How did any of you arrive at your conclusion?

[Synre]

I think we've kind of stumbled upon a much more discussable issue here rather than the atheism/agnosticism vs. theology debate that always seems to crop up and never really go anywhere...

Snipping a bit to highlight what I want to reference

Although i sort of agree with you on the moral basis, I don't believe it hurts to be kind out of fear or Pleasing God. In turn, morals come back. Maybe the world would be more honest without religion, but not better. You talk about atheism as a self control, as if you don't want God to affect what you think. That's not really the right attitude to take. And you can't go round assuming everyone religious is nice because they don't think they have a choice.

No doubt that Religion is just a sometimes seemingly pathetic set of ideals, but it does have it merits. If I was going to be happier and a better person as a Christian I would become one. I supose I'm contradicting myself here, but I feel as long as you've got you're morals in the right place, and you enjoy life...

I think the thesis I want to pull from this(and hopefully discuss) is "regardless of whether or not God is real, is the world better off because of religion?"

I'm kind of torn on this. I was born into a very religious family, but even as a kid I don't think I ever really bought in. I spent most of my life believing in kind of the idea that you got at originally there - that regardless of why people were doing it, religion probably made people behave better. If people weren't motivated by common sense(ie, that everyone is better off if everyone is more kind/respectful/generous with everyone else), what is the harm in them being motivated by fear? If at the end of the day people are (trying) to behave better, it's a net gain, right?

There's some definite inconsistencies there though, which Tangerine(kind of amusingly since he was replying to a different post) hit pretty well with:

Religion dictates that we break ourselves on the rules, rather than break the rules because "we find them irrelevant". Doing so would be arrogance. The issue is that society has changed a lot, but religion has not adapted fast enough - hence what we need to do is find WHY the rules were there to begin with and live by such reasons.

I think that is by a wide margin the biggest issue with religion right now. It is something that, regardless of your denomination or base religion, should be inherently good, since all the major religions (in addition to threatening to damn you eternally for disbelieving) are trying to get you to be a better person and to make communities more welcoming and effective. The problem, though, is that in a way that's surprisingly similar to the issues judges have with whether or not the constitution should be a living document, I think the holy books really need to be considered such as well. The words written are probably not important so much as the idea behind them(which I think you can basically boil down to good will and community service and generally being accepting of others). The terrible, ironic thing with religion is often that when things aren't interpreted that way, the very sources of those admirable ideas are used to work against the causes they represent.

I still think that, in general, people behave better because of religion, but I think at times it becomes a very dangerous safety blanket. I don't think there should ever be anything in life that you just read and think "well (x) says this, so it must be." Religion has a funny way of making people accept things without questioning it, and I don't think that's ever a good thing -- regardless of how that same trait probably benefits society by encouraging people to avoid committing deeds that are largely crimes nowdays(and thus there's an already an appeal to fear going) anyway.

I think people are probably slightly kinder because of religion, but slightly more closed minded too, and I'm not sure if that trade-off is worth it.

 

[CaptKirby]

I think that society is inherently worse off because of religion. Religion essentially discourages thought by telling you to rely on a higher being/source for thought (although there are exceptions like Daoism).

Beyond even that, religion actively represses behavior and dictates that one must live a rigid life which also discourages progress just the same! (Besides money and greed at least) Freedom of thought and lifestyle is essentially the greatest way for people to make progress. Religion introduces stress and concern into a life that does not otherwise exist. Society is going to make more progress when people can live a relaxed lifestyle where they are encouraged to be beholden to themselves rather than a scornful religion that tells them that they are wrong for enjoying simple, human pleasures (like sex outside of marriage or media that dares be *gasp* vulgar). Religion does not have the room to be accommodating because then it cannot have enough bluster about being the one super duper truest religion.

Without religion, morals could still be taught by Kindergarten and up teachers just like it is now. Parents and teachers would still have the same level of influence. Instead of relying on scornful, repressive rules though, maybe a lot of the rules would be a lot more lenient and people would grow up with a lot less self-esteem issues. Religion introduces a lot of guilt and shame into a person's life, which at the least is going to cause worry and a general pensiveness, but at the most genuinely wreck a person for feeling so "sinful." How could this possibly ever be good?! Teaching integrity is marvelous. Teaching people that they are inherently sinful is an intellectual crime.

Synre, to your specific point about religions trying to just be welcoming and make people be good, I do not think that is the case at all. Religions mostly stand as an active rejection of so many matters and especially other religious doctrines. So what is the reason for this? Religion is pretty much, to me, about humans trying to dictate human behavior to their own ends. Whether that end is simply wanting people to be "prudent" or (as it is with most organized religion) to build a cult power base, I do not think the end result is nearly ever good.

 

[Brain]

Not completely. Religion dictates that we break ourselves on the rules, rather than break the rules because "we find them irrelevant". Doing so would be arrogance.

Huh? You still think these are the best rules, even if you don't like them. This is not unique to religion either.

The issue is that society has changed a lot, but religion has not adapted fast enough - hence what we need to do is find WHY the rules were there to begin with and live by such reasons.

So how do we contact God to have his opinion on the new society? How confident can you be in reinterpreting outdated texts anyway? Would the reasons even have anything to do with God anyway?

If you want to clump all of those factors into "irrational", then sure - to a degree. If I was simply "Indoctrinated", I 100% wouldn't be christian at this point.

Basically, CS Lewis' quote applies - "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." Call it indoctrination, irrational, etc, but it's simply another way of looking at the world (hence, worldview)

That's a cute quote but his reasons for believing the sun has risen must be a little more elaborate than this, for at this rate he would mistake artificial light for the sun. Not to mention Muslims, Buddhists and people from various other religions would say exactly the same thing. Perspective may cast a shadow of a doubt on the existence of your preferred kind of sun there...

You assume the following.

1) The system of "logic" we have is not simply an APPROXIMATION of how everything actually works, but it is actually how everything works. I have no reason to believe that human rationality encompasses everything. I have no reason to believe that there isn't something more we're missing. If you wish to call this irrational, go ahead. But it's silly to assume that the 5 senses are everything, nor is it assume everything works according to some models we create.

I do not assume this at all. I simply point out that there is literally an infinity of possible scenarios outside of what we can see. I am not even talking about an infinity of gods. I am talking about an infinity of scenarios, including an infinite number of possible mutually exclusive deities, simulation in a higher up universe, simulation on a Turing machine, on Conway's game of life, I'm talking about the universe beginning billions of years ago, a thousand years ago, one second ago, about particles being unicorn shaped and an infinity of coherent possibilities which are for the most part mutually exclusive and have a big zero evidence going for them. You can't just pick something from that infinity and put it on a pedestal, that's just completely arbitrary. The reason why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is not rocket science: the only way that an extraordinary claim can stand out against the masses of extraordinary claims that contradict it directly is to have evidence going for it. By what contrived criterion can you inflate the probability of God beyond that which evidence gives it? Whatever that criterion is, how can you stop me from subverting it into justifying anything whatsoever? Any criterion to prefer a particular explanation which is not based on evidence is a prior and it is bias, which I believe is unacceptable.

2) What makes you say that what you believe in is actually true, and not just an approximation of what we as humans can understand?

I do not say that. What I believe in certainly is an approximation of reality. In fact, I am an atheist precisely because I am aware of the uncertainty associated to my representation of the world and chiefly of the fact that my uncertainty allows such a ridiculous number of possibilities beyond what the evidence suggests that it is utterly pointless to consider any of them in particular. Basically, to me, God is a blip on the radar, a raindrop in an ocean of possibilities and I treat it accordingly, which is not at all, because nothing would warrant it. I will integrate a raindrop in my belief system if and only if there is evidence that it is useful for me to do it, because why else would I favor it over this other raindrop? I know the extent of my knowledge and I have a clear, pragmatic criterion as to how to extend it. Our belief systems are most probably quite similar on the big picture, but I would say that I am better at assessing the uncertainty around mine and am much more stringent as to what I believe. My atheism is as strong as you would expect from someone who has no criterion to sort through unevidenced concepts (most of which he is not even aware of).

3) I don't believe it simply because it is in my best interest. I'm never going to say that I believe in something because I'm always finding errors and reconciling them. I have a theory, and I want to make this theory as complete as I can. If you wish to call that a belief then go ahead - but I'm the last person who'd take anything as "truth".

I think you need more perspective about the extent of what unevidenced things can be and use this to conclude that there is quite frankly nothing to say about them. Or realize that metaphysical necessity does not exist - anything could have been the case and rationality is as unbiased a filtering system as you will get.

 

[theamericandream38]

In response to CK (the post above mine), how does having a "cult power base" help the leaders of the religion (or in the cases of religions without leaders, anyone at all)? I disagree with you on your point that religion is bad: So long as the religious people are not trying to force you or others to accept their religion (and why should they be, why the hell would they care what happens to someone else), they are not having an effect on your life at all. For this reason, there is no need to harbor such hatred for everyone who is religious. I fully understand disliking those who attempt to persuade others to think as they do, but it seems as if you despise anyone who dares follow a religion, even those who are simply doing so for their own benefit.

Now, in response to the OP, in order to understand how I arrived at my conclusion, you must first understand my conclusion. Allow me to quote Albert Einstein: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

I came to this conclusion after realizing that there is simply no reason a god-like being would care for lowly lifeforms such as humans. I also understand that to deny theories such as the Big Bang and Evolution (which Fundamentalist Christians do, though I am unsure about other religions) would be very foolhardy at this point. The belief that I hold allows me to accept these theories and others (including new and valid theories, should they appear) without contradicting my beliefs. Spinoza's God does not trifle in the affairs of humankind, and thus there are no contradictions of that sort. Spinoza's God exists only philosophically and it (note the lack of gender) is abstract and impersonal. Another interesting belief that Spinoza held (and I agree with) is: "Sin cannot be conceived in a natural state, but only in a civil state, where it is decreed by common consent what is good or bad." This is because good and evil are not predetermined, but are rather related to human pleasure and pain.

Now, with all that being said, I do not hold any hatred for those who subscribe to different beliefs than I (otherwise I would hate just about everyone). They have the abliity to choose what they want to believe in, and so long as it does not negatively affect me, I do not care what they choose. Fine user CaptKirby insists in the post above that religion discourages progress. My question to him is as follows: Even if that is true, why does it matter to you what other people are doing? If they do not want to progress, they can choose to do so. You can continue to progress and go on your merry way while others remain the same. In the end, is it truly of any importance what others are doing? I think not. What matters is simply that you choose to do what pleases you, on the condition that it does not intefere with the choices of others.

 

[Tangerine]

Huh? You still think these are the best rules, even if you don't like them. This is not unique to religion either.

Of course, I never said it was unique to religion.

So how do we contact God to have his opinion on the new society? How confident can you be in reinterpreting outdated texts anyway? Would the reasons even have anything to do with God anyway?

Why else do we constantly look at the passages over and over and think about it and interpret it? No one is confident - but over time, we can come up with an interpretation that gives us a much better understanding.

That's a cute quote but his reasons for believing the sun has risen must be a little more elaborate than this, for at this rate he would mistake artificial light for the sun. Not to mention Muslims, Buddhists and people from various other religions would say exactly the same thing. Perspective may cast a shadow of a doubt on the existence of your preferred kind of sun there...

I understand that there are other perspectives and that they will have a similar view of their religion - this is true for any worldview. You can call it a bias, if you wish, but in the end, we are all biased, no matter what we do, by experiences and the very fact that we are human.

I do not assume this at all. I simply point out that there is literally an infinity of possible scenarios outside of what we can see. I am not even talking about an infinity of gods. I am talking about an infinity of scenarios, including an infinite number of possible mutually exclusive deities, simulation in a higher up universe, simulation on a Turing machine, on Conway's game of life, I'm talking about the universe beginning billions of years ago, a thousand years ago, one second ago, about particles being unicorn shaped and an infinity of coherent possibilities which are for the most part mutually exclusive and have a big zero evidence going for them. You can't just pick something from that infinity and put it on a pedestal, that's just completely arbitrary.

Of course we dont just randomly pick something. That's the idea behind the perspective - the more I understand the Bible, for example, the better I understand the world. It's perspective that lets us pick whatever scenario and "put it on a pedestal"

The reason why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is not rocket science: the only way that an extraordinary claim can stand out against the masses of extraordinary claims that contradict it directly is to have evidence going for it. By what contrived criterion can you inflate the probability of God beyond that which evidence gives it? Whatever that criterion is, how can you stop me from subverting it into justifying anything whatsoever? Any criterion to prefer a particular explanation which is not based on evidence is a prior and it is bias, which I believe is unacceptable.

bias... against what? What is it biased towards? How is it biased exactly? The better question is what ISN'T biased? Things with "Evidence"? What good is "evidence", other than it being a nice little thing that we can use for scientific endeavors? Why does the scientific worldview suddenly just apply? Is the scientific world view the only unbiased object?

If you omit a significant variable, your results will be biased. If you add an insignificant variable, it's biased unless it's orthogonal. You can't simply say "you're adding a variable it is biased", since I can literally say that you are omitting a significant variable and thus you are biased.

Yes, it is a prior in my case, but in the end, as long as I am constantly testing my model, does it even matter?

I do not say that. What I believe in certainly is an approximation of reality. In fact, I am an atheist precisely because I am aware of the uncertainty associated to my representation of the world and chiefly of the fact that my uncertainty allows such a ridiculous number of possibilities beyond what the evidence suggests that it is utterly pointless to consider any of them in particular. Basically, to me, God is a blip on the radar, a raindrop in an ocean of possibilities and I treat it accordingly, which is not at all, because nothing would warrant it. I will integrate a raindrop in my belief system if and only if there is evidence that it is useful for me to do it, because why else would I favor it over this other raindrop? I know the extent of my knowledge and I have a clear, pragmatic criterion as to how to extend it.

If this is the case then why do you accuse me of not wanting to know what is "true" simply because I am religious?

I think you need more perspective about the extent of what unevidenced things can be and use this to conclude that there is quite frankly nothing to say about them. Or realize that metaphysical necessity does not exist - anything could have been the case and rationality is as unbiased a filtering system as you will get.

You keep saying "bias bias bias" but I will argue that this evidence based method is also biased for favor of things that humans can immediately comprehend. Yes, there are many other uncertain variables, and we constantly test them to see whether or not they are significant or not. We constantly create models and see which model fits the best, and then try and see why this model fits the best. Your approach is "I'm not adding another variable unless i have concrete evidence". "fair enough", but you can't honestly expect your approach to be unbiased or "less biased" than other approaches.

 

[Obsessed]

So long as the religious people are not trying to force you or others to accept their religion (and why should they be, why the hell would they care what happens to someone else), they are not having an effect on your life at all.

Except quite a lot of religious people tend to do just that. Certain religious groups pose a very real threat, and actually do effect our lives (at least indirectly).

 

[cantab]

So long as the religious people are not trying to force you or others to accept their religion (and why should they be, why the hell would they care what happens to someone else), they are not having an effect on your life at all.

Christianity and Islam both preach that their followers should seek to convert others. I believe it's in the New Testament and the Quran. Some religious people consider it their duty to force others to accept their religion.

 

[theamericandream38]

Like I said, certain religious peoples do feel that they should intervene in the lives of others. These are the religious people that I can understand harboring a dislike for. I was noting that CK seemed to be assuming that everyone who was religious had made it one of their life goals to convert others to their belief. I have no problem with those who do not interfere in the lives of others, but I too take offense when others try to force their opinion upon me.

 

[Obsessed]

Like I said, certain religious peoples do feel that they should intervene in the lives of others. These are the religious people that I can understand harboring a dislike for. I was noting that CK seemed to be assuming that everyone who was religious had made it one of their life goals to convert others to their belief. I have no problem with those who do not interfere in the lives of others, but I too take offense when others try to force their opinion upon me.

However it can be argued that the more moderate practitioners foster the fundamentalists. So even if they are not actively converting anyone, they are still adding to the problem.

 

[theamericandream38]

However it can be argued that the more moderate practitioners foster the fundamentalists. So even if they are not actively converting anyone, they are still adding to the problem.

How in the world do they "foster" the fundamentalists? You simply stated that without presenting any sort of evidence at all. I would love if you would explain your reasoning here, especially if you have some form of evidence.

 

[Obsessed]

How in the world do they "foster" the fundamentalists? You simply stated that without presenting any sort of evidence at all. I would love if you would explain your reasoning here, especially if you have some form of evidence.

Moderate supernaturalists may claim to have nothing to do with the 'crazy' fundamentalists, but they legitimise fundamentalism because they have performed the same process as the fundamentalists. They have accepted uncritically unsupported blind assertions about the existence of supernatural entities, treat those unsupported blind assertions as constituting "axioms" about the world, and (sometimes) regard them as beyond question. I can't recall the number of times I have been told that questioning someone's beliefs is rude, or that all beliefs are to be respected.

They (the moderates) erect entirely specious and arbitrary barriers to critical scrutiny of said blind assertions, insulating those assertions from proper analysis, and grant to those assertions a privileged status in the world of discourse, that would not be afforded to blind assertions arising from any other field of human thought. Those who dare not to accept these specious and arbitrary barriers to proper scrutiny are demonised, subject to ad hominem attack, on the entirely spurious grounds that those demanding that proper scrutiny be performed are somehow "disrespectful".

 

[theamericandream38]

Moderate supernaturalists may claim to have nothing to do with the 'crazy' fundamentalists, but they legitimise fundamentalism because they have performed the same process as the fundamentalists. They have accepted uncritically unsupported blind assertions about the existence of supernatural entities, treat those unsupported blind assertions as constituting "axioms" about the world, and (sometimes) regard them as beyond question. I can't recall the number of times I have been told that questioning someone's beliefs is rude, or that all beliefs are to be respected.

They (the moderates) erect entirely specious and arbitrary barriers to critical scrutiny of said blind assertions, insulating those assertions from proper analysis, and grant to those assertions a privileged status in the world of discourse, that would not be afforded to blind assertions arising from any other field of human thought. Those who dare not to accept these specious and arbitrary barriers to proper scrutiny are demonised, subject to ad hominem attack, on the entirely spurious grounds that those demanding that proper scrutiny be performed are somehow "disrespectful".

Where in your post did these people affect you? I couldn't find it. You don't need to criticize their belief, even if you believe it is wrong. To do so would be to suggest that you are more important than they, which is completely untrue. All humans are of equal value: none. By criticizing their belief, you are essentially doing the same thing that the people who are trying to spread their religion are doing, except that you are attempting to spread nonreligion. You have no right to tell other people what to think or do, no matter how foolish it may be. This applies until they cross a specific line: once someone interferes in the life of another, he should receive a reasonable punishment for his trespass. If one of these religious people comes up to you and tries to explain to you why you should believe in their religion, you are entirely within your right to explain why they should believe in your religion (or in this case, nonreligion). However, if someone is just minding their own business and happens to believe in a certain religion, there is absolutely no reason why you should desire to convert them to your belief. If everyone would simply understand this concept, you would not have these conflicts over whose belief is "better", and everyone would be better off.

 

[Obsessed]

Where in your post did these people affect you? I couldn't find it. You don't need to criticize their belief, even if you believe it is wrong. To do so would be to suggest that you are more important than they, which is completely untrue. All humans are of equal value: none. By criticizing their belief, you are essentially doing the same thing that the people who are trying to spread their religion are doing, except that you are attempting to spread nonreligion. You have no right to tell other people what to think or do, no matter how foolish it may be.

It is perfectly fine to criticize someones beliefs. If you go around claiming that the sun rises due to human sacrifice, I think I am allowed to show you how moronic that belief is. If you put your beliefs in the open, they are allowed to be criticized.

 

[Lord Blood]

I am hindu, but I find that all other religions are good. I honestly don't think that religion should matter much in normal society due to the harassing stereotypical comments made by insecure idiots. Ex. Islamics are terrorists and Hindus own 7-Elevens. I just believe that it's not right and that people shouldn't judge based off of that. But what I do not believe is that god is helping you commit crimes and other actions that could result in jail time. Religion doesn't have to do with other parts of society, but it's stereotypes that change that. Fucking assholes.

- LB -

 

[CaptKirby]

okay well tad, I live in Texas, so maybe the fact that you literally have this shit shoved down your throat is more unique to me than you. I thought I would get away from it at UT, but every big public demonstration was conservative/usually Christian, either in the form of people or these gigantic monuments, one with an actual progression of points about morality ending with something like 6. MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER IF YOU ARE GOING TO HEAVEN OR NOT!!!.

Anyway, even that is not really important to the point I think you are missing. The way we are raised to think by society at large is ridiculously religious in nature. Christianity in the United States, Islam in the Islamic nations, Buddhism in Asian countries in the past, or Confucianism or Daoism in China specifically, whatever. Even when it is not militaristic in nature, we are raised to be inculcated by these beliefs.

As to why it is useful for them to do this, I think that is pretty obvious. One can create people that are willing to be bent to your will, both strong and weak. Make them pray five times in a certain direction in one day and repress women. Make it so they will give you money and support. Controlling people is pretty inherently powerful.

A point I did not address here because I forgot was that religion actively promotes weakness over strength. For example, Christianity wants people to regurgitate verses of the Bible and believe that is strength rather than actually being strong. It keeps them from thinking and engaging their lives honestly instead.

Now obviously some parts of this sounds conspiracy theorist and/or jaded, but it is more like I do not care about the good parts of religions or when this does not occur. I want people to discard the notion that we need to answer to something spiritual - it weakens people, it allows them to be controlled, it causes unnecessary strife. The way we should engage with the notion of spirituality as humans, for those of us who decide it is true (which I am not among), is to just engage it positively. Not to answer to it, but to coexist. Not to mix it in with rules and regulations beyond the logic of "if I live pretty well, then I can experience this peace; how nice it is!"

 

[Brain]

Of course we dont just randomly pick something. That's the idea behind the perspective - the more I understand the Bible, for example, the better I understand the world. It's perspective that lets us pick whatever scenario and "put it on a pedestal"

So what insight does the Bible give you and what does it have to do with the existence of God? Your statement that the better you understand the Bible, the better you understand the world would arguably be just as true for many philosophical works, many prominent works of fiction and probably for most other religious texts.

bias... against what? What is it biased towards? How is it biased exactly? The better question is what ISN'T biased? Things with "Evidence"? What good is "evidence", other than it being a nice little thing that we can use for scientific endeavors? Why does the scientific worldview suddenly just apply? Is the scientific world view the only unbiased object?

Look there is bias and bias. The scientific method has one "bias": simpler is more probable. This "bias" is deeply grounded in utility because if X and Y both entail Z, the shorter of X or Y presumably has a higher information density and therefore explains as much with less and conversely more with as much. If X and Y have the same consequences in every single case, then there can never be any reason to prefer the longer explanation. It also stands to reason that any explanation X of length n of evidence may be arbitrarily extended to greater lengths, which may involve observable consequences, but in the absence of a test there is no reason to commit to any of these longer alternatives. Suppose that X and Y are both equivalent with respect to evidence but Y fits on n+m bits. To believe that X is the case can be interpreted as "bias" towards simpler explanations, but it can also be interpreted as simply withholding m bits in the absence of evidence requiring them and thus rather than bias it is simply tacit acknowledgement of uncertainty.

Your bias, on the other hand, has no such grounding. It is truly arbitrary, and to top it off, it is a bias for something which is ill-defined, for I still have no idea what the hell your concept of God is supposed to represent. My own bias, on the other hand, is a form of caution.

Yes, it is a prior in my case, but in the end, as long as I am constantly testing my model, does it even matter?

Priors are not testable. They should be rationally and pragmatically derived so that the "bias" they entail reflects practical considerations and not arbitrary preference, i.e. that the bias depends on a theory's representation and not a theory's content, where the representation of a theory is of course largely agnostic to its content, as mathematics or programming languages are.

You keep saying "bias bias bias" but I will argue that this evidence based method is also biased for favor of things that humans can immediately comprehend. Yes, there are many other uncertain variables, and we constantly test them to see whether or not they are significant or not. We constantly create models and see which model fits the best, and then try and see why this model fits the best. Your approach is "I'm not adding another variable unless i have concrete evidence". "fair enough", but you can't honestly expect your approach to be unbiased or "less biased" than other approaches.

Evidence based methods are not biased in favor of things that humans can immediately comprehend. For instance, the set of all possible programs in a Turing complete language is much larger than the spectrum of things that humans can comprehend. There exist programs which we cannot analyze meaningfully besides actually running them, which may not be doable in practice. However, a theory of knowledge may still generalize to them and tell us things about unintelligible possibilities, if only that they exist and fit somewhere on the scale we have defined. And sometimes we can estimate where they fall on the scale and determine how probable it is that the process giving rise to the universe is irreducible in a way that renders it incomprehensible.

It is thus very possible that evidence points to the universe being the result of a process which is incomprehensible but nonetheless is compatible with all evidence. The point is, that our comprehension is limited does not mean that just about anything is fair game. It does not lift the requirement that evidence determines which possibilities are likely and which are not. It cannot serve to underscore the fact that the crushing majority of possibilities are excessively unlikely and thus that no hypothesis that we cannot comprehend can be taken seriously because it is either impossible to validate it or it is stacked on top of a state of the art theory in such a way that no matter what it is, it adds superfluous complexity.

===

I'm going to expand on theories of knowledge a little because it is, admittedly, a confusing matter. Imagine that you are in a room with a monitor on a wall. You do not know what is behind that wall and you have no reason to think it even follows the laws of physics. There is a black keyboard where you can presumably input commands. The monitor will turn on in five minutes, showing stuff produced by the black box behind the wall. Besides these things, at your disposal, you have a white box behind another wall with another monitor and a white keyboard, except that you are allowed to type up anything you want on the keyboard that describes a process, and the white box will simulate it for you. You know that what the black box does can be done by the white box. Your goal: guess what the black box does and make the white box do it. You are allowed to try as many times as you'd like, there is no limitation as to what you can do with the white box. If you make the white box do what the black box does, a door to paradise opens (note that in reality nothing happens when you guess right).

Now, during these five minutes, this is when you may think about your prior. You are aware of the set of all possibilities: these are all the processes that you can type up on the white keyboard. Some may span two lines, a page, a thousand pages or a googol pages. Nonetheless, this is the space of hypotheses or theories. The prior is how you rank these possibilities in the absence of evidence. This sounds puzzling, but let's put it this way: suppose that when the monitor turns on, all you can see is a red screen, and no matter what you type up on the black keyboard, it never changes. Presumably, you would type on the white keyboard "always display a red screen". That might not work: indeed, perhaps the black box shows a red screen for a day and then a blue screen and so on! But you will, I am sure, start with the hypothesis that it always displays a red screen. And if it alternates, you will prefer the hypothesis that it alternates regularly and not according to some strange time series. If nothing of that works, then you can start gambling, but that's only once you know that it doesn't, else you would stick with simplicity. From there you can infer a prior that decreases with length, "nothing" being the particular event that you expect most, though you might expect "something" more (but "something" is not particular, it is an aggregate).

To have a prior involving God is akin to having a prior that the black box must contain AI: "always display a red screen, with an AI running in the background" (note that this is technically an aggregate hypothesis because you do not specify how the AI works even though you normally should, but we can ignore that). It should be obvious that this is a horrid prior: it literally axes half the hypothesis space for no good reason. Now, maybe you think that there's a 50% chance that an AI is running in the background, but why would you assume that? But then why not think that there's a 50% chance that a climate simulation is running in the background? The original strategy (shortest perceived option) is agnostic (working up from simple to complex is the least wasteful strategy, but any sort of hypothesis is fair game), the new one is not, as it makes bizarre, unwarranted metaphysical assumptions about what kind of theory is more likely and tips the scales towards an arbitrary subset of possibilities.

A prior that God exists cannot be defended. It is unabated bias and I do not think this is what you are doing. If you believe that God exists, it's because, I think, you have personal evidence for it - but evidence nonetheless because, as I said, it is undefendable to believe God exists a priori i.e. without any kind of evidence. You do not see how the natural processes suggested by evidence all around might explain why you have that personal impression (at no extra cost, i.e. without even trying to explain it). Hence, you are left with evidence that, as per your perception, may only be produced if a God process obtains. I am of course skeptical about the reliability of that evidence and certainly, there is an infinity of processes that may give rise to any evidence - the point is to be parsimonious, and God is not parsimonious ("God exists" is an aggregate proposition - it is as parsimonious as "something" but equally useless).

 

[theamericandream38]

It is perfectly fine to criticize someones beliefs. If you go around claiming that the sun rises due to human sacrifice, I think I am allowed to show you how moronic that belief is. If you put your beliefs in the open, they are allowed to be criticized.

Why are you so concerned about what others believe? They aren't harming you or bothering you in any way. If this person was trying to get you to believe that the sun rises due to human sacrifice, then you could explain to him why that was so foolish. But if he wants to think that, why does it bother you? Why should you waste (and this is one of the few times where the word "waste" can be used properly) your time explaining something to somebody who is of no importance? I would think (and hope) that you would have something better to do with your time. You seem to be the kind of person I despise the most: someone who feels they must meddle in the affairs of others, even when they are not involved at all. If it isn't negatively affecting anyone, it isn't bad. It is as simple as that.

okay well tad, I live in Texas, so maybe the fact that you literally have this shit shoved down your throat is more unique to me than you. I thought I would get away from it at UT, but every big public demonstration was conservative/usually Christian, either in the form of people or these gigantic monuments, one with an actual progression of points about morality ending with something like 6. MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER IF YOU ARE GOING TO HEAVEN OR NOT!!!. I have not experienced this nearly as much as you have, so I guess I should feel fortunate. Just remember that not all religious people are like that - otherwise you may start to stereotype all kinds of ridiculous things.

Anyway, even that is not really important to the point I think you are missing. The way we are raised to think by society at large is ridiculously religious in nature. Christianity in the United States, Islam in the Islamic nations, Buddhism in Asian countries in the past, or Confucianism or Daoism in China specifically, whatever. Even when it is not militaristic in nature, we are raised to be inculcated by these beliefs. This is unfortunately pretty true. It is sad that most of the people of the world do not allow their children to make their own choices. Just because the mother and father follow a certain religion, does not mean that the child must too make the same choices (otherwise it wouldn't be much of a choice at all). For example, look at myself. Both of my parents are Christians, as well as many of my other family members, but both my brother and I subscribe to the belief in Spinoza's God. We made this choice seperately and on our own, without our parents attempting to force us to their side.

As to why it is useful for them to do this, I think that is pretty obvious. One can create people that are willing to be bent to your will, both strong and weak. Make them pray five times in a certain direction in one day and repress women. Make it so they will give you money and support. Controlling people is pretty inherently powerful. I suppose this makes sense if you really wanted people to behave by a certain set of rules, but as others have pointed out, most of the rules taught by religion are generally thought to be beneficial to society (kindness, generosity, etc.) Also, the original creators of most popular religions have been dead for a very long time. How are they benefitting from their religion still existing today? Is this simply a case of someone creating a religion that was meant for good and someone else turning it into an instrument of power?

A point I did not address here because I forgot was that religion actively promotes weakness over strength. For example, Christianity wants people to regurgitate verses of the Bible and believe that is strength rather than actually being strong. It keeps them from thinking and engaging their lives honestly instead. Perhaps some people simply do not have this true strength you speak of, and so they must draw from a different source. It is an unfortunate fact that some humans are simply more gifted than others, and perhaps religion was meant as a way to inspire the less fortunate to strive to become better people (subjective, so I suppose I will define: they will become more beneficial to society and themselves). I seem to be getting the feeling that you think that if anyone believes the same thing that another person thinks, they are simply following them like sheep and are incapable of their own thought. I disagree, and think that while there are certainly people out there who think like that, there are also those who choose a common religion because they truly believe that it will benefit their own life.

Now obviously some parts of this sounds conspiracy theorist and/or jaded, but it is more like I do not care about the good parts of religions or when this does not occur. I want people to discard the notion that we need to answer to something spiritual - it weakens people, it allows them to be controlled, it causes unnecessary strife. The way we should engage with the notion of spirituality as humans, for those of us who decide it is true (which I am not among), is to just engage it positively. Not to answer to it, but to coexist. Not to mix it in with rules and regulations beyond the logic of "if I live pretty well, then I can experience this peace; how nice it is!"

I disagree with your belief that answering to something spiritual weakens people. Until someone goes about proclaiming that they can hear the voice of their chosen supreme being and thus begins to order fellow believers around (and thus interfere with their life), those who believe they need to answer to something spiritual will simply follow the guidelines of their chosen religion. Those guidelines, as stated before, are generally harmless and at times beneficial. There are times when someone may distort a religious text or interperate it in a certain way so that they may act in a harmful way, but to do so would be interfering in the life of another, and thus I would disagree with their action. The vast majority of religions preach peace, and thus if people were to truly adhere to that part of their faith there would be no strife. I do agree with you on your final point, however. I strongly agree. If people were to simply take the positives from their chosen religion, and not attempt to influence other's choices, then the world would be a much better place.

 

[Obsessed]

Why are you so concerned about what others believe? They aren't harming you or bothering you in any way. If this person was trying to get you to believe that the sun rises due to human sacrifice, then you could explain to him why that was so foolish. But if he wants to think that, why does it bother you? Why should you waste (and this is one of the few times where the word "waste" can be used properly) your time explaining something to somebody who is of no importance? I would think (and hope) that you would have something better to do with your time. You seem to be the kind of person I despise the most: someone who feels they must meddle in the affairs of others, even when they are not involved at all. If it isn't negatively affecting anyone, it isn't bad. It is as simple as that.

Person believes X.
X is ridiculous.
Person tries to get others to believe in X.
Person tries to push their beliefs on others. (In fact said person got Proposition 12 passed, which forces all families to sacrifice at least one child a year! That way the sun will not only rise, but bring in a good harvest!)
Person tries to get X taught in school.
Person succeeds and now the schools are teaching X as fact.
More people believe in X.
The world becomes governed by a belief in X.
Those that don't believe in X must suffer.


Now you might not care if other people suffer, but I do. I actually possess something called "empathy," and I care about other people. I dislike that an eleven year old died because her parents believed in faith healing. I dislike that innocent people have been caught in terrorist attacks. I dislike that 9/11 happened. Beliefs must be challenged because they have the potential to become harmful to others.


Oh and if you must know, I doubt that I will ever be able to get married in my lifetime unless I move to another state. Things like Proposition 8 receive a lot of support from religious groups. I also cannot serve in the military if I am openly gay because I am viewed as a distraction/liability. Hate crimes against homosexuals have gone up in recent years. Guess what fuels these crimes? If you guessed religious beliefs, you would be right. Are you saying that I should just let my life be controlled by other peoples' ridiculous beliefs?

I think you are getting the wrong image of me. I won't go to a funeral and preach that heaven probably doesn't exist. I do however challenge someone that says "gays deserve to be killed because they are disobeying the word of Gawd!!!"

I only challenge beliefs is someone tries to force them down my/another person's throat, or if those beliefs have the potential to cause harm.

 

[Deck Knight]

I have a firm belief in the Catholicism I was born and raised with, to the extent that I teach it to the confirmation class as best I am able.

I am a religious Catholic, but I am not very spiritual. Catholicism continues to attract me because of its deep theological underpinning and the tools it possesses for moral instruction. I do not pray nearly as much as I should, but I try to keep God in mind whenever I act or speak out. Of particular note is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is essentially the field guide to Catholic theology. It addresses seriously the underpinnings of moral and right behavior and what guides humanity to exercise its better nature rather than its sinful one.

I have always considered Atheism/Agnosticism to be a weak brew, morally. The baseline for behavior in such a bankrupt system is at best "do no harm." It does not, however, provide any incentive to go beyond the bare minimum of societal standards. This is why the vast majority of charity to foreign lands is done by religious followers. The more power you obtain in an atheistic moral system, the more you become synonymous with the law, until your moral precepts take on a "might makes right" approach.

I find it ludicrous that there are still atheists out there harping on the Crusades of a millennium ago when the entire 20th century was filled with religion-hating fanatics in power that amassed an astounding body count. This was after the Industrial Revolution, after the Enlightenment, after the printing press, after the Renaissance... and still they managed to make the 20th century an unholy bloodbath with ideas like eugenics, compulsory abortion, and central planning. Less than 50 years ago you had a secular state run down a student in the public square with a tank. Less than 80 years ago you had a secular state with an official policy of turning human skin from death camps into lampshades.

If you believe in nothing you will fall for anything, because your will is not tempered by faith and love of yourself and each other. There is nothing within you that tells you something is inherently wrong, something that is backed by a solid moral principles and theological underpinnings that base themselves in the observation of mankind. You shall not kill, because killing violates the soul, the spark of life. You shall not steal, because each man is entitled to industry he does using the providence he is granted by God. You shall not covet another's goods because it distracts you from your own industry and weakens your integrity in all other things.

A life without faith values nothing but the temporal, the temporary, the ephemeral. It is subject to the dictates of more powerful men because it recognizes no power other than man's. Man has the capacity for good but the tendency to evil, especially when unrestrained by moral absolutes. It is nice to think we are independent of God, a lone pillar of enlightened reason, but if another man can simply overpower us, what good is our self-professed wisdom? A truly deep religion fosters both strength and wisdom, for without wisdom one is subject to cunning and without strength one is subject to force, and steadfastness in values accumulates both. It is a matter of the will to do good and be great, and whether it is self-started or based on a "crutch" of religion is irrelevant. It can just as easily be argued that the "crutch" of an atheists self-confidence in his own principles is merely a deep narcissism.

 

[Terminator]

Person believes X.
X is ridiculous.

I think you are not going to make it far in society. Why? Well, you think everything you say is right. Oh, and to top that off, you accuse Christians of imposing their religion when the only thing they do is ask you to join (certainly, it is in an annoying manner, but...) because it is in their religion to do so. This is what makes threads like these go downhill. If you have something to say, there is no reason to get a fit or curse or accuse others of BS or tell them they are ridiculous <_<.

 

[Obsessed]

I think you are not going to make it far in society. Why? Well, you think everything you say is right. Oh, and to top that off, you accuse Christians of imposing their religion when the only thing they do is ask you to join (certainly, it is in an annoying manner, but...) because it is in their religion to do so.

Actually I do not think that everything I say is right.

I do not accuse all Christians of imposing their religion. Where exactly did I say that?

As for that quote, I never said that X was Christianity. I kept it very ambiguous until I mentioned the imaginary Proposition 12 (X is a belief that human sacrifice is needed to make the sun rise).

 

[Tangerine]

So what insight does the Bible give you and what does it have to do with the existence of God? Your statement that the better you understand the Bible, the better you understand the world would arguably be just as true for many philosophical works, many prominent works of fiction and probably for most other religious texts.

A prior that God exists cannot be defended. It is unabated bias and I do not think this is what you are doing. If you believe that God exists, it's because, I think, you have personal evidence for it - but evidence nonetheless because, as I said, it is Indefensible to believe God exists a priori i.e. without any kind of evidence. You do not see how the natural processes suggested by evidence all around might explain why you have that personal impression (at no extra cost, i.e. without even trying to explain it). Hence, you are left with evidence that, as per your perception, may only be produced if a God process obtains. I am of course skeptical about the reliability of that evidence and certainly, there is an infinity of processes that may give rise to any evidence - the point is to be parsimonious, and God is not parsimonious ("God exists" is an aggregate proposition - it is as parsimonious as "something" but equally useless).

I don't think I have ever denied such a phonemona was unique to the Bible. In fact, this is one of the many reasons I keep bringing up different perspectives and acknowledging that they do indeed exist. You have asked for reasons why I personally put a lot of weight in the Bible and the existance of the Christian God - the only reason I continue to bring up perspectives is that there's really not much more past that. I'm pretty sure you're not going to gain much from my "personal evidence" nor will you find them convincing at all. There's a reason I am not bringing it up.

Of course, it's not like I'm not skeptical of the experiences myself and just accept that all such miracles/supernatural events in my life were simply related to my beliefs and looked at them in such other ways. It's not like I haven't put together a model of the world and how things would work without "a God". The biggest flaw I find in such models is that they often lack meaning and purpose. No matter what kind of justification one can give against nihilism, the point is mankind is way too limited and silly to ever break out of the eternal cycle that entraps them. I believe that it is religion's purpose to break man out of this cycle, to empower them, to get them to behave. Christianity is pretty much the only religion that offers the concept that it is love that empowers people and makes the world go around. Perhaps it's also the fact that I am empowered by my God rather than restricted, that I believe there are concepts that are far greater than any human made systems that overcomes them all. While it is far fetched, it is a far better, and more meaningful life than any athestic worldview will bring you.

I'm not citing this you as "evidence", I'm literally telling you why I picked Christianity over alternatives, and the purpose that I have derived behind it. I don't care what contemporary Christians act like or how they are - we are all pitiful humans who constantly try to improve ourselves and thus judging the followers do not judge the concept itself.

Look there is bias and bias. The scientific method has one "bias": simpler is more probable. This "bias" is deeply grounded in utility because if X and Y both entail Z, the shorter of X or Y presumably has a higher information density and therefore explains as much with less and conversely more with as much. f X and Y have the same consequences in every single case, then there can never be any reason to prefer the longer explanation. It also stands to reason that any explanation X of length n of evidence may be arbitrarily extended to greater lengths, which may involve observable consequences, but in the absence of a test there is no reason to commit to any of these longer alternatives. Suppose that X and Y are both equivalent with respect to evidence but Y fits on n+m bits. To believe that X is the case can be interpreted as "bias" towards simpler explanations, but it can also be interpreted as simply withholding m bits in the absence of evidence requiring them and thus rather than bias it is simply tacit acknowledgement of uncertainty.

You always seem to enjoy using this argument like it's the end all argument and of course I'll agree with you on your points... except can you really really argue that everything else is indeed equal between what the models will explain? The second you claim that a model without God/supernatural can explain everything much better than a model with such elements, then immediately you miss the point of Religion - the idea is that we as humans are limited and cannot explain all the forces in the world perfectly, no matter how hard we try. How can you claim that all else is indeed equal?

Your bias, on the other hand, has no such grounding. It is truly arbitrary, and to top it off, it is a bias for something which is ill-defined, for I still have no idea what the hell your concept of God is supposed to represent. My own bias, on the other hand, is a form of caution.

So this is just saying "haha my bias is better than your bias"? I would argue that it's hardly arbitrary and saying that anyone believes in something "arbitrarily" is simply insulting more than anything.

I'm not too sure what you have against my concept of a God anyway.

Priors are not testable. They should be rationally and pragmatically derived so that the "bias" they entail reflects practical considerations and not arbitrary preference, i.e. that the bias depends on a theory's representation and not a theory's content, where the representation of a theory is of course largely agnostic to its content, as mathematics or programming languages are.

Nonsense. Let's say I have a set of data regarding wage and education. I have strong believes that wage has a positive correlation with education, without even considering anything, as an "a prior" (pretend that it is this way since this is just a simple example). I run the data, and I find that there is no correlation between education and wage. I have just tested my hypothesis, something I have believed, according to you. All a priori are hypothesis that I want to test. How the hell can you claim taht they are not testable? Why should they all be "rationally and pragmatically derived"? Why can't I just look at a bunch of numbers, tinker with it a bit, and believe something, and try to prove it (only to find that I can't or I find a counter example, or I do manage to prove it)? This is ridiculous.

Evidence based methods are not biased in favor of things that humans can immediately comprehend. For instance, the set of all possible programs in a Turing complete language is much larger than the spectrum of things that humans can comprehend. There exist programs which we cannot analyze meaningfully besides actually running them, which may not be doable in practice. However, a theory of knowledge may still generalize to them and tell us things about unintelligible possibilities, if only that they exist and fit somewhere on the scale we have defined. And sometimes we can estimate where they fall on the scale and determine how probable it is that the process giving rise to the universe is irreducible in a way that renders it incomprehensible.

You'll have to explain to me this entire concept regarding "Turing complete" or basic computational theory and why it is relevant before I can even begin to respond to this.

It is thus very possible that evidence points to the universe being the result of a process which is incomprehensible but nonetheless is compatible with all evidence. The point is, that our comprehension is limited does not mean that just about anything is fair game. It does not lift the requirement that evidence determines which possibilities are likely and which are not. It cannot serve to underscore the fact that the crushing majority of possibilities are excessively unlikely and thus that no hypothesis that we cannot comprehend can be taken seriously because it is either impossible to validate it or it is stacked on top of a state of the art theory in such a way that no matter what it is, it adds superfluous complexity.

Oh, no one said that us being limited means anything is fair game, nor does it lift the require for evidence for scientific matters. That is not the point. The point is that the very CONCEPT of a God surpasses human experience and likely isn't simply limited to how people can think or comprehend, so why do people bother requiring evidence for it? The point is - you can believe it or not - it does not matter. But calling belief in a god irrational because we don't have evidence for it? Why does evidence even matter anyway since you can likely explain ANY sort of evidence by calling it a mental disease or some weird phenomenon or anything like that? Considering everytime you bring up the "if god came down from heaven and just showed himself to us and hung out with us" is complete nonsense since you apparently have this image of what God is supposed to be (you want evidence that confirms your view of god). You say you can't communicate with God, and I'll say you can't communicate because of your bias.

stuff about screens and monitors

I don't understand your point since you seem to assume that the a priori will simply make more and more complicated assumptions for no reasons and not simply try to adjust the theory as they observe. I start with "always display red", and if it changes (after a period of time), I test another theory that it changes after a given period of time, and so on and so on. I don't see why you claim that I will start gambling instead of looking back and trying a time series or any other example - it's pretty insulting that you think i'm gambling lol. Nice strawman I guess - you assume that people who start with a priori are idiots apparently, rather than being able to comprehend data just like the "agnostics". Suppose that it takes 1000 observations to get the screen simulation properly - what makes you think that the person with the a priori is going to just be gambling the entire time around and not consider the entire thing at once? Why can the agnostic do it, but no the person with the a priori? That's ridiculous and you're completely limiting the thinking capabilities of one side (you're making them retarded or something) while saying "hey this agnostic guy will do it faster heh" when they have access to the same data simply because one person (the person with the apriori) tries out more approaches than the other.

utter nonsense.

 

[theamericandream38]

Person believes X.
X is ridiculous.
Person tries to get others to believe in X. This is where "Person" goes wrong.
Person tries to push their beliefs on others. (In fact said person got Proposition 12 passed, which forces all families to sacrifice at least one child a year! That way the sun will not only rise, but bring in a good harvest!)
Person tries to get X taught in school.
Person succeeds and now the schools are teaching X as fact.
More people believe in X.
The world becomes governed by a belief in X.
Those that don't believe in X must suffer.


Now you might not care if other people suffer, but I do. I actually possess something called "empathy," and I care about other people. I dislike that an eleven year old died because her parents believed in faith healing. I dislike that innocent people have been caught in terrorist attacks. I dislike that 9/11 happened. Beliefs must be challenged because they have the potential to become harmful to others.


Oh and if you must know, I doubt that I will ever be able to get married in my lifetime unless I move to another state. Things like Proposition 8 receive a lot of support from religious groups. I also cannot serve in the military if I am openly gay because I am viewed as a distraction/liability. Hate crimes against homosexuals have gone up in recent years. Guess what fuels these crimes? If you guessed religious beliefs, you would be right. Are you saying that I should just let my life be controlled by other peoples' ridiculous beliefs?

I think you are getting the wrong image of me. I won't go to a funeral and preach that heaven probably doesn't exist. I do however challenge someone that says "gays deserve to be killed because they are disobeying the word of Gawd!!!"

I only challenge beliefs is someone tries to force them down my/another person's throat, or if those beliefs have the potential to cause harm.

Have you been paying attention to the content of my posts? I clearly stated several times that it is ok for someone to believe whatever they want, up until the point where they attempt to influence someone else's life. Whether that be by trying to get another person to think like they do or just simply interfering with the life of another, this is the kind of action that I do not condone. You seem to think that I do not care for anyone else. Seemingly true, but I still find it to be an injustice when someone, whether it be myself or not, is interfered with by another person. In the last example you used, the person who is trying to prevent you from being married due to your sexual preference is interfering with you. They have no right to tell you what to do, especially in a case like this where it is far more than likely that sexual preference is not determined by choice but rather by genetics and the circumstances of childhood. Your last statement pretty much sums up what I have been saying all along.

 

[CaptKirby]

tad, religion inherently weakens most people by giving them orders that they must follow dutifully, by giving them something to displace emotions in, and (probably in greater amounts) by letting them avoid dealing with their flaws in an honest manner.

I do think you are missing the scope I am talking about here. I am not making some rant based on perceived notions. Religious order dictates the way nearly all people live, that is that they lead repressed lives because of peer pressures spouting from these unholy religions (including at the very least Mormonism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism; I still know nothing about Hinduism sorry middle east!!). Pushing men to repress themselves is the exact opposite of spiritual. Religions nearly all want to censor, to repress sexuality in the most farcical of ways, and to twist morality by making matters too black and white (greed is great if one does not let it rampantly control oneself; lust is great if one does not let it rampantly control oneself;
pride is great if one does not let it rampantly control oneself, et cetera). By denouncing these things so eagerly and in such a crude manner, religions seek to repress people.

Anyway, what religions get out of dictating people like this is political power (temporarily), to order society how they want (much more long term), and to generally make people fear gods. It is not like every religious figure wants this or does this, but the zealots do. (Sorry my ordering is off because I am so sleepy; this is kind of separate from the repression stuff - the repression stuff is true a lot more than the really bad motive stuff).

 

[Onii]

Have you been paying attention to the content of my posts? I clearly stated several times that it is ok for someone to believe whatever they want, up until the point where they attempt to influence someone else's life. Whether that be by trying to get another person to think like they do or just simply interfering with the life of another, this is the kind of action that I do not condone.

That is a very wide proposition to make. What you are describing covers not just coercion and indoctrination, but also education and persuasion. Hell, even raising a child to to become an upright, responsible citizen is "attempting to influence someone else's life". While indoctrination and arguably coercion are intolerable, the other three clearly are not.

In fact, I'd say persuasion (ie. "trying to influence someone else's life") is required in any good discussion. If forces all parties involved to evaluate the beliefs that they hold, and maybe (shock, horror) change how they lead their lives! There is no harm done, and hence no reason to "not condone" such behaviour.

Hence, I do not believe that there is any harm in proselytising, which is what you seem to be implying.

If you believe in nothing you will fall for anything, because your will is not tempered by faith and love of yourself and each other. There is nothing within you that tells you something is inherently wrong, something that is backed by a solid moral principles and theological underpinnings that base themselves in the observation of mankind.
snip

A life without faith values nothing but the temporal, the temporary, the ephemeral. It is subject to the dictates of more powerful men because it recognizes no power other than man's. Man has the capacity for good but the tendency to evil, especially when unrestrained by moral absolutes. It is nice to think we are independent of God, a lone pillar of enlightened reason, but if another man can simply overpower us, what good is our self-professed wisdom? A truly deep religion fosters both strength and wisdom, for without wisdom one is subject to cunning and without strength one is subject to force, and steadfastness in values accumulates both. It is a matter of the will to do good and be great, and whether it is self-started or based on a "crutch" of religion is irrelevant. It can just as easily be argued that the "crutch" of an atheists self-confidence in his own principles is merely a deep narcissism.

Lack of belief in religion does not lead to belief in nothing, as secular ethics can fill the void. Even though it is "weak" (in the sense it often requires nothing more than "do no harm"), it can still pinpoint right and wrong; theology is simply not required for this purpose. IMO, the only real difference between the two is that one involves loyalty to a body of principles, whilst another involves loyalty to a supreme being. Conveniently, this also deals with your assertion that a person without faith recognises no power other than man's. Also on that point, one is not freed from the "dictates of more powerful men" just because one happens to be religious, and if steadfastness in values can overcome this, adherence to secular ethics can do the same job as adherence to a religion. Hence, I would not rely these "purpose of life" arguments to justify religion.

Also, I fail to see how valuing "nothing but the temporal" or "ephemeral" is a bad thing. Valuing the temporal can be a driving force to allow one to live life to the fullest. In fact, I think it's probably worse not to focus on the ephemeral, because that is where one serves God and bear witness to non-believers, and it is impossible to do the latter from beyond the grave. (Incidentally, I am a Christian, believe it or not).