Why Religion Matters

[T'ai Chi]

Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060671025/102-3759796-2286552?v=glance), by Huston Smith, is a good book.

http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/12/28/csmimg/1228p16.jpg

My thoughts after reading the book is that it has helped confirm in my mind that there is evidence to say that all, or at least the VAST majority of people, long for God (or whatever name you want to use), and that this is important and cannot (and WILL NOT be allowed to) be marginalized in society.

The four levels or stages are also interesting and thought provoking: atheist, polytheist, monotheist, and mystical.

[Lord Kenneth]

Also recommended for this subject:

Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, by by Michael Shermer, Stephen Jay Gould

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060671025/102-3759796-2286552?v=glance), by Huston Smith, is a good book.

http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/12/28/csmimg/1228p16.jpg

My thoughts after reading the book is that it has helped confirm in my mind that there is evidence to say that all, or at least the VAST majority of people, long for God (or whatever name you want to use), and that this is important and cannot (and WILL NOT be allowed to) be marginalized in society.

The four levels or stages are also interesting and thought provoking: atheist, polytheist, monotheist, and mystical.

Check your sources. Religion is dying in educated societies.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Also recommended for this subject:

Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, by Michael Shermer

Yeah, so is this:

How We Believe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/071673561X/102-3759796-2286552?v=glance)

:arrow:

[Marc]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
there is evidence to say that all, or at least the VAST majority of people, long for God (or whatever name you want to use), and that this is important and cannot (and WILL NOT be allowed to) be marginalized in society.

So? I long for a multimillionare redheadded nymphomaniac supermodel to fall madly in love with me. That doesn't seem to be translating into reality so far. I sometimes also long for a god to exist that would smack down all the people who need it, smite thouse that deserve it, and give me eternal life with the aformentioned redhead. That's not happening either, nor do I see a reason for society to do anything to indulge my unlikely desires.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

Check your sources. Religion is dying in educated societies.

Yeah, well why don't you just show us all your "sources"?

Second, since you talk about educated societies, please inform us of which societies are uneducated.

Third, the word "religion" lumps a lot of things together. The facts are, that many people believe in various religious items, like heaven, hell, God(s), angels, spirits, etc. etc. Many of those beliefs are certainly not dying out, something which many skeptics admit. In other words, people might be distancing themselves from a physical church, but not from the actual beliefs, which is what really matters.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Marc

So?


So? So the point is that because of the massive interest, religion matters and cannot be marginalized.

:c2:

[Dorian Gray]

There is a massive interest in traffic accidents, J-Lo and Ben, Judge Judy, etc., and all those can be marginalized. Why not religion as well? Religions have a history of being marginalized as time progresses, and perhaps it's time for that again.

[Faithkills]

People are afraid of dying. It's the burden of the survival instinct on an advanced brain.

Because this causes people to delude themselves and others on this matter doesn't make it real. And the costs of this delusion are significant.. ie wasting of limited lifespan. And that's just the personal cost.

FK

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills
People are afraid of dying. It's the burden of the survival instinct on an advanced brain.

Because this causes people to delude themselves and others on this matter doesn't make it real.


Uh, so it sounds like you are admitting that all people have faith then. Are you?

Also, we aren't talking about the truth status of religious claims here. We are talking about belief. Belief certainly is real.


And the costs of this delusion are significant.. ie wasting of limited lifespan. And that's just the personal cost.


Well, there certainly are opportunity costs associated with it, but then again, there are opportunity costs associated with every action we do, and there is really no way of getting around that. I could be wasting my life here on the JREF board. Or I could have wasted my life going to college. What has been 'wasted' in your opinion may be 'wisely invested' in anothers'. For example, recently someone said that people who study humanities have wasted their college experience as if that was some fact. I'd wager those who studied humanities would disagree!

The "delusion" jab is interesting. I guess the vast majority of humans living and to ever have lived are delusional then. Yup! This might be hard for you to believe, but maybe even delusional people have positions in society higher than you do? You must go warn their superiors of their incompetence!!!

Personally, I'd say belief and that faith-feeling is quite sane and natural. Yes, of course it depends in what and just how far one takes it though. There are extremes with anything.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
There is a massive interest in traffic accidents, J-Lo and Ben, Judge Judy, etc., and all those can be marginalized. Why not religion as well?
[quote][b]

Beliefs influence people in ways that no other experience can.

[quote][b]
Religions have a history of being marginalized as time progresses,...

Evidence?

As far as I know, there are polls and studies that say this, but there are also polls and studies that say the opposite.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Yeah, well why don't you just show us all your "sources"?

Second, since you talk about educated societies, please inform us of which societies are uneducated.

Third, the word "religion" lumps a lot of things together. The facts are, that many people believe in various religious items, like heaven, hell, God(s), angels, spirits, etc. etc. Many of those beliefs are certainly not dying out, something which many skeptics admit. In other words, people might be distancing themselves from a physical church, but not from the actual beliefs, which is what really matters.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_impo.htm

I'm still looking for a few more on this.

Note that the Muslim faith is actually increasing but only making significant headway in undereducated third-world countries.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Evidence?

As far as I know, there are polls and studies that say this, but there are also polls and studies that say the opposite.

He's not talking about polls and studies, sir. He's talking about the evidence of history. You've never heard of myths or the various pantheons? You don't know that what we call "myth" today was "religion" yesterday? Wow.

Cheers,

[Gregor]

I have often wondered how long it will take with no second coming for the majority of fundamentalist Xians to completely convert to a more liberal, "the Bible is not inerrant" brand of xianity. You'd think 2,000 years would be long enough to start the mass exodus.

Sadly, I think the farther we get from the NT origins, the MORE people bury their heads in the sand. If you ask a standard-issue Baptist "doesn't 2,000 years seem like a long time, when Jesus is reported to have said 'some here will not taste death before I return,'" they appear to have never considered the matter. They typically throw back "God's time is not our time."

I think religion matters because some percentage of people need the psychological comfort. I think organized religion must certainly be drawing fewer regular attenders, as other social institutions fill alot of needs and cherised beliefs are disproved.

My pet theory is that in 1000 years religion will have morphed into even more "personal revelation" - type groups where a Tri-O deity is not essential to the belief. Xianity will be less bible-focused and more "this is what God did for me." And a similar percentage of people as today will have a religion - but they will believe in something outside of our world, looking different than what many believe today.

[homunculus]

My thoughts after reading the book is that it has helped confirm in my mind that there is evidence to say that all, or at least the VAST majority of people, long for God (or whatever name you want to use), and that this is important and cannot (and WILL NOT be allowed to) be marginalized in society

In countries which have adopted secular governments, in which organised religion has less of a toehold (Britain, for example, or parts of Europe) interest in religion is rapidly waning. America seems to be the dramatic exception to this rule (some studies suggest a disheartening 60% or more would not vote for an atheist President!) but nevertheless, it seems that cultural factors play a decisive role in God-belief.

Besides, what the majority of people "long" for has no bearing on any real-world process or phenomena, or how any genuine scientific investigation should proceed...

Paul.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


So? So the point is that because of the massive interest, religion matters and cannot be marginalized.

:c2: [/B]

Yes, but the popularity of an idea has absolutely nothing to do with whethr it is correct.

[Faithkills]

"Uh, so it sounds like you are admitting that all people have faith then. Are you?" - TC

Sorry. There is no basis for this leap. The wonderful thing about univeral assertions is they are so easy to disprove:) Look around this board... not all people have faith:)

"Also, we aren't talking about the truth status of religious claims here." - TC

I think we are:) It absolutely bears.

"Belief certainly is real." - TC

Stipulated.

"The "delusion" jab is interesting. I guess the vast majority of humans living and to ever have lived are delusional then. Yup!" - TC

BING BING BING WE HAVE A WINNAH! :)

"You must go warn their superiors of their incompetence!!!" - TC

Add Reductio to your resume of fallacies.

"Or I could have wasted my life going to college." - TC

Opinion : It is wasteful to spend your life thinking false things. I can see a "but I can sleep at night believing I have an eternal component and will live forever" argument. It's a value judgement. I choose truth over comfort. I can understand why many choose otherwise. I think it is a mistake. I think the personal and societal costs are too high.

"Personally, I'd say belief and that faith-feeling is quite sane and natural" - TC

Natural, perhaps. Sane is what you are trying to show. Drop appeal to popularity, reductio, and tighten up your logic if you wish to do this.

FK

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_impo.htm


From one of those links, I found this quote interesting:

"More American adults consider religion much more important than do the citizens of all other industrialized states. "Americans’ views are closer to people in developing nations than to the publics of developed nations." "

Specifically, I am distinguishing between church attendence and belief. Two quite different things in my view.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

He's not talking about polls and studies, sir.


Well if you are talking about some supposed decline, then I'd hope you'd have evidence in the form of statistics. If you are expecting me to believe your interpretation of "history", I don't think so. :) I seek objective facts here.


You've never heard of myths or the various pantheons? You don't know that what we call "myth" today was "religion" yesterday?


Uh, so? What we call "myth" today was "science" yesterday. Unless you think ether is out there, or the Piltdown man is real, or people can change dust to gold, or atoms are the smallest things. Do you? Wow.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Yes, but the popularity of an idea has absolutely nothing to do with whethr it is correct.

Correct, which is why people distinguish between the truth status of literal interpretations of believers' claims and their utility, which is why religion still matters.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well if you are talking about some supposed decline, then I'd hope you'd have evidence in the form of statistics. If you are expecting me to believe your interpretation of "history", I don't think so. :) I seek objective facts here.
If you'd like to poll former worshippers of the Norse, Greek, Roman, etc., pantheons, be my guest.
Uh, so? What we call "myth" today was "science" yesterday. Unless you think ether is out there, or the Piltdown man is real, or people can change dust to gold, or atoms are the smallest things. Do you? Wow.
These are not examples of "myths," Tr'oll Chi. Ether is an example of a failed scientific hypothesis. Piltdown man was a hoax. Alchemy predated science.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills

Sorry. There is no basis for this leap. The wonderful thing about univeral assertions is they are so easy to disprove:) Look around this board... not all people have faith:)


You said:


People are afraid of dying. It's the burden of the survival instinct on an advanced brain.

Because this causes people to delude themselves and others on this matter doesn't make it real.


You made the universal assumption. Just what "people" are you talking about? All people? Some people? When someone says "people are afraid of dying" and this "causes people to delude themselves", etc., I interpret that to mean all people are afraid of death (whether they admit it or not) and because of this, all have a belief of one kind or another.


"Also, we aren't talking about the truth status of religious claims here." - TC

I think we are:) It absolutely bears.


Wrong. Something can matter without being literally correct. Religion matters. Fiction books matter. Mistakes in science matter. Kids drawing really crappy and unrealistic houses matter.


"The "delusion" jab is interesting. I guess the vast majority of humans living and to ever have lived are delusional then. Yup!" - TC

BING BING BING WE HAVE A WINNAH! :)


And let me guess... you and some skeptics are the rational saviors of mankind who are not deluded because they say so? Am I close?


Opinion : It is wasteful to spend your life thinking false things.


Opinion: It is wasteful to spend your life thinking you are above thinking false things.


"Personally, I'd say belief and that faith-feeling is quite sane and natural" - TC

Natural, perhaps. Sane is what you are trying to show. Drop appeal to popularity, reductio, and tighten up your logic if you wish to do this.

FK

You've provided no sound arguments against my belief. For something which is supposed to harm people according to you, most people believe, and most are quite sane.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Correct, which is why people distinguish between the truth status of literal interpretations of believers' claims and their utility, which is why religion still matters.

Well, if the extent of what you are trying to say is "religion is a potent force in the world" I don't think anyone would disagree. Turning on the evening news should be evidence of that fact. Anything that people are willing to kill each other over in such large numbers and with such alarming regularity is obviously a force to be reckoned with.

I think the far more important question is: SHOULD religion matter? I think the answer to that question is no. It is like your appendix, it causes all kinds of problems but no longer serves much of a useful purpose and is no longer necessary. While religion does matter, we would be much better off if it didn't.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

If you'd like to poll former worshippers of the Norse, Greek, Roman, etc., pantheons, be my guest.


In other words, you'll continue to not provide objective evidence of a supposed decline in religion or belief, all the while expecting me to believe your interpretation of religious trends throughout history. I don't think so.


These are not examples of "myths," Tr'oll Chi. Ether is an example of a failed scientific hypothesis. Piltdown man was a hoax. Alchemy predated science.

Yes they are Believing Billy. Stories can take many forms, and these are lovely stories, with little or no factual basis according to our current standard models of how the universe actually is.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Well, if the extent of what you are trying to say is "religion is a potent force in the world" I don't think anyone would disagree.


Ok, good, because that is what I've been saying here.


Anything that people are willing to kill each other over in such large numbers and with such alarming regularity is obviously a force to be reckoned with.


Yeah, same with militaries, politics, money, and many other things that are more potent than religion. Hey, people kill each other over things as beautiful as love for Pete's sake!


It is like your appendix, it causes all kinds of problems but no longer serves much of a useful purpose and is no longer necessary. While religion does matter, we would be much better off if it didn't.

So we've rode the vechicles of argument by analogy, opinion, and speculation, in that order, and appear to be trapped in the mud still. :)

Many things cause all kinds of problems, some of which I mentioned above. However, these things, and religion and belief in general, are also solutions to problems.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Faithkills
Because this causes people to delude themselves and others on this matter doesn't make it real. And the costs of this delusion are significant.. ie wasting of limited lifespan. And that's just the personal cost.Wasting of a life, for some yes. But I know many who I believe have benefitted from religion. I have seen people lives turned around by finding God. They don't all turn into intolerant, loud evangelists. Many of them used God as a tool to get them out of destructive lifestyles, and some of them become more tolerant and more ethical as a result.

I have known the opposite to occur. Good people become intolerant, and treating the 'unrighteous' as second class citizens etc.. I am no longer christian, but I still count some of the people I met through the church as the most respectable people I know.

I accept and believe that religion is a set of delusions, but there seems to be an impression on this board that religion inevitably leads to immorality, close-mindedness and waste.

I personally believe I am a better atheist (in the moral sense) because of the time I spent as a christian.

Walt

[epepke]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060671025/102-3759796-2286552?v=glance), by Huston Smith, is a good book.

Religion isn't going anywhere. As long as people want it, there will be a market for it, and people will do it.

The problem is that when religionists have less than a complete lock hold on a culture, they become very agitated and act all oppressed, as if there were billions of secular humanists just waiting to suck their brains out through a straw.

Case in point. If you are correct, and the point of this book is that religion is important to the vast majority of people (emphasis yours), then how is it possible to allude in the subtitle to an "Age of Disbelief"? It makes not the slightest bit of sense whatsoever.

[Yahweh]

Why religion matters... I'm not so sure it does.

When does it matter? It only matters when everybody around you believes the same religion, in that case then it would be good for keeping people in line, commonbond... but realistically, when do people ever believe the same thing...

Of course, I would say its better to have a solid well-rounded political system than religion. Note: Religion + Politics = Theocracy = Bad.


Personally, I dont see a use for religion. "It give people hope", how shallow. John Edward gives people hope and closure, but I would hardly consider him a character to be proud of.

"It answers questions"... first, I have to say that "faith" is an absolutely terrible tool to justify a belief, and it has a funny habit of being wrong. Sciencey stuff answers all questions of how and why things works (with a degree of accuracy that is greater than anything "faith" could offer), ethical delimmas are better left to Philosophy.

"It gives life purpose", anyone who needs an invisible cloud man in the sky to give their lives meaning are misguided. Any reasonable person knows your life means nothing when you do nothing.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by epepke

Case in point. If you are correct, and the point of this book is that religion is important to the vast majority of people (emphasis yours), then how is it possible to allude in the subtitle to an "Age of Disbelief"? It makes not the slightest bit of sense whatsoever.

I think one can have both with no contradictions if we are indeed living in a world where science is given a blank check.

[epepke]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I think one can have both with no contradictions if we are indeed living in a world where science is given a blank check.

Yes, and if we were living in a world with 100 billion exploding bunny rabbits per second, we would notice that, too. But we aren't, are we?

I was a working scientist for 13 years. It's a life of genteel poverty. Blank check? Bwahahahahaha!

[Faithkills]

"You made the universal assumption." - TC

Assertion.. but in any case I stand by it. People are afraid of dying. You may possibly find a counter example or two but I'd be hard pressed to believe any significant number of people don't fear dying. That some may SAY they don't fear dying I will stipulate.

The ones who are not are the ones who have completely and successfully deluded themselves. I think those people are very rare if they exist at all. I've seen the fear in the eyes of dying xians.

"Wrong. Something can matter without being literally correct." - TC

Certainly. Who argues this?

The truth however does bear because it is important to whether the religion is a good idea or not.

If any religion is TRUE it is PLAINLY a good idea to follow this religion. If it is not true then the benefit of believing is indeed called into question.

Do you argue that true is not generally good and incorrect not generally bad? I certainly like to think true things. If you don't fine, believe all the false you like, but the fact that you are arguing here indicates you too care about truth. Else go on your merry way believe whatever falseness tickles your fancy.

"And let me guess... you and some skeptics are the rational saviors of mankind who are not deluded because they say so? Am I close?" - TC

Show how this follows please:) Your penchant for fallacy is awe inspiring.

"Opinion: It is wasteful to spend your life thinking you are above thinking false things." - TC

And thus it's well that I do not. However I, and I suspect many people here, do value weeding out false whenever possible. Some people think it's important to understand the truth as best they can. And never stop seeking the truth. In my search I have had to accept all sorts of uncomfortable truths about myself, about my fate, about people in general. One of those truths is that I don't think there is much hope for most self deluded people to become rational. However I have seen it happen on occasion.

What I WILL not do is disregard evidence or logic so that I can feel beter about something.

So no, I am not above thinking false things. What I am not doing is holding on to them and trying to rationalize them once I find they are false.

"You've provided no sound arguments against my belief." - TC

And what is that exactly?:)

To religion in general, I have proposed a counter theory, and am not anything like the first to do so, which explains why people cling to religions, and why most all religions have certain things in common, based upon evolutionary reality. Survival instinct.

Do you stipulate religion "matters" despite being false? Certainly. So does fraud. So do all lies, to others, or onself, "matter". In just this way I do agree. Religion "matters". It is, as you say, a political force. As the force is based upon the belief of falsehoods.. I find it matters quite a bit.

A more interesting discussion would be the relative value of religion to people and societies. This at least has interesting arguments on both sides.

To whit:

"Many of them used God as a tool to get them out of destructive lifestyles, and some of them become more tolerant and more ethical as a result." - WW

Agreed. But they don't know it's a tool. If they did the tool would not work.

Part of my problem with religion is that it makes the person vulnerable in a profound way. Abdicating one's responsibility to think. It also makes a person irrational, and to some extent beyond reason. A starving Hindi faced with only cattle to eat. A catholic family living in poverty but who cannot use contraception. A muslim who believes strapping dynamite to themselves will get them into paradise.

I understand people also use the tool for good, but I have to say the elemental fact that it's a lie seems problematic. As you incorporate the lie into your world view it will necesarily lead you to erroneous conclusions, even if the original lie itself is basically innocuous. Further, upon accepting falsehood how does one discriminate at all? What's the difference between a bearded white guy god and a tubby oriental god? (Yes I know the Buddha isn't a god per se, but let's be honest this is basically people's net understanding) A six armed chick god or a race of little Grey gods from Zeta Reticuli?

Is religion worth the price? An acedemic question. Not that it is likely to go away. But might it be better if people had one less reason to seperate themselves categorically from others and discriminate against others? One less reason to hate, one less reason to kill?

No Crusades. No Inquisistion. All the slaughters we might have avoided. All the hatred we might have avoided. All the wars we might have avoided. The sad truth is for all the reasons men kill other men, religion is the most obscene. Because really.. they are killing each other for nothing at all.

The cost of no religion? Some people would not not sleep as well. But the notion of people going on rampages because there is no God to keep them in check is preposterous. God never stopped anyone from doing evil. Obviously. In fact all too frequently they say it is God told them TO do evil. For most folks it's the mundane fear of social reprisal that keeps them in check, and always has been. Or else those Closest to Him surely would never have done anything so heinous as rape a child. Even those who have most belief in Him are not held in check by fear of Him. So it's a safe bet not many other people are.

I'd be willing to bet agnostics and atheists do less evil than faithholders, both absolutely and per capita. By a HUGE margin. Bad people seem to have more need for "forgiveness".

So what is it we gain from religion, exactly, that is worth the tremendous social cost?

FK

[athon]

Let's not get faith and dogma confused here, people. Dogma is the confused mass of principles, laws and beliefs that surround the seed of faith. Faith, on the other hand, is the pure acceptance of a notion based on nothing other than pure comfort.

Faith can be a good thing. People can feel defeated in a world critical of the stupid, hence faith in a deity can give a sense of purpose. Itself, it is not necessarily dangerous.

Crossing out of that, negotiating the world with a fanatical view using the dogma that surrounds faith, or worse still, negotiating the world with faith without humility (a contradiction of faith in itself) is indeed quite dangerous.

So we need to be concerned with what we are dealing with. Is faith the problem, or the religion which surrounds it?

Athon

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills

If any religion is TRUE it is PLAINLY a good idea to follow this religion. If it is not true then the benefit of believing is indeed called into question.


Could you tell me what is True? I'd like to know so I can plan my schedule more efficiently.


I certainly like to think true things. If you don't fine, believe all the false you like, but the fact that you are arguing here indicates you too care about truth.


I don't especially care about proving my beliefs are truth. What I do care about is showing the pointlessness of thinking any one set of beliefs/worldviews/idea/philosophy/discipline has the market on truth.


"And let me guess... you and some skeptics are the rational saviors of mankind who are not deluded because they say so? Am I close?" - TC

Show how this follows please:) Your penchant for fallacy is awe inspiring.


Believers are deluded, in a state of being delusional. Skeptics are not, skeptics say, either directly or indirectly by calling others deluded. Your penchant for ignoring the obvious is fairly, well, obvious. :)


"Opinion: It is wasteful to spend your life thinking you are above thinking false things." - TC

And thus it's well that I do not.


:rolleyes: How do you know your above assertion isn't false? How do you know the truth for certain?


What I WILL not do is disregard evidence or logic so that I can feel beter about something.


I don't think most believers do that either. I think they just do the interpreting differently.


Do you stipulate religion "matters" despite being false?


It matters and its levels of falseness are comparable to discarded scientific theories, not higher.


It also makes a person irrational, and to some extent beyond reason.


So can science, especially to non-scientists who blindly accept what is handed down from Mt. Sinai.


A starving Hindi faced with only cattle to eat. A catholic family living in poverty but who cannot use contraception. A muslim who believes strapping dynamite to themselves will get them into paradise.


The Hindi would starve if he couldn't get any food from any other sources, or wait until the animal dies naturally if it came down to it (althought I doubt the starving Hindi hypothetical is realistic). The Catholic family would either have another child, or simply abstain. However, a liberal Catholic family would have no problem whatsoever using birth control. The troubled Muslim fanatic (let's make that clear) would commit suicide and murder, or be talked out of it by someone more sensible.

One could come up with similar hypotheticals with nonbelief as well: The militant atheist type who can't control his feelings of hate, mental inconsistency issues because a "rational" atheist can still believe in ghosts, spirits, and other 'irrationalities', the fact of an inability to prove for certain a materialistic worldview yet profess its truth at the same time, the dramatic failure of the atheism fueled Communism experiment, and many others.


As you incorporate the lie into your world view it will necesarily lead you to erroneous conclusions, even if the original lie itself is basically innocuous.


I agree that it could. I don't see at all how it will necessarily at all. However, I'm not willing to let you call religion a lie either.


What's the difference between a bearded white guy god and a tubby oriental god?


Well, the very fact that you are describing them in different ways tells me you at least know some differences.


But might it be better if people had one less reason to seperate themselves...


Sure, it might. We also might very well be worse off without religion.


No Crusades. No Inquisistion. All the slaughters we might have avoided. All the hatred we might have avoided. All the wars we might have avoided. The sad truth is for all the reasons men kill other men, religion is the most obscene. Because really.. they are killing each other for nothing at all.


Prove that is directly from religion and not from politics or a mix of something else please.


The cost of no religion? Some people would not not sleep as well. But the notion of people going on rampages because there is no God to keep them in check is preposterous.


One of atheism fueled Communism's actions was to wipe out all superstitions... You've probably read how that turned out with all those murders.

Nonbelievers might take away others' religious rights.


God never stopped anyone from doing evil.


Except all those people who don't commit evil acts, that is.


I'd be willing to bet agnostics and atheists do less evil than faithholders, both absolutely and per capita. By a HUGE margin. Bad people seem to have more need for "forgiveness".


Compare prision rates... You'll see that atheism is a small percentage, true, but there are religions that have even smaller percentages than atheism (Sikh', for example comes to mind).


So what is it we gain from religion, exactly, that is worth the tremendous social cost?


You'll have to read the book I guess. I've ran out of room here.. ;)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
In other words, you'll continue to not provide objective evidence of a supposed decline in religion or belief, all the while expecting me to believe your interpretation of religious trends throughout history. I don't think so.
Tr'oll,

The question before us was the veracity of the claim that "Religions have a history of being marginalized as time progresses,..." Idiotically, you called for a poll. I pointed out the question had to do with the history of religions. You now try to weasel that into questions of current religiosity. The fact remains, and history shows that religions have been marginalized over time.

Then I made the mistake of pointing out the true nature of those things we now call "myths." You then tried to avoid the point and shift "myth" to be any beliefs, going now for the over-used pap about science being just another belief system:

Yes they are Believing Billy. Stories can take many forms, and these are lovely stories, with little or no factual basis according to our current standard models of how the universe actually is.

Then, to top it off, you move to the postmodernist feint of "science as narrative." Sorry, dude, science is a self-correcting process with the essential step of reality therapy. Its rather steady progress toward the truth has been remarkable in the last centuries. The only narrative here is the sad case credophiles make against its epistemological privilege.

Cheers,

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The question before us was the veracity of the claim that "Religions have a history of being marginalized as time progresses,..." Idiotically, you called for a poll. I pointed out the question had to do with the history of religions. You now try to weasel that into questions of current religiosity. The fact remains, and history shows that religions have been marginalized over time.
I haven't read the book, but you seem to be confusing the marginalization of specific religions with the marginalization of religion as a whole. For example, in the Roman empire, the old polytheistic religions were replaced by the monotheistic Christianity. You can argue that the old Roman polytheistic beliefs were marginalized, but Religion as a whole was not marginalized - it was just one religion replacing another.

The stages referred to in Tai Chi's first post seem to agree with this analysis. I don't think that it is enough to point to specific religions that have fallen by the wayside - you'd need to point out how religion as a whole was marginalized.

It is as if someone claims that life will not be denied on earth and you point out the extinction of the dinosaurs. Yes, certain specific life dies out but not "life" as a whole. See the difference?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

I haven't read the book, but you seem to be confusing the marginalization of specific religions with the marginalization of religion as a whole.

Re-read my post. I made no such confusion.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Re-read my post. I made no such confusion.

What you said was this:He's not talking about polls and studies, sir. He's talking about the evidence of history. You've never heard of myths or the various pantheons? You don't know that what we call "myth" today was "religion" yesterday? Wow.
How is the fact that what is myth today was once religion relevant to whether religion as a whole is marginalized? All that it shows is an evolution of religious ideas - old ideas die out, but new ideas and beliefs replace them. Whether or not people still believe in Thor and Odin as Gods is not, in isolation, relevant to whether religious beliefs as a whole are marginalized. You would have to show that people stopped believing in Thor and Odin and became athiests rather than converting to a monotheistic faith to show the marginalization of religion.

Have you read American Gods by Neil Gaiman? A great book that deals with old vs. new "gods" as part of the story.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz


What you said was this:
How is the fact that what is myth today was once religion relevant to whether religion as a whole is marginalized?

Thanz,

Go back to your last post. Notice I refered to someone else's post? That someone was Dorian Gray, who said:

"Religions have a history of being marginalized as time progresses,..."

To which, Tr'oll called for evidence in the form of a poll.

Notice the two key words here: religions and history? Dorian was speaking about the marginalization of religions throughout history. So was I.

[CFLarsen]

Religion does not evolve. It is petrified in dogmatic belief, and shows no sign of people understanding more about their god(s).

After millenia of religious belief, have religious people gained more insight on how - and why - the world works, the very question that makes them believe?

Can we say that we have gotten closer to god(s)? Has religion helped us understand anything about god(s)?

Fact is, people who now believe in, e.g. the Christian God, are no better off than those who lived 2000 years ago. Nobody has gotten to understand this God, or any other god, any better.

Science, on the other hand, makes us smarter every day. We find out more and more. Heck, we can hardly keep up!

Religion keeps us bonded, science sets us free.

[SFB]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief[/URL], by Huston Smith, is a good book.

My thoughts after reading the book is that it has helped confirm in my mind that there is evidence to say that all, or at least the VAST majority of people, long for God (or whatever name you want to use), and that this is important and cannot (and WILL NOT be allowed to) be marginalized in society.

Chiming In

Just because many people believe lends no credence whatsoever to the credibility of the existence of anything spiritual. I just cannot understand people who cite numbers as proof of gods.

Lemme ask you this: Is there a necessity for religion? I say no, because I am a person (and there are a few more) who defies all religions. So, if you have one example then you must agree it is not necessary for some people. There will be more in time, trust me.

[Marc]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Religion does not evolve. It is petrified in dogmatic belief, and shows no sign of people understanding more about their god(s).

I disagree. Religion does evolve, but not of its own will. Religion strongly resists change in itself and in society around it. When it does change it is to keep up with changes in society, otherwise it would become too out of touch with the population and loose adherents. Or it changes for political/financial reasons, such as Mormonisms abandoning poligemy. (been reading Under the Banner of Heaven)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Notice the two key words here: religions and history? Dorian was speaking about the marginalization of religions throughout history. So was I.
Ah, I see that we are talking about two separate things. Yes, specific religions fall away over time. But the concept of religion as a whole remains, and religion as a whole has not been marginalized.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Marc


I disagree. Religion does evolve, but not of its own will. Religion strongly resists change in itself and in society around it. When it does change it is to keep up with changes in society, otherwise it would become too out of touch with the population and loose adherents. Or it changes for political/financial reasons, such as Mormonisms abandoning poligemy. (been reading Under the Banner of Heaven) I disagree with the post in that it appears to imply all the changes are to keep adherants or to match current politics.

Some of the changes come from the ground up. The adherants evolve and thus the religion evolves. If the adherants to the a particular religion become more philosophical, then the religion becomes moreso as well, as the the young adherants become the next generation of leaders.

I think that method is the rule rather than the exception. It is true that the head of a church will change his views if forced to by the people. if the roman-catholicism changed and the pope refused to, it probably wouldn't cause RCism to fall by the wayside, it would cause the pope to fall by the wayside. I look at the RC churches in this area, and the have a range of values and a range of admiration for the pope.

Walt

[Faithkills]

"Could you tell me what is True? I'd like to know so I can plan my schedule more efficiently." - TC

TRUE as in real. Demonstrable, provable. You know.. like TRUE. If you don't grok true it goes a long way to explaining your difficulty;)

You can say we make assumptions even in math, and you would be correct, however these assumptions are proven out by the validity of recorded and REPEATABLE observations in physics and engineering and quantum mechanics.

I may make an assumption about how something works. If I then perform an experiment and reality conforms to my assumption EVERY TIME I DO THE EXPERIMENT then I know that my assumption was correct. If it doesn't I give up on the assumption. Knowlege is advanced by assumptions, but only to the extent one is willing to discard them when disproven.

"I don't especially care about proving my beliefs are truth." - TC

Well how fortunate for you that you do not;)

"What I do care about is showing the pointlessness of thinking any one set of beliefs/worldviews/idea/philosophy/discipline has the market on truth." - TC

Well there are some that do in fact have a market on provable truth. It seems to me that is something is truly unknowable it has no relevance. If you say you have reason to think something, I say share it. If you say you think something with no reason, I name you fool. And yes, I'll agree ahead of time this goes as well for the "vast majority or people throughout history".

"Believers are deluded, in a state of being delusional." - TC

Agreed.

"Skeptics are not, skeptics say, either directly or indirectly by calling others deluded." - TC

Some do.

"Your penchant for ignoring the obvious is fairly, well, obvious." - TC

What is obvious? You stated that .. "you and some skeptics are the rational saviors of mankind who are not deluded because they say so?" How is this obvious? You premises do not bear on your conclusion that "skeptics are the rational saviors of mankind who are not deluded because they say so?" The only thing that's obvious is your abysmally weak grasp of predicate logic.

But to disabuse you of your conclusion, however erroeously arrived at, I can only speak for myself, but if you would impute the job of messiah upon me I hereby formally decline;)

"How do you know your above assertion isn't false? How do you know the truth for certain?" - TC

Do you post drunk? I clearly labelled it "Opinion: ". It's not an assertion. It's a value judgement, wchich I don't expect and further know full well many people do not share.

"I don't think most believers do that either. I think they just do the interpreting differently." - TC

The difference is my goal is to only parse demonstrably true things. Incorporating things that cannot be shown puts you at risk of thinking false things at each subsequent conclusion in your world model. The biggest problem is it leads you to accept contradictions and justfy them. The social ramification of this is hypocrisy.

The interesting thing is that modern day ecumenicalism accepts this openly. There is a Quid Pro Quo of hypocrisy in modern religions. We don't point out yours if you don't point out ours. Rogue religions which insist upon pointing them out in others are frowned upon in "polite society" and called cults or worse.

Note with all the uproar about pedophilia in the Church, there have been NO detractors from other major sects? Nor does the Vatican see fit to criticize Episcopalians for considering gay bishops.

It's a "cartel" of the major religions. It removes the debate from the religious world which I think is bad. Luther "protested" for reasons.

"It matters and its levels of falseness are comparable to discarded scientific theories, not higher." - TC

Exactly. And they WERE theories of the way the universe works. The diference is that discarded scientific theories are just that, discarded. Religions however persist because they are a source of temporal power despite the basis of the models have been disproven.

"So can science, especially to non-scientists who blindly accept what is handed down from Mt. Sinai." - TC

Well if one cannot be troubled to try to understand something oneself, then yes it does seem more sensical to accept conventional scientific understanding than not. Scientific knowlege evolves changes constantly. Old theories are discarded as you noted. They don't say "we really like this idea of phlogiston so we're gonna stick with it despite counter evidence". The scientific process, on a macro scale, is eminently self correcting, and does not make claim that what it currently holds to be true is what it will always hold to be true.

Contrast with religion which only changes when forced to by external political pressures. Had not ML threatened the Church with loss of constituents they'd still be selling indulgences. Had not the pedophilia been exposed they'd stilll be countenancing it. And please don't think I'm picking on the Vatican.. I'm not they are just easy examples.

"althought I doubt the starving Hindi hypothetical is realistic" - TC

I would be willing to bet you that Hindi's have been tortured in just this way in the past.

"The troubled Muslim fanatic.." - TC

Well then there's a LOT of them troubled then these days, it seems.

"The militant atheist type who can't control his feelings of hate, mental inconsistency issues because a "rational" atheist can still believe in ghosts, spirits, and other 'irrationalities', the fact of an inability to prove for certain a materialistic worldview yet profess its truth at the same time, the dramatic failure of the atheism fueled Communism experiment, and many others." - TC

You presume a lot in this sentence. Atheism can be a religion. Some atheists _believe_ there are no gods. If you put "rational" in front then it's not a religion. It's an understanding that if things are not true they are irrelevant in their own right. Religion is true, hence it's relevant. The basis for any religions (that I am aware of) is not demonstrable, and hence irrelevant. It's not a preference. I would prefer to know there is a god and know I will live forever. It is a mental discipline not to assume. It is a mental discipline not to risk building a corrupted cognition by including unprovable nodes.

The failure of Communism however does not prove the failure of atheism. In any form. Clearly as the USSR never successfully enforced atheism. Theism simply went underground. In a short time the party simply looked the other way as long as no one made trouble. Christianity thrived under Soviet rule, not suprisingly as the people were so oppressed.

And what "many others"?

Moreover I don't think rational atheism CAN be tried. How do you get people to, in large part, have the mental discipline to be rationalists? Maybe faithful athiesm can be tried, but this has the vast disadvantage that as a mere competing meme, faithful atheism doesn't offer much. If I am willing to believe the nondemonstrable, and am merely making a choice among the non true, why would I not choose the one that makes me feel best, and asks least?

"However, I'm not willing to let you call religion a lie either." - TC

Organized religion is a lie. At some point it is recognized for what it is, and espoused regardless. This makes it a lie.

"We also might very well be worse off without religion." - TC

Make this case please.

"Prove that is directly from religion and not from politics or a mix of something else please." - TC

For atrocities, it is psychologically crucial for people to believe in some higher truth which condones their actions. Sane people simply cannot herd people into a gas chamber without fixing upon some belief. This is why the mob and gangsters have initiation kills. Killing someone is horrible. That you did it means you must fix upon some higher justification. This may be loyalty to the Family or the Gang or the Fuhrer or the Pope. (not that I am drawing any other than the stated equvalency here:) )

Religion enabled these events. If people didn't think it was RIGHT to do these things they would not have. They had to believe it was right to slaughter muslims. Or torture pagans. Or slaughter jews. Or Serbs. Or Christians.

The crucial factor in suicidal islamic bombings is that they believe the lie that they will go to paradise if they martyr themselves by killing innocent jewish or christian civilians.

Sans belief in that lie they would not do it.

"Except all those people who don't commit evil acts, that is." - TC

God stopped them. Not fear of temporal consequences. This is great news. We can save a bundle on law enforcement.

"You'll have to read the book I guess. I've ran out of room here.." - TC

I think not. If there was a valid point to be made in the book I assume you would have been able to reiterate it here.

If it's merely that lies matter, consider that stipulated.

FK

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Also recommended for this subject:

Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, by by Michael Shermer, Stephen Jay Gould

That's a good book!!!:)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Marc
I disagree. Religion does evolve, but not of its own will. Religion strongly resists change in itself and in society around it. When it does change it is to keep up with changes in society, otherwise it would become too out of touch with the population and loose adherents. Or it changes for political/financial reasons, such as Mormonisms abandoning poligemy. (been reading Under the Banner of Heaven)

Yes, I see your point. Left on its own, it doesn't change. Facing reality, it sometimes changes. :)

[T'ai Chi]

SFB, first you say


I just cannot understand people who cite numbers as proof of gods.


Then you say (bolded part mine)


...I am a person (and there are a few more) who defies all religions. So, if you have one example then you must agree it is not necessary for some people. There will be more in time, trust me.

:rolleyes:

It seems you are using numbers to make your point. And I'm not using numbers to prove a god exists. I am using numbers to show religion/belief/faith matters to people.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The question before us was the veracity of the claim that "Religions have a history of being marginalized as time progresses,..." Idiotically, you called for a poll. I pointed out the question had to do with the history of religions. You now try to weasel that into questions of current religiosity. The fact remains, and history shows that religions have been marginalized over time.


Lil' Believer Billy, I am asking you to show evidence for your interpretation or marginalization. You see, us skeptics don't feel opinions are truth. You must provide evidence to be taken seriously, instead of just asserting that something is a fact. Show us some numbers, show us how "history shows".


Sorry, dude, science is a self-correcting process ..


I don't entirely disagree with that, however, not all of the corrections come from within science.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills

TRUE as in real. Demonstrable, provable.


Provable... that is very interesting choice of words. Can you prove that your interpretation of reality is the Truth? No?


You can say we make assumptions even in math, and you would be correct, however these assumptions are proven out by the validity of recorded and REPEATABLE observations in physics and engineering and quantum mechanics.


Yeah, so? That shows that math "works", something which I never doubted. That doesn't show that the universe is mechanical, only that it is suitable to our methods of analysis.


"Believers are deluded, in a state of being delusional." - TC

Agreed.


Uh, no, you took my quote out of context. I was parroting what you believe.


"Skeptics are not, skeptics say, either directly or indirectly by calling others deluded." - TC

Some do.


Yeah, I agree, and these 'some' are ignorant because they cannot prove it.


You stated that .. "you and some skeptics are the rational saviors of mankind who are not deluded because they say so?" How is this obvious?


If you skeptics/atheists call others deluded, irrational, etc., that implies, either directly or indirectly, that you believe yourselves are not deluded and not irrational, and that science is the best we've got and we should follow it. That much is obvious. Why should others believe your beliefs?


..but if you would impute the job of messiah upon me I hereby formally decline;)


You might decline that position, but the more scientistic haven't, and desire to tell us how the world "really" is.

The diference is that discarded scientific theories are just that, discarded.


Some were, certainly, but some were just changed or adapted.

Religions however persist because they are a source of temporal power despite the basis of the models have been disproven.


They persist because they have utlity. And while specific relgions may go away, the elements that constitute all religions remain, unchanged, eternal.

Please provide evidence of a Hindi that is so starved and has no food sources around except an animal that he considers sacred. Please.


"The troubled Muslim fanatic.." - TC

Well then there's a LOT of them troubled then these days, it seems.


Yeah, there are some, sure. However, according to the media, there are also a lot of shark attacks. :rolleyes:

I would be willing to bet fanatics are an extremely tiny percentage of the religious, comparable to the levels of fanatic scientism.

Atheism can be a religion.


Well put.


The failure of Communism however does not prove the failure of atheism. In any form.


In a fanatical militant form, yes, it does. Killing off the superstitions simply did not work in the long run. Belief outlasted anything that could be thrown at it.


Organized religion is a lie. At some point it is recognized for what it is, and espoused regardless. This makes it a lie.


One could say any hypothesis of the way the universe really is is technically a lie.


"We also might very well be worse off without religion." - TC

Make this case please.


Make your case that we'd be better off without it. Each of us are speculating here.


Sane people simply cannot herd people into a gas chamber without fixing upon some belief.


That is just a circular argument based on your opinion that those with faith/belief are delusional.


Killing someone is horrible. That you did it means you must fix upon some higher justification.


I doubt it. Someone could kill someone in self defense, for example, without having a "higher justification", ie, your attempted code-word for God. People in the military kill all the time for non-religious reasons, don't they? Law enforcement does to, right?


They had to believe it was right to slaughter muslims. Or torture pagans. Or slaughter jews. Or Serbs. Or Christians.


Or kill off or limit those who have beliefs.


The crucial factor in suicidal islamic bombings is that they believe the lie that they will go to paradise if they martyr themselves by killing innocent jewish or christian civilians.


You still haven't shown that this is directly from religion. You still haven't shown how it couldn't be from politics, or a mix of various factors. The singling out of religion only proves your bias against religion.


Sans belief in that lie they would not do it.


Speculation! Militaries kill all the time without any religious motivation alltogether!!! As I've stated, people even kill over things like love!


I think not. If there was a valid point to be made in the book I assume you would have been able to reiterate it here.


I didn't think you'd want to read a counter to your belief system. :D

[SFB]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
SFB, first you say



Then you say (bolded part mine)



:rolleyes:

It seems you are using numbers to make your point. And I'm not using numbers to prove a god exists. I am using numbers to show religion/belief/faith matters to people.

Yeah, I noticed that. Ya got me.

You did post in your OP:

"My thoughts after reading the book is that it has helped confirm in my mind that there is evidence to say that all, or at least the VAST majority of people, long for God ."

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Lil' Believer Billy, I am asking you to show evidence for your interpretation or marginalization. You see, us skeptics don't feel opinions are truth. You must provide evidence to be taken seriously, instead of just asserting that something is a fact. Show us some numbers, show us how "history shows".

[/b]

I don't entirely disagree with that, however, not all of the corrections come from within science. [/B]
How cute! Tr'oll all dressed up like a skeptic for halloween! But he didn't even wait for his treat before he drops the mask in the very next post. Too bad.

Look, if you graduate high school and get into college, may I suggest you take some courses on mythology or the history of religion? I've already listed a few pantheons that are no more, just a small sampling. I'm not about to do your homework for you.

Now your last paragraph here is hilarious. What corrections to science from outside science do you have in mind?

[Fun2BFree]

For those unfamiliar with our Taoist troll- I would abandon all hope that any reason can penetrate...all evidence of his/her past posts shows that T'roll Chi will defend the idea of religion no matter what logic and evidence show...it all starts by destroying the definition of what is true...if there is no agreement on the definition of Truth there can be no discussion... if a bunch of evidence is presented TC Troll will just say "how do we know such and such evidence is true?" and therein lies the lie to his/her entire worldview....founded on nothing but what TC thinks is true..like all religious thought..founded on the subjective belief of the individual rather than the objective search for evidence.

[Fun2BFree]

...one more thing. since no one else has made this point...Communism and Soviet Russia are not examples of the failure of not having religion....Communism was the official religion--it posited -like all religions -the notion of a power higher than rational thought--in this case faith was in the state...it was still faith- based, not reason based.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
For those unfamiliar with our Taoist troll- I would abandon all hope that any reason can penetrate...all evidence of his/her past posts shows that T'roll Chi will defend the idea of religion no matter what logic and evidence show...it all starts by destroying the definition of what is true...if there is no agreement on the definition of Truth there can be no discussion... if a bunch of evidence is presented TC Troll will just say "how do we know such and such evidence is true?" and therein lies the lie to his/her entire worldview....founded on nothing but what TC thinks is true..like all religious thought..founded on the subjective belief of the individual rather than the objective search for evidence.

Tirading against me will not provide evidence for your point or evidence against mine.

Asking how one knows such evidence is true is a very important question I'd say. Otherwise, you expect people to simply believe you, something which you rally against.

It is fun to be free, and I think freedom of belief is included with that.

I don't only praise belief or only praise science; I praise both of them.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Look, if you graduate high school and get into college, may I suggest you take some courses on mythology or the history of religion? I've already listed a few pantheons that are no more, just a small sampling. I'm not about to do your homework for you.


September Totle, sir, feel free to actually address a point sometime.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
...one more thing. since no one else has made this point...Communism and Soviet Russia are not examples of the failure of not having religion....Communism was the official religion--it posited -like all religions -the notion of a power higher than rational thought--in this case faith was in the state...it was still faith- based, not reason based.

Which is why I said it was fanatical, dogmatic, militant atheism-fueled. I certainly don't think all atheists are like that, or even that atheism will lead to that. It is just an example of 'when atheists attack', which is what happened. Which is why I said atheism helped fuel it, and that Communists happen to be atheists, not that atheism is Communism. I think nowadays that there are the same proportion of these people around as there are extremely disturbed fanatic religious fundamentalists, which is to say not too many.

Communism was incredibly against superstitions, religions, etc. Religion was declared worthless, and they, presumably, acted in a manner (a crusade) which followed their beliefs against religion. They, mistakengly, viewed religion as going against modernity apparently.

For you to say Communism was faith based has as much evidence behind it as me saying it was not faith based I'd say.

I'm also speaking about Communism outside of Russia as well.

[Faithkills]

"Provable... that is very interesting choice of words. Can you prove that your interpretation of reality is the Truth? No?" - TC

ROFL. I'm not the one trying to prove something:) And what is my "interpretation of reality" do you think?

"That doesn't show that the universe is mechanical, only that it is suitable to our methods of analysis." - TC

Not analysis. Proof. There's a difference. Science is built upon tested and proven hypotheses. Disproven ones are SYSTEMATICALLY discarded. Are errors made? Of course. But they are corrected over time because it's also a adversarial system.

"If you skeptics/atheists call others deluded, irrational, etc., that implies, either directly or indirectly, that you believe yourselves are not deluded and not irrational, and that science is the best we've got and we should follow it. That much is obvious. Why should others believe your beliefs?" - TC

I don't have beliefs, or if I find I have one latent, I reduce it as soon as I find it.

So to answer the question.. why should anyone believe my beliefs?

They absolutely shouldn't BELIEVE me or anyone else.

"Some were, certainly, but some were just changed or adapted." - TC

The point?

"And while specific relgions may go away, the elements that constitute all religions remain, unchanged, eternal." - TC

No. Simply because we have live shorter than we would like does not mean it will always be so.

Consider a techno-utopia where people may live as long as they wish. Which will inevitably come about, the technology at least. There is little social need for an afterlife. The need for religion largely is gone.

"fanatic scientism" - TC

What is that?

"One could say any hypothesis of the way the universe really is is technically a lie." - TC

No, a lie require mendacity. This is not present in science as a whole. Where scientists as individuals have mendacity, they are exposed by other scientists.

"That is just a circular argument based on your opinion that those with faith/belief are delusional." - TC

LOL, you don't even have a grasp of simple fallacies;) So then you believe that what they believe in order to do that is NOT delusional and is in fact real;) Perfectly sane behavior. What was I thinking.

"Someone could kill someone in self defense, for example, without having a "higher justification", ie, your attempted code-word for God." - TC

Don't assume because your mentality is too weak to understand what I am saying that I didn't mean what I said. "higher justification" is no "code-word". (but you have betrayed your own indoctrination:) ) Higher justification means just that. Something to have faith in. I have used the word "god" frequently where I mean "god".

"You still haven't shown that this is directly from religion." - TC

Sure I have. They would not blow themselves up if they didn't believe they would go to heaven. Power mongers may have promoted the belief to their end, but it doesn't remove the fact if they didn't believe they would not do it. If I can remove a factor and the outcome changes, then we call that determining cause;) Every "other factor" could exist but with no religion, there is suicide bombing. QED.

"Militaries kill all the time without any religious motivation alltogether!!!" - TC

Who proposed people only killed because of religion? Can you possibly be less logical? I feel confident you can be.

The point is a lot of killing is predicated upon religion. Remove religion remove a lot of killing.

However in the case of militaries I can assure you there is religion involved. The indoctrination of recruits to this religion is a well refined process. Ever seen what happens to most 17 year olds that go through boot camp? That's religion my friend.

"I didn't think you'd want to read a counter to your belief system" - TC

I don't have a belief system. You make the assumption people are like you. It may suprise you to find that many people want to be just the opposite of you.

But I don't need to read the book to believe the position. Lies DO matter.

FK

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Faithkills
Science is built upon tested and proven hypotheses. Proof. (http://www.carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm)

[Faithkills]

I just synthesized that TC says that these islamic extremists would still strap bombs on themselves and kill themselves and others in the absence of faith that they will be rewarded in the afterlife by Allah.

TC you sir are a liar or insane. It matters not to me whether it is intentional, or you have successfully internalized your delusion, but you have no credibility. You have exposed that you will deny even the most obvious.

TC I suggest you prove your thesis by strapping a bomb on yourself, as it is unlikely you have faith in Allah I will be QUITE happy to award you a posthumous "win" here:)

Barring that grow a mind. I'll be happy to discuss the suprising things you will find when you do.

FK

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi



For you to say Communism was faith based has as much evidence behind it as me saying it was not faith based I'd say.



No there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that Communism is not faith based...it is based on a belief that the collective will of the society when applied will lead to greater good for all than a society in which the individual will is afforded more importance than the collective. This belief has all sorts of false assumptions beginning with the idea that there is such a thing as a collective will of the people -as if people all just want the same things and want them the same amount. There is no convinving evidence for this belief- it must be accepted on faith. Any system like communism is by its nature anti-reason (which is to say based on faith) because it assumes that one entity has a monopoly on the "right' answer. There is no freedom--the state is always right....a reason based approach makes no such claims for any entity...the scientific method politically means leaving the freedom to allow that sometimes anyone can be right or wrong..the majority can be wrong...a dictator could be right..but the evidence does not presuppose anything --one need only have a system that is flexible enough to change and react to new evidence --to adjust and correct for errors...That is a free society--no system is perfect or correct--just remain free to adapt/evolve-EXPERIMENT-communism claims to be THE ANSWER--the culmination of a perfect social statearrived at by history thru a dialectic synthesis..(that is the Communists claim-not mine)...it presupposes it is the answer without evidence and allows for no adjustment or change...that is not reason--that is faith-pure and simple.

But that difffers from what TC WANTS and NEEDS to believe--that communism somehow is a representation of atheism-- so I doubt you will be able to understand this...again the conclusion is predetermined without any need for real evidence.

To the original question...about the prevalence of faith and religion---these are persistent and very old tools used to address certain problems...whether they are the best tools remains to be seen...The scientific method is another tool to address problems but it has only been around for a few hundred years....when it is as old as religion is now (in another few thousand years) we will see whether it has supplanted religion in part or whole or whether they will co-exist...this will not change much in my life or yours but the evidence suggests that no matter what there will be a change.

[Dorian Gray]

Religions have a history of being marginalized as time progresses,...
Evidence?
As far as I know, there are polls and studies that say this, but there are also polls and studies that say the opposite. See any Zoroastrians around? Anyone who worships Odin, Zeus/Jupiter or Baal? also, see below....

Yes, but the popularity of an idea has absolutely nothing to do with whethr it is correct. YEAH! Like flat earth, hell being south of the equator, sun revolving around the earth, Backstreet Boys, etc.

I don't especially care about proving my beliefs are truth. What I do care about is showing the pointlessness of thinking any one set of beliefs/worldviews/idea/philosophy/discipline has the market on truth. How Ironic that you are doing this by insisting that yours is the only truth!

Incidentally, I think it's hilarious that you defend your beliefs by pointing to the possibility that someone else might be wrong about theirs, all the while ignoring tha fact that you BOTH might be wrong.

Prove that is directly from religion and not from politics or a mix of something else please. Prove that religion isn't inherently laced with politics, specifically a hierarchical structure.

God never stopped anyone from doing evil.
Except all those people who don't commit evil acts, that is. Choose your fallacy
1) In the context of Judeo-Christianity, no person is without sin, and sin is evil, therefore there is no one that doesn't do evil.
2) If there WAS someone who didn't ever commit an evil act, how could you say with certainty that it was because God prevented them from doing it, assuming that God existed (God doesn't), and not because of a choice made by that person alone?

Ah, I see that we are talking about two separate things. Yes, specific religions fall away over time. But the concept of religion as a whole remains, and religion as a whole has not been marginalized. No, I was talking about religion in general. Think of the images of how powerful the church was in feudal times, and compare that to now. See how marginalized modern religion is in comparison? Look at the Ottoman Empire, and look at Turkey now. Same deal.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Asking how one knows such evidence is true is a very important question I'd say. Otherwise, you expect people to simply believe you, something which you rally against.

It is fun to be free, and I think freedom of belief is included with that.

I don't only praise belief or only praise science; I praise both of them.
Which part of "epistemology" don't you understand, tr'oll? This has been asked and answered so many times, we might as well just put up a FAQ on the subject. The knowledge gained by the scientific process is epistemologically privileged because of the unique features of the process. Chief amongst those is reality therapy. We test and let the universe lead us to its truths.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I am using numbers to show religion/belief/faith matters to people.

Yes, of course, belief in an invisible 'Dad' watching over us is comforting to some people - but it is misguided - and dangerous, because my dad can beat up your dad.

Religion has been defined as - misunderstood myth. (Which came first the myth or the religion?) All religions stem from myths - and I can't imagine a war started over a myth.

To misinterpret myth into a belief there are actual gods watching over us is product of human weakness.

When ignorant, misguided people believe the myths as history - everyone loses.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"More American adults consider religion much more important than do the citizens of all other industrialized states. "Americans’ views are closer to people in developing nations than to the publics of developed nations."

Reminds me of a show I saw the other day - Joe Millionaire. they have a dude from Texas wooing European women.

So they sit down at the table to eat, and the dude starts praying. Then they pan to the women - who are eating and watching with amazement as he prays! It cracked me up.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

a few nut jobs still worship Odin and Thor.

"Hit it with a hammer!"-Thor

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills
Can you prove that your interpretation of reality is the Truth? No?" - TC

And what is my "interpretation of reality" do you think?


Evade. Dodge. :)


"And while specific relgions may go away, the elements that constitute all religions remain, unchanged, eternal." - TC

No. Simply because we have live shorter than we would like does not mean it will always be so.


Huh?

The main ideas to make up religions has remained all throughout time, even while the specific practices of religions change.


"You still haven't shown that this is directly from religion." - TC

Sure I have.


No, you have utterly failed to do so despite your beliefs otherwise.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills
I just synthesized that TC says that these islamic extremists would still strap bombs on themselves and kill themselves and others in the absence of faith that they will be rewarded in the afterlife by Allah.


Unless I specifically state that, you are inventing it, sir.

It could be entirely due to religion, due to a mix of religion and politics and social thingies like war and fighting, or due to something else. I'd vote for the second option myself.


TC you sir are a liar or insane.


Ahh, that rational atheist debate we've come to know and love! Anyway.. moving right along...


TC I suggest you prove your thesis by strapping a bomb on yourself,


You mean the thesis that you invented for me? Nah, no thanks.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
See any Zoroastrians around? Anyone who worships Odin, Zeus/Jupiter or Baal? also, see below....


There are some people who are fond of those beliefs. For example, http://www.zamwi.org/, and there are some others. Worship Odin? Sure. Asatru (http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Pagan/Asatru/)

Obviosuly the original believers of these religion aren't around anymore. :)

I think you'd have to show that fewer people practicing those specific religions equates to a decline in religion overall, and I'm not convinced it does. For example, what if people stopped practicing those religions you mentioned, but practiced other ones instead?


Backstreet Boys, etc.


Let's not go there. NKOTB still rulez! ;)


How Ironic that you are doing this by insisting that yours is the only truth!


I'm not doing that.


Think of the images of how powerful the church was in feudal times, and compare that to now. See how marginalized modern religion is in comparison?

Yeah, I just foget that a church has its own country, mottos on all of the US currency, the majority of people in the world believe, religious tones are present in anthems, ceremonies, events... but yeah... marginalized. ;)

Why do we, as a people, keep coming back to the issue of faith? Are we all deluded?

[Ladewig]

TC-
My thoughts after reading the book is that it has helped confirm in my mind that there is evidence to say that all, or at least the VAST majority of people, long for God (or whatever name you want to use), and that this is important and cannot (and WILL NOT be allowed to) be marginalized in society.

As others said, just because a lot of people want a specific principle is not reason enough to not marginalize a principle. In the U.S. in 1820, the VAST majority of voting citizens believed slavery was important and would say that it cannot and WILL NOT be marginalized.

But more importantly, where do you think this marginalization will come from? Every U.S. president for the last 100 years has attended church on a regular basis. Our current president mentions God upwards of six times per State of the Union address. Polls show that people will not vote for qualified athiests. There are Bible clubs in secondary schools and universities across the country. Every single one of the dozens of major and minor right-wing commentators publically and repeatedly states that all morality comes from God.

If anything, it is the non-believers who are being marginalized.

[Ladewig]

Faithkills-
The crucial factor in suicidal islamic bombings is that they believe the lie that they will go to paradise if they martyr themselves by killing innocent jewish or christian civilians.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TC-
You still haven't shown that this is directly from religion. You still haven't shown how it couldn't be from politics, or a mix of various factors. The singling out of religion only proves your bias against religion.


Oh, please! Let's do a thought experiment. What if the U.N. said that the middle-east violence must be stopped at all costs, therefore all the nations of the world will put up billions of dollars to purchase 25,000 square miles on the southern cost of France. This land will be given to the Palestinians. The land has more value, larger area, better climate, more agriculture, fresher water, and fewer flies than Israel. Do you really think that given these conditions they would not still want to acquire the "Promised Land" at all costs? The land that God, Himself, gave to their ancestors? You really think suicide bombings would stop?

[Walter Wayne]

Some of those gods from other religions are gone not because religion declined, but one religion decided to make mince-meat of another. Look up the origins of the work Easter or were christianity got it the symbols of the fish or the stork.

Religion and its importance seem to rise and fall in different cultures, what the world wide trend, if any, is over time I have not idea.

Walt

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ladewig

But more importantly, where do you think this marginalization will come from?


Media, law, higher education, and scientism have been offered in the book. I think that scientism probaby has the most to blame.


If anything, it is the non-believers who are being marginalized.

I can see that there is some evidence for that too.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Some of those gods from other religions are gone not because religion declined, but one religion decided to make mince-meat of another. Look up the origins of the work Easter or were christianity got it the symbols of the fish or the stork.


Exactly, which is why I say things like: specific religions and religious practices might go away, but the elements that make up religion and belief seem to be here to stay.

(ooh that rhymed) :)

[Ladewig]

Ladewig-

But more importantly, where do you think this marginalization will come from?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T'ai Chi-
Media, law, higher education, and scientism have been offered in the book. I think that scientism probaby has the most to blame.

Law? All religions in the U.S. are tax exempt. Recent legislation now allows federal officers to investigate violent crimes motivated by religious hatred when there is evidence that state or local police forces are not devoting enough resources to cases. Congressional members are proposing Consitutional amendments requiring that the phrase "under God" never be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. A judge defies court orders to remove the ten commandments from his courthouse and suffers no legal consequences.

_________________
The author appears to have left out the greatest marginalizer of religion: other religions. Baptists publish materials describing Hindus as demon worshippers. Christians speak from pulpits claiming that "my God is bigger than yours." Christians insist that airports profile passengers with names like "Muhammed." Christian fundamentalists claim Roman Catholics are not christians.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ladewig

Oh, please! Let's do a thought experiment.

Do you really think that given these conditions they would not still want to acquire the "Promised Land" at all costs? The land that God, Himself, gave to their ancestors? You really think suicide bombings would stop?

As I've said, are suicide bombings all due to religion, due to a mix of religion and things like politics, wars, fighting, and other social stuff, or something else entirely?

The second choice seems more tenable to me. The very fact that you call in the UN, shows that politics are involved. The fact that you talk about land, agriculture, climate, and ancestors, shows that other social things play a part.

I'm not ready to leap and say that the cause is religion. If that were the case, we'd see more suicides, probably thousands of times more than the number we see now, because a lot of people over there are religious and clearly the vast majority of them are not committing suicide by bombing themselves. I only think there is evidence to say that fundamental religion plays a part in it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Law? All religions in the U.S. are tax exempt. Recent legislation now allows federal officers to investigate violent crimes motivated by religious hatred when there is evidence that state or local police forces are not devoting enough resources to cases. Congressional members are proposing Consitutional amendments requiring that the phrase "under God" never be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. A judge defies court orders to remove the ten commandments from his courthouse and suffers no legal consequences.

I guess good, logical cases can be made for both sides.. which I find somewhat paradoxical, but not really surprising. :)

I guess the real questions then becomes, overall what is the picture? -which seems to me can only be "answered" by opinion.

[T'ai Chi]

I'm curious, for those who feel religion doesn't matter, do you feel that philsophy does matter?

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah, I just foget that a church has its own country, mottos on all of the US currency, the majority of people in the world believe, religious tones are present in anthems, ceremonies, events... but yeah... marginalized. Holy Strawman! All the examples you gave point to marginalization. In other words, it's not as overt and in your face as it was in feudal times.

For example, religious 'tones' rather than an out-and-out prayer to God in every State of the Union address. For another example, the church can no longer kill people who have beliefs that go counter to its doctrine, and instead will generally accept as many aspects of science as it can under that doctrine rather than just rejecting it outright. That is evidence of loss of power, and what is loss of power if not marginalization?

And you forgot about the removal of 'under God' from the Pledge, and the removal of the Ten Commandments sculpture from the Alabama courthouse. You also forgot all the people who 'believe' out of fear or coercion. You ALSO forgot that religious tones may be inserted into ceremonies because of hedging (giving lip service to religious types) rather than any actual belief.

And I submit to you that as the world becomes more and more developed, it will become less and less religious and more and more scientific.

[Ladewig]

As I've said, are suicide bombings all due to religion, due to a mix of religion and things like politics, wars, fighting, and other social stuff, or something else entirely?

The second choice seems more tenable to me. The very fact that you call in the UN, shows that politics are involved. The fact that you talk about land, agriculture, climate, and ancestors, shows that other social things play a part.

You missed my point about the argiculture, land, and climate. The land that these Palestinians are trying to acquire was (until very recently) virtually the most useless land within a thousand miles. Israel is pretty much the only place in the Middle East with no oil. The land (without massive irrigation projects) is so desolate that the largest body of water is called the Dead Sea. There is no native flora or fauna that tourists come to see. The ONLY reason they (and the Jews) both want it is that God said it was very important.

[Ladewig]

My last point

Ta'i Chi-
Why do we, as a people, keep coming back to the issue of faith? Are we all deluded?

I went back to reread your posts to make sure I was getting what you were trying to say. I think this line from one of your posts is the nub of the matter.


There are tens of millions of Christians who believe that Hindus are deluded when they pray over the phallus of Shiva.
There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who believe Catholics are deluded when they claim that the Virgin Mary makes periodic appearances.
There are tens of millions of Protestants who believe Scintologists are deluded when they explain that every human has a soul that came from an extraterrestrial "Thetan."
There are tens of millions of Presbyterians who belive the Aztecs were deluded when they sacrificed humans while worshipping an invisible feathered serpent.
There are tens of millions of Hinus that believe that Santeria worshippers are deluded when they try to please God by killing goats and chickens.
There are tens of millions of Buddhists who believe Mormons are deluded when they claim that after his resurrection, Jesus visited America.
There are billions of people alive today that believe that the ancient Greeks were deluded when they said that the Sun was a firey chariot that crossed the sky.


Are you all deluded? Yes, and its not just the skeptics and humanists who think so. The vast majority of believers think so too.

-------------
References: these points are attributable to James Naught, author of 2000 years of Disbelief: Famous People with the Courage to Doubt.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Communism was the official religion
I'm not sure I would classify communism as a religion, but you are clearly correct that it was both a competitor and that it used some of the same core processes. Fascism also did the same.

A kind of "religion of the state" instead of god(s). Not religion if you think religion means supernatural: but still an irrational, unquestionable, faith-based world view.

So I wouldn't call it a relgion, but I would say it was religious. Hehe. Hair-splitting is fun!

:D

[BillHoyt]

Tr'olll Chi,

Second call for evidence. I repeat: "What corrections to science from outside science do you have in mind?"

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Holy Strawman! All the examples you gave point to marginalization. In other words, it's not as overt and in your face as it was in feudal times.


How do you distinguish between marginalization and evolving?

I'm not sure I know the answer to that.


You also forgot all the people who 'believe' out of fear or coercion.


All toshe hypothectical poeple? How could I have been so rude to forget them?


And I submit to you that as the world becomes more and more developed, it will become less and less religious and more and more scientific.

Possibly, sure. It could also build up to as materialistic as it can get, then go back to 'finding God', etc.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ladewig

Are you all deluded? Yes, and its not just the skeptics and humanists who think so. The vast majority of believers think so too.


And there are these billions of people who consider atheists and their beliefs deluded, and consider those who believe the universe is all just material, deluded.

With that said, I'd think that most all believers would concede and say that they all have something in common with other beliefs. This transcedence across culture, to me, is a very strong selling point of religions' importance.

Obviously the majority of the world is not delusional, harmful, insane, etc. You think we would have mafe it this far if the majority of people were??? If a "strong" atheist were to make such a claim, they'd have a very heavy burden of proof.

Anyway.. back to your list. We all know that thinking someone is delusional doesn't mean they are delusional.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm curious, for those who feel religion doesn't matter, do you feel that philsophy does matter?

Again don't confuse myth with religion.

Philosophy seems to be an examination of reasoning, thinking, understanding morality, etc.

Religion is a life pacifier in anticipation of death. It is an examination of the unknowable by the unreasonable. It is misguided human hope looking beyond the veil of death.

Myths, however, are world dreams that zoom in on the essential human condition.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Tr'olll Chi,

Second call for evidence. I repeat: "What corrections to science from outside science do you have in mind?"

Believer Billy,

Numero dos call for evidence. I repeat: You still haven't shown evidence for your interpretation of the marginalization of religion, other than 'look at history'-type of appeals.

Also, do you feel philosophy does matter?

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Obviously the majority of the world is not delusional, harmful, insane, etc. You think we would have mafe it this far if the majority of people were??? That is a remarkably ignorant statement. At various points in history, " the majority of the world" was deluded with regards to all mamner of things.

[Ladewig]

With that said, I'd think that most all believers would concede and say that they all have something in common with other beliefs. This transcedence across culture, to me, is a very strong selling point of religions' importance.

Once I hear the phrase, "most all [religious] believers would concede that they all have something in common," I know it's time for me to leave. Bye.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
At various points in history, " the majority of the world" was deluded with regards to all mamner of things.

So then we can perhaps say that all of us, atheists and theists, are deluded. -Because someone from the future looking back on us will pronounce us as deluded.

(?)

[Dorian Gray]

Obviously the majority of the world is not delusional, harmful, insane, etc. You think we would have mafe it this far if the majority of people were??? I think we would have made it farther if they weren't. Dark Ages ring a bell?If a "strong" atheist were to make such a claim, they'd have a very heavy burden of proof. Yeah, like dropping two weights, or using a telescope, or digging up bones, or proving that the cow gave sour milk because she was sick, not cursed by a witch, or sailing around the world.

All toshe hypothectical poeple? How could I have been so rude to forget them? Are you suggesting that there are no people in the entire world who 'believe' out of fear or coercion? How naive.

Numero dos call for evidence. I repeat: You still haven't shown evidence for your interpretation of the marginalization of religion, other than 'look at history'-type of appeals.
That is enough. The church used to be the center of everyone's lives in the West, and now it is not. Hell, the fact that atheists are conversing in depth about their atheism and not, say, being stoned to death is proof that religion is being marginalized.

So then we can perhaps say that all of us, atheists and theists, are deluded. -Because someone from the future looking back on us will pronounce us as deluded.
Perhaps, if you are rather fond of strawmen.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
I think we would have made it farther if they weren't. Dark Ages ring a bell?


That doesn't take away from the fact that we did make it. So I guess the delusions aren't harmful at all really, especially if way back when almost everyone was under the control of these serious delusions! :rolleyes:


Are you suggesting that there are no people in the entire world who 'believe' out of fear or coercion? How naive.


I discuss facts generally, when I can. I'm not about to allow hypothetical starving Hindi's who only have cows to eat and 'all the people who 'believe' out of fear or coercion.', yet remain mystically vague, into the picture. If you can be more specific and define them better, I'd have no problems with that.


That is enough. The church used to be the center of everyone's lives in the West, and now it is not. Hell, the fact that atheists are conversing in depth about their atheism and not, say, being stoned to death is proof that religion is being marginalized.


That is one interpretation I definitely admit. It could also mean that there has been a shift from fundamentalist religion to more liberal religion. -But that doesn't mean that religion itself has decreased!

[Antonio Alejandro]

It is not that people are afraid of dying...
Material skeptics seem to always say this.
It is that when you logically look at life as mere material existence, it is absurd. Other than procreation, and the good times that you have in life, what is ultimately the point?
1) Everyday millions of people go to work, but despite all of the work everywhere, all work will become undone. Not even a mountain made of diamond will last. All the buildings we see in our cities, all of the cars, all of the knowledge, even the galaxy itself will not last.
Not only will these material things cease to exist, but so will your family, your friends, your pets, and yourself. In view of this, material existence is absurd.
2) Every single culture on this planet, from the most advance to the most primitive have spiritual concerns. Admittedly there are flawed religions, but there is a wealth of information regarding spirituality which are logical (and which exceeds logic). What appears to be the case is that most material skeptics have experience with a few dogma based religions and they go from there believing that the entirety of spirituality is equally flawed. They have learned how a car battery works, and now they are ready to apply this knowledge to the entire spectrum of life.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
but there is a wealth of information regarding spirituality which are logical (and which exceeds logic).

..and the evidence for this claim is...?

;)

The whole post can easily be ripped apart- but that statement was the most laughable...the universe was not created to make life meaningful to you. Get over it. It was created to make life meaningful for the bacteria in you gut.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
It is not that people are afraid of dying...
Material skeptics seem to always say this.
It is that when you logically look at life as mere material existence, it is absurd. Other than procreation, and the good times that you have in life, what is ultimately the point?
1) Everyday millions of people go to work, but despite all of the work everywhere, all work will become undone. Not even a mountain made of diamond will last. All the buildings we see in our cities, all of the cars, all of the knowledge, even the galaxy itself will not last.
Not only will these material things cease to exist, but so will your family, your friends, your pets, and yourself. In view of this, material existence is absurd.
2) Every single culture on this planet, from the most advance to the most primitive have spiritual concerns. Admittedly there are flawed religions, but there is a wealth of information regarding spirituality which are logical (and which exceeds logic). What appears to be the case is that most material skeptics have experience with a few dogma based religions and they go from there believing that the entirety of spirituality is equally flawed. They have learned how a car battery works, and now they are ready to apply this knowledge to the entire spectrum of life.

Arguments in favor of numbers do not work. They are not evidence of anything spiritual. That's what believers cannot get over. The simple stupid argument that just because so many whatevers there are means something.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
It is not that people are afraid of dying...

I disagree. The first 'religions' were Mother Earth Goddess-based beliefs, specifically addressing the afterlife. What happens after we die is what all religions are about.

Other than procreation, and the good times that you have in life, what is ultimately the point?

Why is there supposed to be a 'point'?

Everyday millions of people go to work, but despite all of the work everywhere, all work will become undone. Not even a mountain made of diamond will last. All the buildings we see in our cities, all of the cars, all of the knowledge, even the galaxy itself will not last. Not only will these material things cease to exist, but so will your family, your friends, your pets, and yourself.

agree

Every single culture on this planet, from the most advance to the most primitive have spiritual concerns.

Because we are people and can contemplate our mortality.

Admittedly there are flawed religions, but there is a wealth of information regarding spirituality which are logical

Please supply one item about spirituality that is logical.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
In view of this, material existence is absurd.

I like it. Besides, if it's going to go away, might as well enjoy it now.

[Faithkills]

"And what is my "interpretation of reality" do you think?" - Me

"Evade. Dodge." - TC

You asked if I could prove my "interpretation of reality". I was trying to figure out what that was exactly before I answered the question one way or another;)

"The main ideas to make up religions has remained all throughout time, even while the specific practices of religions change." - TC

Because they have doesn't mean they will. What use an afterlife if in strange aeons death itself dies?

Who will pay homage to a big whitebeard in the sky if eternal life is included in your health benefits?

"Sure I have." - TC

Nope. If you had then cut and paste would serve you well here.

"Unless I specifically state that, you are inventing it, sir." - TC

You did. Scroll up.

I say those suicide bombimgs would not happen if those people did not have faith that god wanted them to do this and did not believe that god would reward them in an eternal afterlife.

Political "thingies" aside, the survival instinct is too strong for this to happen on a regular basis unless the survival instinct was subverted by the lie there is an afterlife.

Leave all the political and social "thingies" but extract religion and there would be no bombings. Religion/faith is the lynchpin of the process.

You deny this. I call your denial a lie.

Further most organized killing that takes place is predicated upin the killer having faith in something. That's the purpose of seminal military training and why it's similar in all places. They tear a recruit down and build him back up with the new doctrine. This process is necessary to ensure the soldier will kill when told to do so. Peer pressure will usually keep them from running. KILLING is what it's difficult to get people to do. The enemy is dehumanized. The regime is idolized. Loyalty, duty, and courage are lionized. The built in benefit of theist soldiers is that they already come with a helpful delusion. That the enemy is not really "killed" but sent to the afterlife, to be judged by divine providence.

And having killed it is now of prime importance to defend that faith. Otherwise.. you murdered for no reason, which is unthinkable for most sane plumbers, plant operators, and insurance salesmen once they get back to civilian life. The people that do dwell upon it can and do occasionally become destabilized.

"So then we can perhaps say that all of us, atheists and theists, are deluded" - TC

Not if you endeavor not to believe anything.

It may turn out it was a mistaken practice, but history will not have been able to judge you deluded.

"So I guess the delusions aren't harmful at all really, especially if way back when almost everyone was under the control of these serious delusions!" - TC

Were you to ask the victims of the inquisition or the crusades or the witch trials, ad nasuem, they might have a different take on them not being harmful.

And that we survived periods of intellectual blight does not mean that we wouldn't have been better off had they not occurred.

But wait.. let me help you with one of your fallacies. Good things happenned after all these horrors so they were causal to them. Just saving you time;)

"But that doesn't mean that religion itself has decreased!" - TC

In the west, the nature of it is certainly changing to become less "religious". It's becoming a pleasant delusion amongst friends that we will live forever and won't ask each other challenging questions. So compared to what it was, yes.. I would call it marginalized.

And a simple question. Do you think there are no Hindis, that lived, are living, or will ever live that would starve to death before eating cattle?

"Other than procreation, and the good times that you have in life, what is ultimately the point?" - AA

That's your responsibility to decide. But just because you hate that there is no supernatural reason for your life doesn't mean you should fabricate one or buy into someone else's fabrication.

Take responsibility for your existence, or else live a life of comfortable self deception.

FK

[Dorian Gray]

That doesn't take away from the fact that we did make it. So I guess the delusions aren't harmful at all really, especially if way back when almost everyone was under the control of these serious delusions! Umm, yeah. The greater the mass delusion, the better? Why? Fewer people who can face you with facts and evidence that refute everything you believe?

Have you even seen The Matrix?

remain mystically vague, into the picture. If you can be more specific and define them better, I'd have no problems with that Why are you pretending to be mystically stupid? The fact that Galileo and others were killed for their beliefs implies that there were others who were NOT killed because they changed their beliefs.

At this point, I think that you just need attention and are posting statements you know to be false to elicit that attention, because negative attention is better than no attention.

[Fun2BFree]

The following link is to an optical illusion that Randi publicized in a commentary about a year ago:
Optical illusion (http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html)

This is a powerful example of a feature of human perception wherein a usually reliable and accurate tool for perception is wrong and will be wrong across all cultures and times because of the way we are wired-pure and simple--our brain sees things in a certain way and that way has been mostly helpful and correct but it is wrong in this instance..that error is only evident by carefully removing the confounding factors and isolating the perception...the scientific method of seeking independent confirmation/ isolation of variables...in other words not just trusting our natural perception.

The same can be said for claims about religion's transcendence...that it is a common perceptual experience, that it is hard for some to see the error in their perception even when faced with facts demonstrating their falsity--that it is not supported by real facts....such perceptual errors may not always be harmful, might even helpful in some situations...


Many of religion's claims are unknown, unknowable --some transcendent supernatural reward that is untestable--of another world--in life after death or in some other unmeasureable unconfirmable reward.
Relgious ideas are common and important---no argument--many things good and bad have occured as a result of people BELIEVING THESE PERCEPTIONS WHETHER THEY ARE TRUE/REAL OR NOT. They have to be important given the sway they hold...but-
That is not the important question--this is: are religions the best tools to deal with the natural world--(ie man's nature and nature's reality? ) If they are we should not oppose them--if they are not the best tools we should dump them no matter how popular, comforting or successful they have been in the past--those who seek the best will abandon ideas that don't measure up. Depending on our inherent wiring and our simple perceptions has not beenthe way we have come to better know reality (eg the earth is round and it is moving--really!)---our survival and our progress have all been as a result of our ability to better understand reality. Most skeptics doubt religions have done enough to aid in that search for knowledge.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills

You asked if I could prove my "interpretation of reality". I was trying to figure out what that was exactly before I answered the question one way or another;)


Evade # 2. Dodge # 2.


What use an afterlife if in strange aeons death itself dies?


I'm not sure what you are asking there. Are you asking what use is everyone being in an afterlife if humans ultimately become extinct?


Leave all the political and social "thingies" but extract religion and there would be no bombings. Religion/faith is the lynchpin of the process.


Well, we can't perform that experiment. However, what I can consclusively state is that wars, battles, bombings, and many other acts of destruction, have happened entirely without religion as the 'lynchpin'.


Further most organized killing that takes place is predicated upin the killer having faith in something.


Any act a person does you could say they have faith in that act else they wouldn't do it.


The enemy is dehumanized.


Some, especially the more fundamentalist believers, do dehumanize non-believers. The majority of believers don't.


But wait.. let me help you with one of your fallacies. Good things happenned after all these horrors so they were causal to them. Just saving you time;)


LOL. :D I'd have said that bad things have happened to specific people and to specific groups in the name of religion, sure. Ignorant people existed at all periods of history and exist in the present, who unfortunately used their wisdom/knowledge in power-hungry ways.


And a simple question. Do you think there are no Hindis, that lived, are living, or will ever live that would starve to death before eating cattle?


Thought experiments are different than reality. Find me an example of such a person in real life- a starving Hindi, who only had a cow, who died rather than consume his cow.


Take responsibility for your existence, or else live a life of comfortable self deception.


Ones' existence is only partially theirs; the rest seems to be a loan.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi Take responsibility for your existence, or else live a life of comfortable self deception.Ones' existence is only partially theirs; the rest seems to be a loan. To paraphrase: Evade ... Dodge ...

[SFB]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
The following link is to an optical illusion that Randi publicized in a commentary about a year ago:
Optical illusion (http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html)

This is a powerful example of a feature of human perception wherein a usually reliable and accurate tool for perception is wrong and will be wrong across all cultures and times because of the way we are wired-pure and simple--our brain sees things in a certain way and that way has been mostly helpful and correct but it is wrong in this instance..that error is only evident by carefully removing the confounding factors and isolating the perception...the scientific method of seeking independent confirmation/ isolation of variables...in other words not just trusting our natural perception.

The same can be said for claims about religion's transcendence...that it is a common perceptual experience, that it is hard for some to see the error in their perception even when faced with facts demonstrating their falsity--that it is not supported by real facts....such perceptual errors may not always be harmful, might even helpful in some situations...


Many of religion's claims are unknown, unknowable --some transcendent supernatural reward that is untestable--of another world--in life after death or in some other unmeasureable unconfirmable reward.
Relgious ideas are common and important---no argument--many things good and bad have occured as a result of people BELIEVING THESE PERCEPTIONS WHETHER THEY ARE TRUE/REAL OR NOT. They have to be important given the sway they hold...but-
That is not the important question--this is: are religions the best tools to deal with the natural world--(ie man's nature and nature's reality? ) If they are we should not oppose them--if they are not the best tools we should dump them no matter how popular, comforting or successful they have been in the past--those who seek the best will abandon ideas that don't measure up. Depending on our inherent wiring and our simple perceptions has not beenthe way we have come to better know reality (eg the earth is round and it is moving--really!)---our survival and our progress have all been as a result of our ability to better understand reality. Most skeptics doubt religions have done enough to aid in that search for knowledge.

Well put.

[Faithkills]

"Evade # 2. Dodge # 2." - TC

I'm talking to a 5 year old parrot;)

What do you think I am evading? Unlike you, I answer questions. Perhaps that's becaused I can without resorting to fallacies. Problem here is you accused me of something but didn't explain what that was;)

"I'm not sure what you are asking there. Are you asking what use is everyone being in an afterlife if humans ultimately become extinct?" - TC

Yes I know. This is all quite a challenge for you;)

I asked what use will be religion if there is practically no death and hence no need to fantasize an afterlife?
As that situation is not technologically inconceivable, I think it's an interesting question.

"Well, we can't perform that experiment. However, what I can consclusively state is that wars, battles, bombings, and many other acts of destruction, have happened entirely without religion as the 'lynchpin'." - TC

Irrelevant. That some do is relevant. That killing by and large, for sane humans, requires the subversion of reason into faith of some flavor, is relevant.

We cannot get rid of avarice very easily. However we CAN diminish the prevalence of religion with technological solutions which obviate the main purpose of it is relevant.

"Any act a person does you could say they have faith in that act else they wouldn't do it." - TC

Incorrect. Most things don't require any faith. Even attending religious services requires no faith. Just enough lack of information and enough fear that that particular religion does indeed have the sole source of eternal life and meaning. Some people attend church as a mere practical matter, a la Pascal. No faith involved. Just covering one's bases.

Killing is not like most acts. It's very hard to get people to kill for no reason. Hence a reason must be invented.. one which is more palatable than "we want their land" or "we want their oil" or "we want their wealth", we instead say "they offend god and god tells us to kill them" or "your highest virtue as a soldier is to protect the US and these bad people are a threat, you are protecting your countrymen". There will always be sociopaths and criminals.. but these cause little relative damage.

Imagine how many wars could be fought, say, if the members of these forums were the troops?

"Okay, I'm not against violence absolutely _per_se_ , however you have failed to convince me that violence is neccessary in this particular case, and as I can see both sides of the issue, I am not going to kill unless you make a better argument, and I'll tell you right now give up the whole dehumanization thing, that's patently fallacious.. so give it some thought and I'll listen when you come up with something.. I'll be at the pub until you do" - Joe Skeptic

"Some, especially the more fundamentalist believers, do dehumanize non-believers. The majority of believers don't." - TC

Lol. What a pathetic piece of speciousness. This wasn't the even context.

However even your sad trick is weak, so I'll do that first.

The majority is irrelevant. What's relevant is that there are fundamentalist believers that do do these things. Further, you may not have been keeping up with current events, but fundy Islam isn't a fringe phenomena anymore.

But back to what the actual subject was. Dehumanization as a predicate for killing. It's psychologically important. Or else you must judge yourself a KILLER. To not be a killer, and you did kill them, it must not have been "people" you killed. Very few people in this situation are willing to be honest with themselves enough to admit they are killers, and those people that are tend not to become soldiers.

Let me guess.. you never served in the military did you?

Since you don't like experiments, I suggest this.

Go talk to some vets who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. Ask them "Are you a killer?" Rofl. The answer will likely be manifest by their fist impacting your face before you lose conciousness;)

I for one don't need to perform this experiment to have a good idea of the outcome.

"Thought experiments are different than reality. Find me an example of such a person in real life- a starving Hindi, who only had a cow, who died rather than consume his cow." - TC

They are different. In that they can provide information without much work. There is no need to starve a Hindi to assess whether this situation could, or could not occur;)

In any event I just asked what you thought. No experiment need be performed. Just say what you believe, or, preferably think, if you would engage in that activity.

Do you think there has never been and will never be a Hindi who would starve before eating beef?

Evade, dodge.

"Ones' existence is only partially theirs; the rest seems to be a loan." - TC

What makes it seem thus to you? And a loan from whence?

FK

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Other than procreation, and the good times that you have in life, what is ultimately the point?
Ok. So you think life has a purpose because God has a plan.

Ok, well, what is the purpose of God and his plan? If everything I do doesn't count unless it's done for some higher purpose, then obviously everything God does doesn't count unless it's done for some higher purpose.

Or are you going to tell me once again, "The rules don't apply to God."

Well, the rules don't apply to the insides of black holes, either, but that hardly means we should give a hoot about black holes.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills
"Evade # 2. Dodge # 2." - TC

I'm talking to a 5 year old parrot;)


I guess so.

Evade # 3. Dodge # 3. :D


I asked what use will be religion if there is practically no death and hence no need to fantasize an afterlife?


Well, it seems that there would always be death. But in the case of death completely gone, I'll just point your attention to the fact that some think that the state of being dead is equivalent to the state of not even being born yet, so the 'afterlife' could be thought of in those terms.


That killing by and large, for sane humans, requires the subversion of reason into faith of some flavor, is relevant.


I simply disagree with that by and large statement. Got any evidence for that claim?


However we CAN diminish the prevalence of religion with technological solutions...


What kind of "technological solutions" did you have in mind specifically?


"Any act a person does you could say they have faith in that act else they wouldn't do it." - TC

Incorrect. Most things don't require any faith.


Incorrect.

Unless you can give me one example of an act which does not involve faith?


Killing is not like most acts. It's very hard to get people to kill for no reason. Hence a reason must be invented..


I agree, but the reasons don't necessarily involve religion.


Further, you may not have been keeping up with current events, but fundy Islam isn't a fringe phenomena anymore.


It is VERY fringy compared to non-fundamentalist Islam.


"Thought experiments are different than reality. Find me an example of such a person in real life- a starving Hindi, who only had a cow, who died rather than consume his cow." - TC


Hey, did you find this phantom person yet? No? Why not???????? :)


"Ones' existence is only partially theirs; the rest seems to be a loan." - TC

What makes it seem thus to you? And a loan from whence?


I didn't just create myself now did I?

[Dorian Gray]

You may not have created yourself, but you are making yourself.

Look like an idiot.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
You may not have created yourself, but you are making yourself.

Look like an idiot.

Sorry you feel that way. Critical thinking is important to me.

Therefore, I'll thoroughly analyze the matter and respond in like manner:

Ch'o mama!

[Dorian Gray]

Thinking critically is not. Many examples of how religion is becoming more and more marginalized, some of which you concede, yet you don't concede that religion doesn't matter.

I guess it does actually matter, but in a negative way, and the world would suddenly become better if religions were to disappear.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Many examples of how religion is becoming more and more marginalized, some of which you concede, yet you don't concede that religion doesn't matter.


It is certainly getting marginalized in some ways, yet not in others. Certainly one can say church attendence levels have decreased, but has faith decreased? Has spirituality increased? Conflicting polls appear every so often, so it seems no one really knows the situation for sure.

I'll be more specific: while specific religions may decrease, faith in something (belief in general) probably hasn't, and moreover, the specific elements that constitute religions probably haven't decreased.


, and the world would suddenly become better if religions were to disappear.


Perhaps; I certainly concede the possibility.

Although, I suppose it would depend on how anti-religionists would try and make them disappear.

[T'ai Chi]

Faithkills and everyone,

In the most recent Skeptic newsletter, there was an interesting section on the typical make-up of suicide bombers.

[ASRomatifoso]

Organized religion is on the wane, except for Islam and LDS, I think. Of course, if you read the Book of Mormon, you're kind of dumbstruck at how it could attract any adherents at all, or at least I was:)

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah, I mean now that you can't have 4 wives, what's the attraction of LDS?

It is certainly getting marginalized in some ways, yet not in others. Don't look now, but you just contradicted hundreds of lines of your own text.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Don't look now, but you just contradicted hundreds of lines of your own text.

Really?

(I wrote)

I'll be more specific: while specific religions may decrease, faith in something (belief in general) probably hasn't, and moreover, the specific elements that constitute religions probably haven't decreased.


Seems consistent to me.

You do read the whole context, don't you? :)

[Dorian Gray]

I'll be more specific: while specific religions may decrease, faith in something (belief in general) probably hasn't, and moreover, the specific elements that constitute religions probably haven't decreased.
You do read the whole context, don't you?

Yes, especially all the times you used the word 'probably' to indicate your waning confidence in your position.

If you take a poll, sure, people would drag their beliefs out into the forefront. Similarly, if a 9/11-type event occurs, belief and religion experience a 'revival' (ha ha). But overall, people don't live their lives subject to a religion or specific theistic belief as they once did.

I am not claiming that religion/beliefs are nonexistent. I am claiming that they have become marginalized and are not as important as they once were, largely due to secularization of power.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Yes, especially all the times you used the word 'probably' to indicate your waning confidence in your position.


Interesting belief.

I use the word probably because I am not certain, not because I am not confident.


If you take a poll, sure, people would drag their beliefs out into the forefront. Similarly, if a 9/11-type event occurs, belief and religion experience a 'revival' (ha ha). But overall, people don't live their lives subject to a religion or specific theistic belief as they once did.


It is probable. ;) I don't see a good way to gauge belief in a fairly reliable way other than conducting polls. As an old quip goes: it is easy to lie with statistics, but it is even easier to lie without. If you don't measure belief through polls and surveys, how is it done?

From a couple posts back, you said:


..and the world would suddenly become better if religions were to disappear.


I just through I'd bring up what I said again: I suppose it would depend on just how anti-religionists would try and make them disappear. If the answer is through force of any type, I doubt it will ever be successful.

[Dorian Gray]

Yes, especially all the times you used the word 'probably' to indicate your waning certainty in your position.

Better?

As far as evidence, it is far easier to refute the evidence of religious texts to prove the point than to provide evidence of nonexistence of something.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Yes, especially all the times you used the word 'probably' to indicate your waning certainty in your position.


I don't know about waning, but it is true that I am not 100% certain. So?


As far as evidence, it is far easier to refute the evidence of religious texts to prove the point than to provide evidence of nonexistence of something.

Sure, I agree, although the texts seem to be fingers pointing to something, rather than the thing itself. Also, cosmologically, I agree that the texts don't have much truth. Metaphysically, on the other hand, they just might.

[Faithkills]

"I guess so. Evade # 3. Dodge # 3. " - TC

Don't just guess so, have faith it is so!:)

But I must now downgrade you to a Mynah bird. A parrot can occasionally say something original.

I still don't know what interpretation of reality it is that you think I believe. I go to some effort not to believe things so it is of interest to me that you (seem) to think this. However I suspect you said that merely as a ploy and actually had no such thought.

I certainly have things I regard as most probable and things I regard as highly unlikely. But there's nothing I have faith in or believe. Or I hope so anyway. However, in being consistent I must admit there is this possibility that I do have faith in something. So again, I would be very interested to know what you were talking about.

But I really think you were just putting up a smokescreen.

"Well, it seems that there would always be death. But in the case of death completely gone, I'll just point your attention to the fact that some think that the state of being dead is equivalent to the state of not even being born yet, so the 'afterlife' could be thought of in those terms." - TC

Point being? Think of it however you like, if most people don't die unless they choose to what would this do for the "marginalization" of religion?

"I simply disagree with that by and large statement. Got any evidence for that claim?" - TC

Killing is a big deal. One can kill from fear of repercussions if you don't, however a fear repressed army is known to be inferior militarily. So if you want to make the best use of your troops you need to have them buy into your gig. As your gig (killing the bad guy) probably won't materially benefit them personally (as you want that benefit yourself), you must invent a higher cause for them to buy into so they feel like they are benefitting. Performing a higher duty. Serving God. Serving Country. Upholding the Honor of the Regiment.

The fraction of killing that is practical and has some benefit to the person doing the killing, is very very small. The very vast majority of soldiers would like to be of the deterrent kind.. never called to kill or be killed. So they get paid regardless. There is no common practical motivation for soldiers to kill.

Further we consider the people who kill for PRACTICAL reasons (hitmen, etc) entirely socially disfuctional, and dangerous and to be weeded out.

So it is fairly clear that most killers do not kill for rational reasons. And if you did not instill in them some BELIEF in SOMETHING the overall process of killing would become problematic. You could use practical motivators like fear (miltarily inferior), or pay , or pillage, as an incentive, however then you must deal with those people who now see killing as an acceptible way to get ahead in peacetime.

Historically, most likely however you don't.. you just keep those people killing and conquering. However in the modern age imperial/colonial powers have their own problems..

The bottom line is ******** is cheap, abundent, and readily available. As you can get people to kill and die and pay them ********, that is the coin most are paid in. Not only that, practical motivators fail when what you want someone to do is die. Money, fear, etc don't work very well for that. As suicide tactics are a pivotal part of asymmetric warfare, ******** is necessarily the motivational method of preference.

"What kind of "technological solutions" did you have in mind specifically?" - TC

That was clear. Any technology which extends lifespan. And these technologies will almost certainly always be the ones most sought.

"I agree, but the reasons don't necessarily involve religion." - TC

I never said they did. I have several times said the opposite. What's germane however is that they DO often involve religion and faith. Presently one is much more likely to be deliberately killed by someone motivated by belief than deliberately killed by someone otherwise motivated.

And again people who kill for MATERIAL reasons are regarded socially as tumors to be removed. So much so that in the US if a soldier admitted he simply ENJOYED killing he would be referred to a shrink and if found not to be ********ting removed from duty. We don't want our soldiers killing for material reasons, even if the reason is simply that it gives him a woody.

"I didn't just create myself now did I" - TC

Relevance?

Who do you feel your existence belongs to? And who do you feel loaned you some existence?

And again the question:

Do you think there has never been and will never be a Hindi who would starve before eating beef?

FK

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

...the universe was not created to make life meaningful to you. Get over it. It was created to make life meaningful for the bacteria in you gut.

Also an interesting assertion. What proof do you offer?


As I see it, spiritual quests are each individual's concern to pursue or not as (s)he deems fit. Materialists seem to have chosen as their personal quest to prove (to themselves of course) that an objective physical world -- and nothing else -- exists. ;)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills

Presently one is much more likely to be deliberately killed by someone motivated by belief than deliberately killed by someone otherwise motivated.


"More likely", ok, great! So how much more likely? Can you attach a number to that statement?


"I didn't just create myself now did I" - TC

Relevance?


Life is a loan in a way.


Do you think there has never been and will never be a Hindi who would starve before eating beef?
FK

And agan, give us even one specific case where this has happened.

[Faithkills]

"Can you attach a number to that statement?" - TC

Do you dispute the statement?

"Life is a loan in a way." - TC

In what way? What evidence do you have of this?

"And agan, give us even one specific case where this has happened." - TC

Did I claim to know of one specific case?

Do you think there has never been and will never be a Hindi who would starve before eating beef?

"Materialists seem to have chosen as their personal quest to prove (to themselves of course) that an objective physical world -- and nothing else -- exists. " - hemmegk

Is it possible to prove the physical world -- and nothing else --exists?

FK

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills
"Can you attach a number to that statement?" - TC

Do you dispute the statement?


"Presently one is much more likely to be deliberately killed by someone motivated by belief than deliberately killed by someone otherwise motivated."

Show us some numbers unless you want us to accept what you believe on faith.

[hammegk]

In answer to:
"Materialists seem to have chosen as their personal quest to prove (to themselves of course) that an objective physical world -- and nothing else -- exists. " - hammegk



Originally posted by Faithkills


Is it possible to prove the physical world -- and nothing else --exists?



No. The question is why do materialists/atheists pretend they can? Dualists are equally deluded imo. ;)

[Faithkills]

"Show us some numbers unless you want us to accept what you believe on faith." - TC

LOL, I certainly have no interest in "us" accepting this or anything on faith;)

If I wanted people to simply say they believe I am right I would go elsewhere. My mother for one will kindly oblige.

But I am interested in learning. Which process inherently requires one be wrong on occasion, and that people show that. To be able to do that I must find people who have better ideas than I currently have. I have reason to think this will improve my own intellection over time. But the likelihood of a believer having better ideas is small as they undertake no such intellectual winnowing process themselves. Hence while I understand believers may accidentally have good ideas on occasion, I prefer to spend my time alotted for discourse with the sorts of people who do not cling to belief.. as a practical matter of optimizing ROI.

All of which is to say I have not asked you to take anything on faith, and certainly hope for both our sakes you would not.

What I AM asking is if you disagreee with the statement.

"No. The question is why do materialists/atheists pretend they can?" - hemmegk

No idea. It has been my understanding that doing so is a logical impossibility. Moreover if one indulges in belief, why not believe pleasant things?

This is what I advise "fad" atheists, though I don't see them here. Which is why I like this place.

FK

[hammegk]

In reponse to
"No. The question is why do materialists/atheists pretend they can?" - hemmegk

BTW, bubby, it's hammegk. Are you dyslexic, being an a**hole, or just careless?

Originally posted by Faithkills


No idea. It has been my understanding that doing so is a logical impossibility. Moreover if one indulges in belief, why not believe pleasant things?


If you had any beliefs, what pleasant things would you believe in?

And if you have no beliefs, what do you have?

[T'ai Chi]

"Presently one is much more likely to be deliberately killed by someone motivated by belief than deliberately killed by someone otherwise motivated."

Faithkills, one wonders how you ascertained "more likely" at all. Did you pull it out of thin air? Is it your belief? Did you read it in the newspaper? Did you hear it on TV? From a book? Your intuition? From your god? From atheism literature? From reading goat entrails? Where? When? Which population of people? Was a study done? How much more likely?

Could you fill in this blank with an actual number and reference:

'A person getting killed is ______ times more likely to be deliberately killed by someone motivated by belief than deliberately killed by someone otherwise motivated.'

?

Oh well. :rolleyes:

[Faithkills]

BTW, bubby, it's hammegk. Are you dyslexic, being an a**hole, or just careless?" - h

Well as I didn't typo the first time I quoted you, reasonable guess would be it's a typo? Non?

But then an a**hole with a overdeveloped sense of drama might not be able to put that together;)

Lest you think the world is teeming with people who are waiting for the chance to supremely "dis" you by dropping a letter of your handle if I quote you in the furtue I will refer to you as "h" so you shall have no Casus Belli henceforth due to typographical error on my part.

"If you had any beliefs, what pleasant things would you believe in?" - hammegk

Immortal soul. Heaven. Eternal life. That some force will cause justice to be eventuated. Probably largely the same as most people.

"And if you have no beliefs, what do you have?" - hammegk

If I had to bet money, I'd say the same thing that you have;)

"Did you pull it out of thin air? Is it your belief?" - TC

I would have thought it was ABUNDANTLY clear it's not my belief. Have you been paying any attention at ALL? :rolleyes:

Does the parrot imitation impress people in your burg? At least do yourself the service of attempting to comprehend the context before applying you sole "logical" trick to it?

So do you feel the source of a posit bears on it's merit? Do you disagree with the posit or not?

I'm interested in what you think. And I am now very much stretching the assumption this may occur sometimes.

FK

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills

"Did you pull it out of thin air? Is it your belief?" - TC

I would have thought it was ABUNDANTLY clear it's not my belief. Have you been paying any attention at ALL? :rolleyes:


So you still can't attach any number to it, so it must be a belief.

Otherwise you'd reveal for us exactly how much more likely.

So how much more likely is it?

[Faithkills]

"So you still can't attach any number to it, so it must be a belief.

Otherwise you'd reveal for us exactly how much more likely" - TC

An awe inspiring bit of flawed logic. I mean really.. do people go for this elsewhere?

What makes you think I believe it? Scroll back.. I said I didn't believe it:rolleyes:

I just wanted to know if you disagree with the statement or not. If thinking's not your gig I'll leave you be.

FK

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills
"So you still can't attach any number to it, so it must be a belief.

Otherwise you'd reveal for us exactly how much more likely" - TC

An awe inspiring bit of flawed logic. I mean really.. do people go for this elsewhere?


So where is the number?


What makes you think I believe it? Scroll back.. I said I didn't believe it:rolleyes:

I just wanted to know if you disagree with the statement or not. If thinking's not your gig I'll leave you be.

FK

You said:

"Presently one is much more likely to be deliberately killed by someone motivated by belief than deliberately killed by someone otherwise motivated."

I apologize if me asking exactly how much more likely, to investigate your claim, makes you uncomfortable.

Can you find where you said you didn't believe it?

[Dorian Gray]

So why religion matters is..... nitpicking?

[Faithkills]

"So where is the number?" - TC

What number? Who claimed they had a number?

"Can you find where you said you didn't believe it?" - TC

Yes.. how did you miss it? I said it several times. To whit:

"I would have thought it was ABUNDANTLY clear it's not my belief. Have you been paying any attention at ALL?" - Me

Why bother posting if you don't read.

And if you don't have an opinion on the matter why bother posting? You don't offer anything but the assertion which you yourself contradicted.

"the VAST majority of people, long for God (or whatever name you want to use), and that this is important and cannot (and WILL NOT be allowed to) be marginalized in society." - TC

"It is certainly getting marginalized in some ways, yet not in others." - TC

I'd say that's pretty clear. Are we done yet? Or are we going to argue about the "definition of 'is' " or 'It' ?:D

FK

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Faithkills

What number? Who claimed they had a number?


Usually when someone claims "more likely" they have an idea of just how much more. -Unless it is their belief, that is.


Are we done yet? Or are we going to argue about the "definition of 'is' " or 'It' ?:D
FK

It depends on how much you and I continue to ramble.

You still haven't demonstrated that faith is what is doing the killing. Tsk tsk.

[Faithkills]

"Usually when someone claims "more likely" they have an idea of just how much more. -Unless it is their belief, that is" - TC

Usually when one has an idea how much more they would say so, no?

Usually when someone believes something they would say so, and not state the opposite several times?:)

"the VAST majority of people, long for God (or whatever name you want to use), and that this is important and cannot (and WILL NOT be allowed to) be marginalized in society." - TC in the initial post of this thread.

"It is certainly getting marginalized in some ways, yet not in others." - TC later in the same thread.

Looks conclusive.

FK