Why bother trying to remove peoples' religious beliefs?

Húrin

fitz0 wrote: »

But its still no excuse to be rude so I refrain from openly stating the fact that their beliefs are entirely made up and just plain silly.

I think that you should not shy away from saying that. If and only if, you realise the gravity of the claim you are making. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary backing, evidence and support.

dalkener

Had a recent experience in america.
was over visiting my soon to be sister in law with my fiancee. Her brother was also over and one night around the dinner table started telling everyone how he was going back to church and how important it is to go to church.
I promised my wife to be I wouldn't cause any commotion on the trip but couldn't bite my tongue any longer when he started saying that the church has brought Ireland to where it is today and if people didn't go back to church the country was heading for bad times........the gasket blew at this stage and I started questioning everything he was going on about and that not everybody in Ireland thought like that...all the time getting kicked in the shin under the table!! Was worth it though to wipe that that smug all knowing smile off his face.......

hmmmmm ranting a bit now.....

c-note

E C Titchmarsh in a book Mathematics for the General Reader

"It can be of no practical use to know that is irrational, but if we can know, it would surely be intolerable not to know"

although this quote is about the merits of investigating seemingly trivial aspets of mathematics it is the sentiment which i feel is applicable to any situation where the truth is sought.

if you like, consider the following with the word intolerable meaning exactly as it does above:

if there exists no measurable evidence, and if it contracdicts what is known to be true, then surely it would be intolerable to have it procalimed as true.

this is roughly where i stand on religion, and while i respect (nay, welcome) anyones right to believe what they choose, i often find what they choose, to be intolerable.

But i would not attempt to convince them otherwise, i've had
a few priests and nuns and lay people try to "show me the way"
and have found it rather insulting. I dont feel the need to spread.
if something is true its true, all of infinity believing otherwise cannot change that.

Fighting Irish

Dades wrote: »

Oh be nice, people.

And don't expect any back talking like that.

That's how i feel though

lostexpectation

why don't you stop beating your wife deleriumtremens

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

why don't you stop beating your wife deleriumtremens

What the hell?

fitz0

Húrin wrote: »

I think that you should not shy away from saying that. If and only if, you realise the gravity of the claim you are making. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary backing, evidence and support.

So very true. Pity such backing, evidence and support is never forthcoming from the religious side.

I surely do realise the gravity of the claim I make, wouldn't make it otherwise.

Húrin

c-note wrote: »

if you like, consider the following with the word intolerable meaning exactly as it does above:

if there exists no measurable evidence, and if it contracdicts what is known to be true, then surely it would be intolerable to have it procalimed as true.

this is roughly where i stand on religion, and while i respect (nay, welcome) anyones right to believe what they choose, i often find what they choose, to be intolerable.

Some religious teachings may contradict what is known to be true. Most do not. If only because memetic selection, if it exists, would eliminate them. The foundational belief in God does not contradict what is known to be true.

fitz0 wrote: »

So very true. Pity such backing, evidence and support is never forthcoming from the religious side.

Never forthcoming? I'm well aware that Jesus made extraordinary claims. The vast library of apologetic works of religion, stretching back hundreds of years counts for support. Oh wait, you haven't actually bothered to look, have you?

c-note

Húrin wrote: »

Some religious teachings may contradict what is known to be true. Most do not. If only because memetic selection, if it exists, would eliminate them. The foundational belief in God does not contradict what is known to be true.

hello húrin,
i'm afraid i had to look-up memetic selection, all i found was reams on Richard Dawkins, which i have not the patience to read!
i'm guessing the first sentence roughly translates as: contradictory elements of a religious belief system are dropped when new discoveries forbid them, (roman catholic church vs. earth not being flat etc)?

i agree with your second sentance that the sum of all human knowledge dosnt forbid or undermine the existance of a god, or the belief in one.

i dont have any problem with anyone believing in a "god" or a "higher power".

what i find intolerable is the detail that is added,
someone may say that i believe in a god, and that god is distributed evenly throughout the universe, or that "god" has control over every aspect of our lives, or that god is blue in color and has 6 arms, or that god sent his only son to save us, etc etc
i find such beliefs intolerable. there is nothing to refute them, but equally nothing to support them.
if someone choose to believe such things, i respect that, but it really grinds my gears to hear it!

Húrin

c-note wrote: »

hello húrin,
i'm afraid i had to look-up memetic selection, all i found was reams on Richard Dawkins, which i have not the patience to read!
i'm guessing the first sentence roughly translates as: contradictory elements of a religious belief system are dropped when new discoveries forbid them, (roman catholic church vs. earth not being flat etc)?

The Roman Catholic Church never taught that the earth was flat. That hypothesis has been disproven for over 2,000 years by Greek and Indian geographers.

Memetic selection is as far as I know, the idea that ideas in society can become dominant, mutate, and die out just as genes can in biological evolution. It seems to explain some instances like what I was just talking about, but I am suspicious of the widespread tendency to universalise the process of evolution to explain everything.

c-note wrote: »

i dont have any problem with anyone believing in a "god" or a "higher power".

what i find intolerable is the detail that is added,
someone may say that i believe in a god, and that god is distributed evenly throughout the universe, or that "god" has control over every aspect of our lives, or that god is blue in color and has 6 arms, or that god sent his only son to save us, etc etc
i find such beliefs intolerable. there is nothing to refute them, but equally nothing to support them.
if someone choose to believe such things, i respect that, but it really grinds my gears to hear it!

I don't know why you find them intolerable. I find the surrender to ignorance that demands the discussion stop at the mere belief in God to be intolerable, when we are capable of much more.

It is not true to say that these other claims have nothing to support them.

fitz0

Húrin wrote: »

S
Never forthcoming? I'm well aware that Jesus made extraordinary claims. The vast library of apologetic works of religion, stretching back hundreds of years counts for support. Oh wait, you haven't actually bothered to look, have you?

Perhaps never was the wrong word... or the right one, if by backing, evidence and support I meant real, tangible evidence and not theological wrangling about how "God did it" because a clear explanation was unavailable at the time, or anecdotal tales from a book about a prophet of dubious credibility.

On the other hand I am very underinformed on such works, perhaps you could give me a title or two to look up.

c-note

Húrin wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church never taught that the earth was flat. That hypothesis has been disproven for over 2,000 years by Greek and Indian geographers.

:eek:my mistake, i had some notion of a dispute with Galileo Galilei, but it seems i have my wires crossed!

Húrin wrote: »

I don't know why you find them intolerable. I find the surrender to ignorance that demands the discussion stop at the mere belief in God to be intolerable, when we are capable of much more.

It is not true to say that these other claims have nothing to support them.

i'll try to explain why i find them so hard to accept:
i suppose it comes down to what qualifies at the truth.
you can say "i believe in god" but you cannot say "the truth is, there is a god" without upsetting me!

i suppose one way i could discribe it is with other kinds of theories,
physicists are on the lookout for a fundamental unifying theory, there are a few candidate theories, one of which MAY be the theory they are after, different people follow or "believe" in different theories, but none is foolish enough to declare that the thory they believe is the one true theory.

as far as "stopping at the belief in god" being intolerabel as we are "capable of much more"....
you are right, any humam brain is capable of believing in absolutely anything.


as far as religious claims having something to support them:
i'm also sure that on some level one could present supporting arguements to suggest that god exists, that god is a man/woman/neither, that jesus was the son of god, etc etc etc.
BUT remember there is evidence to suggest that i am a pig, i have two eyes, two ears, four limbs, pink skin, a nose with two nostrils at the front of my face, i get sunburned in strong sun, i have a heart, a liver, i eat turnips (i could go on.) but the truth is that i am not a pig.

also, i have not surrendered to ignorance. i have simply exercised my own grey matter.