Are you religious?

[HereticBD]

I'm agnostic, but have no problem with religion. The only problem I have with any belief system, are the people who preach it like it's a fact. That goes for you atheists as well. You don't know shit from shit, just like the rest of us.

 

[meauneau]

This argument cuts both ways. You can't express how sorry you feel for religious people by noting that they feel sorry for non-religious people.

This isn't about epistemology, it's about consistency. If you believe your world-view is superior enough for you to adhere to, you naturally want people to adhere to it, too. If you are humane, and you believe God is fictitious and thus harmful, you would want your family and friends to disavow these views.

Its not a matter of belief it is a matter of demonstrable fact. If it is demonstrated that my beliefs are contradictory or inconsistent with current science and historical evidence then it would be an irrational belief that I hold.

But what I stated in the post you quoted was an emotional crutch that religious people walk with through life and which they believe we lack and thuse suffer. Atheists feel sorry for theists not for some psychological reasonnbut rather epistemological reasons, reasons of truth, consistency with evidence and logic, etc.

 

[dontsnitch]

The metrics aren't the point. The point is that religion causes people to act irrationally (refuse blood/organ transplants to save a life, refuse abortions, stop the advancement of science if it goes against religious doctrines, spread false ideas as if they were scientific, silencing free speech with terrorism, etc.

All these things stem from their divine texts which are supposed to be infallible, immutable and authoritative for all humanity. There isn't such thing for atheist. The closest thing would be humanism and such ideas but of course it is openly acknowledged that it is not divine but man made.

Right, but those are metrics you've put in place. Reasonable ones, but metrics nonetheless. There are other metrics we could use, such as happiness, stability, family, productiveness, etc. It depends on how you want to measure this, which is why I think it's futile and subjective.

I would also point out that not everyone adheres to these immutable laws, as you call them. So we need strict definitions. If I don't believe in an inerrant text, am I exempt from your critique?

 

[meauneau]

Right, but those are metrics you've put in place. Reasonable ones, but metrics nonetheless. There are other metrics we could use, such as happiness, stability, family, productiveness, etc. It depends on how you want to measure this, which is why I think it's futile and subjective.

I would also point out that not everyone adheres to these immutable laws, as you call them. So we need strict definitions. If I don't believe in an inerrant text, am I exempt from your critique?

If you don't believe in an inerrant text but still had a body of laws, prohibitions, etc, and didn't believe it to be authoritative for all humanity then you would be exempt from it I think.

If your beliefs get in the way of human progress and flourishing, freedom, peace, human rights, etc, then that is where your beliefs would be critiqued.

 

[dontsnitch]

If you don't believe in an inerrant text but still had a body of laws, prohibitions, etc, and didn't believe it to be authoritative for all humanity then you would be exempt from it I think.

I believe them to be authoritative, much like you believe them to not be authoritative. If I am right, you would be doing harm. If you are right, it's the opposite.

To your last post:

You believe that a belief in God is demonstrably false?

As for a crutch, I disagree. It can be a crutch, but that doesn't mean that a belief in God stems from a need for a crutch, necessarily. You can't definitively say that a belief is born from the very thing the belief may lead you to.

 

[meauneau]

I believe them to be authoritative, much like you believe them to not be authoritative. If I am right, you would be doing harm. If you are right, it's the opposite.

I agree. The assumption I make is that it is not the case or I do not/have no reason to accept that x scripture is authoritative. The current consensus in biblical scholarship is that the torah was not revealed to moses in sinai, they agree that the post moses, multiple authorship, human origin of the text is right. Since this is the grounds for the abrahamic religions which accept as truth the torah to moses at sinai they are all grounded on falsehood. This plus evidence from many fileds of knowledge is reason for rejecting the claims of authority. Besides, the onus of proof is on the other side.

To your last post:

You believe that a belief in God is demonstrably false?

The gods of the mainstream religions are more probably fales than true in light of philosophical, scientific, historical and internal evidence.

As for a crutch, I disagree. It can be a crutch, but that doesn't mean that a belief in God stems from a need for a crutch, necessarily. You can't definitively say that a belief is born from the very thing the belief may lead you to.

Did I say it stems from this psychological crutch? If there is this need then it would be explained by evolutionary psychology, the emotional support religion gives to its adherents even in the most absurd of religions. There os evidence of this in cults and cult leaders which have been proven frauds and yet their followers still held on their beliefs with even more tenacity.

Maybe the emotional crutch is satisfied by the carers and then we develop the belief in something which gives us a sense of security and control in oir lives. There are many studies on primitive cultures and the development of their religious/superstitious beliefs and how they are rooted in psychology.

 

[dontsnitch]

I agree. The assumption I make is that it is not the case or I do not/have no reason to accept that x scripture is authoritative. The current consensus in biblical scholarship is that the torah was not revealed to moses in sinai, they agree that the post moses, multiple authorship, human origin of the text is right. Since this is the grounds for the abrahamic religions which accept as truth the torah to moses at sinai they are all grounded on falsehood.

We are getting really far from the original premise, but this is still interesting.

I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows the premise here. Simply because Moses was not a real person and didn't write the Torah, doesn't necessarily mean what was written is false. Most people credit the authors JEPD, and doing so doesn't speak to the veracity of the claims.

The gods of the mainstream religions are more probable not true than true in light of philosophical, scientific, historical and internal evidence.

Some Gods are more probable than others, but we know we can't prove God doesn't exist.

Did I say it stems from this psychological crutch? If there is this need then it would be explained by evolutionary psychology, the emotional support religion gives to its adherents even in the most absurd of religions. There is evidence of this in cults and cult leaders which have been proven frauds and yet their followers still held on their beliefs with even more tenacity.

Maybe the emotional crutch is satisfied by the carers and then we develop the belief in something which gives us a sense of security and control in our lives. There are many studies on primitive cultures and the development of their religious/superstitious beliefs and how they are rooted in psychology.

My point is that a crutch, whether it is employed or not, does not speak to the truth of the claim. I can use something as a crutch and doing so doesn't speak to the properties of that something.

 

[colby25]

Q

I'm agnostic, but have no problem with religion. The only problem I have with any belief system, are the people who preach it like it's a fact. That goes for you atheists as well. You don't know shit from shit, just like the rest of us.

If you're open to the idea that they're may be a God are you also open to the idea that there are people who have a relationship with God?

 

[HereticBD]

If you're open to the idea that they're may be a God are you also open to the idea that there are people who have a relationship with God?

I'm open to people believing they do. Doesn't make it a fact though.

Bottom line, nobody on this Earth knows a goddamn thing about what happens when the lights go out, or why we're here in the first place. You can believe you know, but that's all it is. A belief.

I prefer to be comfortable in my ignorance about the unknowable.

 

[meauneau]

We are getting really far from the original premise, but this is still interesting.

I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows the premise here. Simply because Moses was not a real person and didn't write the Torah, doesn't necessarily mean what was written is false. Most people credit the authors JEPD, and doing so doesn't speak to the veracity of the claims.

Everything that is attributed to moses is false, the claim that god spoke to moses or revealed the torah to moses is false. I was not referring to what is written. Some of it could be true and some false. The point is that the claim of divine revelation to moses is false.

Some Gods are more probable than others, but we know we can't prove God doesn't exist.

You say god as if it were the proper name of some individual we already assume exists. Some conceptions of things people lable as gods are more consistent than others. Some can be proven to not exist and some can be very unlikely in light of evidence against it.

My point is that a crutch, whether it is employed or not, does not speak to the truth of the claim. I can use something as a crutch and doing so doesn't speak to the properties of that something.

That would be a genetic fallacy. I am judging it as false based on independent evidence and on the inductive evidence of psychological and sociological studies on primitive societies and the development of their superstitious beliefs as emotional coping tools.

 

[dontsnitch]

Everything that is attributed to moses is false, the claim that god spoke to moses or revealed the torah to moses is false. I was not referring to what is written. Some of it could be true and some false. The point is that the claim of divine revelation to moses is false.

It's likely false, but so what? I can tell a story to impart some truths. Simply pointing to that it's a story doesn't mean my claims are false. Murder does not become right by discovering that Moses was a character.

You say god as if it were the proper name of some individual we already assume exists. Some conceptions of things people label as gods are more consistent than others. Some can be proven to not exist and some can be very unlikely in light of evidence against it.

Agreed.

That would be a genetic fallacy. I am judging it as false based on independent evidence and on the inductive evidence of psychological and sociological studies on primitive societies and the development of their superstitious beliefs as emotional coping tools.

It's not necessarily true. It might be true, but it does not follow that it must be true. All beliefs have a certain amount of "misuse". You can't judge an ideology based on that.

 

[meauneau]

It's likely false, but so what? I can tell a story to impart some truths. Simply pointing to that it's a story doesn't mean my claims are false. Murder does not become right by discovering that Moses was a character.

The point is that those who believe that it was revealed to moses in sinai will also believe that all the text is inerrant, immutable, infallible and authoritative to all mankind. They will do anything to protect their beliefs and defend their faiths. This is besides the fact that some of its moral teachings are acceptable today and some are immoral and barbaric.

It's not necessarily true. It might be true, but it does not follow that it must be true. All beliefs have a certain amount of "misuse". You can't judge an ideology based on that.

That's why I said inductive evidence. It is also the best and symplest explanation given the evidence.

 

[colby25]

I'm open to people believing they do. Doesn't make it a fact though.

Bottom line, nobody on this Earth knows a goddamn thing about what happens when the lights go out, or why we're here in the first place. You can believe you know, but that's all it is. A belief.

I prefer to be comfortable in my ignorance about the unknowable.

well if someone were to tell you, you could have a relationship with God- would you rather to take 5 to 10 minutes out of a 24 hour day to seek Him? If you could take one hour out of a 168 hour week to seek out Him and discover for yourself would you do it? Or would you continue to live on in ignorance?

 

[dontsnitch]

The point is that those who believe that it was revealed to moses in sinai will also believe that all the text is inerrant, immutable, infallible and authoritative to all mankind. They will do anything to protect their beliefs and defend their faiths. This is besides the fact that some of its moral teachings are acceptable today and some are immoral and barbaric.

I insist that it's wrong to accept or reject the moral claims based on authorship. One would be wrong to either accept or deny these based on that, including those that take it as inerrant.

That's why I said inductive evidence. It is also the best and simplest explanation given the evidence.

Occam's razor it tricky here. I don't have a problem with you being an atheist based on Occam, but I'd be careful to not make epistemic claims based on it.

 

[HereticBD]

well if someone were to tell you, you could have a relationship with God- would you rather to take 5 to 10 minutes out of a 24 hour day to seek Him? If you could take one hour out of a 168 hour week to seek out Him and discover for yourself would you do it? Or would you continue to live on in ignorance?

Nobody can have a relationship with God, because nobody knows what God is, or if there even is one. You can have a relationship with an ideology of what God is. That's it.

So, while you could tell me I could have a relationship with God, I'd be taking the word of another human being who is realistically just as ignorant on the subject as I am.

 

[colby25]

Nobody can have a relationship with God, because nobody knows what God is, or if there even is one. You can have a relationship with an ideology of what God is. That's it.

So, while you could tell me I could have a relationship with God, I'd be taking the word of another human being who is realistically just as ignorant on the subject as I am.

dude how would you know- if you're not even willing to try?

Mind bottling-

 

[HereticBD]

dude how would you know- if you're not even willing to try?

Because I know that it's impossible to know.

Believe what you want, but just know that it's a belief, and not a fact.

 

[colby25]

Because I know that it's impossible to know.

Believe what you want, but just know that it's a belief, and not a fact.

you don't see the problem with your argument?

It's like someone saying hey man there's a walmart at the end of the road if you want to pick up some house hold goods and you reply no, i don't believe that. That's impossible to know and just stay put in your house watching tv refusing to go outside and check for yourself.

doesn't make sense to me

 

[2DUM2TAP]

agnostic atheist.

 

[meauneau]

I insist that it's wrong to accept or reject the moral claims based on authorship. One would be wrong to either accept or deny these based on that, including those that take it as inerrant.

I agree. But in this case it irrational to believe some of the moral claims which fall out of line with our morality. If the torah was not revealed to moses from god and there is no heaven or hell for followingit or not then there is no reason to observe the sabath, eat kosher only, not eat pork or shrimp, etc.

Occam's razor it tricky here. I don't have a problem with you being an atheist based on Occam, but I'd be careful to not make epistemic claims based on it.

I am not an atheist based on occam. I only mentioned simplicity in the natural explanation over the supernatural one. How you concluded what you did is beyond me.