Vasquez on 4/8/2009 at 13:04
Quote Posted by SD
Mental illness is generally what we call it when people have invisible friends, but oddly enough, not when that invisible friend is given the name Jehovah or Allah.
Yeah and kids believing in Santa Claus will inevitably "grow out of it", until that it's ha ha cute silly child taking make believe as reality, shh let's not spoil his delusions yet.
But has anyone ever really proved Santa Claus does
not exist? :sly:
the_grip on 4/8/2009 at 13:58
I hate to be so contrarian repeatedly here, but I'm trying to balance this out.
Religion is not mental illness. *Most* people, at least in my experience, engage in religion more as a form of cultural identification. In the US, you will see many people identify themselves as Christian but not mean it to the nth degree as it is represented here. Instead, it is more of a form of cultural identification and perhaps an avenue to express, as many have here, that there is a higher power or force or whatever, but Christianity is the stripe that is more familiar to them. Make sense?
This is a far cry from mental illness; although, strangely enough, religion is often a big part of the psychological construct in the mentally ill. I think that says more about the cultural identification as well, however. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else.
All that said, I do think the religions out there that do have practices that are misogynistic, anti-gay, anti-sex, and many other things are wack and can easily become modes of abuse. I do think humanity will intellectually evolve beyond them, and hopefully that day will come sooner rather than later. In the interim, however, I do think we should be fair and respectful to the people that are religious and show themselves to be fair and respectful themselves.
Beleg Cúthalion on 4/8/2009 at 14:19
Quote Posted by SD
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Then any institution or idea which unites people would be dangerous. Go on and try to abolish national identities, democracy and human rights.
That's some non sequitur right there. It's not people being united around a common cause or idea that's problematic - it's the cause or idea itself.
Well...no. The idea of Christianity is, in simple terms (by Jesus himself BTW in the NT, not that I'm usually able to throw Bible quotes around me just like that, but this I remembered) that the most important things are 1.) believing in god and 2.) loving all the people around you. To me this means that you cannot justify any violence with this religion. Augustinus was three hundred years later AFAIK. You have to make this kind of distinction between actual core elements of religion (the ideal part of it) and its execution (the practical part with lots of compromises). Once you're aware of this and have a reasonable knowledge of what belongs into which category, you'll see that the following statement is nonsense:
Quote:
Hence I still have a problem with the bits in Christianity which say that gay people should be killed or that I am headed straight for eternal misery, even if many Christians might not believe that.
That's my point, you're mixing up some society-based tradition with per se religious elements which are furthermore not the most important ones AFAIK. Probably a lot of people do the same and consider their strange rules religious but it's definitely wrong.
Quote:
If you don't believe in those things, why would one subscribe to a text that espouses to such things in the first place? You might not believe those things, but merely by dint of being a Christian and following the Bible, you would give sustenance to those that do.
Well, it's exactly because some people are able to make this distinction.
Another thing, I'm sick of this oh-so-confident argument that there's no god because we cannot see him. The deal with a god is that he/she/it's supernatural otherwise there would be no sense with all that god-thing at all. We as natural beings won't be able to
prove it so our attitudes are either believe or don't believe AND knowing that we'll never have this proof.
By the way we'll also never be able to talk about probability like Richard Dawkins apparently still thinks because we cannot apply natural methods to this supernatural thing. What Dawkins does is assuming that god must be natural as a part of the evolutionary process (chapter one of his God Delusion) and then "proving" that this god would be highly improbable. But all the time he is hiding from his not so careful readers that he's talking about his natural-god-hypothesis which he uses to counter the god-hypothesis (on which of course he never fails to point out that it's so doubtful). Basically you cannot prove or disprove fairies or unicorns either but I say they're less probable. Why? Because they are supposed to have a visible shape. And as long no one finds unicorns in the forest although they're supposed to be there their probability decreases.
Summa summarum you cannot condemn someone for believing or not believing but only for "doing bad things" (hurting people, all sorts of violence, yeah I like vivid examples), not being scientific like e.g. Dawkins and not making all the necessary distinctions and maaaaaaaaaaaaybe not knowing what his/her religion is in fact about. That's it. Oh, and I think "I kneel before no one" sounds incredibly stupid and even inhuman.
And there was one more thing... ah, forgot it. But I should write a Cardiacs-style song about people who claim to carry the torch of enlightenment and advance while being (intentively?) unable to use exact methods in their work.
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.
Stitch on 4/8/2009 at 14:21
Quote Posted by the_grip
Religion is not mental illness.
Of course it isn't. Even SD knows this, he's just aggressively overstating his argument in a way that completely undercuts it.
It's great to have him back :D
Muzman on 4/8/2009 at 14:36
The idea that people don't 'beleive' in atheism is really being pointlessly categorical. I'm pretty confident it can function as one for a lot of people. It can be a cause to further just like any other ideal. Just because technically it's supposed to be a lack of something instead of a system doesn't really mean anything. It still has system of thought-like aspects, group identity and so on.
I would love to see a new paradigm where politicising and grouping along creed (or lack there of) lines didn't happen at all. But it ain't here yet. For the moment you can't promote atheism (and that's exactly what is happening) without it being an old fashioned social movement.
fett on 4/8/2009 at 15:15
Quote Posted by Vivian
I consider 'Cowboy Song' to be empirical proof that God either doesn't exist or hates us
Weighed against Shape of My Heart, or Fragile, Sting IS God.
Queue on 4/8/2009 at 15:18
Or at the very least, a bad character in Dune.
Vasquez on 4/8/2009 at 15:46
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
2.) loving all the people around you.
If the Bible was only one sentence long, it would make hell of a lot more sense.
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
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.
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.)
SD on 4/8/2009 at 15:59
Quote Posted by the_grip
Religion is not mental illness. *Most* people, at least in my experience, engage in religion more as a form of cultural identification.
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.
Quote Posted by the_grip
and perhaps an avenue to express, as many have here, that there is a higher power or force or whatever, but Christianity is the stripe that is more familiar to them. Make sense?
Well, I certainly agree that people follow religions based upon what is culturally convenient rather than what they have actually figured out to be correct for themselves. One more proof that they are all false.
Quote Posted by the_grip
This is a far cry from mental illness... I do think we should be fair and respectful to the people that are religious and show themselves to be fair and respectful themselves.
If I raised a temple to Santa, would you consider me mentally sound and not subject my actions to ridicule? Would you hell!
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
you're mixing up some society-based tradition with per se religious elements
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.
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.
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Another thing, I'm sick of this oh-so-confident argument that there's no god because we cannot see him. The deal with a god is that he/she/it's supernatural otherwise there would be no sense with all that god-thing at all.
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...
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
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
What Dawkins does is assuming that god must be natural as a part of the evolutionary process (chapter one of his God Delusion) and then "proving" that this god would be highly improbable.
Yes, because intelligences don't generally spring fully-formed out of nowhere.
Quote Posted by Muzman
The idea that people don't 'beleive' in atheism is really being pointlessly categorical. I'm pretty confident it can function as one for a lot of people. It can be a cause to further just like any other ideal. Just because technically it's supposed to be a lack of something instead of a system doesn't really mean anything. It still has system of thought-like aspects, group identity and so on.
I would love to see a new paradigm where politicising and grouping along creed (or lack there of) lines didn't happen at all. But it ain't here yet. For the moment you can't promote atheism (and that's exactly what is happening) without it being an old fashioned social movement.
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. Everyone is born an atheist, after all - newborns can hardly said to be adhering to any group identity.
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.
jay pettitt on 4/8/2009 at 17:00
Sorry, I'm a bit late. I think people are trusting/gullible/easily lead/happy to please/too accepting of information that reinforces what they already think/keenly social/readily influenced over a long period while young/etc etc etc
I don't think that makes you ill. But being understandable doesn't make supernatural beliefs right.
Was that very patronising?
Quote:
I definitely don't believe in organized religeous systems and texts, i.e. the Bible or the rules of the Catholic Church. As for any spiritual phenomena itself, it gets more complex. I don't believe in an anthropormorphic god, and find it likely that any one explanation is wrong. But I cannot dismiss the possiblity of a creative force, a being more intelligent or complex than humanity. But, as others have said, it's not really relevant to my life one way or the other, so I don't put a lot of thought into it.
Given the infinite possibilities multiple universes and beyond. then yeah all sorts of wacky things might be possible. What's kind of entertaining though, is that my mum (who is awesome and I won't here a bad word against) seems to be an outright expert on it all and speaks with complete confidence and conviction. How cool is that!
Apparently there's this woman in the village who gives talks on Sundays or something...
