The Chinese + christian fundamentalism

Tim Robbins

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think in general (with the exception of the members of a few extreme churches) most religious people are like this.

But would you agree most of the Religious posters here are a little more convinced that their religion is correct and the other 12,456 (or whatever) are wrong?

Húrin

What I find fascinating is how one revolutionary ideologue - Hong - who believed that everything should be shared equally among the people, caused tens of millions of deaths; and was then followed a century later by another revolutionary ideologue - Mao - who believed that everything should be shared equally among the people and caused tens of millions of deaths.

The Mad Hatter

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But would you agree most of the Religious posters here are a little more convinced that their religion is correct and the other 12,456 (or whatever) are wrong?

tbh I sometimes wonder how many people really take it that seriously. Yes, most of the people on this forum certainly believe strongly that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. But that's the thing about internet forums: you get people who are strongly interested in what they're posting about. I don't think you can really apply internet experiences to the real world, though.

Tim Robbins

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

tbh I sometimes wonder how many people really take it that seriously. Yes, most of the people on this forum certainly believe strongly that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. But that's the thing about internet forums: you get people who are strongly interested in what they're posting about. I don't think you can really apply internet experiences to the real world, though.

My Mother told me once, "of course when you look at it logically it doesn't make sense and isn't true, but I like praying".

Says it all really. I really think it's about how tolerant you are of bad logic. Most of the Christian posters aren't really interested in science, even though they respect it. I doubt it would be so easy to have their dogmatic views and a meaningful interest in science.

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My Mother told me once, "of course when you look at it logically it doesn't make sense and isn't true, but I like praying".

If something works for you and gives comfort what reason would you have to reject. Seems like a fairly logical response to me.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Most of the Christian posters aren't really interested in science, even though they respect it. I doubt it would be so easy to have their dogmatic views and a meaningful interest in science.

I suspect most people in general have an interest in science in the same way the general population have an interest in their cars. They're keen to know the basics but are happy enough to ignore the more technical details about engines and stuff.

As Mad Hatter states, for anyone to even post here, much less read these forums implies they have a strong interest in the subject and are more likely to hold polarised views than the average man/woman on the street.

stevejazzx

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If something works for you and gives comfort what reason would you have to reject it

Becasue something else which is actually true may well be able to replace it, then you have a win win situation as opposed to a 'hmmm this is a bit whacy but I like it situation....'

Seems like a fairly logical response to me.

Logical? Noone needs false hope, real hope is available, it's like tinned food - the fresh food is two aisles over...look--->

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If something works for you and gives comfort what reason would you have to reject. Seems like a fairly logical response to me.

I see where you are coming from. There's a massive difference between Religious people who genuinely respect other Religions and those that think their chosen one out of the other 13,467 or whatever there is, is 100% correct and they must tell everyone about it even though they couldn't be bothered finding out any of the other 13,467.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But would you agree most of the Religious posters here are a little more convinced that their religion is correct and the other 12,456 (or whatever) are wrong?

Some of us are like that. It seems crazy, I know, but we actually choose to follow a religion we believe to be true instead of picking one that we believe to be false.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

Some of us are like that. It seems crazy, I know, but we actually choose to follow a religion we believe to be true instead of picking one that we believe to be false.

Do you chose it or does it chose you?
I can't believe that a modern day Muslim in particular choses Islam?
Also wasn't Tims point that no one could be aware of all religions in existence let alone understand or 'know' them therefore it is somewhat premature to be declaring one true religion.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

Do you chose it or does it chose you?
I can't believe that a modern day Muslim in particular choses Islam?

1. I'm not a Muslim.
2. I said "some of us".
3. While it might seem surprising to both you and me, some modern day Muslims do indeed choose Islam.

Also wasn't Tims point that no one could be aware of all religions in existence let alone understand or 'know' them therefore it is somewhat premature to be declaring one true religion.

If that was his point then it was rather poorly put.

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

Only if you wrongly considered atheism to be a religion.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

One doesn't have to travel the length and breadth of the universe to be pretty sure that moons are not made out of green cheese.

PDN

Mickeroo wrote: »

Only if you wrongly considered atheism to be a religion.

Are you drunk? My argument does not depend on atheism being a religion at all.

robindch wrote:

One doesn't have to travel the length and breadth of the universe to be pretty sure that moons are not made out of green cheese.

No, and once you are convinced the moon is made out of rock you don't need to be aware of every single false notion that the moon is composed of other substances.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

1. I'm not a Muslim.
2. I said "some of us".
3. While it might seem surprising to both you and me, some modern day Muslims do indeed choose Islam.

1.I didn't say you were, I was giving the most pertinent example.
2.The argument I put forward is still applicable and relevant no natter how many are involved.
3.In the same way that they 'chose' to be suicide bombers. No other influences involved?

PDN wrote:

If that was his point then it was rather poorly put.

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

You could argue that but not equally.:) Unless you can magic equanimity in the same way you do your God.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

No, and once you are convinced the moon is made out of rock you don't need to be aware of every single false notion that the moon is composed of other substances.

The only people that I am aware of who question that kind of hard science are those of a religious persuasion.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

once you are convinced the moon is made out of rock you don't need to be aware of every single false notion that the moon is composed of other substances.

A conviction which works fine right up until the moons of Saturn, one of which is made of water.

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

Are you drunk? My argument does not depend on atheism being a religion at all.

Yes i'm drunk, your argument still depends on atheism being a religion though.....

PDN wrote: »

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

For that statement to be true atheism would have to fall into the same bracket as religion...... theres only one atheism but 100's,even 1000's of religions, it's not the same thing at all.

Naz_st

PDN wrote: »

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

The logic doesn't hold in that way:

Set Q contains objects (any belief system) that has attribute p (requires the existence of a God)

The set can be a set of unknown size, or infinitely large, since it is the attribute "p" that is being denied by atheism, not the individual elements of the set. The logic still holds for any new religion that may be non-existent now but created at some point in the future.

Rev Hellfire

stevejazzx wrote: »

Becasue something else which is actually true may well be able to replace it, then you have a win win situation as opposed to a 'hmmm this is a bit whacy but I like it situation....'

And that 'truth' is really only of value if it leads to the betterment of the people involved. Its a totally subjective thing, wholly dependant on the individuals involved. There's no value in truth alone ihmo, only if it can lead to an advancement. But I fully admit that's my own personal taken on the matter.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Logical? Noone needs false hope, real hope is available, it's like tinned food - the fresh food is two aisles over...look--->

Again as above, the assumption is that truth is always the better answer. For those of us in an affluent free society, happy with our day to day lot it probably is, but that's not true for everyone.

Some times a little lie is the best medicine. imho etc etc...

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Some of us are like that. It seems crazy, I know, but we actually choose to follow a religion we believe to be true instead of picking one that we believe to be false.

That's a false dichotomy. Have you read Baginni's Duck that won the Lottery yet?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

Unless you have an argument that cuts through them all. Which is what atheism is. No evidence and / or no logical argument => no belief.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Unless you have an argument that cuts through them all. Which is what atheism is. No evidence and / or no logical argument => no belief.

But how can you actually know that there's no evidence or no logical argument unless you examine every single one of them?

Glass houses & stones and all that.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

But how can you actually know that there's no evidence or no logical argument unless you examine every single one of them?

Glass houses & stones and all that.

Er no.

Atheism isn't a belief that there is absolutely no evidence anyway ever. It is simply a state not having had any evidence so far presented by anyone so why believe in something that is not in any way supported when there is well supported alternative (humans make this stuff up because it is comforting).

There isn't an atheist on this forum that I've conversed with who wouldn't accept some deity or alien or god or what ever existed if someone could actually demonstrate they do.

But so far no one has. All you guys have is what you think must be true. Which means diddly squat.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

But how can you actually know that there's no evidence or no logical argument unless you examine every single one of them?

No religion (that I am aware of) makes a claim it has any scientific evidence.
There were a few claims of logical arguments. Any one that gathered any momentum in the intellectual community have been well rebutted.

On the other hand I don't think any Theologian or any religion has rebutted the problem of evil.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No religion (that I am aware of) makes a claim it has any scientific evidence.

Ah, that you're aware of. So that means you don't need to examine them all?

In that case, I can say that no religion that I'm aware of, other than Christianity, comes close to convincing me of its truthfulness.

Sauce. Goose. Gander.

stevejazzx

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

And that 'truth' is really only of value if it leads to the betterment of the people involved. Its a totally subjective thing, wholly dependant on the individuals involved. There's no value in truth alone ihmo, only if it can lead to an advancement. But I fully admit that's my own personal taken on the matter.

No. Truth is of value whether or not it leads to the betterment of people, becasue it has worth in it's essence and it is worthwhile prolonging that essence because the aternative is prolonging a lie, a placebo - religion is the placebo of the people'. It is the great lie of the masses.
And again there is no better hope for real advancement than the truth unless you can somehow tell me how we could really advance without it?

RH wrote:

Again as above, the assumption is that truth is always the better answer. For those of us in an affluent free society, happy with our day to day lot it probably is, but that's not true for everyone.

Some times a little lie is the best medicine. imho etc etc...

It's bad medicine that which just prolongs and deepens the disease.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Ah, that you're aware of. So that means you don't need to examine them all?

If a Religion had scientific evidence, I would suggest it would have gathered momentum in the scientific community by now. None have.

Just like if any of the 500,000 reported sightings of UFOs since the second world war had any scientific evidence they'd have gathered momentum by now.

But should I have to examine all 500,000 cases before I can conclude these are all delusions?

In that case, I can say that no religion that I'm aware of, other than Christianity, comes close to convincing me of its truthfulness.

Well that's just a false singularity because there is no single version of Christianity. Logical fallacy aside, the point I was making that some people who call themselves Christians have very lenient criteria for what constitutes good evidence. If they applied their criteria to even one other religion (including another version of Christianity), they'd have to believe that too which would be impossible because of the mutually exclusive nature of religions.

However, this very simple point never dawns on them because they spend their life's only interacting with people with the same views as them, all close friends only have the same views as them, any relationships they have only have the same views as them, even the countries and places they visit or go on holidays are again dominated by the same religious slant and of course all the books they read, rather than challenge their opinions simply are their to support them.

It's the most obvious version of Plato's cave in existence.

It's hardly just a co-incidence that the biggest indicaters of a person's religious persuasion is their geographical location.
Now this doesn't really bother me until they try to convince me of the veracity of their beliefs. It all boils down to the simple maxim that I can't take anybody seriously unless they have considered their own position critically.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But should I have to examine all 500,000 cases before I can conclude these are all delusions?

Only if you're stupid enough to argue that someone who believes in the actuality of one particular UFO sighting must first of all investigate and reject all sightings that contain contradictory elements.

Well that's just a false singularity because there is no single version of Christianity. Logical fallacy aside

There was no logical fallacy. Did you learn that devious little rhetorical trick from Baginni's book?

The fact that different variations occur within Christianity (or evolution, or global warming) does not prevent someone from concluding that Christianity (or evolution, or global warming) is true.

In other words, I can be convinced that a broad belief X is true, even when there are different opinions as to the details of X.

No logical fallacy there.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Ah, that you're aware of. So that means you don't need to examine them all?

I look at it this way - if the biggest religion in the world can't come up with any convincing evidence that their god is real, then it only makes sense to assume (until otherwise shown) that other, less popular deities, are in the same imaginary boat.

Rev Hellfire

stevejazzx wrote: »

No. Truth is of value whether or not it leads to the betterment of people, becasue it has worth in it's essence and it is worthwhile prolonging that essence because the aternative is prolonging a lie, a placebo - religion is the placebo of the people'. It is the great lie of the masses.
And again there is no better hope for real advancement than the truth unless you can somehow tell me how we could really advance without it?

I suspect we'll never agree on this one, I simply just don't value the idea of truth as something whose 'value' transcends all else.
I'm more interested in the practical results of its application than in the ideal itself.

In the scientific world I'd certainly agree with you truth is paramount, .
But I still believe that 'lie' of religion can provide hope and comfort for those in desperate situations such as the squalor of the third world many find themselves living in. A false hope of can give people strength where the harsh reality of their situation can offer them no reward.

I can understand where you're coming from though, in that such false hopes can also be an impedance to change, the question as always from my perspective is will it be a change for the better or the worse.

Its just not such a black and white thing in my view.