Religion IS crazy!

[cynic]

Who am I abusing?
...
What part of my position lacks scientific evidence? and I never said cynic doesn't believe in science, I am just saying we is using this disparate facts to point in an illogical area, because he has confirmation bias.

Scientific facts to not discomfort me, Your constant misdirection, twisting and failure to recognise your own confirmation bias does.

...
Who are you talking about? I think you'll find I have been willing to engage anybody in dialogue. The only person I find is a pain to talk to is Cynic, and only because of his dishonest style of debate.
...
I think he believes in science, it's just he suffers from confirmation bias, a big part of the scientific method involves trying to weed out your own confirmation bias, that's all I am saying. You can come to all sorts of wrong conclusions if you misapply the scientific method.
...

+100

I agree 100% on that. Cynic's contribution to the debate has been zero, just pure obfuscation. He has never produced any material to support what he says but just alludes to something different or throws back gratuitous replies such as "it's there for all to see" ignoring every request that he detail what's there for all to see. Just look at almost every one of his replies. Nothing ever addresses what is asked, but instead just additional meaningless dribble.
...
To VC - good on you. Keep exposing nonsense with facts.

Yes, complete obfuscation is the best description for Cynics replies.
...

Crikey!!! Roll out the crucifix guys!
Just another classic case of shoot the messenger!!!

 

[FxTrader]

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.

Radical atheists?? Oh please, where are those violent hoards of atheists killing religious believers, persecuting them, strapping bombs to their bodies and killing the innocent etc. Not only is such an association obscene, it's asinine and absurd nonsense.

I note that such irrational loathing of those who expect conclusive, convincing evidence for belief in the existence of imagined celestial dictators is becoming fashionable among the religious. Religion is preferable to non-religion because those hated atheists have no reason to be moral and similar rhetorical garbage.

At issue is whether the fantastic claims of the religious and any particular religion are true. Religion is not true because:

• It says so in the iron-age scrolls
• Proclaimed atheists have done evil things
• Atheism is also a religion
• It's useful for an orderly society
• An ordered universe requires a creator
• It gives people a sense of comfort
• Religious people are better citizens
• Evolution theory is flawed
• Etc.

Demonizing atheists and atheism does not prove the case for the truth and accuracy of any particular religion. For those arguing the case for religion here, stop this game of diversion and address the core issue of why you believe and what evidence justifies your belief.

As to the hated term atheism, I prefer this quote by Sam Harris:

“In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”

 

[SirRumpole]

Radical atheists?? Oh please, where are those violent hoards of atheists killing religious believers, persecuting them, strapping bombs to their bodies and killing the innocent etc. Not only is such an association obscene, it's asinine and absurd nonsense.

You might consider the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

If you think such allegations are absurd, then I'm sure you won't associate all religious people with the starting of wars etc. Such allegations are equally absurd, obscene and offensive to those people.

Just remember that religion in total cannot be blamed for the actions of a few within that religion, as atheists in total cannot be blamed for the actions of a subset of that group.

 

[DeepState]

1. remember my statement is only that it is beneficial to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

2. 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.

1. I used to believe this. Now I think it's a bit more complex than I had first imagined. This is only a belief, but I'll go with it. I have supplied examples where I think I have demonstrated that truth is not always beneficial to a higher objective. There are several others. These are always subject to varying degrees of critique. Perhaps where we might differ is on a technicality. I believe that we have better lives when we take an optimistic/positive/whatever viewpoint when there is not strong evidence to the contrary. This may not apply to investments (actually provably not so).

2. Chillax about this. I don't think you have an extreme view at all. It's just a (imo very well reasoned) view and I wanted to sharpen mine against yours. Like you, I am capable of arguing against myself. But it's more effective when you have a strong 'opponent' to shape your metal. My approach, beliefs etc. are actually not too divergent. They are just different. We can keep talking.

I like this:

http://www.bwater.com/home/culture--principles/culture-videos.aspx

Click on 'Ray'. It will be the video that is already loaded. He is the founder of Bridgewater. I use their methods in investment. I seriously respect them and their approach. I think it might bring some useful things to this thread. I hope you enjoy it.

Joe, don't blow me off here, this is not about stock chat!

 

[FxTrader]

You might consider the persecution of the Falun Gong in China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

If you think such allegations are absurd, then I'm sure you won't associate all religious people with the starting of wars etc. Such allegations are equally absurd, obscene and offensive to those people.

Just remember that religion in total cannot be blamed for the actions of a few within that religion, as atheists in total cannot be blamed for the actions of a subset of that group.

So then by your reasoning the persecution of the Falun Gong by the Chinese Government is an act by "radical atheists"? Yes, I think such an argument is absurd and in no way validates the incredible claims made by the religious.

Competing claims in magic books taken to seriously by "radical religious believers" is tearing human society apart and is responsible for strife, suffering and death on a large scale. This is not an allegation, it's fact and readily observable daily.

What evil people do in the name of religion is a problem for their religion. Atheism is NOT a religion and any attempt to label it as such is intellectually dishonest and mischievous for reasons already explained here many times. Atheists are not a collective group and not identifiable as such, please reread Harris' quote.

 

[Value Collector]

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.

1, I certainly never believed I couldn't fail, to an extent I think I was driven by a fear of failure, the idea that I might one day let my mates down was a horrifying thought, if anything kept me awake at night, that was it.

 

[Julia]

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.

There seem to be two arguments running here:

1. that a god exists or doesn't: neither 'side' can prove their point of view.

2. it's a feelgood thing to have something to believe in.

I don't want to insult anyone by being simplistic, but if someone were just to say:

"I have no idea whether a god of any type exists, I certainly can't demonstrate his/her existence or otherwise, but I find it a comfort to believe that my life is guided by some higher being which supports me and helps my passage through life"

then why would anyone argue with that?

If God exists and has been paying attention to His creations, he's not someone worthy of respect and admiration, and not someone you ought to pray to for forgiveness or for world peace let alone a lottery ticket.

If God is a parent and we his children, even DOCS would be able to see the neglect.

I did like this.

 

[Ves]

Probably the closest to my own 'view' would be something like the concept explained in this article:

http://www.raptitude.com/2011/05/you-are-another-bull-in-the-china-shop/

I like the fact that it does not argue against the usefulness & worthiness of religion, but compliments it from an "atheist" point of view (ie. religion exists because man needs a way to control his primal urges).

 

[FxTrader]

There seem to be two arguments running here:

1. that a god exists or doesn't: neither 'side' can prove their point of view.

2. it's a feelgood thing to have something to believe in.

Not entirely accurate, asserting there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any sky God is quite different to claiming that a God does not exist. The claim by many religious that not only does God(s) exist but that such existence has implications for your eternal soul means they own the burden of proof. An infinite number of beliefs are unprovable, but those related to a God must be since the consequences for the religious and human society are significant.

I don't want to insult anyone by being simplistic, but if someone were just to say:

"I have no idea whether a god of any type exists, I certainly can't demonstrate his/her existence or otherwise, but I find it a comfort to believe that my life is guided by some higher being which supports me and helps my passage through life" then why would anyone argue with that?

If only religion was so benign. Sure, self-delusion can be harmless, but the communitarian nature of religious belief means that all of human society is impacted by those who take the fiction in iron-age scrolls to seriously.

 

[SirRumpole]

So then by your reasoning the persecution of the Falun Gong by the Chinese Government is an act by "radical atheists"? Yes, I think such an argument is absurd and in no way validates the incredible claims made by the religious.

Cop out. You just can't accept that some atheists do nasty things. Take the blinkers off some time.

Competing claims in magic books taken to seriously by "radical religious believers" is tearing human society apart and is responsible for strife, suffering and death on a large scale. This is not an allegation, it's fact and readily observable daily.

There are radicals in all walks of life. More in some religions than others. Anything can be used for good or evil.

What evil people do in the name of religion is a problem for their religion.

No , it's a problem for the evil doers and the legal processes of the country in which they reside.

Atheism is NOT a religion and any attempt to label it as such is intellectually dishonest and mischievous for reasons already explained here many times. Atheists are not a collective group and not identifiable as such, please reread Harris' quote.

Where did I say atheism was a religion ? It's just semantics anyway. Religious people do good and bad things, so do atheists. Is that too complex an issue to grasp ?

 

[Value Collector]

Cop out. You just can't accept that some atheists do nasty things. Take the blinkers off some time.



?

That's not quite what you said, you implied that atheism can cause people to commit genocide. Which is very different from saying an atheist can commit genocide.

Offcourse simply being an atheist doesn't guarantee that I person will never do bad things, so there would have been people that are atheists that have done bad things, but there is no doctrine in atheism that would cause people to commit bad acts.

This is not true for theism though, religions have various doctrines which can instruct people to commit bad acts, thats the biggest difference.

 

[DeepState]

1. Not entirely accurate, asserting there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any sky God is quite different to claiming that a God does not exist. The claim by many religious that not only does God(s) exist but that such existence has implications for your eternal soul means they own the burden of proof. An infinite number of beliefs are unprovable, but those related to a God must be since the consequences for the religious and human society are significant.

2. If only religion was so benign. Sure, self-delusion can be harmless, but the communitarian nature of religious belief means that all of human society is impacted by those who take the fiction in iron-age scrolls to seriously.

Very interesting perspective.

1. From a pure logic perspective, I disagree with what you have asserted in terms of proof of existence vs not - just in isolation. However, I think your following sentence makes me accept that the consequences of the beliefs are very different depending on the perspective which has been arrived at. The road does fork and each lane has consequences. Given the asymmetry of consequence that you highlight, I think I get it.

Given the perceived consequences of believing in God are, to your mind, so large, an insurmountable burden of proof is called for. Surely you accept that your request will never be met. People will believe. They will believe that it is possible for God to exist and some will strongly identify with this belief. They will not stand before the court of scientific proof, they do not recognize its jurisdiction in this area.

2. Given that people will believe what they do, which coalesces into a joint identity and then creates mass effects, what kills? Is it the gun, or the person wielding it? Religion is the gun. Change your Glock 19 (religion) for a Barrett .50 Caliber (1960s geopolitical power play to prevent Marxism/Communism from spreading) and you get the Mai Lai massacre and countless more atrocities. Humans have always fought and destroyed each other as well as coalesced. We don't need religion to do it. It's just an excuse. When at war, it gets called a religious war when it is really a tribal conflict using religion as a context. Take away religion and replace it with anything that creates a tightly binding joint identity like political persuasion or desire for more arable or fertile land, or simply to have more than the next guy and you get the same effects.

Strength of identity is relative. Further, we identify ourselves strongly by what we are not. So simply being in opposition to something binds where nothing else within the group does so. How on earth did Germany mix with Russia to annex Poland at first? Then, shortly after, proceed to engage in Total War? This was not a religious conflict and yet ranks as one of the greatest tolls ever extracted on a battlefield. I think it ranks #1.

We seem to believe deepest when evidence is scarcest. And we will scream loudest at each other under such circumstances, sometimes spilling into war. This effect happens in investments in a measurable way too. It's amazing how it does and reflects the impact of powerful beliefs in important areas where tangible outcomes are available definitively. Given tangible outcomes are not available for much of what really matters, is it surprising that what we have as an outcome is as it is? Religion is just a lever (in this context). There are others that are virulent too that will just step up in its absence. The outcomes will be different in detail but similar in scope. What is constant is the underlying process of coalescing and struggle which sometimes leads to war. That is not a creature of religion, rather, it is its progenitors.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's not quite what you said, you implied that atheism can cause people to commit genocide. Which is very different from saying an atheist can commit genocide.

Offcourse simply being an atheist doesn't guarantee that I person will never do bad things, so there would have been people that are atheists that have done bad things, but there is no doctrine in atheism that would cause people to commit bad acts.

This is not true for theism though, religions have various doctrines which can instruct people to commit bad acts, thats the biggest difference.

Sorry, I have to disagree.

If you take atheism to an extreme, it turns into a hatred of religion (which we have seen here in this forum in varying degrees) . In the mind of a homicidal lunatic that could turn into violence against religious people or the institutions of religion. Don't you think that China's persecution of the Falun Gong (which as far as I know has no violence inherent in it's doctrine) falls into that category ? As was China's cultural revolution which was a similar attack against religion amongst other things. You seem anxious to ignore these examples of religious persecution while throwing verbal grenades against religion.

Believe me, I think that some religious people do some nasty things, but to ignore the fact that religious people are also persecuted in the name of atheism is to ignore evidence contrary to your opinion, and given your obsession with evidence I certainly hope you won't do that.

The real threat to society is extremism of any sort. I hope you don't think that the millions of your countrymen who go to church every Sunday and go peacefully about their daily lives are going to let themselves be turned into murderers just because a preacher says so ? To do so would be to do good people a great disservice.

 

[Tink]

Good on you and well said, Rumpole.

Of course, I disagree with you, FX.
Who would want to be a teacher now in those public school classrooms with no respect, not many, I can assure you. Sadly, the lack of religion and ethics is showing. No warmth.

You are welcome, cynic.
You have added a lot of discussions in this debate that have started people thinking and talking, but sadly, they don't like to see that. They don't want to know about history, and where science started. They don't want to hear about chromosomes in the Bible long before people even knew what they were.

They don't want to see that Australia was built on Christian values, but they slowly want to chip all that away.

All those things aren't important in their scheme of things, as long as religion gets knocked out in whatever way possible so that they can add their own religion - themselves - like the Communists, that rule the world with no rules in society.

Survival of the fittest and the rules of the jungle, yeah.

 

[FxTrader]

If you take atheism to an extreme, it turns into a hatred of religion (which we have seen here in this forum in varying degrees) . In the mind of a homicidal lunatic that could turn into violence against religious people or the institutions of religion. Don't you think that China's persecution of the Falun Gong (which as far as I know has no violence inherent in it's doctrine) falls into that category ? As was China's cultural revolution which was a similar attack against religion amongst other things. You seem anxious to ignore these examples of religious persecution while throwing verbal grenades against religion.

Your fixation with trying to vilify non-belief and attempt to characterize atheism as some kind of institutional force bent on the destruction of religion betrays an irrational loathing of those who simply suggest there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any sky God. You conveniently ignore the atrocities committed in the name of religion daily and instead continue your blinkered focus on the evils of your atheist bogeyman.

The Chinese government persecutes certain religions because they see them as a threat to the socialist order and their continued power, not because they are an atheist collective. It's a totalitarian regime bent on controlling all of society by force and repression where deemed necessary to preserve the communist state.

Believe me, I think that some religious people do some nasty things, but to ignore the fact that religious people are also persecuted in the name of atheism is to ignore evidence contrary to your opinion, and given your obsession with evidence I certainly hope you won't do that.

The notion that people are also persecuted "in the name of atheism" is a figment of your imagination and a totally unsubstantiated claim.

The real threat to society is extremism of any sort. I hope you don't think that the millions of your countrymen who go to church every Sunday and go peacefully about their daily lives are going to let themselves be turned into murderers just because a preacher says so ? To do so would be to do good people a great disservice.

Religious and political extremism is indeed a threat to human society. The deception masquerading as absolute truth pontificated from the pulpit in Churches every Sunday and drummed into the minds of children is hardly harmless or victimless. The tenants of Christian faith are a fraud perpetrated by religious leaders and institutions on a willing, duped and gullible flock sold on the fanciful fiction they will inherit eternity if they profess some level of belief that God crucified himself on a cross in the form of Jesus to redeem the original sin of a symbolic Adam and Eve (the progenitors of fallen humanity) who succumbed to temptation by a serpent - how absurd.

 

[SirRumpole]

The notion that people are also persecuted "in the name of atheism" is a figment of your imagination and a totally unsubstantiated claim.

Only to people wearing blinkers. What religion are the Chinese government ?

If a person with undeclared religious beliefs declared war on atheists would you assume that they had religious beliefs ?

Atheism and religion are opposing philosophies. There is no need to persecute one of these groups unless you are a member of the other.

And Richard Dawkins certainly persecutes religions in the name of atheism. Why else does he do it ?

 

[FxTrader]

Only to people wearing blinkers. What religion are the Chinese government ?

Communism

If a person with undeclared religious beliefs declared war on atheists would you assume that they had religious beliefs ?

Once again, atheism is not a belief system, institutional force or doctrine. Your hypothetical question is pointless.

Atheism and religion are opposing philosophies. There is no need to persecute one of these groups unless you are a member of the other.

Atheism is not a philosophy and no amount of semantic argument can make it so.

And Richard Dawkins certainly persecutes religions in the name of atheism. Why else does he do it?

This totally irrational and emotive statement deserves no response. People don't persecute you through disagreement and force of argument, your sense of what constitutes persecution is a very distorted and imaginary one.

 

[Tink]

As you can see there are many religions in here, Rumpole.

Militant atheists with their messiah, Richard Dawkins.
Come one and all, today we are going to stop the Pope coming in England.
Follow me.......

 

[SirRumpole]

This totally irrational and emotive statement deserves no response. People don't persecute you through disagreement and force of argument, your sense of what constitutes persecution is a very distorted and imaginary one.

Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.

Richard Dawkins

Calling all religious people mentally ill is persecution by anyone's standards except maybe those of militant atheists.

Care to defend Dawkin's statement ? Where is the 'force of argument' in that statement ? It's pure vindictiveness.

 

[McLovin]

Who would want to be a teacher now in those public school classrooms with no respect, not many, I can assure you.

I realise that the "no respect" story fits in with your world view that society is falling apart because we don't worship your sky god, but you are wrong.

The evidence is stacking up that it's becoming increasingly difficult for teachers, particularly primary teacher graduates, to find permanent jobs.

In May, a federal government body, the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership, released a report showing that only half of education graduates got full-time jobs.

In 2011, 55 per cent of primary teacher graduates obtained full-time jobs, 31 per cent had part-time work and 14 per cent didn't have jobs. For secondary teachers, 56 per cent had full-time appointments, 28 per cent worked part-time and 16 per cent didn't have jobs.

Many graduate teachers in Victoria have short-term contracts, but want permanent positions. A 2012 Productivity Commission report, Schools Workforce, says contract and casual employment has been growing in Australia.
The report also says there is a surplus of teachers as "evidenced by the substantial number of (mainly primary) teachers who are on standby for positions in metropolitan areas". For example, of the 33,000 teachers on waiting lists for permanent positions in NSW, about 19,000 are qualified primary teachers.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/educ...of-teachers-20130829-2ss22.html#ixzz37yQZKWUN