Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Ah, a world without religion

Ah, a world without religion (Page 2)
Thread Tools
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2008, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
We're not even close to empirically verifying a tiny portion of "reality", but I do find it ironic that many scientific ideas that are mainstream would have been considered philosophical conjecture just 100 years ago.

We find ways to make the universe fit into the boxes we assign based on principles that are almost as ethereal as the belief that the universe is controlled by a white-bearded bloke in the sky who likes to lob lightning bolts at people who piss him off.
I don't think the scientific method is so much about "making the universe fit into the boxes we assign" as it is assuming there is a box in which to assign something and finding out in which box it goes. That's the beauty of the scientific method, if you assign a concept or idea to a specific box and find out later it belongs to a different box scientists will go ahead and make that change. So, I think your line of reasoning is somewhat faulty. It is not that religion and science are different in trying to assign ideas or concepts into a box but rather those assignments made by religion don't, or rarely, change regardless of the original reason/justification for putting that idea/concept in the box.

A crude summary would state my point as the following.

Science = Assumes there is a box in which to put an idea/concept and tries to find the best box in which to put it.
Religion = Declares there is a specific box in which an idea/concept exists and says it can't ever move out of that box.

I think the practice is the same for both science and religion--putting ideas/concepts into discrete boxes to make sense of them or the world--but the motivation and/or reasoning behind the use of boxes and where to put things are different.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2008, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I don't think the scientific method is so much about "making the universe fit into the boxes we assign" as it is assuming there is a box in which to assign something and finding out in which box it goes. That's the beauty of the scientific method, if you assign a concept or idea to a specific box and find out later it belongs to a different box scientists will go ahead and make that change. So, I think your line of reasoning is somewhat faulty. It is not that religion and science are different in trying to assign ideas or concepts into a box but rather those assignments made by religion don't, or rarely, change regardless of the original reason/justification for putting that idea/concept in the box.
Of course it is, we're shaping what we view according to our expectations. Humans do that.

1200CE - Erratically moving lights in the sky are angelic or demonic spirits heralding destruction.
2000CE - Erratically moving lights in the sky are aliens from other planets who want to probe your anus.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Of course it is, we're shaping what we view according to our expectations. Humans do that.

1200CE - Erratically moving lights in the sky are angelic or demonic spirits heralding destruction.
2000CE - Erratically moving lights in the sky are aliens from other planets who want to probe your anus.

I beg to differ. While you think most people "shape their views according to their expectations" I do not. And as to your example, there are many more people in the world who, when presented with "erratically moving lights in the sky", stop and think "I wonder what that is" as opposed to saying, "It's a UFO!". For some people calling such an observance a UFO is their way of putting that observation into a box labeled "UFO" but for most people that observation would go into the box "to be filed later" until more information could be obtained to determine which box to place the observation. Although, I think the most likely response to your example is to put the observation in the box labeled "meh".
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 01:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
I think you proved my point. The wikipedia article you link to clearly outlines that this is an Augustinian interpretation of the Bible.

This is yet another received opinion, which like all our received opinions is subject to the psychological forces I've been talking about.
Uhhh... no.

Augustine was not the one to come up with the idea. He simply refined it during a time when doctrine was forking all over the place and extreme interpretations were starting to take hold.

Read the verse quoted in that wiki article.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Uhhh... no.

Augustine was not the one to come up with the idea. He simply refined it during a time when doctrine was forking all over the place and extreme interpretations were starting to take hold.

Read the verse quoted in that wiki article.
Ok, I see those. My point, though, remains. It *is* an interpretation.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Ok, I see those. My point, though, remains. It *is* an interpretation.
Oh, I see what you're doing. You are arguing semantics.

Everything is an interpretation.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Oh, I see what you're doing. You are arguing semantics.

Everything is an interpretation.
No, not semantics. I was actually just making the point that the doctrine you were referring to is not explicitly in the text of the Bible. It is a doctrine that has grown up and been developed by intervening thinkers over the centuries. I was just pointing out that this is not individual interpretation of a primary text, but a received opinion. I'm just saying that it would be easy to see how such interpretations fit the mold I was talking about.

But the whole point has been belabored beyond any usefulness in discussion. Actually, that seems to be what you're doing across the board.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 12:18 PM
 
Ok, I want to say only one more thing about this religion and the brain can of worms I opened up.

If, indeed, the brain is a "kluge" then it would seem to argue against the idea that it is the product of some perfect engineer's divine design.

What's more, the findings about the nature of this "kluge" also seem to offer an explanation of why human beings are so prone to believe in such religious notions in the first place.

I find this model highly compelling. But do I find it highly compelling because it speaks to my previous bias about religion and the irrational disconnect between stated belief and human behavior? I'm trying to distance myself as much as possible from what I *want* to believe here, but the whole point of my line in this and another parallel discussion thread is that the task of keeping ourselves from believing what we want to believe is Herculean.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Is another way of saying this fairly that you believe that there are laws which govern us, and because we don't have a better explanation for where they come from it makes sense to fill in the blank with some sort of supernatural thing?
Only if you feel the need to say it another way. Otherwise, a fair way to say what I said would be; "given the short span of human existence, our study of ourselves, and the infancy of our understanding of true origins; it is both premature and irrational to a priori reject the possibility of a law-maker."

While faith may indeed be irrational, I'm not seeing anything to suggest that no faith is more rational.
ebuddy
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Otherwise, a fair way to say what I said would be; "given the short span of human existence, our study of ourselves, and the infancy of our understanding of true origins; it is both premature and irrational to a priori reject the possibility of a law-maker."
That is quite true. No doubt about it. But if you want to make the argument that there can be no a priori assumptions about a law-giver then the corollary to that statement above would state that "it is both premature and irrational to a priori assume the possibility of a law-maker." In other words, if we don't have enough evidence to rule out the existence of a law-maker we also don't have enough evidence to confirm the existence of a law-maker. This then puts both faith and no faith on the same level of rationality such that any talk of a law-maker would be mere supposition.

(Hmm, this would negate the argument I put forward earlier about less religion = increased rationality. Interesting conclusion. If we take as valid this logic that says the rationality of faith and no faith are equal then it becomes simply a matter of personal choice as to which thought system one subscribes to, faith or no faith. Which means rationality is not a valid criteria to ascertain differences between thought systems based on faith and those based on no faith.)
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Aug 23, 2008 at 02:19 PM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 02:09 PM
 
I don't think that it is rational to think that what we don't understand is, or could/should be left in the hands of the supernatural, unless you are consistent and are open to the possibility of their being UFOs, aliens, ghosts, telepathy, and anything else you'd find in an episode of X-Files. Are you open to these possibilities?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
No, not semantics. I was actually just making the point that the doctrine you were referring to is not explicitly in the text of the Bible. It is a doctrine that has grown up and been developed by intervening thinkers over the centuries. I was just pointing out that this is not individual interpretation of a primary text, but a received opinion. I'm just saying that it would be easy to see how such interpretations fit the mold I was talking about.
More semantics.
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
But the whole point has been belabored beyond any usefulness in discussion. Actually, that seems to be what you're doing across the board.
That's what happens when you argue semantics. And YOU are the one who is taking that route.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
That is quite true. No doubt about it. But if you want to make the argument that there can be no a priori assumptions about a law-giver then the corollary to that statement above would state that "it is both premature and irrational to a priori assume the possibility of a law-maker." In other words, if we don't have enough evidence to rule out the existence of a law-maker we also don't have enough evidence to confirm the existence of a law-maker. This then puts both faith and no faith on the same level of rationality such that any talk of a law-maker would be mere supposition.

(Hmm, this would negate the argument I put forward earlier about less religion = increased rationality. Interesting conclusion. If we take as valid this logic that says the rationality of faith and no faith are equal then it becomes simply a matter of personal choice as to which thought system one subscribes to, faith or no faith. Which means rationality is not a valid criteria to ascertain differences between thought systems based on faith and those based on no faith.)
This pretty much just summarizes what I've been saying all along; I believe it is more easy to define "irrational" as an immovable degree of rigidity than it is an openness to alternatives. In this it is possible that a religious person has an immovable degree of rigidity, but this is not exclusive to religion. In other words, the entire premise of the observation of irrationality among the religious is without a control. It is worse than merely antagonistic, it is meaningless and baseless. Primarily antagonistic as the author in the article in the OP openly admits.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't think that it is rational to think that what we don't understand is, or could/should be left in the hands of the supernatural, unless you are consistent and are open to the possibility of their being UFOs, aliens, ghosts, telepathy, and anything else you'd find in an episode of X-Files. Are you open to these possibilities?
Are you open to none of them? You don't really come off as qualified to define what is and is not rational IMO. I mean, I get that you don't believe in a Creator or god(s), but why does one have to have the same world view as you to be rational? Does that sound rational to you?
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 12:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I beg to differ. While you think most people "shape their views according to their expectations" I do not. And as to your example, there are many more people in the world who, when presented with "erratically moving lights in the sky", stop and think "I wonder what that is" as opposed to saying, "It's a UFO!". For some people calling such an observance a UFO is their way of putting that observation into a box labeled "UFO" but for most people that observation would go into the box "to be filed later" until more information could be obtained to determine which box to place the observation. Although, I think the most likely response to your example is to put the observation in the box labeled "meh".
Actually, it IS a UFO. Whether it's an extraterrestrial is another matter.


BTW, you're wrong, most would be intrigued and start thinking about "Close Encounters...". Why? Because it's part of the modern paradigm.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 12:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't think that it is rational to think that what we don't understand is, or could/should be left in the hands of the supernatural, unless you are consistent and are open to the possibility of their being UFOs, aliens, ghosts, telepathy, and anything else you'd find in an episode of X-Files. Are you open to these possibilities?
I agree, I don't believe in the supernatural at all.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 12:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
More semantics.


That's what happens when you argue semantics. And YOU are the one who is taking that route.
Listen, did you want to talk about the ideas or not? I don't know how long this little song and dance can entertain you, but I'm bored with it already. In fact, it's been going on so long, I don't even remember where we branched off from the point of the thread...threads, really, since I think you're doing the same thing in the other. I guess we should just let it go at this point.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 09:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Actually, it IS a UFO. Whether it's an extraterrestrial is another matter.


BTW, you're wrong, most would be intrigued and start thinking about "Close Encounters...". Why? Because it's part of the modern paradigm.
You are revealing a whole lot of intellectual bias here. "Close Encounters" is part of the modern paradigm for the peoples of the western nations of the world, and even then mostly in The United States and Western Europe. That's what, one-quarter of the human population. For the rest of the non-western world who has never seen "Close Encounters" or even heard of it your point is completely wrong. (What percentage of the population in China is aware of the "Close Encounters" movie let alone has seen it and knows? how about in the Middle East or South Asia apart from India?) Remember, when we talk about a subject applicable to all people you really ought to consider ALL the people to which it could apply.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Aug 24, 2008 at 09:58 AM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
grinder
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berlin, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 01:16 PM
 
I was raised by Christians, and I think it's safe to say I've been robbed of my childhood. I never got to enjoy the things other kids enjoyed. My parents were against what my friends were for, so they told me my friends were bad people. My teachers were against what my parents were for, so my parents told me my teachers were bad people. I was a social outcast because my parents didn't let me conform to my sinful peers. They raised me to be as much of a loser as they were in their days.
Luckily, at some point in my life I rejected the idea that my parents knew what was best for me, and renounced what was left of my faith. At that point, my life started being worth living.
So yeah, ban religion plzkthx.
2,4GHz iMac | 320GB Passport | BT Keyboard | MX Revolution | 4GB iPod nano
Blog | Flickr | deviantART
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Actually, it IS a UFO. Whether it's an extraterrestrial is another matter.


BTW, you're wrong, most would be intrigued and start thinking about "Close Encounters...". Why? Because it's part of the modern paradigm.
someone say UFO?
45/47
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
You are revealing a whole lot of intellectual bias here. "Close Encounters" is part of the modern paradigm for the peoples of the western nations of the world, and even then mostly in The United States and Western Europe. That's what, one-quarter of the human population. For the rest of the non-western world who has never seen "Close Encounters" or even heard of it your point is completely wrong. (What percentage of the population in China is aware of the "Close Encounters" movie let alone has seen it and knows? how about in the Middle East or South Asia apart from India?) Remember, when we talk about a subject applicable to all people you really ought to consider ALL the people to which it could apply.
You're aware that they dub such movies into other languages, right?

Reminds me of a conversation I had with an Parsi expat from Sri Lanka. I only know a few phrases in Sinhala and Hindi, and he struggled with English and Portuguese, however he became very animated when I mentioned American films. Of the ones I'd mentioned, his favorites seemed to be Star Wars and The Matrix. We found common ground by referencing concepts in those films and applying them to our own experiences.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by grinder View Post
I was raised by Christians, and I think it's safe to say I've been robbed of my childhood. I never got to enjoy the things other kids enjoyed. My parents were against what my friends were for, so they told me my friends were bad people. My teachers were against what my parents were for, so my parents told me my teachers were bad people. I was a social outcast because my parents didn't let me conform to my sinful peers. They raised me to be as much of a loser as they were in their days.
Luckily, at some point in my life I rejected the idea that my parents knew what was best for me, and renounced what was left of my faith. At that point, my life started being worth living.
So yeah, ban religion plzkthx.
Bah, I was raised by Charismatic Pentecostals and I rejected my parents' views when I was 11, even went as far as to proclaim that I was an atheist at 12. For the next six years we went in circles, they'd scream about me going to hell and I'd assert that they were brainwashed idiots. Turns out we were both wrong. Even today they don't agree with my lifestyle and spiritual choices, and I think they're far too uptight, but we dearly love each other. It took me years to understand, but I can say with conviction that they always looked out for my wellbeing.

Get over feeling robbed, it only makes you a weaker person.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Listen, did you want to talk about the ideas or not? I don't know how long this little song and dance can entertain you, but I'm bored with it already. In fact, it's been going on so long, I don't even remember where we branched off from the point of the thread...threads, really, since I think you're doing the same thing in the other. I guess we should just let it go at this point.
You're the one who said this:
...need to get specific about what in the Bible you mean, because I don't actually know where in the Bible is says human beings are flawed.
I posted a page with links from about 16 verses quoted in the Bible stating where the Bible said human being are flawed.

You're the one trying to dance around someone pointing out where you are wrong.

I can see why you want to let it go.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by grinder View Post
I was raised by Christians, and I think it's safe to say I've been robbed of my childhood. I never got to enjoy the things other kids enjoyed. My parents were against what my friends were for, so they told me my friends were bad people. My teachers were against what my parents were for, so my parents told me my teachers were bad people. I was a social outcast because my parents didn't let me conform to my sinful peers. They raised me to be as much of a loser as they were in their days.
Luckily, at some point in my life I rejected the idea that my parents knew what was best for me, and renounced what was left of my faith. At that point, my life started being worth living.
So yeah, ban religion plzkthx.
Awwww... poor you.

I have devoted my life to take care of kids who's parents used them in prostitution, raped them repeatedly. Withheld food, love, clothes... all so they could do drugs. Completely abandoned them.

Poor you.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 07:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Awwww... poor you.

I have devoted my life to take care of kids who's parents used them in prostitution, raped them repeatedly. Withheld food, love, clothes... all so they could do drugs. Completely abandoned them.

Poor you.
Yeah, I kinda thought the same thing. grinder's got the emo thing down pretty well.
ebuddy
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 08:09 PM
 
Well, we do only have a wii and a PS2... Poor kids are probably freaks in school.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You're aware that they dub such movies into other languages, right?

Reminds me of a conversation I had with an Parsi expat from Sri Lanka. I only know a few phrases in Sinhala and Hindi, and he struggled with English and Portuguese, however he became very animated when I mentioned American films. Of the ones I'd mentioned, his favorites seemed to be Star Wars and The Matrix. We found common ground by referencing concepts in those films and applying them to our own experiences.
Yes, and of the countries listed for worldwide release for "Close Encounters" only two of those countries were not in Western Europe or North America. They were India and South Africa. So you might want to re-think your statements and stop letting your bias towards the developed world lead you astray when you make pronouncements applicable to all of humanity.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 10:27 PM
 
Isn't India about 20% of the world's population alone?
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
You're the one who said this:


I posted a page with links from about 16 verses quoted in the Bible stating where the Bible said human being are flawed.

You're the one trying to dance around someone pointing out where you are wrong.

I can see why you want to let it go.
In what way was I wrong? I asked for information and that makes me wrong? The only thing I asserted was that the concept of original sin is an interpretation. No matter how wicked the people in those 16 examples were--and granted one says "all" fall short of God--the historical fact that it took centuries for Christian thinkers to codify "original sin" and "total depravity" is spoken to in the very article you linked to.

I only brought these up in the first place as establishing a working foundation from which to discuss whether these Christian beliefs fit with the insights from evolutionary psychology that I referenced. Yet for something like six or seven posts back and forth, all you've wanted to do is bicker back and forth about "semantics."

I don't know what you're up to, but I just want to discuss ideas. Do you want to do that or not? Right now, all it seems like you're interested in is scoring points in some imaginary tally in your head.

This is what I said:

"Are you ceding any contest about the validity of this research and its central conclusion in favor of discussing how such "flaws" in the human mind might be analogous to the concept of original sin in the Judeo-Christian tradition?"

"If so, I think we'd need to get specific about what in the Bible you mean, because I don't actually know where in the Bible is says human beings are flawed. As far as I knew, that was extra-Biblical interpretation of scripture."

So, does this strike you (or anyone else!) as interesting?
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Isn't India about 20% of the world's population alone?
Yeah, never underestimate the hegemony of American pop culture.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
This is what I said:

"Are you ceding any contest about the validity of this research and its central conclusion in favor of discussing how such "flaws" in the human mind might be analogous to the concept of original sin in the Judeo-Christian tradition?"
Could you please be more careful when you toss around the compound word "Judeo-Christian" ? Judaism has no concept of original sin.
     
SirCastor
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 11:31 PM
 
I know I'll probably take some flak for this, but for as many problems as religion has brought, it has also provided quite a lot of positive as well. Religion inspires many people to be good, encourages many people to do good to others. Many religions of the world encourage peace generally, teach people to respect other people, and help people to have good goals to achieve.

Nearly every complaint offered over religion is really a complaint offered at a person or a small subset of people. While the bible (and probably the Koran and other holy texts) contain teachings which are generally considered unacceptable, those aren't often taught and carried in modern religions.
* Sure there are there's Al-Queda and other Jihadists who preach the sword, but most Muslims preach peace
* Yes, the Klan has been responsible for horrific crimes, and the Westboro Baptist church is unreasonably extreme, but there are thousands upon thousands of Christian churches that strengthen communities, and provide great charity to the world.

History has a habit of recording horrible events, but not recording many of the good things that happen. I don't mean to defend actions religions take when destructive, but I don't think the world would be better off without religion. If it weren't religion it would have been tyrants under a different banner. Horrible things were done during the french revolution. Horrible things were done in Communist China and Russia. Horrible things were done by the American Government. The horrible things that we associate with religion are Tyrants utilizing existing structures to gain power. Tyrant may be too strong a word, but at the very least someone misusing the power they have been entrusted with.
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 11:38 PM
 
Judaism actually lacks a lot of the more unpleasant points of modern Christianity (everything to do with hell, essentially). Which is odd because Christianity was meant to be a kinder, happier Judaism.

BTW, while I agree that the Bible does not support Original Sin or Total Depravity per se, it certainly seems to teach that human beings are flawed, both in the Tanakh and the New Testament.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Could you please be more careful when you toss around the compound word "Judeo-Christian" ? Judaism has no concept of original sin.
Ah, good point.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Yes, and of the countries listed for worldwide release for "Close Encounters" only two of those countries were not in Western Europe or North America. They were India and South Africa. So you might want to re-think your statements and stop letting your bias towards the developed world lead you astray when you make pronouncements applicable to all of humanity.
Now you're floundering.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 01:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Are you open to none of them? You don't really come off as qualified to define what is and is not rational IMO. I mean, I get that you don't believe in a Creator or god(s), but why does one have to have the same world view as you to be rational? Does that sound rational to you?
Are you trying to say that every viewpoint, no matter how stupid and removed from reality, is equally valid? Somebody who has spent his entire life mastering an area of knowledge and improving the world with his expertise is on exactly the same level as a man who claims he is a poached egg?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 01:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Are you seriously trying to say that every viewpoint, no matter how stupid and removed from reality, is equally valid? Somebody who has spent his entire life mastering an area of knowledge and improving the world with his expertise is on exactly the same level as a man who claims he is a poached egg?
In terms of deliciousness? Perhaps not.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 01:58 AM
 
Look, believing in the supernatural is irrational. Why? Because the supernatural by definition pertains to something that does not belong with our normal, known universe. To believe in the supernatural either requires some personal experience, or an act of faith. I'm open to the idea that ghosts exist, for instance, but I realize that this is not rational, because there is no rational explanation for the existence of ghosts, at least not yet. Their existence has not been proven in any concrete way.

There is nothing wrong with having a belief in a higher power, we all have faith in something. Some might consider our faith the same as our instincts or gut feelings. However, again, this is not rational by definition. You cannot rationalize your belief in God to somebody else, and this is a tragic mistake that many have made throughout the course of history. You simply cannot "give" me your religious convictions using words. Religion is very post-modern philosophy.

So, am I open to God existing? Sure, since I think of myself as agnostic. However, "God must exist because we have no better explanation" does not cut it for me. Perhaps that explanation is not within our grasp now, and perhaps it will never be, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation for our universe that doesn't involve the supernatural.
     
RIRedinPA
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Mao and Stalin are responsible for more deaths than all the religious wars put together.
Even if you throw the numbers murdered by Pol Pot and Hitler in that total I seriously doubt it would equal the number of people killed in the name of some religion since the beginning of human history. You're limiting your argument to religion=christianity.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 08:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA View Post
Even if you throw the numbers murdered by Pol Pot and Hitler in that total I seriously doubt it would equal the number of people killed in the name of some religion since the beginning of human history. You're limiting your argument to religion=christianity.
Especially if you put it in relation to the total population at that time.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA View Post
Even if you throw the numbers murdered by Pol Pot and Hitler in that total I seriously doubt it would equal the number of people killed in the name of some religion since the beginning of human history. You're limiting your argument to religion=christianity.
Religion does equal Christianity, and especially Judaism, when the discussion of a "world without religion" comes up.
( Last edited by Chongo; Aug 25, 2008 at 10:13 PM. )
45/47
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
You're certainly right, humans are flawed.
I'm willing to argue that humans are not "flawed".

First, as the only advanced, civilized species that we have any knowledge of what are we to be gaged against? Are there ANY beings that are "not-flawed"? Have humans EVER been "not-flawed"? The very definition of "flawed" in this case is one without reference or precedent and thus one literally invented out of the imagination of humans.

Second, in a world where EVERYONE is ugly, is anyone really ugly anymore? How can anyone be flawed if EVERYONE is? When we accept the notion that every human who ever lived and ever will live is "flawed", then the none can be flawed at all. They are just what they are.

Third, if all humans are so horribly flawed then how can we rely on our own notions of what is flawed/perfect? If humans can't be trusted then how can we trust our own notion that we can't be trusted?

So how can we even presume to make this judgement about our species? The answers are through religious dogma or imagination/prejudice. IMO.

Of course this is all MY opinion as well, as a human with no reference and no precedence how can I say that we are not flawed? In the end I can't, and that is really my point. Trying make such a judgement is akin to trying to look oneself in the eye. To do this we need a mirror but in this world the mirrors we generally use to examine ourselves are just as skewed as one would expect them to be. Created by humans, already slanted by the pre-existing notions of those who created them.

So, I choose not to accept that humans are flawed or not-flawed. We just "are".
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Are there ANY beings that are "not-flawed"?
Cats.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Are there ANY beings that are "not-flawed"?
Yes.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
TheWOAT
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 04:51 PM
 
I believe in irrational numbers, but in a rational sort of way.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by shaddim View Post
yes.
lol!
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Could you please be more careful when you toss around the compound word "Judeo-Christian" ? Judaism has no concept of original sin.
Judeo-Christian is a phony word anyways.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 04:59 PM
 
What's 'phony' about it?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by zombie punk View Post
lol!
How insightful.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Are you trying to say that every viewpoint, no matter how stupid and removed from reality, is equally valid? Somebody who has spent his entire life mastering an area of knowledge and improving the world with his expertise is on exactly the same level as a man who claims he is a poached egg?
Just ask anyone who supports Intelligent Design.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:14 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,