|
On February 19 2013 04:59 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 04:56 iamahydralisk wrote:
now that we have science that's able to answer most of the "tough" questions that couldn't be answered in the past Careful, buddy, or I'm gonna ask you some "tough" questions...  edit: be careful that, having cast off your priesthood, that you do not replace it with another, this time wearing labcoats. and @op, even though I like to needle atheists, as you know, lemme tell you that I'll take Dawkins over the megachurch any day of the week
So long as you are a reasonable skeptic, and never make any positive claims or negative claims without evidence, then it is impossible to turn into a religion. I guess atheism/agnosticism can be a semantic debate, but to me all agnostics are 100% safe (maybe not hardcore atheists who say: NO GOD EXISTS, which isn't logical)
It was also nice to hear of your experiences abstract. I feel sorry for religious people sometimes, just because of how flawed their logic must be to believe, and the mental gymnastics they need to do do defend faith...and we know by now that there are literally no good arguments left anymore. I look upon them kind of like (and I don't mean to draw any equivalency) old racists, or people who think that women belong in the kitchen. They will eventually die off, but while they're still alive, its just a sad cult that, unfortunately, still brainwashes children.
I think its fine if people have hope that there is a creator, and make efforts to contact that creator (or alien civilizations in general!). That way people can still keep their hope alive for an afterlife, or some metaphysical meaning in their lives.
I think the most interesting parts about religion are the experiences people reportedly have, as well as those experiences people have during near death experiences and being in comas, where they apparently watch the procedure and can tell the surgeon what happened in detail (not sure about the truth of these things, but respected surgeons seemed amazed). I have had quite a remarkable experience with an "entity" if I could put it that way, which I can't explain rationally. But I think its really those experiences that form the core of religion these days; stories of miraculous healings and the like.
The problem is people are just assuming that those things validate a very specific, complicated story in the bible rather than just taking them for what they are; unusual experience, that may imply the existence of something more, but that's it.
|
no, no, I'm an unreasonable skeptic. Un skeptic déraisonnable. Once you've seen Reason use Reason to destroy Reason, what is there left to believe in? Critique everything ruthlessly!
edit: EVERYONE makes claims without evidence. EVERYONE. The only true religion is to accept this fact!
|
On February 19 2013 05:21 sam!zdat wrote:
no, no, I'm an unreasonable skeptic. Un skeptic déraisonnable. Once you've seen Reason use Reason to destroy Reason, what is there left to believe in? Critique everything ruthlessly!
edit: EVERYONE makes claims without evidence. EVERYONE. The only true religion is to accept this fact!
I could believe that reason has its limits, I think that's an entirely reasonable proposition. And from my readings of David Hume, I know for a fact that some of the things we believe (observing a cause and effect many times leads to the expectation of the effect, following the cause in all future instances) are without a rational basis. But the fact is, these observations of "causative conjuctions" work, and they work very well as science, philosophy and many other fields show us. Since there is no way around it, we have to accept it and deal with it as best we can.
But it wouldn't make you unreasonable to accept this, or even live like this. And I don't understand how it would be religious to accept the truth of this claim. Accepting one's own limitations is a statement of reason, not religion. Religion would be saying that we have no limitations and that reason can solve everything.
And if you are implying that we can never be certain about the limits of our reason (which we use reason to discover), so any statement we make is without evidence, well then yes that's true as well. But I don't see what's wrong with making statements "to the best of our ability" in the present. If we find reasons in the future as to why we're wrong, then so be it. But if we proceed scientifically, so that everything is based on as much evidence as possible, then that is ultimately the only reasonable way to live, and the best you can do.
Uhmm..so basically to sum up: Even if you make claims without evidence, that's not a big deal if its unavoidable. You can still use reason to choose to believe things on the basis of what leads to the best outcomes, the most consistently, because there is no other choice (like with Hume's example).
That is very different from religion, or religious reasons for doing things. I would think the religious person would make decisions just based on sheer will without anything to ground it.
I guess that would be the definition for faith:
Pure, baseless belief.
In comparison, the reasonable person who sees flaws in reason:
Belief, based on necessity on what leads to the best quality of life (this way its based on reason in a *practical* way).
Also: I guess the most obvious problem, if I am to take you seriously, with being unreasonable is that there is literally nothing else your brain can use to evaluate whether a proposition is logical or not, good for you or not. You cannot be skeptical unless you make use of your reason, so you're forced to use what was seemingly "destroyed" by itself.
In the end, it clearly isn't destroyed. Reason works! Its displayed in the world around us all the time. Religion doesn't, and the same goes for all sorts of crack-pottery and superstitious beliefs 
|
On February 19 2013 05:00 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +As I grew older I morphed, or shall I say evolved, into quite the little intellectual. I enjoyed reading and debating. Not to sound too conceded i died at this typo xD interesting blog, very well written, 5 stars 
Bah, FU iphone. =)
|
On February 19 2013 05:00 docvoc wrote:
My statement:
As a guy who got isolated from his religion because of a choice to go to a different highschool, I'm just going to say that I'm very cynical of what you just wrote. I'm going to be abrasive here, not because I hate you or think that you are some kind of moron, but because you missed the point despite all your learning. When I got isolated, I was attached, slandered, but nothing physically harming ever happened. While I was gone, I was bitter, angry, and most of all disappointed in my faith. I lost it for a while, and to be honest I will never allow myself to go back to the community without a bit of cynicality there. However, that is not the point of religion. That was what happens when people mix power and religion, that never goes well. The point of religion is to teach people to be moral. Whether or not I agree with Christian doctrine, in a Jewish view, does not matter. Being a good person means following the laws and codes that god has set forth. Some of them are antiquated (until the end of the second temple and more recently with the creation of head rabbis for states) and they get tossed out, while others are kept for tradition. That said, the point is to be a moral person. Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and even Scientologists all believe that. You did not lose your religion, you lost the faith you had because you went too far into an area that you can't do anything with. You can't prove god, you can only have faith that what he said is how you should live your life. The Old Testament has some history to it, but first and foremost it is a codex.
My final thoughts:
I'm younger than you, but I spent all of my life growing up in a significantly more orthodox environment. I am personally not orthodox, and neither is my family, but I spent my formative years in school there, living a double life. What I questioned is what you questioned and the answer I was given by my Rabbis varied, with one exception. They all said that god is a matter of faith. To some its just a natural idea that, "of course he is real, l0l," while to others it was a more sympathetic, "I believe he is real because I have faith in him," or something to that effect. When you try to rationalize and prove his existence you fail; like all the mathematicians of the past who tried to prove that 1=3, no one will ever prove god's existence. You can believe what he said was right, but you can't ever say to anyone else that beyond a shadow of a doubt you can prove he is real.
My background:
I spent about 9 learning religious doctrine. From the time I was in school until I left for highschool, and even in highschool (though significantly less so) I learned religious Jewish doctrine (I'm talking about Yeshiva level stuff here, not your generic conservative or reform stuff). I can defend my faith to the end of the earth, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you ask questions, you need to find what fits you.
EDIT: I'm just editing bits in and out because I think the original was WAYYY to rude.
If the goal of religion is to teach people to be moral beings it fails quite hard. Why is it then that some of the worst travesties in human history have been done under the banner of religion? To paraphrase a Hitchens argument once again, name one moral action or uttered phrase which can only be done by one who holds religious belief.
|
On February 19 2013 06:06 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 05:00 docvoc wrote:
My statement:
As a guy who got isolated from his religion because of a choice to go to a different highschool, I'm just going to say that I'm very cynical of what you just wrote. I'm going to be abrasive here, not because I hate you or think that you are some kind of moron, but because you missed the point despite all your learning. When I got isolated, I was attached, slandered, but nothing physically harming ever happened. While I was gone, I was bitter, angry, and most of all disappointed in my faith. I lost it for a while, and to be honest I will never allow myself to go back to the community without a bit of cynicality there. However, that is not the point of religion. That was what happens when people mix power and religion, that never goes well. The point of religion is to teach people to be moral. Whether or not I agree with Christian doctrine, in a Jewish view, does not matter. Being a good person means following the laws and codes that god has set forth. Some of them are antiquated (until the end of the second temple and more recently with the creation of head rabbis for states) and they get tossed out, while others are kept for tradition. That said, the point is to be a moral person. Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and even Scientologists all believe that. You did not lose your religion, you lost the faith you had because you went too far into an area that you can't do anything with. You can't prove god, you can only have faith that what he said is how you should live your life. The Old Testament has some history to it, but first and foremost it is a codex.
My final thoughts:
I'm younger than you, but I spent all of my life growing up in a significantly more orthodox environment. I am personally not orthodox, and neither is my family, but I spent my formative years in school there, living a double life. What I questioned is what you questioned and the answer I was given by my Rabbis varied, with one exception. They all said that god is a matter of faith. To some its just a natural idea that, "of course he is real, l0l," while to others it was a more sympathetic, "I believe he is real because I have faith in him," or something to that effect. When you try to rationalize and prove his existence you fail; like all the mathematicians of the past who tried to prove that 1=3, no one will ever prove god's existence. You can believe what he said was right, but you can't ever say to anyone else that beyond a shadow of a doubt you can prove he is real.
My background:
I spent about 9 learning religious doctrine. From the time I was in school until I left for highschool, and even in highschool (though significantly less so) I learned religious Jewish doctrine (I'm talking about Yeshiva level stuff here, not your generic conservative or reform stuff). I can defend my faith to the end of the earth, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you ask questions, you need to find what fits you.
EDIT: I'm just editing bits in and out because I think the original was WAYYY to rude. If the goal of religion is to teach people to be moral beings it fails quite hard. Why is it then that some of the worst travesties in human history have been done under the banner of religion? To paraphrase a Hitchens argument once again, name one moral action or uttered phrase which can only be done by one who holds religious belief.
I think that argument might be hard to make, because its possible that religion prevented people from committing atrocities in many other instances whether its due to the fear of God, or because of the enforced moral commandments that people were "forced" to follow. And those types of statistics are hard to determine.
I think Hitchens is right that an atheist can do everything a religious person can, but he's missing a rather crucial piece of the puzzle, which is can atheism prevent people from doing bad things the same way religion can? So are we better off with religion?
Also just because specific religions had failures in their moral teachings doesn't mean others have had the same results, or that all religions will have the same results. I think the Sikh's (although they wouldn't technically classify themselves as a religion, as they don't have any enforced rules), are a group of people who historically can be shown to have upheld some very strong, positive moral values based on their teachings, and held to those teachings even when they were in power. This is probably true, and potentially true, for many other relatively unknown religions.
But anyway, its kind of funny that Sikhs are really identical to humanists in terms of their moral values. So do we really *need* religion? The Sikh's belief in the divine doesn't seem to ground any of their moral principles. If it all just stems from reason, then its an argument as to why religion is unnecessary (except for maybe that belief in the divine part, which may be important to many people who need religion for those reasons).
|
On February 19 2013 05:54 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 05:21 sam!zdat wrote:
no, no, I'm an unreasonable skeptic. Un skeptic déraisonnable. Once you've seen Reason use Reason to destroy Reason, what is there left to believe in? Critique everything ruthlessly!
edit: EVERYONE makes claims without evidence. EVERYONE. The only true religion is to accept this fact! Religion would be saying that we have no limitations and that reason can solve everything.
Yes, and people go around saying this! That's what I'm trying to communicate
And if you are implying that we can never be certain about the limits of our reason (which we use reason to discover), so any statement we make is without evidence, well then yes that's true as well. But I don't see what's wrong with making statements "to the best of our ability" in the present. If we find reasons in the future as to why we're wrong, then so be it. But if we proceed scientifically, so that everything is based on as much evidence as possible, then that is ultimately the only reasonable way to live, and the best you can do.
No, I think expecting evidence for truth claims of all kinds is entirely unreasonable. There are some things for which it is a fool's errand to attempt to find "evidence." It's simply no way to go about doing things.
Uhmm..so basically to sum up: Even if you make claims without evidence, that's not a big deal if its unavoidable. You can still use reason to choose to believe things on the basis of what leads to the best outcomes, the most consistently, because there is no other choice (like with Hume's example).
I agree this.
That is very different from religion, or religious reasons for doing things. I would think the religious person would make decisions just based on sheer will without anything to ground it.
but disagree with this. It is not different from religion. It is, however, different from debased religion! Not all religion is revealed religion.
Also: I guess the most obvious problem, if I am to take you seriously, with being unreasonable is that there is literally nothing else your brain can use to evaluate whether a proposition is logical or not, good for you or not. You cannot be skeptical unless you make use of your reason, so you're forced to use what was seemingly "destroyed" by itself.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be reasonable. I'm just saying you should also be unreasonable!
In the end, it clearly isn't destroyed. Reason works! Its displayed in the world around us all the time. Religion doesn't, and the same goes for all sorts of crack-pottery and superstitious beliefs
Religion absolutely works. What are you possibly talking about? they both work. The problem is just when people get confused about what things religion does, and what things reason does, and try to use reason to do religious things, or try to use religion to to reasonable things.
|
That argument which I used is his counter to people who claim that the religious holds some moral superiority to non believers. Morality is innate in all mentally sane people and is not derived from ones belief in a higher power. Atheists have done horrible things just like the religious. However, religious texts have a long history of inciting violence, genocide, slavery, domestic abuse, genital mutilation, patriarchy, and inequality which otherwise would not have happened.
|
On February 19 2013 06:29 ImAbstracT wrote:
Morality is innate in all mentally sane people
I promise you, it is not, and this belief is just as foolish as your prior belief in the inerrancy of scripture.
|
On February 19 2013 07:07 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 06:29 ImAbstracT wrote:
Morality is innate in all mentally sane people I promise you, it is not, and this belief is just as foolish as your prior belief in the inerrancy of scripture.
How so? Are we not, by nature, moral beings with a sense of right and wrong? Sure, their are some exceptions, but that doesn't negate the whole.
|
No, of course we're not. If you don't believe that, go read some literature and you will be rapidly disabused of this notion.
You have just transferred your worship for revealed religion to the assumption of the natural goodness of man. It's still an article of faith. Things are far more complicated than this. Go learn about primate sexuality and dominance hierarchies and stuff like that, if you really think that humans are naturally good. It's absolutely not true. We must learn to be good.
|
On February 19 2013 07:39 sam!zdat wrote:
No, of course we're not. If you don't believe that, go read some literature and you will be rapidly disabused of this notion.
You have just transferred your worship for revealed religion to the assumption of the natural goodness of man. It's still an article of faith. Things are far more complicated than this. Go learn about primate sexuality and dominance hierarchies and stuff like that, if you really think that humans are naturally good. It's absolutely not true. We must learn to be good.
I never said we are naturally good, but we are naturally moral. Moral in the sense that we know right from wrong. I guess you can say we are good when our actions act in accordance with our sense of morality. I claim to be no expert on how evolution has molded our ethics. There is only so much we can learn from the observance of primates; we are the higher ones of course.
|
On February 19 2013 07:47 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 07:39 sam!zdat wrote:
No, of course we're not. If you don't believe that, go read some literature and you will be rapidly disabused of this notion.
You have just transferred your worship for revealed religion to the assumption of the natural goodness of man. It's still an article of faith. Things are far more complicated than this. Go learn about primate sexuality and dominance hierarchies and stuff like that, if you really think that humans are naturally good. It's absolutely not true. We must learn to be good. I never said we are naturally good, but we are naturally moral. Moral in the sense that we know right from wrong.
Ludicrous.
You might find this to be some interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
edit: Also, go read the Iliad, and tell me those people thought about right and wrong in the same way we do. Then go read, oh, I don't know, Dostoyevski, and compare notes.
edit: also, this: http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/eeb-122/lecture-1
|
On February 19 2013 07:51 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 07:47 ImAbstracT wrote:On February 19 2013 07:39 sam!zdat wrote:
No, of course we're not. If you don't believe that, go read some literature and you will be rapidly disabused of this notion.
You have just transferred your worship for revealed religion to the assumption of the natural goodness of man. It's still an article of faith. Things are far more complicated than this. Go learn about primate sexuality and dominance hierarchies and stuff like that, if you really think that humans are naturally good. It's absolutely not true. We must learn to be good. I never said we are naturally good, but we are naturally moral. Moral in the sense that we know right from wrong. Ludicrous. You might find this to be some interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_developmentedit: Also, go read the Iliad, and tell me those people thought about right and wrong in the same way we do. Then go read, oh, I don't know, Dostoyevski, and compare notes. edit: also, this: http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/eeb-122/lecture-1
Or read some John Locke, old friend
|
John Locke is a moron
edit: nature is a battlefield. there are no ethics in evolution, there is only evolution.
|
On February 19 2013 07:57 sam!zdat wrote:
John Locke is a moron
edit: nature is a battlefield. there are no ethics in evolution, there is only evolution.
He's brilliant for his time, of course.
|
Oh, I'm sure the man was clever enough. I think his philosophy is worthless, though. But I'm really the wrong person to ask about John Locke, I guess.
|
On February 19 2013 08:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, I'm sure the man was clever enough. I think his philosophy is worthless, though. But I'm really the wrong person to ask about John Locke, I guess.
He's valuable as a first study into the empiricism, and to "set up" your mind for what Berkeley does, and in turn what Hume does. I find his realism philosophy like an unfortunate implausibility. I don't want the opposite, the idealist world, to be true, but it's hard not to find skepticism in his veil of ideas. In moral philosophy he argues along the line that you were, that we don't have right or wrong imprinted in us, and that it needs to be taught. I've heard his political philosophy is/was very influential, but I haven't studied it yet. So I definitely don't think he's a moron, and he's quite important to learn as a subtext to other epistemological discussions.
|
On February 19 2013 06:29 ImAbstracT wrote:
Morality is innate in all mentally sane people
As a moral non-realist, I'm outraged.
|
Fair enough, Roe, you win, I'll leave poor old Johnny alone. I'm not really familiar with his moral philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
