Erm, pardon me if I'm misunderstanding this, but why is the fact that you can't prove religion even an argument? Many religions by definition are based on faith alone and to prove it would be to go against the point. The origin of major religions may be unknown and therefore, there's no logical reason to have an opinion of it regarding its validity. Religion serves as a reference point for morals and ethics, and it often gives people optimism that they otherwise wouldn't have. Some people need a religion to help deal with the facts of reality, and some people can use religion to help out a community. The misuse and the misunderstanding of religion is the problem itself, not the fact that it exists and people follow it. Ultraconservative ideals pushed out by a few particular louder members are sometimes frustrating, maybe, but they actually DO have a higher moral ground than atheists. The reasoning is that we can't actually know any facts about the universe, only our perceptions of them and the definitions we've created. The one exception is cogito ergo sum and that barely qualifies. Without this sort of objective reasoning, morality and ethics don't actually exist. Religion, whether you like it or not, has its place in society and is a logical decision to make despite the lack of reasoning behind it. For the record, I'm not religious.
You epistemology is worrisomely scant. From the Tim Minchin beat poem Storm, upon hearing the titular character remark that all knowledge is mere opinion, in much the same way you have expressed here:
I resist the urge to ask Storm,
Whether knowledge is so loose weave,
Of a morning, when deciding whether to leave,
Her apartment by the front door,
Or the window on the second floor.
Epistemological uncertainty is a problem, yes, and it is certainly possible that tomorrow all the things we have ever known about anything will be turned inside out and upside down, but certainly you must concede that it is impractical to accept any and all propositions put to us without discrimination. And doubly certainly you must believe that some methods for discriminating amongst the beliefs that are put to us are better than others at providing a sturdy framework on which to make decisions that have the outcomes we desire - this is to say that you're more likely to be able to eat your morning cereal if you learn how your spoon works by direct experimentation rather than consulting your cat. In keeping with that, it seems unreasonable to say that all ideas are valid because they cannot be 100% disproved, but that it's not true that you can eat co-co pebbles by licking your crotch and scratching up the arm of your couch.
But let's say you could, and thus even these ultraconservatives have valid ideas - how does that give them the "moral high ground" over atheists? Do they not enjoy the same vindication for their beliefs that the ultraconservatives do? Why is it ok to positively assert the existence of God, but not the non-existence of God, if neither is verifiable?
Only took 3 replies to start the great religious crusade of Atheism vs. Religion. Might want to put something against that in the original post. Then it might take at least a page before the forum wars begin.
In any event what I can't wrap my head around is those who lack sympathy. Those who just don't care at all about other people. I think there is a term for that, but I don't quite remember off the top of my head. Maybe it's just because I had an organ transplant at a young age, so perhaps I have way too much sympathy. I'M HOGGING IT ALL, YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Also that Hazama quote is awesome, gotta love Blazblue.
Sympathy and empathy are big definers of humans in general. Aside from having the highest intellectual capacity, we also have the highest capacity for empathy. It comes with living in such large groups and relying as heavily as we do on one another. I would go so far as to say a feeling of alienation towards someone who is not empathetic is entirely to be expected.
That being said, empathy doesn't have to be all-encompassing, and by that I mean encompassing everyone, not one's whole being. It is entirely reasonable for someone to be more empathetic towards their family than towards strangers, for instance.
People who have absolutely no idea about science and say that it completely disproves religion. BTW, a majority of scientific theories are always disproved in a generation or two. And every generation thinks that they are 100% right.
People who have absolutely no idea about science and say that it completely disproves religion. BTW, a majority of scientific theories are always disproved in a generation or two. And every generation thinks that they are 100% right.
Drinking, smoking, and doing drugs. They're proven to be quite bad for you, all are addictive, and drugs are illegal. Whatever little buzz or high you get from it in my eyes does NOT outweigh the costs, or even come remotely close to doing so. I even made a topic a while back asking people who do these things why they do it and despite the overwhelming number of well-put responses, I still find myself wondering why they think it's worth it.
The people who feel the need to deride religion at every opportunity and be self-righteous about it. They're being just as nasty and close-minded as the people who give religion a bad name.
My dog never fetched my shoes when i asked him to, and there was no bad consequence for that - thus i wasn't abusing my power. In fact, i'd say he was, because the only time he did anything with my shoes, he chewed them up ^_^
That said, sexual abuse of an animal who cannot reason against it, or has no way to defend itself, is an abuse of power. Do not forget that desire (on part of the animal) is not equal to informed consent, and informed consent is a requirement for a sexual act to not be abuse.
[note i'm not talking about medical or aesthetic considerations, both of which are obviously considerations, but shouldn't necessarily determine legality or morality]
I've never bought this consent argument. The reason consent laws are important is because it's generally up to the individual to make their own decisions, and when they can't, society has a responsibility to keep them from harm. Children and the mentally disabled cannot give informed consent because they lack capacity - the capacity to make reasonable decisions based on sufficient information. This is not the part about child abuse or raping a handicapped person that makes it bad, however. There are plenty of things we do to with children and the handicapped that they do not and cannot consent to, like immunization shots and baths. Sexual abuse is bad because it can hurt them, and it often does, for psychological as well as biological (pregnancy, STDs) reasons. The fact that it can hurt them doesn't make it bad in itself either. There is risk for sexual activity between two adults too. You need both together - lack of consent (either due to will or lack of capacity) and probable harm - to make it something wrong.
The whole point of my "fetch" analogy was that dogs don't usually require consent for you to be able to do things with them, or even to use them for things (think work horses). It seems to me that you are making an arbitrary distinction by saying that sexual activity always requires consent to be morally permissible, where other types of activity do not. If you think it's not arbitrary, then what is the relevant distinction? What about sex requires that the animal be able to give consent?
i just cant get my mind around people who doesn´t give a toss about knowledge, books, hell, even pop culture. people that stay ignoran forever because they want to, and i just can´t understand why
I can handle nose rings, nipple piercings, earrings, belly-button rings, and tattoos, but dying your hair, or altering any aspect of your body that you were born with just doesn't feel right.
Seriously? If anything, all the piercings should be the ones you don't understand. Dying your hair is a small cosmetic change that has ultimately no functional change to your performance in any task. I dare you to tell me that sticking several large, pointless hunks of metal in your flesh is less intrusive. That's one thing I can't wrap my head around, btw.
silversnake4133 said:
Deliberate acts of unbridled rage, fury, or anger with the intent to harm others.
As someone who has an OCEAN of rage swimming around inside my head, I can tell you conclusively that there is no such thing as "A deliberate act of rage", and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying their a** off. Deliberate acts with intent to harm are MALICE, and I can totally believe you not understanding that. Rage is something that you keep under control for as long as you can, and just try to aim at your enemies when it comes out. You don't do ANYTHING deliberate when enraged. People who think they understand anger when they have never truly experience it are something else I can't wrap my head around.
The religious, I dont get how people can overlook the barbarity and outmoded moral concepts thats rife throughout religion. I dont get how these people can then say they hold the moral high ground, that as an atheist Im spiritually dead and morally suspect.
If Im totally honest it makes me very angry.
Since religion was covered...drugs. I definitely want to risk permanent damage so that I can black out and wake up feeling like shit in some strange place. Sounds like a good time to me.
In fear of being suspended I'll word this lightly.
What's with the bronies thing? I really don't get it. If somebody could quote me and explain in a paragraph or something that would be greatly appreciated.
_________________________
People who cut themselves. Just no. How could that possible solve or help anything (working on the basis the person is depressed)? Cutting one's self could only lead to further depression, what could possibly be going through a person's mind, when they decide? "The only way to solve my problems is it cut myself"
Some people I feel cut themselves because it's part of the gothic/metal culture kind of like peer presure but on a scale of fitting into a huge group of people that happen to like similar music to you. Some of them just happen to cut themselves 'cause...well I'm not sure why really...
Probably sounds dumb to rant about something I don't fully understand...
...you try to be, there's always that one thing you can't wrap your head around.
For me, it's people who aren't moved by music, people who are fine with listening to the radio or club music because it's easy to dance to or it's simple, people who don't go looking for music that inspires them or brings out all manner of emotion/feeling to the surface (be it joy, excitement, anger, passion etc). These are the things I can't accept/understand, no matter how wide I open my mind.
The surface of a sphere is two dimensional. And it's tangent is an entire plane.
The tangent (and for that matter surface area) of a four dimensional object is in 3 dimensions (it has VOLUME!!!).
Try to visualize that. Could you? Well if you could then check again because you got it wrong. And if you really just did (and can explain it) Please don't bother explaining it to me, just go collect your goddamn nobel prize already.
Edit: OT: The people on the other thread about circumcision...THE BIAS so much BIAS.
The people who feel the need to deride religion at every opportunity and be self-righteous about it. They're being just as nasty and close-minded as the people who give religion a bad name.
I know, right? Just like all those people who deride racism at every oppertunity and who are all self-righteous about it. They are being just as nasty and close-minded as the people who give racism a bad name.
doing awful and bad things in general..and BRAGGIN about it, I just dont get it
Necron_warrior said:
I don't understand people who do things 'out of the goodness of their heart'. There's no profit for the doer, unless the doer has the ideas of favours in mind, it just seems illogical to me.
Religion. I can't wrap my head around willful delusions like that. Yes, I know it's not the popular stance to take, nor politically correct, but I just can't look at any of the religions I know and figure out why people believe in it. It's got the same factual weight as santa claus and makes about as much sense from any logical perspective and yet these religions are not only widespread beliefs but it's political and at times even social suicide to speak against them.
It's mindboggling to me. There's no scientifically backed indication of any of it having even a nugget of truth to it and yet it's 'narrowminded' or 'hateful' to point out the ridiculousness of it all.
I'll of course respect anyone's right to believe in these things, but the most aneurysm inducing part of it all is that there's no respect given to those who believe religion holds about as much water as a sieve.
The religious, I dont get how people can overlook the barbarity and outmoded moral concepts thats rife throughout religion. I dont get how these people can then say they hold the moral high ground, that as an atheist Im spiritually dead and morally suspect.
If Im totally honest it makes me very angry.
I think you guys tend to generalize religion and portray it in more of a bad light than it deserves. There are many things about religion that have benefits. Yes, there are negatives to religion, but there are negatives to everything. Yes, the more zealous religious folk can do some very immature and very mean things, but so can a very zealous atheist.
Religion, in general, should serve one purpose for people: comfort. This comfort comes in many ways. It may come as comfort living in a bad situation, or handed a bit bit of bad luck, wondering why that is. Isn't the thought that maybe some unknown force that maybe has your eventual best interest in mind a more soothing thought that just thinking that your life is shit for no reason? That maybe, you are suffering now, but after you die you will enter into a paradise so blissful it cannot be described? Also, doesn't the idea that someone shaped us in His image make us sound so much more important than such an insignificant speck in the confines of the universe?
Yes, in some ways, it is blocking out the truth, and I believe everyone should try to be as educated and knowledgable of the world as they can, but sometimes, people don't want to learn that they are insignificant and useless. That's a very depressing thought that makes everything they do seem meaningless. Sometimes, working for the goal of heaven makes the suffering of life more tolerable, and while I think being a zealot and willingly blocking out knowledge is indeed a problem, religion serves many comforting roles. Also, religion, while indeed outdated in many regards, has many timeless parables. The Golden Rule? Treat Others as You Would Want To Be Treated? Is that outdated? You may say that that should be common knowledge, but it isn't. Sometimes, we need a book to tell us so.
In addition, I think religion can be mixed with scientific thought. I believe that God is some sort of creator, but he does not intervene in our lives. He carves and places the dominoes, knocks the first one over, and then watches. He does not meddle in our affairs. He does not bring hurricanes, or suffering, or death. People and the natural causes of the Earth do. And while he may have created all of this, I believe mankind is slowly discovering how he did it. Every new discovery about the world is just uncovering more and more of God's design. It was already there, we are just discovering more pages of God's "How to Build a Universe" book. And not only does that reconcile the ideas of religion and science, it makes me excited for the pursuit of knowledge and science.
Finally, I agree with you on one point that I know you probably have: no, religion should not be used as some sort of reasoning for hate. That is unacceptable in any regard, for any mode of thinking. If science was somehow used as some sort of reasoning for hate, I would chastise those people just as quickly as I would someone who abused religion.
This is just a short version of why religion is not as bad as you make it out to be. I could discuss how it was influential in a historical standpoint, but you three seem to understand already. I don't want to sound pompous in this post, I just think religion gains more hate than it deserves, only because a number of close-minded fools abuse it, like they would abuse anything else.
Also,
Insanum said:
There are just two things I cant stand, People who are intolerant of other peoples races & beliefs, and the dutch.
I can handle nose rings, nipple piercings, earrings, belly-button rings, and tattoos, but dying your hair, or altering any aspect of your body that you were born with just doesn't feel right.
I can understand wanting to dye your hair a natural color, especially when a person gets older and it turns more white. It's a vanity thing to hold on to those youthful days of vitality. Matching your hair to crayons out of a Crayola box, however, is just plain weird.
OT: What I can't wrap my head around at all are people who dress and behave like they're perpetually horny, then get offended when someone either calls their bluff or seems the slightest bit unhappy about the show. I get it that people will dress and alter their bodies however they wish, but what's with the superiority complex whenever it's even politely suggested that maybe this isn't the time or place for such things?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
