be oppressed due to faith, but I don't think that it totally discounts the value of an ideology based on faith altogether. Plus, a great deal of these religious wars were actually mortal leaders who didn't really care about the faith and instead twisted it to lead the masses to do some horrendous things.)

2) Religious persons are seen as intolerant bigots. (My response: Yes, there are plenty of homophobes and misogynists that claim quite vocally claim their opinion is superior and all others should be punished. I, for one, am one of those Christians who take a more libertarian approach. I do my thing and you do yours. Plus, there is no earthly way of separating world history from its religious roots... although wars between faiths gave us a whole lot of bad they ultimately lead to the Enlightenment and a level of understanding and liberal thought that may not have ever come about otherwise.)

3) Believing in an invisible God is entirely irrational and anybody who has such belief must be a backwoods redneck dolt. (My response: This is by far the hardest to respond to because any response would have to rely on faith, thus making it circular. But I will try. There are many things we take for granted as scientific knowledge nowadays that are based on faith in experiments that we will never personally go out and replicate or observe. And there are many truths that were truths in 900 AD but were not known to be truths b/c there had not been developed a way to observe them scientifically. Just b/c something cannot be observed by our current level of science does not make it not exist. Now, I can see where a perfectly rational being would say "Given our level of scientific achievement and the lack of concrete proof of the existence of God, I choose not to believe." But that person could not make the absolute statement that God does not exist or that somebody who believes in God must be a gullible dolt. For one, the perfectly rational being has no way of experiencing whatever vision, revelation, feeling, moment, or whatever that led the "gullible dolt" to faith. Many very intelligent people throughout history had faith, some of them you could argue were socialized to believe but I'm sure that others came to faith later in life.)

Finally, with the exception of those people of faith that participate in 1 or 2 above, what does it hurt for somebody to have faith? Can't happy productive members of society who earn their own way in life attribute their happiness and success to following their faith? What makes it so abhorrent to you?

1) Yes fascism and communism have led to lots of misery as well - this is why I am also not a communist, fascist or religious.

2) Bigotry seems an inbuilt thing in all faiths - therefore I avoid them all.

3) There is nothing that I take for granted as scientific knowledge based on faith.

Actually I wouldn't advise it, being able to be satisfied with massive contradictions in your thinking isn't good.

Heh and the mere fact that you say that means that you have not got access to this other mode of thought.

There are no contradictions with my thinking. And the of my conclusions was trying to describe what a religion gives to some people, what it adds to some life's is like trying to communitcate advanced maths between two people who speak radicaly differant languages.

I get you, I have the capacity to live in the world of logic indeed for the most part I do exactly that, it's a shame that you can't get me.

I get you, I have the capacity to live in the world of logic indeed for the most part I do exactly that, it's a shame that you can't get me.

I get you, I have the capacity to live in the world of faith and indeed I used to do so, it's a shame that you can't understand that I can get you and still think it's not a good way to live

I get you, I have the capacity to live in the world of faith and indeed I used to do so, it's a shame that you can't understand that I can get you and still think it's not a good way to live

By who's judgment? Do you then judge the best way for me to live based upon you own subjective experiances?

I'm glad that you have access to both modes of thought, and if you feel that you can no longer make use of one of them, then that is your choice.

By who's judgment? Do you then judge the best way for me to live based upon you own subjective experiances?

Can't speak for him, but I sure do.

For example, I have some personal experience with being a coke addict. My personal experience leads me to conclude that being addicted to coke is probably not the best way for you (or anybody else) to live.

Can't speak for him, but I sure do.

For example, I have some personal experience with being a coke addict. My personal experience leads me to conclude that being addicted to coke is probably not the best way for you (or anybody else) to live.

Hey Bottle,

In that you are probably true. Yet I know a man, who I would recomend never stop doing the coke, because of the way his head works, he is just a better person with a little up his nose.

So two things, the first being, nobody really can tell any other person the best way for them to live, that is up to the individual.

The second being that it is hard for any of us to find a credible anology/similary with questions about God faith etc... as there really are none that fit perfectly.

So two things, the first being, nobody really can tell any other person the best way for them to live, that is up to the individual.

What are you talking about?

I absolutely can tell other people the best way for them to live. They don't have to listen to me, and I'm not interested in forcing them to, but why the hell shouldn't I give advice and suggestions to those who feel like listening?

I'd say it's more like, everybody can tell every other person the best way for them to live, and it's up to the individual to sort it out.

The second being that it is hard for any of us to find a credible anology/similary with questions about God faith etc... as there really are none that fit perfectly.
Things that are analogous or similar are, by definition, not going to perfectly resemble one another. If they were perfectly alike, then it wouldn't be an analogy.

What are you talking about?

I absolutely can tell other people the best way for them to live. They don't have to listen to me, and I'm not interested in forcing them to, but why the hell shouldn't I give advice and suggestions to those who feel like listening?

I'd say it's more like, everybody can tell every other person the best way for them to live, and it's up to the individual to sort it out.

Things that are analogous or similar are, by definition, not going to perfectly resemble one another. If they were perfectly alike, then it wouldn't be an analogy.

Ahhh pedantry is alive and kicking!;)

Yes once again you are right you can of course tell people what you think the best way for them to live is, wether that is actualy the best way for them to live is up to them to decide.