Religion IS crazy!

[Value Collector]

I have said that a few times, the cold reality of science without the warmth of religion.

I don't think reality is cold, off course if your afraid of death, some one telling you that your not really going to die might provide some comfort, but it does seem a little childish to me, a bit like a daddy telling a child his teddy will save him from the boogie man, Its better to just not believe in the boogie man.

In my view science is awe inspiring, I am constantly flabbergasted and amazed when I learn facts about the universe.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yep, was there anything in particle you wanted me to get from that?

Yes, the fact that Hitler was not a religious person, but only used it to his own ends.

I already had a pretty good understanding of that stuff, Pav and many other Christians often try and charge atheism with the out come of the holocaust, however as you can see from that it was caused by a mix of religious based antisemitism, leader worship and strange blood myths, racism and economic scape gloating, not atheism and not evolution.

The antisemitism came from the Nazi's interpretation of "Positive Christianity" which was a synthesised religion for the purposes of mass appeal to Nazism , not from the Catholic church.

If you are trying to say that atheism does not lead to genocide, I point you towards Pol Pol and Mao Zedong. Oh yes, you will probably say that they were secret religious fanatics but they actually persecuted religions because they posed a threat to them, note China's continuing persecution of the Dalai Lama.

 

[luutzu]

Yes, the fact that Hitler was not a religious person, but only used it to his own ends.



The antisemitism came from the Nazi's interpretation of "Positive Christianity" which was a synthesised religion for the purposes of mass appeal to Nazism , not from the Catholic church.

If you are trying to say that atheism does not lead to genocide, I point you towards Pol Pol and Mao Zedong. Oh yes, you will probably say that they were secret religious fanatics but they actually persecuted religions because they posed a threat to them, note China's continuing persecution of the Dalai Lama.

I think you'll find that the Communists removed the god/s of religion and replace themselves with it - it's religion by another name.

 

[SirRumpole]

I think you'll find that the Communists removed the god/s of religion and replace themselves with it - it's religion by another name.

I suppose that brings up another point, that any ideology is a religion, whether it be communism, facism, socialism or free market fundamentalism, they all tend to ignore facts in favour of their pre-established theories.

 

[Value Collector]

1. Eight of the fastest men in the world mount the blocks for the 50m Freestyle at the Olympics. All are winners. They have won all their lives to get this far. They have trained their guts out. The contents of their meals are measured. The have been psychologically processed to dispel doubt. Each honestly believes they will be the winner of this race. Not to do so condemns them never to have the slightest chance. Yet only one can win. Totally illogical. But illogical not to believe so.

.

They all have a chance of winning, that is not illogical. And they are all following the logical steps you mentioned to increase their chance, if they believed the were guaranteed to win, they may skip training. You don't have to believe with 100% certainty you are going to win, you just have to believe you have a decent shot, which they do.

. Can you scientifically falsify that I love my kids or prove otherwise?

I don't know, perhaps, its possible that certain parts of the brain fire when you feel love, and If they can't already they may one day be able to measure your level of love on a brain scan, they can do this with some other impulses already.

In regards to the other stuff, I dont think it is illogical to look after your kids, you get pleasure from doing it obviously, have you read the self fish gene, it talks about some of this stuff.

2. Going to religion. Of all the things likely to be remembered in the next 1000 years of our current era, landing on the moon would have to be #1. Wow.

The astronauts with the right stuff from Kennedy's call were chosen from the most able. These guys were the best of the best. Gruelling processes, tough, calm, smart, situationally aware....they were supreme individuals for this type of endeavor.

The most amazing steps included: First orbit (John Glenn); First Circumnavigation of the Moon (Apollo 8); First Lunar Landing (Apollo 11). Each of these people faced the very real possibility of dying. Many had families. The crew of Apollo 1 perished. Imagine how subsequent crews felt.


John Glenn who piloted Genesis is Christian and interviewed as such on a space shuttle trip with Discovery in 1998.

The astronauts of Apollo 8 read scripture on the way to the moon and broadcast it back.

When they landed on the moon, Buzz Aldrin reveals he actually smuggled...get this...a bible, silver chalice, sacramental bread, wine and takes communion. He has to be told not to offer prayer on the microphone back to the world. Neil Armstrong is a deist.

At the time, polls run by Gallup show that 60% of the US population were very religious and 15% said religion is "not very important" in their lives. Given that religion has declined over time, I am guessing that the younger part of the population was less religions. Yet, without even making allowance for that, if you randomly picked Americans and whacked them into just those three missions, you wouldn't dream of getting anything like this outcome.

The tooth fairy may not exist, but kids feel good when they believe it is out there. Part of having the Right Stuff appears to have something to do with religious belief. It makes an astronaut feel that all will be taken care of.....allowing him to be super cool under unbelievably stressful situations. It may not seem rational, but it produces better outcomes than what you might regard as rational thought.

Its not surprising to me that they were religious, the Cold War inspired a lot of extreme religious swaying, because the "godless commies",

May argument stands, believing as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible will inform your actions in a more positive way accross the board than actively believeing falsehoods

 

[Value Collector]

Yes, the fact that Hitler was not a religious person, but only used it to his own ends.



The antisemitism came from the Nazi's interpretation of "Positive Christianity" which was a synthesised religion for the purposes of mass appeal to Nazism , not from the Catholic Church

If you are trying to say that atheism does not lead to genocide, I point you towards Pol Pol and Mao Zedong. Oh yes, you will probably say that they were secret religious fanatics but they actually persecuted religions because they posed a threat to them, note China's continuing persecution of the Dalai Lama.

Antisemitism predates nazism, and yes it can be directly linked with the Catholic Church.

You say hitler wasn't religious, well i would disagree, but even then, you can't say his views were based on rational atheism. They were based on racism, politics, blood myths etc etc.

Nothing about atheism can lead to genocide, Atheism is one answer to one question, everything else is something else. If some one says their an atheist, all that says is that they don't believe in a god, it doesn't tell anything else about that person, and it cant lead to genocide, you would need other beliefs to do genocide.

No one has ever thought, "you know what, I don't think there is a god, I better go start killing people" people have however read religious texts and been convinced to kill, or had other irrational beliefs that have lead them to kill.

China persecutes any threat to their power, religion being a threat.

 

[Value Collector]

I suppose that brings up another point, that any ideology is a religion, whether it be communism, facism, socialism or free market fundamentalism, they all tend to ignore facts in favour of their pre-established theories.

And all would be improved by the members trying to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

 

[DeepState]

1. They all have a chance of winning, that is not illogical. And they are all following the logical steps you mentioned to increase their chance, if they believed the were guaranteed to win, they may skip training. You don't have to believe with 100% certainty you are going to win, you just have to believe you have a decent shot, which they do.


2. I don't know, perhaps, its possible that certain parts of the brain fire when you feel love, and If they can't already they may one day be able to measure your level of love on a brain scan, they can do this with some other impulses already.

In regards to the other stuff, I dont think it is illogical to look after your kids, you get pleasure from doing it obviously, have you read the self fish gene, it talks about some of this stuff.


3. Its not surprising to me that they were religious, the Cold War inspired a lot of extreme religious swaying, because the "godless commies",


4. May argument stands, believing as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible will inform your actions in a more positive way accross the board than actively believeing falsehoods

1. Have you played elite sports or been at the very epitome of any endeavor? These are not the words of someone who has. You must believe absolutely that you will win and do what is in your control to achieve it. That includes turning up for training. Winners don't turn up and think, "oh top 5 will do". Well done Johnny. That stuff ends in U/12 regional sport.

2. Yes, actually, there is a hormone called Oxytocin which is released. fMRI can also detect it. But you can also get it when you eat lots of chocolate or 'doing the deed'. So, did I love my kids or the box of Tim Tams I just mashed down or...? Which is a control for which? Am I in love with my Tim Tams? Do my kids remind me of chocolate? Can't mention the Mrs... Even when they map every neuron, the answer will be indeterminant. There is no absolute. It is probabilistic. It is built into the design of the universe as science understands it...right down to the smallest measurable particles. Virtually nothing worth investigating is known absolutely. Real science knows its limitations. The hardest of science - physics - has had fundamental beliefs re-written frequently. The most important fundamental theories can't even be aligned. However, the desire for entertainment brings science into contests where proof can never be found within its tool set.

3. You are ignoring the Pew survey. Those are the stats for actual beliefs post "godless commies". The chances of a random selection of Americans turning up as religious astronauts as apposed to athiests is beyond the normally accepted boundary for statistical significance.

4. Your point does not stand on very important points although you can feel free to believe it does. Who here is actively believing falsehoods? They are believing things which cannot actually be falsified by scientific endeavor. Dawkins cannot disprove a tea cup whirring around the sun. There is simply a standard of proof which is right for him to say God does not exist. But it is a probability statement which is taken to be certainty by some. However, a flaw in logic that often prevails in this type of situation is that proof of presence is necessary to believe an object exists. Read any quantum physics lately? It is the compliment of the logical fallacy that absence of proof is proof of absence.

 

[SirRumpole]

Nothing about atheism can lead to genocide,

I seriously doubt that. There are such people as radical atheists who stir up feelings against religions who they see as a threat. Any belief (or non belief) system can be used as an excuse to persecute one group or another. I've already mentioned the Chinese. Religion can be used for good or evil, so can atheism.

 

[noco]

I seriously doubt that. There are such people as radical atheists who stir up feelings against religions who they see as a threat. Any belief (or non belief) system can be used as an excuse to persecute one group or another. I've already mentioned the Chinese. Religion can be used for good or evil, so can atheism.

Just give Juliar Gillard a call...she will explain it all for you.

 

[DeepState]

1. They all have a chance of winning, that is not illogical. And they are all following the logical steps you mentioned to increase their chance, if they believed the were guaranteed to win, they may skip training. You don't have to believe with 100% certainty you are going to win, you just have to believe you have a decent shot, which they do.

2. I dont think it is illogical to look after your kids, you get pleasure from doing it obviously.

VC, my apologies for drawing out a second thread to one response. I just thought of a few more things.

1. Martin Seligman, father of Positive Psychology, has examined the impact of positive disposition. The effects of optimism are corroborated elsewhere. Basically, optimists are actually unrealistic. They are overconfident, overestimate outcomes....everything which scientific endeavor would caution against. Yet, optimists are by far the more successful in life, live longer, happier and more productive lives. Yet they are irrational in their estimation as science would have it. In contrast, pessimists are actually very rational. They are the realists. What they think of themselves turns out to be accurate.

Great endeavor is undertaken by people who are pretty much nuts. Who sails the seas thinking the earth is flat or where dragons may lurk? Who tries new ways and fails over and over again to discover electricity and harness it? And on and on. The odds of success and payback are not in their favour unless measured as irrational. Yet where would society be without these irrational people? In order to succeed as a species, we need the crazies to push the ridiculous boundaries where many perish and one changes the world as we know it.

You seem keen on the psych, genetic, behavioural texts. Black students in the US when mixed with White/Other doing an IQ test do poorly. Sit a matched sample in a classroom of Blacks only and they do well/average. Why is that? Because they play to type in the mixed classroom and expect to do poorly against this cohort because society told them so. Belief determines fact.

Science describes what is in place and tries to offer an explanation and, sometimes, forward induction. I'll use the term 'rational' as being improving personal or societal outcomes. That to me is the purpose of endeavor whether through science or other means. None of the above accords with scientific principles. Scientifically falsifiable beliefs produced better outcomes. To subject these beliefs to scientific norms is to destroy what makes us great. Now, is that scientifically logical? Not knowing the truth can make us stronger. In the case of science, thank goodness, sometimes the truth can never be known. Applying science to a field and problem type that is insoluble doesn't really make sense. That is, unless we are on a chat site having fun.


2. If it is not illogical to look after my kids because I enjoy it and it cannot be conclusively proved that I do, why is it illogical for someone who derives emotional benefit from believing in a higher being when the absence of the superior being cannot be proved? Dawkins and his selfish gene is just one view on this. In a societal sense, I'm not very sure his arguments are correct. But enough for one post.

 

[Value Collector]

I seriously doubt that. There are such people as radical atheists who stir up feelings against religions who they see as a threat. Any belief (or non belief) system can be used as an excuse to persecute one group or another. I've already mentioned the Chinese. Religion can be used for good or evil, so can atheism.

An atheist is just a person who doesn't believe in god, anything else is something else.

If a person hates religion, that would be Anti theist, they may be an "atheist anti theist" or they may be a " deist anti theist" or even a "communist anti theist", the point i am making is that the word atheist describes one answer to one question, thats it any other ideologies are not atheism.

 

[DeepState]

On the application of science to prove/disprove the existence of a superior being:

 

[SirRumpole]

An atheist is just a person who doesn't believe in god, anything else is something else.

If a person hates religion, that would be Anti theist, they may be an "atheist anti theist" or they may be a " deist anti theist" or even a "communist anti theist", the point i am making is that the word atheist describes one answer to one question, thats it any other ideologies are not atheism.

All right, I'll accept that, unless further evidence changes my mind

 

[Value Collector]

1. Have you played elite sports or been at the very epitome of any endeavor? These are not the words of someone who has. You must believe absolutely that you will win and do what is in your control to achieve it. That includes turning up for training. Winners don't turn up and think, "oh top 5 will do". Well done Johnny. That stuff ends in U/12 regional sport.

2. Yes, actually, there is a hormone called Oxytocin which is released. fMRI can also detect it. But you can also get it when you eat lots of chocolate or 'doing the deed'. So, did I love my kids or the box of Tim Tams I just mashed down or...? Which is a control for which? Am I in love with my Tim Tams? Do my kids remind me of chocolate? Can't mention the Mrs... Even when they map every neuron, the answer will be indeterminant. There is no absolute. It is probabilistic. It is built into the design of the universe as science understands it...right down to the smallest measurable particles. Virtually nothing worth investigating is known absolutely. Real science knows its limitations. The hardest of science - physics - has had fundamental beliefs re-written frequently. The most important fundamental theories can't even be aligned. However, the desire for entertainment brings science into contests where proof can never be found within its tool set.

3. You are ignoring the Pew survey. Those are the stats for actual beliefs post "godless commies". The chances of a random selection of Americans turning up as religious astronauts as apposed to athiests is beyond the normally accepted boundary for statistical significance.

4. Your point does not stand on very important points although you can feel free to believe it does. Who here is actively believing falsehoods? They are believing things which cannot actually be falsified by scientific endeavor. Dawkins cannot disprove a tea cup whirring around the sun. There is simply a standard of proof which is right for him to say God does not exist. But it is a probability statement which is taken to be certainty by some. However, a flaw in logic that often prevails in this type of situation is that proof of presence is necessary to believe an object exists. Read any quantum physics lately? It is the compliment of the logical fallacy that absence of proof is proof of absence.

1, I was a special forces soldier for 7 years, does that count. And i know believing as many true things was very important to that, over confidence can be very dangerous.

2, i really think we are getting into red herrings now,

3, yes but all apollo members were airforce, when you are working with any specialised group in a population you will find things diverge from averages, eg, a very high degree of military members vote liberal, and at the time i served in my regiment Queensland was over represented but you cant draw conclusions that it takes a liberal voting queenslander to do what we do.

4, there are many people who believe falsehoods here, just because the concept of a god is unfalsifiable doesn't mean the claims of the various religions are also unfalsifiable. The claim that the earth was created in 6 days for example can be proven false.

 

[Value Collector]

2. If it is not illogical to look after my kids because I enjoy it and it cannot be conclusively proved that I do, why is it illogical for someone who derives emotional benefit from believing in a higher being when the absence of the superior being cannot be proved? Dawkins and his selfish gene is just one view on this. In a societal sense, I'm not very sure his arguments are correct. But enough for one post.

Enjoyment is not the only thing that makes looking after your kids logical.

I am fine with some one believing things that can't be proven, remember my statement is only that it is beneficial to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

If someone wants to take a religious position, and they don't care if its true or not. Thats fine with me, but then we have nothing to talk about, and i think they should not lobby government to conform or discriminate against others etc.

But if some one takes a religious view and they say they know its true and should there fore have some power over me, well then we need to have a conversation to work out whether it is true, and that will involve them having to prove their position.

But look, this conversation has diverged along way from my original points, I am not saying only scientific things should be believed, or whatever extreme view you think I have, i willing admit we all believe things that are false, but I mainline that we benefit when we work to reduce the number of false things and increase the number of true things.

 

[DeepState]

1, I was a special forces soldier for 7 years, does that count. And i know believing as many true things was very important to that, over confidence can be very dangerous.

2, i really think we are getting into red herrings now,

3, yes but all apollo members were airforce, when you are working with any specialised group in a population you will find things diverge from averages, eg, a very high degree of military members vote liberal, and at the time i served in my regiment Queensland was over represented but you cant draw conclusions that it takes a liberal voting queenslander to do what we do.

4, there are many people who believe falsehoods here, just because the concept of a god is unfalsifiable doesn't mean the claims of the various religions are also unfalsifiable. The claim that the earth was created in 6 days for example can be proven false.

1. Yup, that counts. Thanks very much for your service to the nation. As a younger guy I went to 3RAR to be a weekend special forces guy...and found the women were bigger than me. I was wondering how I was supposed to haul the monster guys around. Got my viewpoint scientifically adjusted pretty fast.

In service, would you say that your confidence in yourself and each other in service and in hostile territory was such that you could go into situations that 99.9% of Australians would not think was viable for them? It's that part I mean. You think you can do it when a cross section of the populace would look with admiration but think that is a bit on the extreme side to say the least even if they had the immense requisites otherwise. In the uncommon belief that you can do it, you trained stupendously to achieve and earn that confidence. And then, you engaged in necessary activity carefully and with as much understanding of the risk as possible. Belief in winning is not to be equated with stupid bravado. Because you've done it, it may not seem like it, but I reckon most people would think that what you personally did is irrational in that they wouldn't do it...although they would be grateful for your presence anyway.

2. Key point: no-one can ever be sure about certain important things.

3. Fair point. I don't have the stats on the subset. And there is a difference between correlation and causality. Still, I am amazed at it and find the depth of belief was so strong and think, as opposed to know, that it was uncommon. I don't think that religious belief is exactly on the same plane as Queensland liberals though in terms of that issue. Maybe growing up in warm weather makes you a better soldier on average. Maybe there weren't enough jobs in Queensland at the time and the army was recruiting. Just kidding around.

4. I agree. But let's be careful about talking about religion in general and keeping it separate from some of the falsifiable claims that get made. As you know, the presence of falsifiable claims doesn't obviate the whole edifice. Science has made heaps of claims that have been falsified, per the scientific method.

 

[cynic]

...there is a difference between correlation and causality...

...But let's be careful about talking about religion in general and keeping it separate from some of the falsifiable claims that get made. As you know, the presence of falsifiable claims doesn't obviate the whole edifice. Science has made heaps of claims that have been falsified, per the scientific method.

+1

I think Value Collector has been quite reasonable - he didn't say that there's no God, just he doesn't know for sure so prefer not to believe one exists until proven otherwise.

I have many friends, some of them are atheists and with the exception of one unfortunate misunderstanding involving my issuing a compliment related to the minister's sermon at their wedding, we've been able to respectfully share our diverse perspectives and still remain friends.

However, abusing a person for exercising their right to hold a different philosophical opinion, does not conform to my understanding of reasonable behaviour.

 

[cynic]

...Any belief (or non belief) system can be used as an excuse to persecute one group or another...Religion can be used for good or evil, so can atheism.

+1

This thread now has a series of examples of posters personally demonstrating the truth of your statement!

 

[cynic]

Good on you, cynic.

An excellent post, duckman, regarding thoughts and prayers.

VC, you call people brainwashed yet you constantly post youtubes in here with Dawkins, who is brainwashed?
I don't appreciate you putting up pictures of brains and lies when anyone mentions something that is against how you think.
Most of these people that have contributed aren't even religious, yet you don't want to hear it?
Anyone that has come in here with a different view has to repeat themselves constantly saying they aren't religious, what does that say?
That you have your own religion.

Cynic has talked about science often in all his posts, so how do you conclude that he doesn't believe in science.
I am happy to sit and watch discussions progress, but its the likes of you and a few others that have just stopped them from going anywhere.

Rumpole has mentioned a few things and where did that discussion go, apart from you talking about fairies.

What is the point of these discussions when it never gets off the ground with hard religious folk like you, that constantly push their own.

Thanks for your support Tink, much appreciated.

Translation: gold star for whoever agrees with my view because if they are a genius then so am I
...

Yes!

I think I can recall reading of a wonderful teacher speaking of such things! It's truly amazing how some of the wisdom passed down throughout millenia has remained relevant to the current day!