Athiests - Who cares

Curly Judge

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Can someone, anyone, please point out to me how any of the above is so contradictory to what I said as to be completely incorrect, which is what seems to have started this tangent?





I'm open to correction of course, I'm here to learn, no need for a thesis on it either, a simple explanation as to why or where I'm incorrect would do, because genuinely I seem to be missing it.

My take on it is that the only theory that could be reasonably said to have graduated to the level of fact is Quantum Theory.
And even then it has still some way to go.
That being said it is probably fair to speculate that the theory of evolution comes much closer to probable reality than the idea of an infinite supreme being, and certainly a supreme being who takes a personal interest in our existence and/or welfare.
After studying the problem for many years I have come to the conclusion that we, life, love and every subatomic particle owe our existence to one humongous cosmic accident.
A very unsettling conclusion for some, with far reaching moral and social implications, but nevertheless, the only logical one!

Rough Sleeper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Can someone, anyone, please point out to me how any of the above is so contradictory to what I said as to be completely incorrect, which is what seems to have started this tangent?

As succinctly as I can:

That's why they're called theories, because they lack sufficient evidence yet to be proven as fact.

That isn't why they're called theories. They're called theories because that's the correct scientific term for models or frameworks used to describe an observation or a set of observations. If there is enough evidence there for them to be regarded as fact (ie. very likely) they are still called theories. Even in mathematics, where you can have proofs based on a given set of axioms, you still have theories.

Wide acceptance of an idea should never be touted as evidence of it's truthfulness.

In the case of evolution the evidence for its truthfulness are the mountains of literature supporting the theory. The reason it's widely accepted within the scientific community are the mountains of data supporting its truthfulness.

so while Darwinian theories of evolution may be popular and widely accepted among the scientific community, I wouldn't be relying solely upon them as an explanation for the origins of life.

Evolution starts with the universal common ancestor (ie. after life had started) so I wouldn't rely on it at all to explain the origins of life, any more than I'd rely on electroweak theory or molecular orbital theory.

One eyed Jack

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I would like to see the answer to that question too but I imagine it will be avoided. I'd say the real answer is place of birth.

Well I can't answer for nox, but for myself I have investigated a number of different religions, including those above, and some of the lesser well known religions in an attempt to rationalise the idea of why I place any significance in religion, why do I actually need religion, what religion gives me that I can't get from some other ideology, those sort of questions...

And I couldn't actually relate mentally to any of the other religions, partly of course yes, because I lacked the lived experience of the origins of those religions, and partly because I simply couldn't incorporate their ideologies into my way of thinking.

So why not? I simply couldn't relate to them. I also couldn't relate to my parents more "devout" (read "pious, pretentious, and controlling") hard line ideology of Roman Catholicism, I took a much more lenient and humanitarian view of my religion than they did, and that's why even though I would have certain views that contradict my religious beliefs, I'm ok with the cognitive dissonance it presents. That's why I identify as Roman Catholic, and why I also continue to work within the Church for change to their doctrines, rather than separating myself from that which I identify with, because then I know I wouldn't be happy. I know from past experience, having tried to separate myself from the Church, that I just wasn't happy.

Osgoodisgood

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Useful contribution, but did you miss the point where I said that the theories of evolution offer an explanation for the origins of life?

That's what happens when you sweat the small stuff and miss the bigger picture.

Evolution has exactly nothing to say about the origins of life. Evolution describes the process behind the diversity of life. How life began is the field of abiogenesis which is another subject altogether.

Where evolution and abiogenesis are commonly conflated is in the minds of creationists who get all itchy with both subjects because natural causes and explanations for both make their unsupported claims of gods and magic books all the more laughable.

Baggy Trousers

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well I can't answer for nox, but for myself I have investigated a number of different religions, including those above, and some of the lesser well known religions in an attempt to rationalise the idea of why I place any significance in religion, why do I actually need religion, what religion gives me that I can't get from some other ideology, those sort of questions...

And I couldn't actually relate mentally to any of the other religions, partly of course yes, because I lacked the lived experience of the origins of those religions, and partly because I simply couldn't incorporate their ideologies into my way of thinking.

So why not? I simply couldn't relate to them. I also couldn't relate to my parents more "devout" (read "pious, pretentious, and controlling") hard line ideology of Roman Catholicism, I took a much more lenient and humanitarian view of my religion than they did, and that's why even though I would have certain views that contradict my religious beliefs, I'm ok with the cognitive dissonance it presents. That's why I identify as Roman Catholic, and why I also continue to work within the Church for change to their doctrines, rather than separating myself from that which I identify with, because then I know I wouldn't be happy. I know from past experience, having tried to separate myself from the Church, that I just wasn't happy.

Yeah but it was very hard to relate to other religions when you weren't born into them and for want of a better word, "brainwashed" from birth.

Curly Judge

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Yeah but it was very hard to relate to other religions when you weren't born into them and for want of a better word, "brainwashed" from birth.

True...Marian apparitions are rather thin on the ground around either Mecca or Wall Street.

One eyed Jack

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Yeah but it was very hard to relate to other religions when you weren't born into them and for want of a better word, "brainwashed" from birth.

My sister was also as you would put it "brainwashed" from birth (I'm not gonna get picky about the word again because there's a bigger point to be made here), and she was able to relate easier to Islam. Two of my brothers identify as atheist (with a hefty dollop of facepalm inducing anti-theism), yet they still participated in the Roman Catholic rituals when it came to their weddings and baptism of their children (I'm Godfather to one of 'em), and my other two brothers aren't bothered at all about the whole thing, they aren't pushed, they just don't particularly care.

I think the closest of the other religions I investigated that I could relate to was the Baha'i faith, but because the Church is more than just it's commonly shared beliefs, there is that essence of community that I relate to that I just couldn't relate to the non-structural approach of atheism. There's an online community of an atheist movement, but from my perspective it's very disconnected and disjointed, effectively rendering it meaningless to me.

Saipanne

Imagine desiring so badly to want, nay, need to be part of something... ANYTHING, that you would be willing to believe anything just to avoid the pitiless indifference of reality... of the universe.

Now you understand the mind and motivation of the religious.

One eyed Jack

Saipanne wrote: »

Imagine desiring so badly to want, nay, need to be part of something... ANYTHING, that you would be willing to believe anything just to avoid the pitiless indifference of reality... of the universe.

Now you understand the mind and motivation of the religious.

Well you clearly missed the point. For me it wasn't a choice. I don't think you actually do understand the mind and motivation of a religious person, never mind the mindset and motivation of billions of people across the world.

Again, I can only speak for myself when I say my motivation is not in any way related to what you call "the pitless indifference of reality... of the universe" (Carl Sagan would also disagree with you that the universe is FAR from a "pitless reality"), and that's exactly where I was coming from with the comparison to a belief in extraterrestrial life beyond planet earth.

Imagine so badly to want, nay, need to be part of something that you would be willing to believe extraterrestrial life exists in the universe. We don't yet have the instruments to prove it, but I would say it's only a matter of time.

Now you understand the mind and motivation of a person who is interested in scientific research and discovery.


It really shouldn't come as a surprise to you that they may be one and the same person, unless of course you were too narrow minded to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of such a person... and that's only on this planet!

Maximus Alexander

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm open to correction of course, I'm here to learn, no need for a thesis on it either, a simple explanation as to why or where I'm incorrect would do, because genuinely I seem to be missing it.

Fair play to you for saying this, it's pretty rare.

I'll give it one last crack, as best I can.

You said:

One eyed Jack wrote:

That's why they're called theories, because they lack sufficient evidence yet to be proven as fact.

This isn't true. A theory isn't something that's waiting to become fact - that can't happen, they're different things.

A theory is an explanation for natural phenomena. It needs to make falsifiable predictions about the natural world that can be tested. When these predictions are tested, data is gathered - facts that either support or discredit the theory.

When all of the predictions have been tested and verified, the theory remains a theory, but it is no longer in doubt. It is an accurate explanation for some element of the natural world. Theories don't graduate into anything, they don't become facts or laws, they simply either succeed in describing something, or they fail.

Take Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It is a theory that describes something we observe, it makes predictions, over the last century those predictions have been tested and shown to be correct. It is supported by many lines of evidence; many facts. Relativity is not "just a theory", it is a description of gravity. It is not in doubt.

It may later be supplanted by something else, such as the "Theory of Everything". Indeed we hope it will be, but that won't make General Relativity wrong, just as General Relativity superseded Newtonian Mechanics without making it wrong.

In short, General Relativity will always be a theory, but it is not in doubt. The same goes for evolution.

I... hope this makes sense?

One eyed Jack

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Fair play to you for saying this, it's pretty rare.

I'll give it one last crack, as best I can.

You said:



This isn't true. A theory isn't something that's waiting to become fact - that can't happen, they're different things.

A theory is an explanation for natural phenomena. It needs to make falsifiable predictions about the natural world that can be tested. When these predictions are tested, data is gathered - facts that either support or discredit the theory.

When all of the predictions have been tested and verified, the theory remains a theory, but it is no longer in doubt. It is an accurate explanation for some element of the natural world. Theories don't graduate into anything, they don't become facts or laws, they simply either succeed in describing something, or they fail.

Take Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It is a theory that describes something we observe, it makes predictions, over the last century those predictions have been tested and shown to be correct. It is supported by many lines of evidence; many facts. Relativity is not "just a theory", it is a description of gravity. It is not in doubt.

It may later be supplanted by something else, such as the "Theory of Everything". Indeed we hope it will be, but that won't make General Relativity wrong, just as General Relativity superseded Newtonian Mechanics without making it wrong.

In short, General Relativity will always be a theory, but it is not in doubt. The same goes for evolution.

I... hope this makes sense?

It does now Max, and I appreciate the time taken by yourself and the other lads to explain it. Cheers for that

Jamsiek

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

The census is the official way the country finds out this information and according to the census 83% of people in Ireland are catholic.

The government can quite legitimately hold up the census and say that the country is more than 3/4 catholic and therefore things like catholic schools etc should obviously remain.

Its hilarious how people want rid of catholic schools here when in places like the UK people jump through every hoop imaginable to get into them as they are far better schools.

I recently read that the fastest growing religion in Ireland is Islam so does that mean tax payers will have to pay for Muslim schools if they become the majority?

Grayson

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I am a scientist. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. In fact many many scientists are also religious.

Internally you can believe in God and still think like a scientist but that's where it stops. If you start believing that a man was born 2000 years ago who was actually God and that he came down so he could kill himself to make himself happy, that's not really compatible with science.

God and science though? that's ok.

Another example is the intelligent design argument. I actually like Intelligent design. I should clarify that. I like the original teleological argument, that's the original argument for intelligent design. It can be read as saying that God created everything, if we evolved from apes than that's Gods plan/design. It's a way for science and theism not to be in direct conflict.
Intelligent design as practised by fundamentalists is crazy. It aims to prove that Noah etc actually happened. It says that men and dinosaurs existed as the same time.
The problem is that the concept of God isn't in direct opposition to science but religious texts are.

(Just as a side note I don't believe in God. I think that rationally it's the only valid position. A lot of atheists who think like me would actually be appalled when I said that God isn't in opposition to science. What I mean is that it's possible to believe that God or a creator exists and still be able to be an objective scientist Editing to add: And I've caught up with the rest of the thread. A God that intervenes in everyday life through miracles etc isn't compatible with science. I just mean a God like Aristotle's efficient cause. The one that created the universe is compatible)

Akrasia

Johnathan Slow Pensioner wrote:

Of course you will root around until you find "facts" written to fit your views.

Huh?

You claim to be an educated person, yet you refuse to look at the evidence. You were the one who made a claim about 'the truth behind christmas'

Outside of fundamentalists, the vast majority of theologians will admit that the nativity story is a fiction. It's a myth, it's not truth. Believers will search for 'meaning' behind the stories and they will conclude that because you can learn from an allegory that it has some kind of deeper 'truth' than an simply being a true historical event, but if that is the case, then Animal farm is just as true as the nativity scene, in fact, it's much more true because it's messages are much more potent and relevant to society than some kid being born in a hayshed surrounded by donkeys and 'wise men'

Bootros Bootros

Jamsiek wrote: »

I recently read that the fastest growing religion in Ireland is Islam so does that mean tax payers will have to pay for Muslim schools if they become the majority?

Maybe before. We pay for anglican schools

Peist2007

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well I can't answer for nox, but for myself I have investigated a number of different religions, including those above, and some of the lesser well known religions in an attempt to rationalise the idea of why I place any significance in religion, why do I actually need religion, what religion gives me that I can't get from some other ideology, those sort of questions...

And I couldn't actually relate mentally to any of the other religions, partly of course yes, because I lacked the lived experience of the origins of those religions, and partly because I simply couldn't incorporate their ideologies into my way of thinking.

So why not? I simply couldn't relate to them. I also couldn't relate to my parents more "devout" (read "pious, pretentious, and controlling") hard line ideology of Roman Catholicism, I took a much more lenient and humanitarian view of my religion than they did, and that's why even though I would have certain views that contradict my religious beliefs, I'm ok with the cognitive dissonance it presents. That's why I identify as Roman Catholic, and why I also continue to work within the Church for change to their doctrines, rather than separating myself from that which I identify with, because then I know I wouldn't be happy. I know from past experience, having tried to separate myself from the Church, that I just wasn't happy.

So, place of birth then.

Akrasia

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

What Science? Scientists? The reason more and more people are turning away from religion isn't because of people, it's because of cover-ups, corruption, having to follow stupid rules so they won't be condemned, violence being committed in the name of certain religions etc. It's not because of outside influences.

I think that's part of the reason, but the main one is that religion is full of very very silly concepts, and for thousands of years, people 'believed' what they were told to believe by their family, and the power structures of the state and religious institutions. Most people didn't know anything about the theology behind their religion, most people could not read or speak latin and had no way of critically assessing the ideas behind their religion.

Religion in the 21st century is rapidly declining amongst the most educated people with the best access to information. Conversely, religion is thriving in the most uneducated and most restrictive societies where information access is much more tightly controlled.

The scandals in the church cause people to question their faith, but what causes them to lose their faith is the answers they get when they critically assess what it is they're supposed to actually believe in. 'Well, it's nonsense isn't it'

One eyed Jack

Peist2007 wrote: »

So, place of birth then.

Yes? What's your point?

If I were born anywhere else other than Ireland it stands to reason that I would most likely adopt the religion I was most able to relate to, be that Islam, Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christian, or any number of other religions you can think of?

Because that is the way my mind works. You're not making any special point by pointing that out. You might as well be saying to someone - you're only gay because you're gay!

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes? What's your point?

If I were born anywhere else other than Ireland it stands to reason that I would most likely adopt the religion I was most able to relate to, be that Islam, Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christian, or any number of other religions you can think of?

Because that is the way my mind works. You're not making any special point by pointing that out. You might as well be saying to someone - you're only gay because you're gay!

The point is related to the truth of your beliefs.

If you believe something because you have examined the evidence and conclude that the evidence supports the belief, this is an entirely different position than believing something because you were told to believe it as a child.

Also, the fact that you admit you would likely believe in other religions if you had been born into other cultures raises the obvious response of 'if those other religions contradict christianity, they can't all be true' And you've admitted that you would happily believe in things that aren't actually true based on accidents of birth.

You used the example of sexuality but it was not a true analogy. Sexuality in individuals is relatively fixed. Adults can not generally choose who they are attracted to. If you describe a gay man as a gay man, then this is an objective truth

If you were born into a culture that denied that homosexuality actually exists, and you happened to be gay, but lived your life as though you were heterosexual, it wouldn't change the truth of your sexuality. You might be able to convince yourself that you are straight and live as a straight person, but the truth would be that you were gay. (obviously, sexuality is not a black and white issue and there are a wide range of sexual preferences, but i'm ignoring these for the purpose of argument I'm only talking about someone who would otherwise identify as 100% gay)

One eyed Jack

Akrasia wrote: »

I think that's part of the reason, but the main one is that religion is full of very very silly concepts, and for thousands of years, people 'believed' what they were told to believe by their family, and the power structures of the state and religious institutions. Most people didn't know anything about the theology behind their religion, most people could not read or speak latin and had no way of critically assessing the ideas behind their religion.

I can quote you chapter and verse of the Bible in English, Latin or even Irish if you prefer? Ask anyone older than me and they will tell you they were taught Latin in school, and that only up until very recently in Ireland, masses were said in Latin. I'm pretty sure they're said in Latin in parts of Brazil too which the vast majority are Roman Catholics due to the earliest European settlers.

Religion in the 21st century is rapidly declining amongst the most educated people with the best access to information. Conversely, religion is thriving in the most uneducated and most restrictive societies where information access is much more tightly controlled.

That explains atheism among affluent white people in the US, it doesn't go anywhere near explaining black atheism in the same country?

The scandals in the church cause people to question their faith, but what causes them to lose their faith is the answers they get when they critically assess what it is they're supposed to actually believe in. 'Well, it's nonsense isn't it'

I think it's far more complex than just "I read <insert holy book or books of choice here> and now I'm atheist". That might apply to some people, but there are many more reasons people lose their faith, or people never had faith in the first place, or to put it rather simply - some people just don't give a shìt, nothing to do with thinking critically or any of the rest of it.

If you watch a couple of interviews with Richard Dawkins, you'll see how he is also quick to abandon critical thinking when it suits him, such as an interview with a BBC journalist in which within minutes of meeting him, Richard declares that both he and the journalist are "too intelligent for that" (referring to religion) simply because the journalist identifies himself as agnostic. In the Late Late Show interview with Pat Kenny, within minutes of stepping on stage, Dawkins dismisses most of the people in the audience as delusional. Now, he is, in MY opinion at least, either the biggest troll-hard to ever walk the face of the planet, an incredibly intelligent, astute and articulate individual that knows exactly what he's doing when he's either brown-nosing journalists or baiting an audience... or he's simply an arrogant, small-minded, angry, bitter little man with some massive chips on his shoulders.

I still haven't decided conclusively, but he's a bit like Marilyn Monroe for me - you can either love him or hate him, but you can't ignore him. I think I just pity him tbh. I only pity him because he comes across as an individual so full of seething bitterness at the fact that other people impose their will upon other people, so he justifies his own behaviour by doing the very same thing, only from the opposite end of the spectrum.

People don't suddenly become intelligent if they abandon their faith, and claims to that effect are indeed what's nonsense. A statement like that though, correlating a person's intelligence with their absence of belief (notwithstanding the fact that it's clearly unscientific), it plays well with those people who have an egotistical personality and think of themselves as intellectually superior to those around them already.

If these people genuinely were, or are that intelligent, then why are they not the people with all the power, instead of the hillbilly plebs like the Bush dynasty? Too many less intelligent people voting less intelligent people into positions of power? That doesn't sound right, does it? How can a minority of more intelligent people have less power than the vast majority of lesser intelligent people?

It'd be nice if someone could offer me a logical, hell I'll even take plausible, explanation for that one.

endacl

Yizzers are all wrong. And so amn't I.

\thread.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes? What's your point?

Having been raised in a Catholic country and attended a Catholic school, I can relate to Roman Catholicism much more easily than to fundamentalist Christianity, or any kind of Islam. If you like, I'm a Catholic atheist.

But relating to it does not mean I believe it is true.

It really makes no difference to you whether your religion is true or false, as long as you can relate to it?

kylith

Akrasia wrote: »

I think that's part of the reason, but the main one is that religion is full of very very silly concepts, and for thousands of years, people 'believed' what they were told to believe by their family, and the power structures of the state and religious institutions. Most people didn't know anything about the theology behind their religion, most people could not read or speak latin and had no way of critically assessing the ideas behind their religion.

As well as that, until relatively recently it was simply illegal to be an atheist, or if not actually illegal as good as since you would be a pariah in the community. There was huge social pressure to at least appear to be religious especially if, like scientists, you need to get funding or sponsorship from institutions.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can quote you chapter and verse of the Bible in English, Latin or even Irish if you prefer? Ask anyone older than me and they will tell you they were taught Latin in school, and that only up until very recently in Ireland, masses were said in Latin. I'm pretty sure they're said in Latin in parts of Brazil too which the vast majority are Roman Catholics due to the earliest European settlers.

Simply reading the bible or understanding the mass does not make you fully informed on your religion. To fully understand anything, you need to approach it from multiple perspectives. Discourse needs to be open and free and people should be able to propose challenging perspectives without fear of reproach

The last few generations are not representative of the past 2000 years.
For the majority of human history, most people were illiterate and religion was heavily tied together with politics so that to challenge the ideas of the church, was not just blasphemy, but close to insurrection against the state and likely to get you hanged.

Books that challenged religious orthodoxy were routinely banned so even if you could read, the only books you could find were those that promoted the religion of the state.

In Ireland up until very recently, the state censors were amongst the most restrictive in the world. We couldn't even watch the life of Brian or The Meaning of Life because they contained religious satire.

That explains atheism among affluent white people in the US, it doesn't go anywhere near explaining black atheism in the same country?

Atheism is increasing in all demographic sectors of America, but the slowest increases are amongst the poorest least educated people. Poor uneducated people are the most likely to strongly believe in their faith. As people gain education, they are more likely to either leave the religion entirely, or move to a less fundamentalist version of their religion. In many parts of america, there are doubtless a great number of non believers who are afraid to identify as atheists because the culture in many parts of america is still dominated by religion, but this is changing, and changing fast.

I think it's far more complex than just "I read <insert holy book or books of choice here> and now I'm atheist". That might apply to some people, but there are many more reasons people lose their faith, or people never had faith in the first place, or to put it rather simply - some people just don't give a shìt, nothing to do with thinking critically or any of the rest of it.

You're right, it definitely is more complex than just reading books. it's not just individuals losing their faith, it's a social shift that involves entire populations.

As society becomes secular, the legal barriers to abandoning religion are removed along with social and cultural barriers. Religion thrives best when everyone believes the same thing, as religions become fragmented, the tide turns against religion and it becomes socially acceptable to stop believing
Social pressure is a massive barrier to leaving a religion and what we are seeing now, is a re-adjustment where people no longer feel any obligation to maintain the faith and are free to openly believe in what they find most convincing.

If you watch a couple of interviews with Richard Dawkins, you'll see how he is also quick to abandon critical thinking when it suits him, such as an interview with a BBC journalist in which within minutes of meeting him, Richard declares that both he and the journalist are "too intelligent for that" (referring to religion) simply because the journalist identifies himself as agnostic. In the Late Late Show interview with Pat Kenny, within minutes of stepping on stage, Dawkins dismisses most of the people in the audience as delusional. Now, he is, in MY opinion at least, either the biggest troll-hard to ever walk the face of the planet, an incredibly intelligent, astute and articulate individual that knows exactly what he's doing when he's either brown-nosing journalists or baiting an audience... or he's simply an arrogant, small-minded, angry, bitter little man with some massive chips on his shoulders.

I've watched many interviews with Richard Dawkins and I don't think he is bitter or angry or that he abandons critical thinking.
He thinks believing in things that are not real is a delusion, and he is correct. So to call believers in ghosts or fairies or gods delusional is simply a frank description of how he sees the world.

It's shocking to many people to have these beliefs questioned because it has long been culturally unacceptable to talk honestly about religion or to question someone elses faith. Religion has a privileged position in social discourse where it is considered impolite to challenge those beliefs.

By dawkins and others openly questioning the existence of god, and not tip-toeing around the sensitivities of believers, he is going to be viewed as a troll, but trolls by definition, are looking for arguments simply for argument sake, Dawkins firmly believes that we should believe things that are true and we should critically assess the evidence for things before we reach a conclusion.

People don't suddenly become intelligent if they abandon their faith, and claims to that effect are indeed what's nonsense. A statement like that though, correlating a person's intelligence with their absence of belief (notwithstanding the fact that it's clearly unscientific), it plays well with those people who have an egotistical personality and think of themselves as intellectually superior to those around them already.

Of course People don't become intelligent from abandoning religion, there are plenty of moronic atheists. But if someone learns the tools of critical thinking and scepticism (which often lead to atheism) then they will be better placed to make the most of whatever intelligence they have.

If these people genuinely were, or are that intelligent, then why are they not the people with all the power, instead of the hillbilly plebs like the Bush dynasty? Too many less intelligent people voting less intelligent people into positions of power? That doesn't sound right, does it? How can a minority of more intelligent people have less power than the vast majority of lesser intelligent people?

It'd be nice if someone could offer me a logical, hell I'll even take plausible, explanation for that one.

The skillset and personality traits required to be a successfull politician are not related to someone's 'intelligence'. The psychological processes involved in democratic elections are hugely complex and multi factoral and nobody should really expect that the very best leaders will always be elected and promoted to power.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Having been raised in a Catholic country and attended a Catholic school, I can relate to Roman Catholicism much more easily than to fundamentalist Christianity, or any kind of Islam. If you like, I'm a Catholic atheist.

But relating to it does not mean I believe it is true.

It really makes no difference to you whether your religion is true or false, as long as you can relate to it?

That pretty much sums it up, yes, because for me, I think it would be utterly nonsensical to hold myself to a standard which I know I could never humanly achieve (I'd be a popular guy if I could turn water into wine, certainly, but scientifically speaking I know it's just not something I as a human being could ever do!). I don't believe everything I read in the Bible, but it makes for compelling reading nonetheless, and I regard it the same way I would the works of Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde or James Joyce. They are stories and accounts written by human beings that are not and should not (IMO) be taken literally, or as gospel if you like

The Bible, or the Quran or the Torah, etc, like any scriptures should only serve as a guide, and not an instruction manual. There are people who are far more well up on this stuff than I am, and just like I'd get a second or even third opinion from a doctor if I thought the first doctor was a quack who was telling me fairy stories, I would question a lot of what I read as the doctrines of the various religions.

I'm constantly questioning my faith, and that's how I formed my own ideology, taking bits from here, there and everywhere. I mentioned earlier that I tried to abandon my faith, tried to ignore it, tried to tell myself that such nonsense had no place in my life and wasn't for me, and that's why I used the sexuality analogy, because for me, from my perspective, my faith, the actual presence of a belief itself (religion only gives that faith context and a way to understand it), is as intrinsic a part of who I am as a person, as my sexuality is a part of who I am as a person.

I tried to ignore it, abandon it, cast it aside (used all manner of drugs, alcohol and even sex to suppress it), but none of those held the same equivalent meaning for me as accepting and understanding that the feelings and the thoughts weren't going to go away. I had to learn to embrace them and accept them in the same way as my friend who is transgender and also Roman Catholic had to accept that she could not pretend to be a homosexual man. It just isn't who she is as a person. It was through meeting her that I finally learned to accept that it's ok to be religious. The thing that's not ok is when you try to impose your way of thinking on other people. People who are content in themselves don't impose their way of thinking on other people, and people who are not content in themselves will tend to make it their business to impose their way of thinking on other people, and claim that anyone who doesn't think the way they do is somehow less of a person.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get what you're saying there nozzferahtoo, but where do you actually draw the line between attacking an idea, and attacking the person who holds the idea so fundamentally as a part of who they are

I see no reason to draw any such line. I merely attack ideas, not people. How dearly or closely that person holds to that idea.... is wholly irrelevant to me. I see no cause or reason for me to pander to this at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you base everything you believe in on the presence, or indeed the absence of evidence, then you're missing the whole point of 'faith'.

I do not agree there is a "point" to it in the first place worth missing. To me this "faith" thing is just a word that means you believe something without evidence. Or, to be more accurate and pedantic, it is the practice of using the conclusion as evidence for the conclusion. The self confirmation bias of assuming the conclusion correct and fitting the evidence to it.

A great example I often trot out for this are 23ists. These are people who think the number 23 permeates all reality and is indicative of some conspiracy behind it. A Jim Carey film was made on the subject.

If you assume this to be true and view reality through this lense and seek or warp evidence that supports it, guess what, it works. Perfectly. The belief will be validated. Problem is it works for just about every other number too, especially prime numbers.

But the 23ist cult are convinced by it. That is "faith" to me. The practice of assuming the conclusion true as a necessary part of establishing the conclusion to be true.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

where does that leave you when someone tells you that they are not the gender they appear to be?

Probably not the best analogy because actually reason helps us quite heavily there. We have very strong and informative conclusions on why such people feel that way. Science has pretty much got this one answered, its just the formality of verifying it with the scientific method.

That is how science works. Anecdote is not evidence but it is an indicator of where we should direct our research. And we HAVE directed our research at people making this gender identity claim and we have made massive progress on explaining it. And their claims have strong merit.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would you tell them that the idea they are not the gender they appear to be on the outside, is ridiculous, that it's all in their mind, that they are statistically of lesser intelligence because they believe in such nonsense with such fervor?

Not sure why you would even ask me this given my position on attacking the idea not the holder of it which you are replying to.

Clearly I would not make such comments because as I said I comment on the claims, not the people making the claims. Be it gender identity or religion, I have never ONCE suggested we should make comments about their "lesser intelligence" and actually I have several posts on this forum rubbishing the posts of those atheists who try to draw too much from correlation between religiosity and intelligence.

What we do in science is note the anecdote such people offer us and we research it when time and resources allow. If one single person reports this then clearly given limited resources they are not high on the prio list. If many people do, then clearly this pushes them up the list.

So what would I tell such a person? I would tell them all we know about the brain, give them the explanations we think currently explain, or are suggestive of an explanation, for their claims. And then stick them on the science To-Do list for later research.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So why then if someone identifies as Roman Catholic for instance, would you think it's acceptable to turn around to them and say "All the evidence says you're not, because you don't behave according to Roman Catholic doctrine, etc".

Have I ever done any such thing? If not, why are you directing this at me and not the people who have actually done it? Perhaps here, and in your comments about "happiness" you have mistaken me for some other user? As none of it appears to apply to me in any way. If someone enters into discussion with me on their being a Catholic then I would evaluate the Catholic Claims they are making. I would waste not a jot of energy evaluating, let alone commenting on, whether they appear to actually be catholic or not.

And why are you asking me about my opinion of Richard Dawkins? Again I have not mentioned him on this thread, he has nothing to do with me or anything I have said on this thread, and I care little for what one single man has said or done on the topic. If you feel Dawkins is not conducting himself in a cordial role or lacking in some decorum.... should it not be him you take this up with? I have no reason, nor motivation, to comment on him or his actions or words.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't believe everything I read in the Bible, but it makes for compelling reading nonetheless,

But as a Roman Catholic, you presumably recite the Creed every week. Out loud.

It goes "I believe in one God..." again, right? Like it did when I was a kid.

"I can really relate to the metaphorical concept of God..." is not quite the same thing. nox would probably not recognize your beliefs as being in the same religion as his, where he actually, literally believes in God.

Maximus Alexander

nozzferrahhtoo, I like you.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I tried to ignore it, abandon it, cast it aside (used all manner of drugs, alcohol and even sex to suppress it), but none of those held the same equivalent meaning for me as accepting and understanding that the feelings and the thoughts weren't going to go away. I had to learn to embrace them and accept them in the same way as my friend who is transgender and also Roman Catholic had to accept that she could not pretend to be a homosexual man. It just isn't who she is as a person. It was through meeting her that I finally learned to accept that it's ok to be religious. The thing that's not ok is when you try to impose your way of thinking on other people. People who are content in themselves don't impose their way of thinking on other people, and people who are not content in themselves will tend to make it their business to impose their way of thinking on other people, and claim that anyone who doesn't think the way they do is somehow less of a person.

Fair enough

There really isn't any harm from holding a personal private belief and I don't know any atheists who would try to impose by force or law their own personal way of thinking onto others (nor would I choose to associate with such a person)

I know lots of people with all kinds of beliefs that I think are silly, and while I love engaging with them and exploring those beliefs with them, I would never dream of imposing my own beliefs onto them (as if I could)

I don't think the act of talking about something openly, or even the act of trying to convince someone else to change their mind is 'imposing' your belief onto them as long as it's not done in a way that 'compells' someone else to participate in the debate against their will.

It is for this reason that I oppose any religious involvement in legislation or education. Schools should all be secular. I oppose even private religious schools because I don't think parents have the right to forcibly indoctrinate their children (children as they get older can refuse to attend 'sunday school' if they decide they don't want to go, they can not refuse to attend school without long term consequences that will affect their life prospects)

nozzferrahhtoo

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo, I like you.

I strongly recommend you re-consider