rachel on 4/8/2009 at 17:03
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
PS: I just remembered it; I'm sick of this I-like-faith-but-no-churches-because-they-are-unnecessary-and-suck argument as well. As long as you cannot guarantee that everyone is able to execute his faith properly (according to, as I mentioned earlier, quite reasonable core elements), you need instituions of control. Everyone who fails to see this is the foremost example of someone not precise and intelligent (etc.) enough to do it on his/her own.
Why do you need this? They
are unnecessary. They are only there at best to build communities and at worst so that a few can control many.
But God and churches? "God" is all powerful and shit. He's almighty. For all he cares you're as insignificant as an ant, and given all the "hardships" otherwise commmonly known as "Life sucks", he doesn't give a damn.
Live your life and be good to others, ok. Respect the almighty creator in your own ways if that's your thing, ok. Have someone tell you to do X because that's the way it is, well sorry but screw you.
"Executing one's faith properly according to quite reasonable core elements" does not require "institutions of control". Funny you should use that word, by the way. "Control".
the_grip on 4/8/2009 at 17:17
SD, three quarters of the US population believe the world is less than 10,000 years old? I know what you are talking about - the bullshit young earth tripe that gets passed around in Christian circles - but I would really question whatever survey you read if it says three quarters of the folks believe that. Even if it said three quarters of Christians in the US believe that. Maybe their definition of "Christian" is a bit too literal. As I said, many folks say that they are Christian but would not say they are the hardcore literal contingency described here. Those poor folks are just the most vocal and angry.
I totally agree as well that religions are just cultural conveniences (generally speaking). I'm sure there are some that are more fringe that are not culturally convenient, but those in and of themselves are ways for folks to express counter-cultural sentiments.
And yes I would laugh at you if you built a temple to Santa, but that is apples an oranges. A Santa Temple is not a culturally relevant icon. That said, I do still laugh (or perhaps lament) when I see enormous facilities that cost hundreds of millions of dollars go up in the name of Christianity (i.e. the mega churches you see around). Waste of money for sure, but then I can say, "Hey, it is doing something for the economy and perhaps relieving some of the money out of the religious system into the broader economic system at large."
jay pettitt on 4/8/2009 at 17:20
ooh, I'm going to say a little bit more.
It's not just the total lack of substantive evidence. Or the fact that the total lack of evidence results from several thousands of years and millions of man hours worth of looking. Or the fact that it's hilarious that a bunch of people know so much and can be so certain about something for which there is no evidence.
It's that it's all so obviously so human. It's got 'made up' written all over it.
Quote:
All I will say on that matter is that the bible and the Christian belief system are much more internally consistent than most atheists think.
Oh, I don't doubt it's internally consistent. It's just when you start comparing it to the outside world that it starts looking a bit funky.
Renzatic on 4/8/2009 at 18:01
Quote Posted by SD
There is far more than "cultural identification" at work in the US; when three-quarters of people believe in miracles and half believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, that's a little more than people trying to fit in with each other. It is dogshit ignorance on the grandest possible scale.
I want to know where you're getting these numbers. From what I've gathered on reading up on the subject, only a relatively small (vocal) percentage of Christians even believe in Creationism. If you consider all the various religions with different creation standards and secular groups that dot the country, I find it very hard to believe that a full 50% of US citizens believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Quote:
I guess whether or not you believe in God depends on whether, when confronted with an empty room, your answer is to:
a) assume that it's empty or
b) assume that there's a being in there who is invisible and hiding from you
Too simple an analogy, which is actually the one problem I have with your style of arguing. You take complex subjects, break them down to a ridiculous degree, then skew the results in your favor. Course we all do this in some form or another, but you take it to the nth degree.
Anyyyway, to better construct your argument, whether or not you believe in God depends on whether, when confronted with an empty room, you wonder:
a)Where did the room come from. Has it always been here?
b)If it hasn't always been here, who made it?
c)Was it made by a supernatural force, or naturally formed?
d)If naturally formed, what natural forces caused it to form as such?
e)If naturally formed, what is the rooms molecular makeup?
f)Where did the materials that constitute the room come from?
f)Insert philosophical discussion of empty room, and it's bearings on humanity.
g)continue to Z
Not exactly a discussion with a binary conclusion.
Quote:
Yes, because intelligences don't generally spring fully-formed out of nowhere.
Whether you believe in Evolution or the basic tenents of Creationism, you could say that's exactly what happened with us. On one hand, you could say that a creator god who's always been around got bored one day, molded us out of mud bricks and happy thoughts, or you could say that after a whole bunch of nothing blew up, clouds of dust eventually formed into walking talking apes who make nuclear bombs. Both theories basically say we, as intelligent beings, came from nowhere, and both of which sound pretty ridiculous when you break it down.
Course as a counter argument, one theory can be traced to a point by the various sciences, whereas the other cannot. But there will come a point where the questions in my quote above go back into play and everything comes full circle. The scope just gets widened, nothing is ever ultimately proved or disproved.
Quote:
I know lots of atheists who don't consider themselves part of any "movement". And I don't like the idea that anyone espousing rationality and respect for people who use rationality in their beliefs (or lack of) must be part of some movement.
But there are people that treat it as such. You get any group of people, put them together under an umbrella of like thought, and bullshittery will eventually arise. It doesn't matter that the foundation is based in calm rationality, if someone makes it into an Us vs. Them play the victim situation, then dumb things are going to happen sooner or later. We're already seeing it. Just check out any Atheist video blog on Youtube and you'll see that there are more people screaming about how blah doesn't conform to their lack of beliefs and all the mad insane crazy theist people who believe in some invisible sky wizard are keeping us from building rocket ships to go to Mars and will eventually kill us all by strapping bombs to their kids and marching them to an alternative lifestyle bookstore. It's an argument against a stereotype, much like how the hardcore religious people want you to believe that the atheist lefties want to eat our babies and dress stylishly so to corrupt our childrens minds with videogames and socialized medicine FAITH HEAL!
So am I saying all atheists are like that? Hell no. 99% of them are pretty laid back and are always willing to have a few discussion on what the universe is over a couple of beers without resorting to mad frothing over the latest derisive catchphrase. But there are a couple I know who basically made atheism the central theme of their life, and...oh God in Heaven Above...they're obnoxious.
Anyway, this is about the longest post I've made in like three years, and I'm already getting bored of all this typing. But to get on topic here, what do I believe in? Fuck if I know, but I ain't discounting anything just yet.
Beleg Cúthalion on 4/8/2009 at 18:27
Usually I hate doing all of this in single replies, but what the hell...
Quote Posted by Vasquez
If the Bible was only one sentence long, it would make hell of a lot more sense.
Yeah, unfortunately it wasn't the time back then for incredibly wise and short Chinese calendar mottos. That's the thing with religion, you have to know of which parts it consists. The Bible is a collection of stories by people (!) about their experiences with god etc. etc.. So there are a lot of individual adventures in it. Afterwards it might be interesting to find out things like that the brutal story of the Israeli conquest in the promised land is purely fictional and the fashionable (at that time) way of confirming a people's history in the face of Persian occupation. Or that Genesis isn't an objective report but rather the ancient idea of how the world was made (science, as it were) with the addition that it was created by a single god. For two thousand years Christians have been researching all these things, tried to understand how their sermons etc. became what they are and even today there are people talking is if the whole club was full of stupid naive bulldogs unable to scrutinise themselves.
Quote:
Wtf :weird: By executing do you mean rituals, or..? If the core is "Be nice to others" it shouldn't be too big of a brain-twister to anyone. [...] If religion is about believing in God of some or other sort, but you need other people to "control" it, that in itself sounds wrong to me. (And this is an opinion, not an argument.)
The no-brain-twisters are gone when it comes to e.g. a father leaving his family with a strange interpretation of grace of charity (if you love me, let me go) or abortion and other things tied into social, political etc. aspects. Now guess how many people with a "reasonable" interpretation will show up. And that's not only about religion, it could happen with Human Rights or democracy as well...
Quote Posted by SD
Well, this is it: it ain't me doing the mixing up. I'm perfectly willing to concede that what Jesus may really have wanted was for people to be cool to each other, but I can only take what his followers do at face value.
Even if this was the case everywhere it would still be YOUR turn to see the difference. Those who criticise religion while thinking that it's equal to creationism aren't better than those believers who do the same. You have the right in this moment to say e.g. 1.) You guys are missing the point of your own religion and 2.) constructing a feigned antagonism... but not: You're like all the others and everyone is thus bad and superfluous.
Quote:
If I start my own cult based on peace and love and understanding and everyone getting along, yet all my followers want to do is go out and tell people how they're going to burn in Hell, at the very least I've fucked the message up somewhat.
Not necessarily. You cannot control everyone to do it right (although that would be a positive form of control, something like the perfect king) and so you need a system which in itself is...well... buggy. Like monarchy. Things aren't too simple in this world unfortunately.
Quote:
But God is said to have an impact on the natural world. Sometime or other he is going to have to interact with nature - you know, when he casually impregnates virgins, appears as a burning bush or answers prayers... that sort of thing - and when he does that, there ought to be some trace of his actions left behind; some evidence that he was, at the very least, once there...
That's what Dawkins thinks, too, by the way. My personal interpretation of (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria) NOMA is that you'll never actually
see (i.e. notice with our scientific means) the supernatural in this world. But this world consists of a helluva lot of accidents. Evolution, as they tell us, is a big bunch of accidents (or happenstance, might be a better word according to the dictionary). Scientists (atheists included) can tell us that they're there but not why. They can tell us that they're probable or rather improbable and maybe incredibly improbable but still happening (I forgot the exact name of this theory, sorry) but if there's a half-invisible face in the air telling me to do good things they think everything is solved when they find out where the wind and the voice came from. Richard Dawkins's reaction to the sort of why-questions is something like:
"Haha, not all questions make sense, do they? Hahaha! Why are unicorns hollow on the inside? he, doesn't make sense, ey? Haha!" I don't like expressing things so directly but it
might be an idea to say that god, if existant, acts through these accidents which we can see but not explain down to the last.
Quote:
I guess whether or not you believe in God depends on whether, when confronted with an empty room, your answer is to:
a) assume that it's empty or
b) assume that there's a being in there who is invisible and hiding from you
Yes, because intelligences don't generally spring fully-formed out of nowhere.
I hope Renzatic covered this right now, I still got other things to do this evening. :p
Quote:
If you ask me what I'm most conerned about, it's things like only 45% of Americans saying they would consider voting for an atheist politician. I think erasing the mindset that the other 55% have is a very noble goal.
That's again the people-and-not-religion thing. I grant Dawkins anything, to rave against homophobics, criticise veneration of saints (although not with a blank "it's only made-up crap" comment without footnotes), bash Muslims for shooting nuns when some newspaper publishes caricatures but he (and everyone else who rises to speak) must see what it really is he/she is talking about.
Quote Posted by raph
Why do you need this? They
are unnecessary. They are only there at best to build communities and at worst so that a few can control many.
But God and churches? "God" is all powerful and shit. He's almighty. For all he cares you're as insignificant as an ant, and given all the "hardships" otherwise commmonly known as "Life sucks", he doesn't give a damn.
Well that depends on your idea of what god exactly is (neoplatonic-inapproachable or very personal) but about the institutions: If it's your goal to get people to live peacefully although this is not part of their natural behaviour you have to find
something exceeding the authority of every single person (I might find a better expression when the time comes).
Quote:
Live your life and be good to others, ok. Respect the almighty creator in your own ways if that's your thing, ok. Have someone tell you to do X because that's the way it is, well sorry but screw you.
That's what people do with criminals. Screw them all? The thing is you cannot draw a line between allowing things which somehow don't do harm and proscribing things which would be bad for the community...somehow.
Quote:
"Executing one's faith properly according to quite reasonable core elements" does not require "institutions of control". Funny you should use that word, by the way. "Control".
If everyone was able to do this, it'd be fine. But that's not the case. What I meant with the complicated line which Vasquez quoted is that even those around here who argue in a (let's be euphemistic) intellectual way and on a higher level won't be able to do that sort of
ijtihad* on their own. I wouldn't consider myself capable of finding the "right" solution all the time either.
* Term used in Islamic jurisprudence, means the technique of finding the right practical law based on all the canonical "roots" like Qur'an, tradition, analogy which contain general ideas but no tangible practical rules.
Vasquez on 4/8/2009 at 18:49
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
The no-brain-twisters are gone when it comes to e.g. a father leaving his family with a strange interpretation of grace of charity (if you love me, let me go) or abortion and other things tied into social, political etc. aspects. Now guess how many people with a "reasonable" interpretation will show up.
Things certainly don't clear up if religion is interjected into the mess on top of everything else.
What I find downright horrible is basing laws for whole nations on some group's superstitions. You can have - and many countries do have - laws against killing, violence, theft, rape, deserting your family penniless etc. that are simply based on common sense.
And
who has the right to say: This is the correct way to intepret these writings?
Beleg Cúthalion on 4/8/2009 at 19:03
You'll get one more nice answer... after that you'll have to think on your own. :p Let's tackle this in reversed order:
The fact that a church consists of more than one guy saying "what's right" shrinks the probability that they come up with a less reasonable decision than any guy on the street. It's a system to establish a reasonable sort of mainstream interpretation of faith among the people who belong to this community. Remember this comes from a time without Wikipedia.
Second, your so called common sense has come a long way. Today you don't have to care about religion because all of its values are baked into secular laws and the brains of millions of people who didn't have to do anything to come to this point. Today there are some guys in the church saying condoms are bad but two thousand years ago there were some guys saying gladiator battles are bad. Do you think you do the right thing by throwing the whole foundation overboard? What do you think becomes of your so-called common sense if the influence of egoism, survival of the fittest etc., all the – in the broadest sense – "economical" elements in our lives gain strength? Either you become that sort of animal or you have to invoke something intangible because only intangible ideas can protect humanity down to the last. And church, to sum this up just for you, is there to cultivate and balance this idea. In theory at least, but as I've hinted earlier you'll hardly have other possibilities to solve this.
Third, we don't throw in religion as the last of it but as the first. Watch out!
SD on 4/8/2009 at 19:12
Quote Posted by Renzatic
I want to know where you're getting these numbers. From what I've gathered on reading up on the subject, only a relatively small (vocal) percentage of Christians even believe in Creationism. If you consider all the various religions with different creation standards and secular groups that dot the country, I find it very hard to believe that a full 50% of US citizens believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Well, I said half; it's actually (
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jun/08/20060608-111826-4947r/) 46%:
Quote:
Americans still hold faith in divine creationOriginally published 11:18 p.m., June 8, 2006Much of the nation still takes stock in the book of Genesis.
Eight out of 10 Americans believe God guided creation in some capacity. A Gallup Poll reveals that 46 percent think God created man in his present form sometime in the past 10,000 years, while 36 percent say man developed over millions of years from lesser life forms, but God guided the process.
Only 13 percent of Americans think mankind evolved with no divine intervention.
"There has been surprisingly little change over the last 24 years in how Americans respond," pollster Frank Newport said.
The survey marks the seventh time that Gallup has queried Americans about creation beliefs. Since 1982, between 44 percent and 47 percent have consistently agreed that God created man "as is," while between 35 percent and 40 percent said man evolved with God's guidance. The idea of strict evolution without God has proved the least popular, cited by 9 percent to 13 percent of the respondents over the years.
The beliefs intensify among certain demographics. The survey found that 56 percent of Republican respondents, compared with 43 percent of Democrats, said God created humans in their present form. Church attendance held sway over the partisan groups. Among Republicans who attended services weekly, the number rose to 67 percent. Among churchgoing Democrats, it rose to 57 percent.
Findings were similar in the overall population.
"Almost two-thirds of Americans who attend church at least once a week believe that humans were created 'as is' within the last 10,000 years or so, compared to just 29 percent of those who say they never attend church," Mr. Newport said.
"About three-quarters of those with a postgraduate degree say humans developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, while 22 percent chose the 'created in present form' option," he said.
Things were more or less in the middle for those who attended church once a month, with 50 percent saying mankind developed from other life forms and 45 percent citing creation by God.
Women edged out men for their creationism beliefs. More than half of women, 51 percent, compared with 39 percent of men, said God created man in present form. Age also played a role. Fifty-one percent of respondents older than 65 believe in the role of God in creation. That compared with 43 percent of those 50 to 64 years old, 49 percent of those 30 to 49, and 43 percent of those 18 to 29.
The findings are based on two polls of 1,001 adults, each conducted May 8 to 11 this year and Nov. 7 to 10, 2004, with a margin of error of two percentage points.
Other polls had similar findings. A Pew poll of 2,000 adults released in August revealed that 42 percent held strict creationist views, while 48 percent said humans evolved over time -- 18 percent of the sample said the process was "guided by a supreme being." Two-thirds of the group were open to teaching creationism in schools.
So I hope we can at least agree that around half of Americans should be ain a loony bin.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
It's not just the total lack of substantive evidence. Or the fact that the total lack of evidence results from several thousands of years and millions of man hours worth of looking. Or the fact that it's hilarious that a bunch of people know so much and can be so certain about something for which there is no evidence.
It's that it's all so obviously so human. It's got 'made up' written all over it.
That's the worst thing about it, for me. The belief that a divine being created this universe and everything in it for people is easily the single most arrogant idea humans have ever had.
Check:
Inline Image:
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/9910/fuuuuuuuuuckgq8.gifAnd then tell me that this is all for us, one species on a minuscule rock floating in space, with a straight face.
Vasquez on 4/8/2009 at 19:15
Beleg, are you seriously saying that if religions were to fade away, today, people would degrade to animals?
Anyways, we clearly don't even have common ground to have a conversation on about this. Mostly everything you say just doesn't make sense to me. But I respect your right to be religious and believe in God and belong to a church, as long as you don't use religions as an excuse to dictate how other people should live their lives.
Taffer36 on 4/8/2009 at 19:20
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
You'll get one more nice answer... after that you'll have to think on your own. :p Let's tackle this in reversed order:
The fact that a church consists of more than one guy saying "what's right" shrinks the probability that they come up with a less reasonable decision than any guy on the street. It's a system to establish a reasonable sort of mainstream interpretation of faith among the people who belong to this community. Remember this comes from a time without Wikipedia.
Second, your so called common sense has come a long way. Today you don't have to care about religion because all of its values are baked into secular laws and the brains of millions of people who didn't have to do anything to come to this point. Today there are some guys in the church saying condoms are bad but two thousand years ago there were some guys saying gladiator battles are bad. Do you think you do the right thing by throwing the whole foundation overboard? What do you think becomes of your so-called common sense if the influence of egoism, survival of the fittest etc., all the - in the broadest sense - "economical" elements in our lives gain strength? Either you become that sort of animal or you have to invoke something intangible because only intangible ideas can protect humanity down to the last. And church, to sum this up just for you, is there to cultivate and balance this idea. In theory at least, but as I've hinted earlier you'll hardly have other possibilities to solve this.
Third, we don't throw in religion as the last of it but as the first. Watch out!
Couldn't you say that religion has gathered morals simply as a collection of people?
Sometimes a collection of people are right, sometimes they're wrong. Hence why some of the rules in typical religions make sense, and why some just seem inane (and a few insane). The problem that arises is that SOME of the foundation is thrown overboard. But most religions technically require that you maintain support of the entire thing as a whole.
