|
On July 14 2008 04:05 Polemarch wrote:
Here's my secular attempt at answering questions about meaning, etc.
There's no external source of meaning. In effect, it's pretty much up to any given individual to find what matters to them and extract meaning out of that. Different people might come up with different answers.
Things that are important to me are:
- Living happily and honestly
- Continually learning and understanding things
- Helping others to achieve what's important to them (rather than imposing my values)
There is no point in getting involved in that argument. It achieves nothing and isn't a sensible approach.
By allowing yourself to be drawn into that argument you make a big mistake.
It's part of the smokescreen that religion puts up to cloud the real question with enough nonsense it never gets answered.
The only way to debate is to start from the point of view that you won't disagree there might be a God, but that it is religion that is most unlikely.
Ask what brand of religion they adhere, then ask why they are so sure that their SPECIFIC type is right.
Is there historic evidence?
Is there evidence in todays world that their God exists?
Is there evidence that their actions, such as prayer, make a difference?
Of course there isn't any evidence, at which point they will claim to have had a religious "experience".
There's many ways to tackle that, I like to point out that every other religion has followers that claim the same. So there isn't anything special or meaningful about their experience.
Although you will stump them you will still most likely won't have an effect. Because the perspective they come from is one that says "What have I forgotten?" "What rebuttal have I missed out?" They will most likely never consider the possibility they are wrong. That's just the way the human mind thinks.
This evidence causes them to feel unhappy, I like to think it's a form of trauma.
Certainly it was applicable to myself.
The stages are shock/denial, anger/blame, grief/fear, bargaining, and acceptance/resolution.
Getting past the denial stage is effectively almost impossible if you don't want to get past it.
You can then become very angry at being tricked, you can become afraid etc....
|
On July 14 2008 04:07 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 04:00 DrainX wrote:
By religion I mean an organized institution claiming the existence of some supernatural being which they worship. i meant(taken from dictionary.com) "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" AKA a non-bastardized meaning of religion 
oh ok... that explains the differences previously then, it's pretty much a tautology. i think in the context of this thread most other people are using the word religion differently though, so it might make discussion easier if we follow the bastardized definition.
so everybody basically agrees. this thread might be imba because all the more religious people are at church, haha. 
|
On July 14 2008 04:25 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 04:05 Polemarch wrote:
Here's my secular attempt at answering questions about meaning, etc.
There's no external source of meaning. In effect, it's pretty much up to any given individual to find what matters to them and extract meaning out of that. Different people might come up with different answers.
Things that are important to me are:
- Living happily and honestly
- Continually learning and understanding things
- Helping others to achieve what's important to them (rather than imposing my values) There is no point in getting involved in that argument. It achieves nothing and isn't a sensible approach. By allowing yourself to be drawn into that argument you make a big mistake. It's part of the smokescreen that religion puts up to cloud the real question with enough nonsense it never gets answered. The only way to debate is to start from the point of view that you won't disagree there might be a God, but that it is religion that is most unlikely. Ask what brand of religion they adhere, then ask why they are so sure that their SPECIFIC type is right. Is there historic evidence? Is there evidence in todays world that their God exists? Is there evidence that their actions, such as prayer, make a difference? Of course there isn't any evidence, at which point they will claim to have had a religious "experience". There's many ways to tackle that, I like to point out that every other religion has followers that claim the same. So there isn't anything special or meaningful about their experience. Although you will stump them you will still most likely won't have an effect. Because the perspective they come from is one that says "What have I forgotten?" "What rebuttal have I missed out?" They will most likely never consider the possibility they are wrong. That's just the way the human mind thinks. This evidence causes them to feel unhappy, I like to think it's a form of trauma. Certainly it was applicable to myself. The stages are shock/denial, anger/blame, grief/fear, bargaining, and acceptance/resolution. Getting past the denial stage is effectively almost impossible if you don't want to get past it. You can then become very angry at being tricked, you can become afraid etc....
I agree with your tips in the context of a debate, but the questions of meaning/purpose are interesting even in a discussion among non-religious people. What do you think about those?
|
Katowice25012 Posts
Dawkins spoke here a few months back, and it was pretty interesting. I really really get the feeling, though, that he knows he struck a chord with the whole God thing and is just doing it to be controversial at this point. The guy has an aura of pure hatred and anger about him when he walks around a room. He was in the middle of a big college speech tour though, so maybe he was just burnt out.
The stuff that made him famous is super solid research and well worth a read, but a lot of the shit he preaches publicly is just as dogmatic and single minded as the things he is against. Modern western science is a religion. Discuss.
The emphasis the western world likes to place on rational thought is ridiculous when applied to social structure and theory. Humans are not rational beings and so trying to "fix" society with rational progressions rarely has positive effects. I highly disagree with his thinking of "superstitious belief" and how it impacts society - there is just as much good as bad, and a certain amount of public "thought viruses" are needed in order to keep a cohesive society. Traditional religious instutions exist to tie people together, whereas current science tends to pull them apart and ultimately results in disconnected society and skyrocketing rates of mental illness.
|
On July 14 2008 04:33 Polemarch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 04:25 Klive5ive wrote:On July 14 2008 04:05 Polemarch wrote:
Here's my secular attempt at answering questions about meaning, etc.
There's no external source of meaning. In effect, it's pretty much up to any given individual to find what matters to them and extract meaning out of that. Different people might come up with different answers.
Things that are important to me are:
- Living happily and honestly
- Continually learning and understanding things
- Helping others to achieve what's important to them (rather than imposing my values) There is no point in getting involved in that argument. It achieves nothing and isn't a sensible approach. By allowing yourself to be drawn into that argument you make a big mistake. It's part of the smokescreen that religion puts up to cloud the real question with enough nonsense it never gets answered. The only way to debate is to start from the point of view that you won't disagree there might be a God, but that it is religion that is most unlikely. Ask what brand of religion they adhere, then ask why they are so sure that their SPECIFIC type is right. Is there historic evidence? Is there evidence in todays world that their God exists? Is there evidence that their actions, such as prayer, make a difference? Of course there isn't any evidence, at which point they will claim to have had a religious "experience". There's many ways to tackle that, I like to point out that every other religion has followers that claim the same. So there isn't anything special or meaningful about their experience. Although you will stump them you will still most likely won't have an effect. Because the perspective they come from is one that says "What have I forgotten?" "What rebuttal have I missed out?" They will most likely never consider the possibility they are wrong. That's just the way the human mind thinks. This evidence causes them to feel unhappy, I like to think it's a form of trauma. Certainly it was applicable to myself. The stages are shock/denial, anger/blame, grief/fear, bargaining, and acceptance/resolution. Getting past the denial stage is effectively almost impossible if you don't want to get past it. You can then become very angry at being tricked, you can become afraid etc.... I agree with your tips in the context of a debate, but the questions of meaning/purpose are interesting even in a discussion among non-religious people. What do you think about those?
Personally I don't think it's an interesting discussion, I don't believe it's a question with an answer.
I think religious people would have you believe that you need a purpose and then even more astoundingly claim they have one themselves.
In reality I don't think a person needs a purpose, I think we should be content to fulfill our own goals as dictated by our own emotions.
Every person has a certain amount of logic(some more than others), but then alongside that lies emotions and feelings that create goals, drive to complete those goals and a sense of achievement when done. These can perhaps be called personality.
To give yourself an overwhelming purpose is to predict your emotions. I find it quite exciting that I don't know how I'm going to feel at any time.
|
On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote:
Dawkins spoke here a few months back, and it was pretty interesting. I really really get the feeling, though, that he knows he struck a chord with the whole God thing and is just doing it to be controversial at this point. The guy has an aura of pure hatred and anger about him when he walks around a room. He was in the middle of a big college speech tour though, so maybe he was just burnt out.
The stuff that made him famous is super solid research and well worth a read, but a lot of the shit he preaches publicly is just as dogmatic and single minded as the things he is against. Modern western science is a religion. Discuss.
*edit* Read the post below.
|
United States43199 Posts
On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote:
Dawkins spoke here a few months back, and it was pretty interesting. I really really get the feeling, though, that he knows he struck a chord with the whole God thing and is just doing it to be controversial at this point. The guy has an aura of pure hatred and anger about him when he walks around a room. He was in the middle of a big college speech tour though, so maybe he was just burnt out.
The stuff that made him famous is super solid research and well worth a read, but a lot of the shit he preaches publicly is just as dogmatic and single minded as the things he is against. Modern western science is a religion. Discuss.
If I claimed something to be true because science teaches me that and you challenged me on it I'd not have to resort to violence in order to prove my point. I could simply find the research that led science to the consensus in question and demonstrate the experiment. People don't accept science because they believe in it, there is no faith involved, the core is always solid repeatable research.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On July 14 2008 04:53 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote:
Dawkins spoke here a few months back, and it was pretty interesting. I really really get the feeling, though, that he knows he struck a chord with the whole God thing and is just doing it to be controversial at this point. The guy has an aura of pure hatred and anger about him when he walks around a room. He was in the middle of a big college speech tour though, so maybe he was just burnt out.
The stuff that made him famous is super solid research and well worth a read, but a lot of the shit he preaches publicly is just as dogmatic and single minded as the things he is against. Modern western science is a religion. Discuss. If I claimed something to be true because science teaches me that and you challenged me on it I'd not have to resort to violence in order to prove my point. I could simply find the research that led science to the consensus in question and demonstrate the experiment. People don't accept science because they believe in it, there is no faith involved, the core is always solid repeatable research.
This is less true than people want to believe. Coronary bypass surgery and intensive care units have no empirical evidence that they help people at all, yet they are done tends of thousands of times a year throughout the country. Science is governed by the same notions of how popular thoughts spread that religion is attacked for.
Regardless, I was referring to the fact that what Dawkins tends to speak of lately is idealogical in nature and he been backing away from the more concrete things his original books were about. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but rather the way in which he tries to accomplish it.
(also i added another paragraph to my original post ok)
|
On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote:
The emphasis the western world likes to place on rational thought is ridiculous when applied to social structure and theory. Humans are not rational beings and so trying to "fix" society with rational progressions rarely has positive effects. I highly disagree with his thinking of "superstitious belief" and how it impacts society - there is just as much good as bad, and a certain amount of public "thought viruses" are needed in order to keep a cohesive society. Traditional religious instutions exist to tie people together, whereas current science tends to pull them apart and ultimately results in disconnected society and skyrocketing rates of mental illness.
In my country there are around 85% atheists/agnostics and it works perfectly fine. And even if religion made people happier, which I highly doubt (Wouldn't make me happier at least), that doesn't make it true.
|
There is Science that can be applied using the Scientific Method and Science that you can't (Theories) other than just assuming and this involves Faith, no matter how "logical/ intelligent" you think it is, a certain amount of faith has to be involved in order to justify your theory . Im not saying thats a bad thing, but faith is involved. Generalizing that all science can be observed, experimented, etc its just not true.
btw im not here to debate anymore, this religion debates are extremely time-consuming for me as and doesn't change people's original stands no matter how long or how right people think they are. ill go to sleep now ;]
|
On July 14 2008 04:42 Klive5ive wrote:
Personally I don't think it's an interesting discussion, I don't believe it's a question with an answer.
I think religious people would have you believe that you need a purpose and then even more astoundingly claim they have one themselves.
In reality I don't think a person needs a purpose, I think we should be content to fulfill our own goals as dictated by our own emotions.
Every person has a certain amount of logic(some more than others), but then alongside that lies emotions and feelings that create goals, drive to complete those goals and a sense of achievement when done. These can perhaps be called personality.
To give yourself an overwhelming purpose is to predict your emotions. I find it quite exciting that I don't know how I'm going to feel at any time.
I think the answer we share of there being no set meaning/purpose is an extremely interesting statement. It doesn't have enough truthiness to really spread as-is though.
I do think a person should choose long-term goals that are akin to purpose/meaning though. I say this not in a dogmatic way... but based on the observation that on average, people who do have solid long-term goals feel seem more satisfied and happy over the long run, and more likely to make a positive impact on others. I know it was definitely true for me. Long-term goals/purpose help people push through the trap of doing only the immediately most enjoyable things and ending up as drug addicts or just bored and mediocre.
|
The problem with dawkins is that he often bares iggnorance himself, he uses random fanatisim to support his arguments. Alot of the points he raises only people like Ted Haggert would actualy agree with. In his video "The root of all evil?" He interviews creationists and homophobic eveangleical preahcers but doesnt dare step into a thelogical college or have an a peice of a interview with some-one like McGraph. Personaly Peter Hitchen's debates and points make much more sense to me rather than the almost ideoligy richard dawkin's abides by. Many ecomplished authors and sceintist and intelectuals have written books in counter to his and he fails to react or give them a proper answer to thier counter argument. In fact I'll quote his arrogance "A dog doesn't statisfy his fleas". I understand that many would be fustrated when arguing with close minded people and end up ignorning them. And I'm sure Richard Dawkins belives that he says things like this becasue "he's heard all the counter arugemnts before" or "Its stupid to argue at all because.." But I'd like to know when he actually started this idea where he thinks thats hes thought out every possibilty and idea so hes not going to gratify others with answers. But i think that perhaps hes always had this idea, from the age of about 10-15. Like most others, the idea of rebelling against society and his parents, having a knoweldege that others dont, not feeling insecure about being the naive one.
I alost despise the way athiest rationalise emotion , marriage and the law. I'm sorry but its totaly flawed. The feeling that stops you from killing disabeld people to better the human race is not some dam chemical in your head which is meant for another purpose. The reason we don't have sex with children who have gone through puberty who are under 16 when we are over 20 is not because again of a confusion of a chemical that's meant to better teamwork. We don't marry, love, have children with, (in alot of cases) stay faithfull, and even die for a loved one just because of a chemcal in our head. Emotion doesnt feel the same as hormores, love doesnt feel the same as sexual desire or hunger, they arn't the same.
The funniest comment though are the so called "logic" people come up with religion because of course it can't be that your happier. I love this one especaily "they want to control you" .... lol. Or "It's a way of making money" or even "It's a joke".
But let me digress. I by no-means would ever say that you should pick up the bible, read it, and belive. I think only a fool would do this. Basicly you have to ask questions to start with before you confirm to religions. Why are we here, and the msot important one is how did we get here. By this i mean reseraching the big bang, thinking long deep hours about logic and emotion, forumalting your dessicsion. One major part is wether you belive or not that emotion is beyond normal human everything things. Also you have to question the existance of your conciousness and wether it as well is specail and unique, and wether something as brutal and sceintificaly mathamicaly logical as nature could produce a concious and emotions.These questions when reading sound stupid im sure, you can't sum up even the questions in writing let alone the answers, but i would hope you understand what questions i mean(philosophy is the nearest to describing them i guess). Once you decide this, IF you decide that there has to be at least soem sort of greater being you can then look at dominations of religion. Personnaly i found the denomination to be the one i was born into, and i can see how this sounds very much like "ah he didnt differ from his parents" . Trust me i question my faith ALOT. But it came down really to my religous expeirence. If you don't know what it is here goes. Just imagine a feeling thats better than happyness, better than love, better than freindship, infact its not just a "feeling". It's a bit like a fucking happiness nuke going off inside, its like nothing you've ever friggin felt on this earth. You can't move, you cant speak, you can only smile and feel like the happiest man alive. It's much better than any adreline rush you've ever felt, infact its not in the same bullpark. There is no word AT ALL on this world ever invented to explain what the holy spirit feeling like.Trust me I've questioned it countless times during and after these expeirnces, and im usually skeptical myself but i just CANNOT deny that this feeling is not of this world. Trust me i really struggle with it, i always have problems with the fact i don't have prayers answered and i pretty much never see "signs". I prayed about everything important in my life from career chocies to emotions and got nothing. But again i go back to that feeling and i can't deny, i can't even question. And i can understand why this means nothing to you but it should explain party why i cant be told its not true, because i didnt "decide it" it's just true, its mroe real than anything on this earth.
I'm not try to get you to reconsider you're beliefs/ lack there-of, but im just trying to explain where i am coming from in my standpoint on this issue.
Sorry for the masive amount of typos but im very tierd right now.
|
On July 14 2008 05:13 ilj.psa wrote:
There is Science that can be applied using the Scientific Method and Science that you can't (Theories) other than just assuming and this involves Faith,
This is very very very very wrong. I can't stress it enough. You don't know what science is. Now I could try to explain it, but it would be a waste of time because it's such common knowledge you can find all over.
|
On July 14 2008 05:09 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote:
The emphasis the western world likes to place on rational thought is ridiculous when applied to social structure and theory. Humans are not rational beings and so trying to "fix" society with rational progressions rarely has positive effects. I highly disagree with his thinking of "superstitious belief" and how it impacts society - there is just as much good as bad, and a certain amount of public "thought viruses" are needed in order to keep a cohesive society. Traditional religious instutions exist to tie people together, whereas current science tends to pull them apart and ultimately results in disconnected society and skyrocketing rates of mental illness. In my country there are around 85% atheists/agnostics and it works perfectly fine. And even if religion made people happier, which I highly doubt (Wouldn't make me happier at least), that doesn't make it true.
His point stands though, religion is only one of many possible placebo pills the general public needs in order to act reasonably enough, and it is true that religion works more or less, as has been tested for several thousands of years (humankind still exists). So it is natural to expect the usual uneasiness people have when dumping something that has served its purpose for so long.
It would be interesting to know by the way, how the percentage of religious people has changed in your country over the past say 100 years, just to have an idea how long an atheism/agnosticism (which are different things actually) dominated society has been tested to exist harmonioulsy.
|
On July 14 2008 05:09 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 04:42 heyoka wrote:
The emphasis the western world likes to place on rational thought is ridiculous when applied to social structure and theory. Humans are not rational beings and so trying to "fix" society with rational progressions rarely has positive effects. I highly disagree with his thinking of "superstitious belief" and how it impacts society - there is just as much good as bad, and a certain amount of public "thought viruses" are needed in order to keep a cohesive society. Traditional religious instutions exist to tie people together, whereas current science tends to pull them apart and ultimately results in disconnected society and skyrocketing rates of mental illness. In my country there are around 85% atheists/agnostics and it works perfectly fine. And even if religion made people happier, which I highly doubt (Wouldn't make me happier at least), that doesn't make it true.
You made that number up, and provide no basis for it. I thought you represented the scientific side?
And as for science being the new western religion, that is a very interesting idea. Now, it will all come down to how we decide to define religion, and I am pretty sure that we will reach no consensus on the matter. My own definition would be in line with "a teaching that tries answer the questions about the MEANING of life and death, without ever explicitly doing so." I bet quite a few here would argue otherwise, but none of the "big" religions will give an explicit answer to the meaning of life.
Now, as far as science goes, the "meaning" of just about anything is a pointless subject. Not because humans doesn't have a very real need to discuss "the meaning," but because it is something that can neither be verified, nor falsified, and therefor outside the scope of science. To use a scientific therm, they are incommensurable.
Now, the problem, imho, begins when some people, such as Dawkins, try and actually make their scientific agnostisism in to a religion, something it cannot reasonably by said to be. The next problem is that various religious groups, in the us and otherwise, try and to the opposite thing, i.e. making religion into science, which is even worse. With the very agressive rhetorics that Dawkins use, he is driving this debate on, where it should just have been publicly renounced, and then ignored. When you so openly challange religious people the way he does, he is bound to spark this kind of reaction, actually strengthening the cause he is figthing.
As for he incredibly silly debate between religion/atheism, I'm sure that no side are more likely to be persuaded than the other, and that neither like the other side activly trying to convert them.
Lastly, all religion starts in the question about a meaning, and a search for that meaning. Just because you, in this part of your life, do not feel the need to search for an answer, does not mean that that need doesn't exist, for others, or wont exist for you in the future. Whatever answer you find in the end is surely better than never asking that question at all.
|
On July 14 2008 05:47 BlackStar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 05:13 ilj.psa wrote:
There is Science that can be applied using the Scientific Method and Science that you can't (Theories) other than just assuming and this involves Faith, This is very very very very wrong. I can't stress it enough. You don't know what science is. Now I could try to explain it, but it would be a waste of time because it's such common knowledge you can find all over.
When people defend science they describe an idealized process of knowledge seeking and constant awareness of the impossibility of perfect knowledge.
When people use what they call "science" to support their political positions or sell products, they reference people who call themselves scientists without living up to that ideal, and act as if they are offering perfect knowledge.
You can't blame people for distrusting science when a quarter of what is presented to them as such in their daily lives is unmitigated bullshit and another half is rampant speculation.
|
RedMourn can you name a few of the books that counter the ones from Richard Dawkins? I've seen the lecture from 2006 and I must say he is pretty solid :D.
But I'd like to see many facets of his viewing of the world so that's why I'm asking for other opinions except himself.
|
I can't blame him for getting his education in Burundi, if he did.
On July 14 2008 06:00 Fwmeh wrote:
You made that number up, and provide no basis for it. I thought you represented the scientific side?
Sweden is famous for that number. He didn't make it up.You just made up he made it up. I also remember 85%. But if it's actually off a bit it's because he misremembered.
Of course you shouldn't trust his word if you think it's an absurd number. But I think it was a safe assumption on his part that people wouldn't dispute it. He mentioned it only to remember us.
|
On July 14 2008 06:10 Angel[BTL] wrote:
RedMourn can you name a few of the books that counter the ones from Richard Dawkins? I've seen the lecture from 2006 and I must say he is pretty solid :D.
But I'd like to see many facets of his viewing of the world so that's why I'm asking for other opinions except himself.
The Dawkins Delusion is a book written by a fellow professor of RIchard at oxford, he was an athiest and converted to CoE. Theres loads of others, look it up on amazon.
|
I just recently finished reading The God Delusion and started watching his documentaries. I love Dawkins' stuff its fantastic
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
