Author Topic: RELIGION  (Read 32592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #90 on: July 14, 2016, 09:12:28 am »
+1
It's hard to argue in favor of religion when almost any kind of terrorist action is backed by religious beliefs of martyrdom and glory, and receiving the appreciation of God. Not only it denies scientific approaches, but it promotes backwardness, skewed views ("believe in our book, not the other 1999 religions and their books" kind of rhetoric) and so on and so forth.

If religion worked in the past, it shouldn't work now, it should have no place in our society. Education (real education) should have a place in our society. Philosophy should have a place, but not religion, which is based on imaginary tales portraited as facts of reality. If religion had "good sides" back in the day, we should blame it on human nature, not on the "holiness of religion", that it worked to improve society. Stalin was an atheist, but I don't think he killed people saying "this is for Non-God!", last time I checked, he wasn't yelling Allahu-akhbar and detonating himself. He wasn't making crusades, he didn't wear "Gut mit uns" on his uniform la Nazi Germany soldiers did (Christians), and most importantly, he wasn't killing people because his personal sky-God told him to.

There's a big difference. This "Stalin was an atheist" so-called point I keep hearing about is idiotic.

Again, you have a really simple view of things.  That's fine.  But if you actually do what your espousing and get highly educated in the field your speaking about you would gain a nuanced understanding of the role religion plays in terrorism and see that the link your describing is false. 

Instead you denigrate religion and use insulting terms like "sky-god" to prove your point.  This is low.  If you want to be educated and have real debate you would learn the first thing to do is to stop doing this.   Your point should stand on its own - you shouldn't need insulting terms for it to be true.  It's like trying to have a political debate with someone about Clinton and the first thing they say is "shillary".  Just makes intelligent thought turn off.

You don't have to like the point about Stalin.  But again calling it a "so-called" point doesn't make it false.  The point stands that a man without religion can be especially cruel and terrorize lots of people.  You ignored my other point and there are many others - the Marxist atheist Tamil Tigers who invented suicide bombing.  The nationalist Japanese kamikaze fighters (nominally Shinto Buddhists but no belief in a personal God or afterlife).  These points are valid in that the demonstrate the what we deem as unconscionable acts (eg blowing oneself up to kill enemies) are possible without belief in an afterlife or God. 

I guess your point is that non of these atheists were doing it and yelling "this is for no god".  Ok fair.  Yes religion will cause suicide attackers to pray to God before they die.  Atheists won't.  They might say "this is for my people" or something instead.   Great point.  I don't care. 

You should really study the geopolitical landscape that causes terrorism.  You will see it's not religion that causes it but war, economics, displacement, nationalism.   And while you might be PC talking about religion and terrorism - let's be honest - your talking about Islam.  If you study the Middle East and see what the west has done there you would see that terrorism is the outcome of the geopoliticical situation of the region not the religion of the region.  If you could go back in time and have a Islamic leader in the 1800s issue an edict about how their is no God but rather the superior race of Arab people's and their national land...  Then today you would have a group of atheist suicide bombers in Palestine killing religious Jewish people and screaming "this is for my people" or "hatha hu elshabi" which is actually a phrase they use.  So great.  You eliminate religion and the people yell different words when they detonate their suicide vest.  But they still detonate it.  Religion is but a minor minor selling point in the whole game - it is certainly not a cause.

In fact it's not only not a cause but just a minor marketing point.  Think about al-quaeda and Isis.  I know a scholar who actually has gone and interviewed people from both organizations.  Both used Islam and promises of an afterlife and virgins.  But al-quaeda never got that many people to sign up to kill themselves while Isis does... Why?  Same religious marketing.  But besides that Al-quaeda fails on every account - it's old men in beards in caves.  ISIS is cool!  It's Twitter and young people and amazing music and drum beats and a fat paycheck and respect.  This is literally what young people will tell you there... they will say "ISIS is cool.  I want to join."  And you know you can't stop a teenager from doing what is cool!   Religion is part of the marketing but not the cause!

I don't blame you for thinking its a cause.  The whole western media portrays it like that.  But it is just false.  If you could go talk to a suicide bomber in Palestine you would see this.  This is an action for so many reasons other than "his god".  This is an action primarily for his family who will be paid.  But it's also revenge against an enemy that has subjugated his people for a long time.  It's for his people.  His kin. His land.  It's because he has not much else - no job, no job prospects, no country where he can find any other way to do anything.  It's for his legacy.  Oh and the fact that clerics promise him some virgins... Sure maybe that's true - but it's an added selling point he really isn't sure of not the reason why...  Thinking getting rid of religion is the solution to stopping terrorist attacks is like thinking the shooting of JR smith or Mike Miller is why Lebron won championships*.

You should really study cognitive neuroscience.  You would like it.  I am not an atheist but I worked in a clinic once w my boss who was and for the very reason that everytime someone came into the clinic over 40 who had just gotten much more religious... We saw the same thing.  Temporal lobe tumor.   What's interesting about that is that you can take that info two ways.  If you are religious you can say - wow the seat of God in the brain is real!  My boss took it as more reason to be an atheist as religiosity could be turned on and off by stimulating certain cells...

I took it as evidence that humans are religious.  By that I mean we have spiritual wiring.  Not surprising.  I mean we evolved in a bleak landscape and we are smart.  Smart enough to see that if you were born 10k years ago... Well life sucked and then you died. Why not just end it now?  Well some people probably did.  But the people with large temporal lobes and a belief that they were a part in something much bigger (not necessarily religion but a feeling I think we are all capable of having under a star light night) kept fighting and out competed those suicidal people.  Those are our ancestors.  It's who we are.  Make that part of your brain work for you.  But don't waste it.  If you want to be like NDT and just be starry eyed and believe your this awesome part of the cosmos who will die and become a tree and stardust and that is sooooo beautiful... Fine.  If you want to sign up for your local church... Fine.  Not telling you what to do but telling you that harnessing this part of your brain is in your best interest.   Is it real?  I don't know.  Maybe not.  But I can believe in God and know how positive God can be in my life without worrying about whether he is real.  People only apply this rigorous standard to god but not to other enjoyable things in life. 

Take Richard Dawkins.  By all accounts he is very happily married (took him three tries but with his insufferable personality and looks that's not too bad).  He thinks he is in love and is faithful to his wife.  Does he remind her everyday that love is a delusion and he could could be just as happy with many other women?  NO.  Because like religion, love may be a delusion.  The concept of your soulmate and a single mate for life that is irreplaceable is most likely false.  But it sure feels soooooo good to live in that delusion.  So we allow ourselves to be human and enjoy love and religion and other human things which may be delusions but make us happy... 

*sorry the LBJ analogy was pretty terrible.  I meant to illustrate that the 3pt shooter is but a tool of lebrons and that stopping his penetration would stop him while getting rid of a spot up shooter would just allow a new shooter... Poor analogy, poor taste to compare lebrons shooters to terrorism... Agh.  Messed that one up.  Ignore it. 
« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 09:19:59 am by T0ddday »

acole14

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Respect: +1134
    • View Profile
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #91 on: July 16, 2016, 12:50:53 am »
0

Instead you denigrate religion and use insulting terms like "sky-god" to prove your point.  This is low.  If you want to be educated and have real debate you would learn the first thing to do is to stop doing this.   Your point should stand on its own - you shouldn't need insulting terms for it to be true.

Take Richard Dawkins.  By all accounts he is very happily married (took him three tries but with his insufferable personality and looks that's not too bad).   

 :trollface: Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on, I'm enjoying this exchange.

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2394
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #92 on: July 16, 2016, 06:20:51 am »
0
I need some time to reply. I'll reply soon.

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2394
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #93 on: July 18, 2016, 09:15:22 am »
+1

Again, you have a really simple view of things.  That's fine.  But if you actually do what your espousing and get highly educated in the field your speaking about you would gain a nuanced understanding of the role religion plays in terrorism and see that the link your describing is false. 

Instead you denigrate religion and use insulting terms like "sky-god" to prove your point.  This is low.  If you want to be educated and have real debate you would learn the first thing to do is to stop doing this.   Your point should stand on its own - you shouldn't need insulting terms for it to be true.  It's like trying to have a political debate with someone about Clinton and the first thing they say is "shillary".  Just makes intelligent thought turn off.

Sky-god is exactly what they themselves literally pray to. It's not an euphemism or a metaphor. The fact that you think it is already proves you have a problem with the literal interpretation of these religious people yourself. That's good.

Quote
You don't have to like the point about Stalin.  But again calling it a "so-called" point doesn't make it false.  The point stands that a man without religion can be especially cruel and terrorize lots of people.  You ignored my other point and there are many others - the Marxist atheist Tamil Tigers who invented suicide bombing.  The nationalist Japanese kamikaze fighters (nominally Shinto Buddhists but no belief in a personal God or afterlife).  These points are valid in that the demonstrate the what we deem as unconscionable acts (eg blowing oneself up to kill enemies) are possible without belief in an afterlife or God. 

I guess your point is that non of these atheists were doing it and yelling "this is for no god".  Ok fair.  Yes religion will cause suicide attackers to pray to God before they die.  Atheists won't.  They might say "this is for my people" or something instead.   Great point.  I don't care. 

Yes, you don't need God to be evil. Amazing, isn't it? That some people need a God, the most benevolent being in the Universe, that transcends time and space, to do horrible deeds. The difference is, these people that use God to do their evil wouldn't have done that evil if they wouldn't have believed there's a God waiting there for them with 72 virgins. Yes, some people, raise from infancy to believe such nonsense, are capable of these monstrous acts. And there's no way to un-brainwash them.

You can make the argument that they would've done it anyway, that they would've found another way to cause the same harm without being "believers". We can't know that. All we know is the evidence that is being presented, and that evidence points to the fact that they take religious interpretations literally, they genuinely believe in the after-life and the martyrdom of their acts, and that they act accordingly.

Quote
You should really study the geopolitical landscape that causes terrorism.  You will see it's not religion that causes it but war, economics, displacement, nationalism.   And while you might be PC talking about religion and terrorism - let's be honest - your talking about Islam.  If you study the Middle East and see what the west has done there you would see that terrorism is the outcome of the geopoliticical situation of the region not the religion of the region.  If you could go back in time and have a Islamic leader in the 1800s issue an edict about how their is no God but rather the superior race of Arab people's and their national land...  Then today you would have a group of atheist suicide bombers in Palestine killing religious Jewish people and screaming "this is for my people" or "hatha hu elshabi" which is actually a phrase they use.  So great.  You eliminate religion and the people yell different words when they detonate their suicide vest.  But they still detonate it.  Religion is but a minor minor selling point in the whole game - it is certainly not a cause.

Of course it's not exclusively religious. That's OBVIOUS. Of course it's a combination of factors, I would say, economical, first and foremost, and then educational. The lack of education allows fairy-tales like religion to flourish, whenever the lack of education presents itself. People don't know why stuff happens, have no idea of scientific facts, and therefore attribute everything to a supernatural force. It's the human nature. Evil people use that lack of information and the ignorance of uneducated people to manipulate them. Nothing new here. Could an atheist do the same? Of course. The difference is that an atheist wouldn't have the power of an invisible being that cannot be demoted in any way. Once you corrupt someone to believe in God, it's very hard for someone else to undo that corruption. God cannot be seen and cannot be fought with. Extremely hard to deal with. Whenever it's convenient, the corruptor can manipulate the mind of the corruptee to keep him corrupted.

Quote
In fact it's not only not a cause but just a minor marketing point.  Think about al-quaeda and Isis.  I know a scholar who actually has gone and interviewed people from both organizations.  Both used Islam and promises of an afterlife and virgins.  But al-quaeda never got that many people to sign up to kill themselves while Isis does... Why?  Same religious marketing.  But besides that Al-quaeda fails on every account - it's old men in beards in caves.  ISIS is cool!  It's Twitter and young people and amazing music and drum beats and a fat paycheck and respect.  This is literally what young people will tell you there... they will say "ISIS is cool.  I want to join."  And you know you can't stop a teenager from doing what is cool! Religion is part of the marketing but not the cause!

I would say religion is very much the cause. If you get out of the status-quo, they will use religion, not another cause, for executing you, for torturing you. They will say "it's the will of Allah", they won't say "it wasn't cool of you not being with us anymore". If the people joining them would have a problem, they wouldn't have joined them in the first place. So religion is a very important part, the essential part here. Religion "unites" these people to do all these things. If there was no "Allah" supporting them, they would be divided. They would ask why the heck they are doing everything they're doing (most of them, at least). But with Allah backing them, it's alright - it's even MORAL.

Quote
I don't blame you for thinking its a cause.  The whole western media portrays it like that.  But it is just false.  If you could go talk to a suicide bomber in Palestine you would see this.  This is an action for so many reasons other than "his god".  This is an action primarily for his family who will be paid.  But it's also revenge against an enemy that has subjugated his people for a long time.  It's for his people.  His kin. His land.  It's because he has not much else - no job, no job prospects, no country where he can find any other way to do anything.  It's for his legacy.  Oh and the fact that clerics promise him some virgins... Sure maybe that's true - but it's an added selling point he really isn't sure of not the reason why...  Thinking getting rid of religion is the solution to stopping terrorist attacks is like thinking the shooting of JR smith or Mike Miller is why Lebron won championships*.

Have you spoken to suicidal maniacs lately? How do you know so well what's in their mind? Is what you're saying true in some of the cases? I guess so. But again, the religious part gives the suicide bomber a certain "moral background" that somehow makes his act "just", gives him the courage to do it. Eliminate religion, and at least we substantially lower the incidence of these things.

Quote
You should really study cognitive neuroscience.  You would like it.  I am not an atheist but I worked in a clinic once w my boss who was and for the very reason that everytime someone came into the clinic over 40 who had just gotten much more religious... We saw the same thing.  Temporal lobe tumor.   What's interesting about that is that you can take that info two ways.  If you are religious you can say - wow the seat of God in the brain is real!  My boss took it as more reason to be an atheist as religiosity could be turned on and off by stimulating certain cells...

I'm aware of that. I even posted an interesting video about it. Check this out:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64</a>

The whole video ^^^^ is about 1:30 hours long, and talks about the localization of the "religious center" in the brain. Very interesting.

Quote
I took it as evidence that humans are religious.  By that I mean we have spiritual wiring.  Not surprising.  I mean we evolved in a bleak landscape and we are smart.  Smart enough to see that if you were born 10k years ago... Well life sucked and then you died. Why not just end it now?  Well some people probably did.  But the people with large temporal lobes and a belief that they were a part in something much bigger (not necessarily religion but a feeling I think we are all capable of having under a star light night) kept fighting and out competed those suicidal people.  Those are our ancestors.  It's who we are.  Make that part of your brain work for you.  But don't waste it.  If you want to be like NDT and just be starry eyed and believe your this awesome part of the cosmos who will die and become a tree and stardust and that is sooooo beautiful... Fine.  If you want to sign up for your local church... Fine.  Not telling you what to do but telling you that harnessing this part of your brain is in your best interest.   Is it real?  I don't know.  Maybe not.  But I can believe in God and know how positive God can be in my life without worrying about whether he is real.  People only apply this rigorous standard to god but not to other enjoyable things in life. 

It depends on how you view things. If you're interested in what is true, you need to dismiss God. Until factual evidence provides itself, God is the same as a pink elephant orbiting Pluto. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the other 2000 Gods of the other 2000 religions out there.

If you want meaning in your life, make your own meaning. That's the most powerful thing, the true freedom to make your own meaning. You don't need God for that. On the contrary, knowing this is the only life you'll ever have, maybe you'll start to cherish it more.

Quote
Take Richard Dawkins.  By all accounts he is very happily married (took him three tries but with his insufferable personality and looks that's not too bad).  He thinks he is in love and is faithful to his wife.  Does he remind her everyday that love is a delusion and he could could be just as happy with many other women?  NO.  Because like religion, love may be a delusion.  The concept of your soulmate and a single mate for life that is irreplaceable is most likely false.  But it sure feels soooooo good to live in that delusion.  So we allow ourselves to be human and enjoy love and religion and other human things which may be delusions but make us happy... 

Nobody is denying you the right to believe in that "illusion", if it makes sense for you. By the way, you couldn't hold yourself from being condescending by saying
Quote
(took him three tries but with his insufferable personality and looks that's not too bad)
- I guess that God-given morality and benevolence allowed you to say that, from a superior "I'm so much better, I get married once and live forever with my wife" position. Good for you. The problem is when you start killing other people left and right BECAUSE of your illusion. If Richard Dawkins came in and said "for my wife, I will blow up this church and everybody in it, because I'm an atheist and I love my wife", then we would have a problem. If you choose to believe in God, for whatever reason, but you keep that to yourself, and to those that accept you as such (even though I think it's very weird, in a way), then great. No problems whatsoever. But don't come in with the agenda that God is "real" and "you guys need to do this and that because my sky-God told me this in a 2000 year old book and you will burn in Hell if you don't but I don't really believe you will burn in Hell because if I did I wouldn't care and so on and so forth". People that act like this don't really believe in their God. They are so insecure, or else, being backed-up by the most powerful force ever, they wouldn't need to commit all these acts in the name of their God. God is strong enough, doesn't need their support. In fact, it's arrogant to believe he/she/it does.

So there are so many logical inconsistencies with religious people.

Quote
*sorry the LBJ analogy was pretty terrible.  I meant to illustrate that the 3pt shooter is but a tool of lebrons and that stopping his penetration would stop him while getting rid of a spot up shooter would just allow a new shooter... Poor analogy, poor taste to compare lebrons shooters to terrorism... Agh.  Messed that one up.  Ignore it. 

lol, I understood what you meant.

All in all, religion, for a certain type of people at least, is a terrible, terrible tool of evil. No, you can't say "so is atheism, for a certain type of people". It's completely different for the reasons discussed above (you can't "not fight" with a "non existing being").

Not only it creates all these problems, but it's stopping science in its tracks by always having the debate of what should be in our schools, if religious beliefs should be presented educationally at the same time with science because "they might both be right". Religion has no place in a civilized society's education system. Facts do. Belief doesn't.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 09:21:46 am by Raptor »

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #94 on: July 18, 2016, 05:46:25 pm »
0
^^^  You said a lot.  And well you are entitled to your belief but I have just two issues with it.

A) You have to understand the rules of sane debate.  If you want to win an argument you should be able to win your argument without being offensive.  I'm arguing with you and my point of view is the view of the theist.  You can't rewrite offensive things as metaphors when they are loaded statements to everyone else.  Using the term sky-god is offensive.  Comparing my religion to a fairy-tale (which is supposed to be believed by children only) is offensive.  Saying religion corrupts the mind is offensive.  Let your points stand on their own and try winning an argument by not insulting the person or offending him. 

And don't compare your offensive language toward my beliefs or the beliefs I am defending as similar to my tongue in cheek remark about Richard Dawkins.  Making fun of a public figure who is known to be insufferable and admits it himself is far different than what you are doing which is belittling religion by using terms that make it sound childish and archaic.  Not that I am not making fun of Richard Dawkins for being an atheist - that would be akin to what you are doing which is making fun of religion.  I am not saying "oh yeah that guy richard dawkins who believes in NOTHING (what an idiot)".  I'm teasing about something that is completely unrelated...  If you snuck in a clever jab about how I can't jump off one foot that would be funny and fine - it's different when you use inflammatory language about ones beliefs...

B)
Quote
Have you spoken to suicidal maniacs lately? How do you know so well what's in their mind? Is what you're saying true in some of the cases? I guess so. But again, the religious part gives the suicide bomber a certain "moral background" that somehow makes his act "just", gives him the courage to do it. Eliminate religion, and at least we substantially lower the incidence of these things.

Yes.  I have.  I am part of the major depression and suicide consortium.  I study this for a career.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with me.  You can disagree all you want.  You can not believe in global warming.  You can even provide evidence against global warming (maybe there as just a cold winter where you live).  But the point is there are a lot of people who do this for a career and I can tell you that the top minds simply do not agree with you.  They would argue that religion is but a tiny part of the issue.  There happens to be a lot of unscientific simply minded racist people like Christopher Hitchens who make unscientific but convincing arguments about how Islam is this evil vessel and how without it there would be far less terrorism but the majority of actual scholars know that the geopolitical factors that you admitted are 99.99% of the cause...

The thing is this has been tried before.  During the cold war the Russians were committing all these atrocities.  People very similar to Christopher Hitchens had the opposite viewpoint...  It was thought that people can only be so cruel when they don't believe in god.  Without god there are no lasting consequences so the godless soviets could commit all kinds of atrocities that we could never commit as good judeo-christian people...

Now the coin has been flipped and we believe the religious extremism is the only way someone could excuse themselves of moral consequences and do horrific things that kill innocents...   

But have you ever asked the opposite?  Have you ever asked how many people have been about to kill themselves and others but have then reconsidered because of their faith in god that things will get better?   That this struggle is not forever?  Or even stopped from doing something terrible because of their fear of what would happen to them from god if they did it?   How many suicide attacks has belief in god averted?  How many suicide attacks has atheism averted?  How many times have people been about to blow themselves up and then said "you know I'm not 100% in on the god belief thing so I'm not gonna do it".

You don't know.  You only know about the data when someone does commit a horrific act.  You don't know the causes of not committing horrific acts.  You don't know how often religion is that cause...

And you simply don't know the culture.  You don't know that Muslim people are not actually brought up with the 72 virgin myths and it is largely israeli propaganda.  This is not actually part of their religion or their culture - no religious text mentions virgins (an obscure hadith mentions 72 wives in heaven) and their actual religious text (the Koran) states explicitly that suicide is a sin and those that commit suicide will be punished...

You subscribe to the prevailing view of israeli propaganda which is that the problem with palestinians is not the way they are treated by Israeli's but something inherent to their religion and culture.  It's a distraction from a very real atrocity. 

Those who are cultural scholars do not hold this belief.  They realize that religion is not necessarily good or bad but far less of a motivator than the politics.


C) My point about marriage and illusion is that I do not think that humans are wholly rational beings.  Maybe you are.  Good luck.  You will be very unhappy if you deny yourself anything for which is their is no evidence for - if you wish to avoid love because there is no evidence for it I am sorry for you.  Humans are all a little delusional and if we eliminate religion and faith and love from the world we eliminate a lot of good things that make us happy... Finally consider this statement that you made and consider that even if it were true I don't agree with it:

Eliminate religion, and at least we substantially lower the incidence of these things.

1) Let's say it's true.  Let's also say we can somehow eliminate it (we can't). So we eliminate a source of happiness, a motivation for which so much good is done, something that makes us happy and has positive and negative effects on people and we lower suicide attacks.  Ok, Let's assume that's true and consider some other things.

2) Eliminate males.  Wow this would help.  Maybe even just a chemical castration after a certain age.  Violence is overwhelmingly male. Would be a weird world but certainly would substantially lower  the incidence of so much violence and destruction if we could eliminate males.  There are many many examples of non-religious violence.  Very few of female violence of any kind - even in countries were women are subjugated and basically do what men tell them to do!

3) Eliminate destabilizing war and occupation.  Yes this would work.

----------------------------------

So, you see the three options and you really think #1 is the problem?  The order of the problem is 3,2,1.  #1 is the hardest to enact and would likely lead to a lot of negative consequences as you deprive people a source of supreme happiness and hope... #2 is the next hardest to pass but actually makes more sense than #1.  And #3 is logically completely possible and would have the greatest source of change...  So why even consider what are minor hard to change factors when you have #3 staring you in the face...  If you want to reform religion fine... If you want to reform men... YES please.  Men are terrible.  But to speak of elimination of religion as a rational solution....  Eliminating water is also a solution - everyone dies and can't be violent... But seems silly when we have the obvious solution in front of us...


Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2394
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #95 on: July 20, 2016, 06:29:11 am »
0
Until I reply, this guy says it well, here:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDwr8Ptq3gc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDwr8Ptq3gc</a>

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #96 on: July 20, 2016, 09:44:42 am »
+1
Until I reply, this guy says it well, here:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDwr8Ptq3gc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDwr8Ptq3gc</a>

Wow.  It's so sad that people make videos like that.  Watching videos like this actually make make you stupider and more arrogant.  I mean is it an accident that the guy uses a racist caricature voice for the black guy in the beginning?  Why is that necessary?  Why make a video where you think your so smart and can control the debate and make and describe the same weak model that you argue against.  It's easy to criticize almost anything in a 10 minute forum where you control everything...

This debate is silly.  Clearly you watch a lot of YouTube.  YouTube and Internet education is basically an echo chamber for what you already believe and just helps you foment hate where you were once unsure...  Read books.  Go to school.  Talk to a religious scholar.  Read actual arguments.  Not YouTube cartoon videos where they portray God as an idiot because they think it's funny.  Offensive and racist cartoons are not helpful... Maybe funny... But not helpful.  I really cringe everytime someone try's to have rational debate and brings up a point made on South Park or family guy or by a stand up comedian.  God save us all if this is where we get our information from.

The funny thing about all this is that you hold yourself up as the logical and extremely smart guy.  I make no such claims.  Your the atheist who doesn't believe.   But you do.  You clearly don't like religion.  You think it's stupid.  You think people who believe in it are stupid.  You think a cartoon that is highly offensive and racist that makes childlike arguments about the paradox of religion is somehow edifying...

But... Wait...  That's not the debate!  I'm not arguing that you should believe in God or that it's rational for you to.  I'm arguing that religion is not the primary cause behind terrorism.   The religion does not fuel terrorism and that in an alternate world without Islam the geopolitical situation in the Middle East would produce similar results.  It's not feasible to eliminate religion but if it were I'm arguing that this wouldn't be a solution to end terrorism.  I'm arguing that nationalism is powerful enough of a force and religion is really just more identity politics tied into nationalism.  I'm arguing that if you study suicidal manics you don't see religiosity in a higher degree than you do in regular people.  It so happens that many people study these issues and the academic consensus is that your view of religion as a primary driver of violence and terrorism is a red herring.  It is a view shared by tons of comedians, snarky cartoon characters and British neocons like Christopher hitchens.  But it's wrong.  You moved away from this argument and posted a link to an anti religion cartoon.  Don't do that.  It just shows your bias.  The argument I'm making has nothing to do with whether religion is rational or paradoxical.  You don't want to stick to the subject - fine. But there are a million people for you to argue with if that's the case. 
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 09:58:38 am by T0ddday »

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2394
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #97 on: July 20, 2016, 09:55:36 am »
-2
Because comedy is a funny way of talking about something serious.

I don't see any reason to talk to a "religious scholar". Nothing to gain from there. Why would you discuss some book written by peasants who didn't even know the Earth orbited the Sun?

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #98 on: July 20, 2016, 10:09:18 am »
0
Because comedy is a funny way of talking about something serious.

I don't see any reason to talk to a "religious scholar". Nothing to gain from there. Why would you discuss some book written by peasants who didn't even know the Earth orbited the Sun?

Comedy is a way to no longer talk about something serious. 

Oh yeah I forgot.  You are the same guy who has nothing to gain from talking to a doctor about medicine.  You are AMAZINGLY close minded.  In the same time it took you to write that offensive comparison about how religious scholars are peasants you could have actually taken my advice and maybe looked up what a religious scholar is...

Instead I have to do it for you.  So I googled religious scholar.  And here is the first result:

Scholars in religious studies, the academic field of multi-disciplinary, secular study of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions.

Yeah.  See the issue?  This is why you can't be argued with.  Because you think it's resonable to assume I would like to spend ten minutes of my time watching a racist offensive cartoon that regurgitates pedestrian arguments about religion  but you can't be bothered to do a google search for 2 seconds and learn from people who have devoted a career study a complicated issue that you solved on the Internet...

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2394
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #99 on: July 20, 2016, 10:16:24 am »
+1
I am not interested in "studying" such a topic, of a religious background. I'm not interested in what people believe is the source of a lightning, either the hammer of Thor or Zeus throwing down lightning towards Earth, or God being angry about sodomites, or anything else whatsoever.

What I'm interested is what is true and how that can be explained, rationally, and based on facts. So you would have to apologize my complete lack of interest in discussing nonsense. Why would I care about religious beliefs, behaviors and institutions? Why should that matter for anybody?

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #100 on: July 20, 2016, 10:48:51 am »
0
I am not interested in "studying" such a topic, of a religious background. I'm not interested in what people believe is the source of a lightning, either the hammer of Thor or Zeus throwing down lightning towards Earth, or God being angry about sodomites, or anything else whatsoever.

What I'm interested is what is true and how that can be explained, rationally, and based on facts. So you would have to apologize my complete lack of interest in discussing nonsense. Why would I care about religious beliefs, behaviors and institutions? Why should that matter for anybody?

You do care.  You think religious beliefs are a primary cause of terrorism.  You think they should be eliminated.  Yet you don't care to understand them.  You don't care to understand how religious beliefs propagate.  You don't care to understand the history behind them.  You don't care to find out if it's actually true that religion is what causes people to do terrorism but you do believe it and that's final...

Sorry don't get that.  I think cancer sucks and I think if we eliminate cancer we eliminate a lot of suffering.  So I study cancer.  How it works.  What proteins are made. The mutations that cause it.  How it occurs in different tissues.  What causes it.   If you don't like something and think the world would be a better place without it then it's pretty lazy not to study it. 

Maybe you still don't understand what a religious scholar is. A religious scholar says things like this:

"But again, the religious part gives the suicide bomber a certain "moral background" that somehow makes his act "just", gives him the courage to do it. Eliminate religion, and at least we substantially lower the incidence of these things."

You said that.  You are a religious scholar.  Only your not a good one.  A good religious scholar provides reference, uses statistics, interviews people, generates data.  He uses this secular thing called the scientific method to arrive at his claims rather than YouTube videos of cartoons and comedians.  Personally I have more faith in the results of the scientific method to describe the causes of terrorism than I do in your method which is to say so.  So when the leading scholars who study terrorism say religion is a bit player in the problem and you say "no it's very much the cause" I am going to side with the academic consensus.  I try to give you a chance to maybe study the rigorous data about the field rather than use YouTube videos but you refuse to take the academic scientific study of religion and human behavior seriously.  You may be right.  But so might the fringe guy who thinks global warming is a hoax.  But like Carl Sagan said - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.  But you won't even read about the academic consensus in the field - let alone begin refuting it.  That's not extraordinary to me.

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11944
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +6885
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #101 on: July 20, 2016, 11:00:08 am »
0
I am not interested in "studying" such a topic, of a religious background. I'm not interested in what people believe is the source of a lightning, either the hammer of Thor or Zeus throwing down lightning towards Earth, or God being angry about sodomites, or anything else whatsoever.

What I'm interested is what is true and how that can be explained, rationally, and based on facts. So you would have to apologize my complete lack of interest in discussing nonsense. Why would I care about religious beliefs, behaviors and institutions? Why should that matter for anybody?

Okay, fine. It is true that billions of people over the course of human history have derived deep meaning from participation in communal religious life and belief in a supernatural power of some kind. You can believe that the supernatural is nonsense and still be interested in engaging with why so many people believe, why so many people are drawn to religious texts -- not just the Bible or the Quran but also the Tao and the Vedas and the Talmud and writings of Confucius. Many of those people are vastly brighter than you, many of them have wrestled long and hard with the contradictions of belief and science.

If you don't want to engage with them, fine. But insulting them because Richard Dawkins makes you feel good about yourself is not a great look.
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

sunday: run 14+ km
monday: lift
tuesday: run 10-12 km
wednesday: run 10-12 km
thursday: run 10-12 km
friday: rest
saturday: run tempo/VO2 max/speed x 6-8 km

black lives matter

undoubtable

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
  • Respect: +565
    • View Profile
    • Email
GOALS

Squat 340x3               Power clean 265

BP 225x3                    100m - 11.5

vag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5268
  • Respect: +3120
    • View Profile
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #103 on: July 20, 2016, 12:19:53 pm »
+1
I am an atheist, to the bone. But raptor is flat out wrong at this debate.
However, in his defense, a big part of this anti-religious 'rage' is the racism/oppression atheists are subject to. It is a fact, atheists are a minority and are treated as weirdos. This is still a theocratic/religious society. A little more at some places ( e.g. Greece, lol )  , a little less at others.
Now does that mean you need to be a dick because others are dicks towards you? Or you need to dismiss a mental/philosophical movement just because a part of its base is radical? Of course not, on the contrary, you gotta stay open minded as you preach.
I'm just saying, i can see how this happens, it is same old endless loop that appears everywhere : social conformism->oppression->violent reaction->repeat intensified.
woot

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14464
  • Respect: +2394
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RELIGION
« Reply #104 on: July 20, 2016, 12:21:04 pm »
0
I am not interested in "studying" such a topic, of a religious background. I'm not interested in what people believe is the source of a lightning, either the hammer of Thor or Zeus throwing down lightning towards Earth, or God being angry about sodomites, or anything else whatsoever.

What I'm interested is what is true and how that can be explained, rationally, and based on facts. So you would have to apologize my complete lack of interest in discussing nonsense. Why would I care about religious beliefs, behaviors and institutions? Why should that matter for anybody?

Okay, fine. It is true that billions of people over the course of human history have derived deep meaning from participation in communal religious life and belief in a supernatural power of some kind. You can believe that the supernatural is nonsense and still be interested in engaging with why so many people believe, why so many people are drawn to religious texts -- not just the Bible or the Quran but also the Tao and the Vedas and the Talmud and writings of Confucius. Many of those people are vastly brighter than you, many of them have wrestled long and hard with the contradictions of belief and science.

If you don't want to engage with them, fine. But insulting them because Richard Dawkins makes you feel good about yourself is not a great look.

The "why" question is simple - because they are ignorant on the true reasons why natural phenomena happen. That's why. Because in order to explain stuff they didn't understand, they invoked "it's because God said so" and that solved everything. Then they could continue to dwell in their ignorance. How can anybody appreciate that? Why would you appreciate that.

The vast majority of "God-explainable things" are God of the gaps arguments. As soon as science explains something, "yeah but it can't explain this other thing, so that must be God". As soon as that is explained through science, later, then the boundary is pushed further.

Now we hear stuff like "yeah but what caused the Big Bang? It must've been God". That's how far God was pushed back. Before, it was just "how does lightning happen? It must be God".

As far as philosophical meaning, the purpose of life and stuff like that, you don't need "God", a supernatural force to talk or think about that. You only need rational thinking and making a "telos" of your own. That's the true freedom, in fact, that No-God left us.

If you want a physical explanation for life, the "purpose" of life in itself, there might actually be a very logical one - the local decrease of entropy in the Universe is possible so that the global increase in entropy is possible.

Basically, we, as lower-entropy beings (since we're organized very well, structurally), we can increase the entropy of the Universe more by being alive than by being dead. So life might be the laws of physics' way of maximizing the increase of the entropy of the Universe. Very simple.

You don't need God for any of this. I don't see why you would bother to "study" human ignorance, unless you're a masochist. Damn, it starts to sound like fun, now that I think of it.

I am an atheist, to the bone. But raptor is flat out wrong at this debate.
However, in his defense, a big part of this anti-religious 'rage' is the racism/oppression atheists are subject to. It is a fact, atheists are a minority and are treated as weirdos. This is still a theocratic/religious society. A little more at some places ( e.g. Greece, lol )  , a little less at others.
Now does that mean you need to be a dick because others are dicks towards you? Or you need to dismiss a mental/philosophical movement just because a part of its base is radical? Of course not, on the contrary, you gotta stay open minded as you preach.
I'm just saying, i can see how this happens, it is same old endless loop that appears everywhere : social conformism->oppression->violent reaction->repeat intensified.


But I do have an open mind about "God". I can even bring arguments "pro-God". For example, in what temporal framework did the Big-Bang happen, if time started WITH the Big Bang. Because if a quantum fluctuation created the Universe, then that quantum fluctuation had to happen in a timeframe, since time allows change to happen (a quantum fluctuation to occur).

Even more, the cosmological constant value is tuned to 120 decimal places. It has a value of "almost zero", it's 0 up to the 120th decimal place, but still positive.

This draws the expansion of the Universe. Assuming a Multiverse doesn't exist (and this is a big assumption, considering the inflationary theory, the quantum decoherence multi-world view of Hugh Everett and the string theory landscape all predict a multiverse) - but if we really live in a UNIverse, then it's very very difficult to imagine that our vaccum energy is tuned up to such a precision by accident.

Then, if "God" tuned it up, you have to explain its presence. Who made up God? So you go back to the same questions, except now you replace "Universe" with "God".
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 12:25:24 pm by Raptor »