The end of all religion

[3point14]

You have in your hand a button (although a very hypothetical one)

Pressing it would mean that all superstitious thought would be banished from the world. No more saluting magpies or worrying about shoes on tables or umbrellas being put up indoors, and of course, no more religion.

Do you push it?

What would be the effect on the world if you did?

[Mashuna]

I wouldn't push it. It's bad luck to push anti-superstition buttons, everyone knows that.

[Dave1001]

I'd push it. Just like I'd push a button getting rid of our appendixes.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I'd push it, then I would push the button that gets rid of hypothetical questions.

[Rufo]

Does pushing this button mean the current superstitions are banned, everyone starting out with their mind free from them (but being able to aquire the same superstitions again, or create new ones), or does it ban all superstitions for all time?

Where exactly is the border between superstition and speculation? What about misinterpreting evidence? Would this mean no one could ever believe in something that was not true?

In any case, my answer is no.

[ReligionStudent]

I would push it, because then either everything that seems to be woo would go away, or something would be left and then it would get really interesting. Anything left over would be fact and not superstition. (It would be very sad if gravity went away)

[3point14]

Does pushing this button mean the current superstitions are banned, everyone starting out with their mind free from them (but being able to aquire the same superstitions again, or create new ones), or does it ban all superstitions for all time?

Where exactly is the border between superstition and speculation? What about misinterpreting evidence? Would this mean no one could ever believe in something that was not true?

In any case, my answer is no.



Crikey, I don't know. I only found the button, I didn' build it, obviously.

But you can assume any answer you like, if it helps you answer the question! :)

[Beerina]

You have in your hand a button (although a very hypothetical one)

Pressing it would mean that all superstitious thought would be banished from the world. No more saluting magpies or worrying about shoes on tables or umbrellas being put up indoors, and of course, no more religion.

Do you push it?

What would be the effect on the world if you did?

I would push it.

Here's the rub: If God existed, I would still push it, to force God to throw everybody into Hell for all eternity. Hopefully this being would finally get it -- would finally understand the idiocy of His Universal Design, as He sits there, getting unending and undeserved praise from angels, as all his creations scream in agony.

[grayman]

I would push it.

"Do not push the button":

U1LrVugzXZA
8O4sS82_e-0

[Rufo]

Crikey, I don't know. I only found the button, I didn' build it, obviously.
If you find the constructor, lemme know. ;)

But you can assume any answer you like, if it helps you answer the question! :)
As I mentioned, my answer is no for pretty much any fuction which could be described as you did in the OP. However, depending on the exact effect, I may have better or worse arguments to back up my decision with, ranging from the world becoming a slightly more boring place to humanity's abitily to think becoming severely impaired - and of course the classical logical paradox leading to the collapse of the universe.

I would push it.

Here's the rub: If God existed, I would still push it, to force God to throw everybody into Hell for all eternity. Hopefully this being would finally get it -- would finally understand the idiocy of His Universal Design, as He sits there, getting unending and undeserved praise from angels, as all his creations scream in agony.
Oh, but your button-pressing was all part of His Grand Plan for the Creation. The chosen ones have already been sent to Heaven, and by pressing the button you are doing the Lord's work. Alas, mysterious ways, and so on and so forth.

[3point14]

If you find the constructor, lemme know. ;)


Sure, they didn't leave a card, but I think the number's still on my phone, hang on....



Oh, but your button-pressing was all part of His Grand Plan for the Creation. The chosen ones have already been sent to Heaven, and by pressing the button you are doing the Lord's work. Alas, mysterious ways, and so on and so forth.

clever bugger that god isn't he? Always one step ahead of the game.

[tsg]

I'd push it. But I'd cross my fingers and knock on wood first.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'd do whatever my Magic 8-Ball told me to.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

The Button is proof of a Buttoner.

[ClintonHammond]

I'd push it in a heart-beat!

[Cello Man]

I've pondered this same hypothetical question before, and the answer I arrived at after long speculation is...

Hell yes, I push the button. Assuming that the only thing eliminated is religious belief itself, and we would still have history and recollection of those same beliefs, only viewed through the lense of reason. You know that moment of realization when you ask yourself, "How could I be so stupid as to believe that in the first place"? Imagine the whole world doing that.

Instead of holding out on a false promise of paradise to come after this world, we could finally focus on making the world we are actually living in a better place for everyone. Help is not likely to arrive from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

[gumboot]

Where exactly is the border between superstition and speculation? What about misinterpreting evidence? Would this mean no one could ever believe in something that was not true?



Actually this would be fantastic. Essentially this would cause everyone to know everything, because as soon as an idea was proposed, you would either believe it or not, and thus be able to determine whether it was true or not.

-Gumboot

[Hokulele]

Losing the placebo effect would make drug testing less interesting.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Seriously I wouldn't push it. The root of any superstition is a hasty generalisation, and those can sometimes save your ass.

[CapelDodger]

Seriously I wouldn't push it. The root of any superstition is a hasty generalisation, and those can sometimes save your ass.

On the button. "Old Wife's Tale" is pejorative from selection bias - the successes go unnoticed and whatever works, y'know?

Superstitions can serve as a mnemonic, especially when concerned with not doing things.

[CapelDodger]

Losing the placebo effect would make drug testing less interesting.

I don't see the placebo effect as being superstitious. It's down to a more general deference to, and faith in, authority. Something that's innately human.

[Gregory]

No. I don't feel especially qualified to root around in people's minds and alter them at a fundamental level.

The number of you who apparently believe you are qualified to forcibly alter the minds of billions of people would be alarming if the question weren't so completely hypothetical.

[CapelDodger]

(It would be very sad if gravity went away)

But very uplifting :) .

[Hokulele]

I don't see the placebo effect as being superstitious. It's down to a more general deference to, and faith in, authority. Something that's innately human.


Hmm, I would have a hard time untangling which superstitions are themselves based on a faith in authority, and which are spontaneously generated, and which placebo-type "impovements" would be excluded or included in the banishment (homeopathy anyone?). Hopefully the button would know . . .

[Piscivore]

Seriously I wouldn't push it. The root of any superstition is a hasty generalisation, and those can sometimes save your ass.

Like when you meet people and they see only two arms, two legs, and just the one head so they assume "human"? :)

[CapelDodger]

No. I don't feel especially qualified to root around in people's minds and alter them at a fundamental level.

The number of you who apparently believe you are qualified to forcibly alter the minds of billions of people would be alarming if the question weren't so completely hypothetical.

All we'd be doing is extracting a vast amount of disinformation from the collective consciousness. People would be left free to invent new superstitions appropriate to their modern circumstances, instead of carrying the burden of the old. Massively liberating, IMO.

[CapelDodger]

Hmm, I would have a hard time untangling which superstitions are themselves based on a faith in authority, and which are spontaneously generated, and which placebo-type "impovements" would be excluded or included in the banishment (homeopathy anyone?). Hopefully the button would know . . .

The button is a perfect button. If it needs to know anything, it does know it :) . QED, Semper Fid, something like that. Is a Ponzi scheme a superstition? Who can really say - but the button knows. Inherently.

[Hokulele]

The button is a perfect button. If it needs to know anything, it does know it :) . QED, Semper Fid, something like that. Is a Ponzi scheme a superstition? Who can really say - but the button knows. Inherently.


Cool! A perfect button. Well then, knowing this and knowing my own curious nature, rather than pushing the button, I would probably try to take the thing apart to see how it worked. :D

[grayman]

Hmm, I would have a hard time untangling which superstitions are themselves based on a faith in authority, and which are spontaneously generated, and which placebo-type "impovements" would be excluded or included in the banishment (homeopathy anyone?). Hopefully the button would know . . .

The button is a perfect button. If it needs to know anything, it does know it :) . QED, Semper Fid, something like that. Is a Ponzi scheme a superstition? Who can really say - but the button knows. Inherently.

We are witnessing the start of a new religion: Buttonism.

:hypnodisk

[Gregory]

All we'd be doing is extracting a vast amount of disinformation from the collective consciousness. People would be left free to invent new superstitions appropriate to their modern circumstances, instead of carrying the burden of the old. Massively liberating, IMO.

Scenario: While volunteering in a nursing home, you meet a ninety-year old man who is dying of cancer. He has no living relatives, no close friends, and is suffering from depression; he confides to you that his religious convictions are the only thing keeping him going.
Question: Since religion is just a bunch of disinformation--and we agree about this--is it appropriate to try to convert him to atheism? ("Convert" might not be the right word, but you get the idea.)

Scenario: A friend of yours has just lost her husband and all three of her children in a horrific car accident. At the funeral, she tells you she can at least take condolance in the fact that they are now in a better place.
Question: Do you reply with, "Oh no they aren't."?

Religion is, indeed, disinformation. If you push the button, people will be less misinformed then they were five seconds ago, and if you believe that truth is the most important thing in life, I suppose that you ought to push the thing. But I'm not sure that the average person will thank you for it later, and I, personally, would not want to shoulder the responsibility for forcing every person in the world to suddenly and violently abandon their beliefs, whether they're ready to or not.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would push it.

Here's the rub: If God existed, I would still push it, to force God to throw everybody into Hell for all eternity. Hopefully this being would finally get it -- would finally understand the idiocy of His Universal Design, as He sits there, getting unending and undeserved praise from angels, as all his creations scream in agony.

I like the way you think!

Calling God's bluff! Excellent!

[Mobyseven]

Push it, uh yeah,
Push it real good.

[3point14]

Cool! A perfect button. Well then, knowing this and knowing my own curious nature, rather than pushing the button, I would probably try to take the thing apart to see how it worked. :D

OI!!

Put down the toolkit and step away from the button.

[Hokulele]

OI!!

Put down the toolkit and step away from the button.


Umm, oops, too late. But hey, check out this instant karma option! (Just watch out for the feedback.)

[3point14]

Umm, oops, too late. But hey, check out this instant karma option! (Just watch out for the feedback.)

:)

[lupus_in_fabula]

I would push it.

Here's the rub: If God existed, I would still push it, to force God to throw everybody into Hell for all eternity. Hopefully this being would finally get it -- would finally understand the idiocy of His Universal Design, as He sits there, getting unending and undeserved praise from angels, as all his creations scream in agony.

I would also push it... just to see when the first joker would claim he’s been touched by god, thus starting the cycle of superstition once again.

Just a note on the premise that God indeed would exist: When you push the button, perhaps any superstition about the existence of hell and angels would just vanish, or more generally, any conceptualization about God would just vanish.

[3point14]

We are witnessing the start of a new religion: Buttonism.

:hypnodisk

Sounds good to me.

As the discoverer and guardian of the button, I think you should all send me cash. Large, tax free, untraceable wedges of it. I shall be the profit prophet of the button.

[EHLO]

What would you do if you pressed the button and religion didn't go away?

[lupus_in_fabula]

What would you do if you pressed the button and religion didn't go away?

Calling maintenance would be the rational thing to do! :D

[Mobyseven]

What would you do if you pressed the button and religion didn't go away?

Due to the fact that pretty much all religions claim to be THE TRUE religion, I'd have to say that if NO religion went away then the button was faulty, and if ALL BAR ONE religions went away I'd just pray Scientology didn't remain.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Due to the fact that pretty much all religions claim to be THE TRUE religion, I'd have to say that if NO religion went away then the button was faulty, and if ALL BAR ONE religions went away I'd just pray Scientology didn't remain.
The button would get rid of praying, sorry.

[Complexity]

I wish that there were no superstition, but I wouldn't push the button - I don't have a right to push it. No one should have that kind of power.

How would you feel if pressing the button would remove all skepticism from humanity? Would a superstitious twit who believed that skepticism is the scourge of humanity have a right to push the button?

Of course not.

That I am convinced that superstition is erroneous and detrimental to the well-being of humanity, and that skepticism is a healthy stance to take and essential for the advance of human understanding, does not give me the right to press the first button.

People need to fight their own way out of superstition for the result to have value. To take away their opportunity to do so is to play dog.

Of course, there's more than one way of approaching this. If the pressing the button would remove HIV from the world, would I press it? Absolutely.

Is superstition a plague? Yes. Is it something that the world would be much better without? Yes.

Pressing the button would be playing dog, but so would choosing not to press the button.

Do I think that superstition is more detrimental to humanity than HIV? Yep.

Would I press the superstition ending button? Absolutely.

That isn't the answer I started the thread with, but what the hell...

[drkitten]

How would you feel if pressing the button would remove all skepticism from humanity? Would a superstitious twit who believed that skepticism is the scourge of humanity have a right to push the button?

Of course not.

That I am convinced that superstition is erroneous and detrimental to the well-being of humanity, and that skepticism is a healthy stance to take and essential for the advance of human understanding, does not give me the right to press the first button.

I assume you also keep smallpox and polio around, "just in case"? And you oppose vaccination, because the fact that lack-of-measles is a healthy doesn't give you the right to deprive children from the privilege of dying?

[The Grave]

I'd push it; and then every crazed faither that ever killed a woman for having an abortion, or flew a plane into a building, or beat a child {for it's own good} to release their own vengence....every one of them would be seen for what they are...dangerous!

Griff...

[The Grave]

I wish they wouldn't refer to me as !"new blood"! -- damn those double ensembles...I feel like a nose bleed!

When a doctor saves a life...is that playing dog? What about when I swerve my car to avoid someone...am I playing dog?

Is it right to cut a person up to save 5 [heart, 2 kidneys, a liver and another heart!] or is it better to let 5 needy people die?

Could 'dog' make that decision, and is it IT's to make? I think not - twice.

Griff...

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why not cut up one person and let the five needy people die? The options are not mutually exclusive.

[Complexity]

I assume you also keep smallpox and polio around, "just in case"? And you oppose vaccination, because the fact that lack-of-measles is a healthy doesn't give you the right to deprive children from the privilege of dying?

I started out with one position - no right to push the button - and talked myself into the opposite position - obligation to push the button - while typing the post.

I could have covered the tortuous path and deleted all but the end, but I thought that wasn't terribly honest, and its fun to watch a very short turnabout while its happening.

I'm a fan of vaccination, by the way.

[CapelDodger]

Scenario: While volunteering in a nursing home, you meet a ninety-year old man who is dying of cancer. He has no living relatives, no close friends, and is suffering from depression; he confides to you that his religious convictions are the only thing keeping him going.
Question: Since religion is just a bunch of disinformation--and we agree about this--is it appropriate to try to convert him to atheism? ("Convert" might not be the right word, but you get the idea.)

I'll pass on the "appropriateness" - too subjective. I would question his religion, if he was open to discussing the issue. After all, if religion is all that's between him and finding some peace he'd be better off without it.

Scenario: A friend of yours has just lost her husband and all three of her children in a horrific car accident. At the funeral, she tells you she can at least take condolance in the fact that they are now in a better place.
Question: Do you reply with, "Oh no they aren't."?

Hardly. Not at all appropriate behaviour. It tends to be believers that get in people's faces at times of grief. In my experience. I'd change the subject.

Religion is, indeed, disinformation. If you push the button, people will be less misinformed then they were five seconds ago, and if you believe that truth is the most important thing in life, I suppose that you ought to push the thing. But I'm not sure that the average person will thank you for it later, and I, personally, would not want to shoulder the responsibility for forcing every person in the world to suddenly and violently abandon their beliefs, whether they're ready to or not.

Can you violently abandon something? You can violently hold something - as modern jihadis do. Or violently defend. But not abandon.

I'd shoulder the responsibility. Truth may not be of paramount importance, but it's damn' useful in achieving the important things in life. I don't think people's social behaviour actually depends on their religions. They'll carry on as they did before - with a few extreme exceptions such as nuns, monks, and the aforementioned jihadis.

[Gregory]

I'll pass on the "appropriateness" - too subjective. I would question his religion, if he was open to discussing the issue. After all, if religion is all that's between him and finding some peace he'd be better off without it.

He'd be better off without the only thing he has going for him? Total dispair is a sort of peace, I guess, but not necessarily a peace I'd wish on someone.

Are we misunderstanding each other here?

Hardly. Not at all appropriate behaviour. It tends to be believers that get in people's faces at times of grief. In my experience. I'd change the subject.

Right. It's completely innapropriate. But it's exactly what you're proposing to do, except with a magic button instead of words.

Can you violently abandon something? You can violently hold something - as modern jihadis do. Or violently defend. But not abandon.

You're getting into someone's mind and, in the space of a second, eliminating decades'-worth of beliefs and convicitions. I think "violent abandonment" is an appropriate term in this instance.

I'd shoulder the responsibility. Truth may not be of paramount importance, but it's damn' useful in achieving the important things in life. I don't think people's social behaviour actually depends on their religions. They'll carry on as they did before - with a few extreme exceptions such as nuns, monks, and the aforementioned jihadis.

You really think religion is so unimportant to people? I don't know what to say, except that I completely disagree; my next-door neighbor and our floor's RA are both deeply religious, and even if it doesn't influence all of their day-to-day decissions, I think they would be profoundly changed if they suddenly lost their faith. I admit I can't catagorize this in any meaningful way--it's simply the impression I get of them. And they're not even fundamentalists.

Out of curiosity, if you had a button that would instantly force everybody in the world to agree with you politically, would you do it? Would the less objective nature of being "right" politically make a differense?

[strathmeyer]

I already don't have any friends and so wouldn't mind the loneliness, but who would clean up all the dead bodies?

[CapelDodger]

We are witnessing the start of a new religion: Buttonism.

:hypnodisk

There is no Button but The Button, and Hokulele broke it.

[Piscivore]

Why not cut up one person and let the five needy people die? The options are not mutually exclusive.

"I'm sorry, we're saving this liver for Larry Hagman."

[Piscivore]

You're getting into someone's mind and, in the space of a second, eliminating decades'-worth of beliefs and convicitions. I think "violent abandonment" is an appropriate term in this instance.
"Traumatic" is a better one, and has the additional benefit of being contextually correct.

[CapelDodger]

He'd be better off without the only thing he has going for him? Total dispair is a sort of peace, I guess, but not necessarily a peace I'd wish on someone.

Are we misunderstanding each other here?

I'm sure I understand you, you're very clear :) . I meant the peace of the grave. It's not always worth carrying on; the hypothetical nonagenarian has no reason to except religion.

Right. It's completely innapropriate. But it's exactly what you're proposing to do, except with a magic button instead of words.

I'm not proposing that I tour funeral homes telling the bereaved that dead is dead and that's that, after life you're worm-fodder and other people's memories.

You're getting into someone's mind and, in the space of a second, eliminating decades'-worth of beliefs and convicitions. I think "violent abandonment" is an appropriate term in this instance.

I'm all for oxymoron in its place, but I don't think this it. The belief just goes away. No whimper, and certainly no bang.



You really think religion is so unimportant to people? I don't know what to say, except that I completely disagree ...

Say that then - oh, you did :o .

... my next-door neighbor and our floor's RA are both deeply religious, and even if it doesn't influence all of their day-to-day decissions, I think they would be profoundly changed if they suddenly lost their faith.

Would they ditch their moral code if it suddenly wasn't backed-up by scripture? I doubt it. I think they'd even keep going to church, which would become a society or club serving much the same emotional purposes.

Out of curiosity, if you had a button that would instantly force everybody in the world to agree with you politically, would you do it?

I'm a strict monobuttonist. Let's not stray into heresy. There is no Button but The Button, and all of humanity's woes are down to the fact that Hokulele just had to frickin' mess about with it, didn't you, Hokulele?! Earning us the bum's-rush from the Garden all over again.

[CapelDodger]

"I'm sorry, we're saving this liver for Larry Hagman."

"Can any of you recommend a wine to go with it?"

[CapelDodger]

Why not cut up one person and let the five needy people die? The options are not mutually exclusive.

:D

Worthy of House.

[Gregory]

I'm not proposing that I tour funeral homes telling the bereaved that dead is dead and that's that, after life you're worm-fodder and other people's memories.

You're not proposing to tour funeral homes because your magic button allows you to do it from the comfort of your own home.

Would they ditch their moral code if it suddenly wasn't backed-up by scripture? I doubt it. I think they'd even keep going to church, which would become a society or club serving much the same emotional purposes.

I doubt it. Well, they might sleep around a little more, I guess. The fact that they wouldn't suddenly start acting "immoral" is not proof in my eyes that they would not be heavily and perhaps negatively effected.

Your entire argument seems to basically boil down to, "Religion is false, and I don't need it, so we can spontaniously get rid of it without hurting people." We agree that religion is false, I believe that you don't need it, but you have yet to establish the last part. Haven't you ever debated a theist who tried to convince you to give up atheism by talking about how bleak and hopeless a nontheistic world would be? Religion serves as a coping mechanism for a lot of people, and I simply don't think it would end well to suddenly yank their coping mechanism from out from under them.

If you didn't think my political question was worth answering, you might just have said so; I was simply trying to better-understand your position.

[Hokulele]

I'm a strict monobuttonist. Let's not stray into heresy. There is no Button but The Button, and all of humanity's woes are down to the fact that Hokulele just had to frickin' mess about with it, didn't you, Hokulele?! Earning us the bum's-rush from the Garden all over again.


Of course I had to mess with it, that's what I do! Anyway, I improved the button. It now distributes instant karma to anyone I point it at. That to me is a dramatic improvement.

* Points button at Piscivore *

[Sentzeu]

I would push it and then watch this device cease to exist as wishful thinking vanished. Then I'll continue living on as usual, though I would philosophically ponder exactly what portions of the modus operandi, in the human mind had disappeared in order for this to work.

[slingblade]

I wish they wouldn't refer to me as !"new blood"!

Don't worry. When you've been here a while, you'll be even more upset at some of those whose post counts earn them the title "Critical Thinker." :boggled:

-- damn those double ensembles...

Is that when you can't decide between two outfits, so you wear them both?

I feel like a nose bleed!

Me too! Where can we get one?

[Beelzebubba]

Does contacting Sylvia Browne on whether or not I should push the Button go against the ordained purpose of the Button? Are there any historical writings from the Button that could help me with this decision?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I would push it and then watch this device cease to exist as wishful thinking vanished. Then I'll continue living on as usual, though I would philosophically ponder exactly what portions of the modus operandi, in the human mind had disappeared in order for this to work.
Only some really important ones, but don't let that stop your ideological fantasizing. It didn't stop anyone else's.

[3point14]

Does contacting Sylvia Browne on whether or not I should push the Button go against the ordained purpose of the Button? Are there any historical writings from the Button that could help me with this decision?

Many fine writings exist in the Journal of the Button but only the worthy are allowed to actually read the scriptures, others have to rely upon the interpretation of those who can.

Having checked the button-holy writings, the answer to your question is:-

Meh. Up to you.


Please don't forget to contribute to the large button shaped collection plate in the corner on your way out. Thanks.

[tsg]

Many fine writings exist in the Journal of the Button but only the worthy are allowed to actually read the scriptures, others have to rely upon the interpretation of those who can.

Having checked the button-holy writings, the answer to your question is:-

Meh. Up to you.


Please don't forget to contribute to the large button shaped collection plate in the corner on your way out. Thanks.

Bah. Don't listen to him. The Button is a scam cult. The really enlightened are Prophets Of The SwitchTM. POTS teaches the enlightenment that follows the activation of the device may be undone by the hand of the Switch-Turner-Offer and initiate the destruction of Life As We Know It.

And for only $49.95 (makes checks payable to "CASH"), you too can be an initiate of POTS.

[Hokulele]

Bah. Don't listen to him. The Button is a scam cult. The really enlightened are Prophets Of The SwitchTM. POTS teaches the enlightenment that follows the activation of the device may be undone by the hand of the Switch-Turner-Offer and initiate the destruction of Life As We Know It.

And for only $49.95 (makes checks payable to "CASH"), you too can be an initiate of POTS.


Oops, sorry, I installed a ClapperTM on that switch while you were at lunch.

[tsg]

Oops, sorry, I installed a ClapperTM on that switch while you were at lunch.

HERESY!

[tsg]

Brothers, I bring bad news. It turns out that POTS is a scam. After you pay the $49.95 you have to keep paying for the teachings. I'm ... heartbroken.

But, there is good news. Another group is teaching that it is not a switch, but an infinitely adjustable dial of reason which controls the universe. The Pupils of the Adjustable kNob of Sanity (PANS) is accepting new noviates for the low, low price of $59.99....

[Piscivore]

Of course I had to mess with it, that's what I do! Anyway, I improved the button. It now distributes instant karma to anyone I point it at. That to me is a dramatic improvement.

* Points button at Piscivore *

I hate instant karma. You have to keep stirring it or it settles to the bottom of the glass. :(

[Hokulele]

I hate instant karma. You have to keep stirring it or it settles to the bottom of the glass. :(


But do you know how long you have to soak the regular karma before you can even start to cook it? Who has that kind of time? Besides, this instant karma button is fun!

* Points button at CapelDodger *

[CapelDodger]

Of course I had to mess with it, that's what I do!

Which is always the moral of Fall From Grace myths - it's in our nature (or in this case your nature). When the orthodox Button-Holy canon is finalised, you get the Eve role. Enjoy. (M le Marqius : you represent the Serpent.)

Anyway, I improved the button. It now distributes instant karma to anyone I point it at. That to me is a dramatic improvement.


That is heretical in so many ways ... :eek:

[CapelDodger]

* Points button at CapelDodger *

Oi, watch it. You'll have somebody's eye out with that thing.

[grayman]

But do you know how long you have to soak the regular karma before you can even start to cook it? Who has that kind of time? Besides, this instant karma button is fun!

* Points button at CapelDodger *

Instant Karma's gonna get you...

MieDFkhlByo

[Hokulele]

* Points button at grayman *

[Marquis de Carabas]

(M le Marqius : you represent the Serpent.)
Me? But I'm the only one who advocated not hitting the button. I should get to be the vengeful God.

[CapelDodger]

You're not proposing to tour funeral homes because your magic button allows you to do it from the comfort of your own home.

Damn' right. If there was any hypothetical effort mentioned I wouldn't have got involved.

I doubt it. Well, they might sleep around a little more, I guess.

They'd wish.

The fact that they wouldn't suddenly start acting "immoral" is not proof in my eyes that they would not be heavily and perhaps negatively effected.

Sadly, we'll never find out who's right.

If you didn't think my political question was worth answering, you might just have said so; I was simply trying to better-understand your position.

It might well be worth answering, I just ain't gonna. It would have no bearing on my position in this case, which is an intentionally simple binary one. Religion stays or it goes.

With religion gone people will be better to placed to consider politics as a practical matter open to reasoned analysis and rational planning, rather than some holy prescription. US democratic practice would be much improved, IMO. The speeches would be a lot shorter, for one thing.

[CapelDodger]

Me? But I'm the only one who advocated not hitting the button. I should get to be the vengeful God.

Did somebody tell you that life would be fair? That's cruel.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Did somebody tell you that life would be fair? That's cruel.
Well, can I at least be a vengeful serpent, then?

[Piscivore]

I want to be the apple.

[Hokulele]

Yay! If I am Eve, please let Piscivore be the apple. Pisci, this won't hurt a bit, really. :cool:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Today's scriptural reading is from the 3rd Book of Adams:

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

[Rufo]

Which is always the moral of Fall From Grace myths - it's in our nature (or in this case your nature). When the orthodox Button-Holy canon is finalised, you get the Eve role. Enjoy. (M le Marqius : you represent the Serpent.)
Since I suggested that someone must have created the Button, I guess I'm the first buttonist gnostic. :p

Hm, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I agreed with the Marquis' decision not to push the button. Whee! I'm an Ophite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophites)! :D

[Piscivore]

Pisci, this won't hurt a bit, really. :cool:

Where's the fun in that? :confused:

[Hokulele]

Where's the fun in that? :confused:


Hmmm, good point.

* Points button at Piscivore. Shakes button. Points button at Piscivore. *

This thing seems to be stuck. Has anyone seen my toolkit?

[CapelDodger]

Well, can I at least be a vengeful serpent, then?

Play it the way that feels right to you. Whatever I get I'm going to play as "capricious".

[CapelDodger]

Whee! I'm an Ophite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophites)! :D

It's about time you guys got your fifteen minutes of fame.

It's about time you heretics got your fifteen minutes of flame.

(All, part, or none of this post will become orthodox Button-Holy canon.)

[CapelDodger]

Today's scriptural reading is from the 3rd Book of Adams:

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

I reckon we should include the Adams corpus en masse in the button-holey canon. What's not to like?

[CapelDodger]

Has anyone seen my toolkit?

Four of them are being touted on eBay as we speak. "Hokulele's Toolkit" is the must-have relic of today. Looking at the popular end of the market, your tool-kit apparently included at least 187 pairs of pliers. What's that all about?

(Your screws aren't worth much individually, but it must be nice to know they're worth anything at all.)

[Hokulele]

(Your screws aren't worth much individually, but it must be nice to know they're worth anything at all.)


Er ...

Um...

Good thing I still have my Leatherman (http://www.leatherman.com/products/tools/surge/default.asp).

* Points refurbished button at CapelDodger *

[3point14]

I reckon we should include the Adams corpus en masse in the button-holey canon. What's not to like?

Ooh, slightly revisionist, but I like it.

Are we a cult yet?

[Hokulele]

Ooh, slightly revisionist, but I like it.

Are we a cult yet?


I thought the original button banished cult-type thinking? :confused:

(How do I point this thing at myself? :D )

[3point14]

I thought the original button banished cult-type thinking? :confused:

It did. Then someone broke it.

[Hokulele]

Scenario: While volunteering in a nursing home, you meet a ninety-year old man who is dying of cancer. He has no living relatives, no close friends, and is suffering from depression; he confides to you that his religious convictions are the only thing keeping him going.
Question: Since religion is just a bunch of disinformation--and we agree about this--is it appropriate to try to convert him to atheism? ("Convert" might not be the right word, but you get the idea.)

Scenario: A friend of yours has just lost her husband and all three of her children in a horrific car accident. At the funeral, she tells you she can at least take condolance in the fact that they are now in a better place.
Question: Do you reply with, "Oh no they aren't."?

Religion is, indeed, disinformation. If you push the button, people will be less misinformed then they were five seconds ago, and if you believe that truth is the most important thing in life, I suppose that you ought to push the thing. But I'm not sure that the average person will thank you for it later, and I, personally, would not want to shoulder the responsibility for forcing every person in the world to suddenly and violently abandon their beliefs, whether they're ready to or not.


On a more serious note, I was giving this some thought the other day and I would still push the button. The only change will be a loss of superstition. All other brain functioning would still be in place such as selfishness, altruism, modesty, and whole slew of others. This would include the ability to justify and rationalize actions and beliefs based on fact and evidence. In the the two scenarios listed above, the people may lose their religious reasons for peace, condolence, or justifications, but they could find a replacement.

For example, the nonagenarian may realize that he is still alive and can share his experiences with cancer with others to hopefully benefit them (don't smoke!). He may realize he can make other friends.

For the grieving mother, she may dwell on the life they did lead, and set up foundations or other memorials to the lives they had and lost (don't drink and drive!).

Again, don't underestimate the power of the human mind to replace one rationalization for another. Your religious friends and neighbors could quite easily transfer the power of their convictions to other causes, grounded in something other than superstition (environmentalism, human rights causes, etc.).

[Marquis de Carabas]

On a more serious note, I was giving this some thought the other day and I would still push the button. The only change will be a loss of superstition. All other brain functioning would still be in place such as selfishness, altruism, modesty, and whole slew of others.
I whole-heartedly disagree. Superstition is a byproduct of how the brain works. I see no way to absolutely remove superstition without removing those functions of which it is a byproduct.

The human mind, leaving aside motor control, is largely a piece of pattern recognition software. Pattern recognition is susceptible to two types of errors, known poetically as Type I and Type II. Type I errors are false positives--the detection of a pattern that is not there. Type II errors are false negatives--the failure to detect a pattern that is there.

A superstition is the creation of a Type I error. The human mind loves to find patterns and is programmed to draw conclusions from the flimsiest of evidence. This is necessary. The world is not a laboratory. We do not always have the luxury of waiting until enough evidence to make a sound decision has come in. Sometimes, one must simply act on the best guess. Best guesses often turn out later to be wrong.

Which moves us on to the persistence of a superstition once created. I would be more tempted to push a button that would prevent humans from persisting in belief in a superstition once adequate evidence has become available, but ultimately, I would still refrain.

Superstitions linger on the strength of two features of the human mind's workings that I think it would be unwise to discard: a bias towards accepting the common wisdom of society and the resiliency of belief itself.

A bias towards accepting the common wisdom of your society can certainly get you in trouble. Your society can have things wrong. Still, most of the things we are taught are correct--at least to the best of our present knowledge. It is good that we are predisposed to accept what is commonly taken as fact. As much as we might love skepticism and scientific thinking, there are far too many things one needs to know than one can be expected to independently verify. Not to mention, of course, that a lot of that knowledge is gained when one is a child, and not exactly up to the task of launching such investigations.

Once someone comes to believe something, that belief becomes (to greater or lesser degree, dependent upon a number of factors) protected from dissent. Again, this is a feature that can cause problems, but it is not without merit. I would hate to have nagging doubts that I simply must investigate every time any possible objection was raised to something I believed. Imagine reading every new piece of creationist propaganda that you hear about, and then researching precisely what is wrong with it, your belief in evolution on hold until the matter is resolved.

As long as these three things--an ability to detect patterns on scant evidence, acceptance of common knowledge, and resiliency of belief--are present in the human mind, superstition will remain a possibility. Each feature is fraught with its own peril, and as skeptics we should be vigilant against the dangers, but each is also a desirable commodity to keep around.

[Hokulele]

As long as these three things--an ability to detect patterns on scant evidence, acceptance of common knowledge, and resiliency of belief--are present in the human mind, superstition will remain a possibility. Each feature is fraught with its own peril, and as skeptics we should be vigilant against the dangers, but each is also a desirable commodity to keep around.


It is my understanding that superstition is based primarily on the third element you describe (resiliency of belief). This is the one that I had thought the button would address. Yes, the first two play a role in the formation of a belief, but when faced with an abundance of evidence to the contrary, it is only the most resilient belief that would persist as a full-blown superstition. To remove superstition, you would only have to tone down the belief mechanism, not eliminate it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It is my understanding that superstition is based primarily on the third element you describe (resiliency of belief). This is the one that I had thought the button would address. Yes, the first two play a role in the formation of a belief, but when faced with an abundance of evidence to the contrary, it is only the most resilient belief that would persist as a full-blown superstition. To remove superstition, you would only have to tone down the belief mechanism, not eliminate it.
It's not a resiliency to presented evidence I am referring to. It is a reluctance (probably the word I should have used in the first place) to even examine the belief in the first place. I know it sounds horrible for a skeptic to espouse such reluctance, but one has too many beliefs, and there exist too many possible challenges to said beliefs, for this generalised reluctance to be toned down too much. I believe giraffes are native to Africa. I believe this based on common knowledge. I have never been to Africa to verify. It is still a rather resilient belief. If Joe Blow tells me that, actually, giraffes are native to South America, I'm not booking a trip.

The reluctance is necessary to keep everyone from wasting all their time re-examining inconsequential beliefs. And many superstitions are inconsequential. It doesn't really matter if I believe I will be unlucky if a black cat crosses my path, just as it really does not matter where I believe giraffes live.

Maybe what we need is a button that would make people better able to determine which beliefs are consequential enough to be examined when challenged.

[Hokulele]

It's not a resiliency to presented evidence I am referring to. It is a reluctance (probably the word I should have used in the first place) to even examine the belief in the first place. I know it sounds horrible for a skeptic to espouse such reluctance, but one has too many beliefs, and there exist too many possible challenges to said beliefs, for this generalised reluctance to be toned down too much. I believe giraffes are native to Africa. I believe this based on common knowledge. I have never been to Africa to verify. It is still a rather resilient belief. If Joe Blow tells me that, actually, giraffes are native to South America, I'm not booking a trip.

I think the "an abundance of evidence" bit of my previous response could serve as the mechanism for triggering the questioning of the belief. If Joe Blow tells you that giraffes are native to South America, you would return with "so what?" If Joe Blow, Jane Flow, and National Geographic were all telling you the same thing, you might care enough to look into it further.

The reluctance is necessary to keep everyone from wasting all their time re-examining inconsequential beliefs. And many superstitions are inconsequential. It doesn't really matter if I believe I will be unlucky if a black cat crosses my path, just as it really does not matter where I believe giraffes live.

I agree with you here.

Maybe what we need is a button that would make people better able to determine which beliefs are consequential enough to be examined when challenged.

Where's my toolkit?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think the "an abundance of evidence" bit of my previous response could serve as the mechanism for triggering the questioning of the belief.
This, coupled with the power to discern which beliefs to bother examining, would be a button I'd push. I'm not certain that button would eliminate superstition, though.

[Hokulele]

This, coupled with the power to discern which beliefs to bother examining, would be a button I'd push.

Please submit form N-16-X along with proper remittance to Hokulele Button Putterers, LLC. This will be added to the list of requests, right after the "Fill Piscivore with the Milk of Human Kindness" and "Disable grayman's YouTube Linking" options.

* Points current button at 3point14 as a preventative measure *

I'm not certain that button would eliminate superstition, though.

But would it eliminate organized religion (which I thought was the topic of the OP)?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Please submit form N-16-X along with proper remittance to Hokulele Button Putterers, LLC. This will be added to the list of requests, right after the "Fill Piscivore with the Milk of Human Kindness" and "Disable grayman's YouTube Linking" options.
Proper remittance? What's that in goats?


But would it eliminate organized religion (which I thought was the topic of the OP)?
I don't think so. It might get rid of some of the ones we currently have, but it's hard to come by an abundance of evidence against a lot of religious beliefs.

[Piscivore]

"Fill Piscivore with the Milk of Human Kindness"

Ugh, mammals. Who asked for that? Hawk? It was Hawk, wasn't it?

The last time anyone tried the stuff curdled into the Cheese of Misanthropy before it got within 10 feet of me.

[grayman]

"Disable grayman's YouTube Linking" options.


:cry1

[Hokulele]

Ugh, mammals. Who asked for that? Hawk? It was Hawk, wasn't it?

The last time anyone tried the stuff curdled into the Cheese of Misanthropy before it got within 10 feet of me.

:cry1

Proper remittance? What's that in goats?

* Rubs hands together in fiendish glee *

The first step in becoming indoctrinated in the lore of button-puttering is to accept the power of the button. Bow down before the Button Mistress!

(Used goats are not proper remittance.)

I don't think so. It might get rid of some of the ones we currently have, but it's hard to come by an abundance of evidence against a lot of religious beliefs.

I'll take any improvements I can get.

[Marquis de Carabas]

* Rubs hands together in fiendish glee *

The first step in becoming indoctrinated in the lore of button-puttering is to accept the power of the button. Bow down before the Button Mistress!

Can we call you Butt Mist for short?

[Hokulele]

Can we call you Butt Mist for short?


Wait until after the Cinco de Mayo party tomorrow night.

[tsg]

Wait until after the Cinco de Mayo party tomorrow night.

That's on May 5th this year?

[CapelDodger]

Are we a cult yet?


Not until the leader takes a second wife. (Cult leaders are almost always male.)

[The Darkest One]

OK, I just read "Philosophy for Dummies...Big, Ugly Dummies" by Fred Sanford (RIP), and I want to give this a try.

1. The purpose of this website is to "discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way"

2. Pressing the button would make this website moot

3. Since the hypothetical button is located on this website, if pushed, this website and thus, the button, don't exist

4. Philosophy hurts my head, I'm going back to cartoons!

[CapelDodger]

3. Since the hypothetical button is located on this website, if pushed, this website and thus, the button, don't exist

Ignoring the flagrant non-sequitor, the button is specifically hypothised in one's hand. For all its qualities, this Forum cannot be taken in hand.

4. Philosophy hurts my head, I'm going back to cartoons!

Philosophy is bollocks. Cartoons are not entirely bollocks. It's a no-brainer, IMO.