Athiests - Who cares

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

This, to me, simply reads as though you give no consideration to other people. You say you see no reason to pander to how dearly or closely that person holds their ideas, and if that is the case, then they will likely respond in kind, so there is no attempt made to understand each other. You simply end up talking over each other's heads.

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.

Yep, you're definitely missing the point of faith. You want to argue whether something is true or false, when the whole point of faith is that you believe something to be true, not that you know for a fact whether it is true or false. I don't know for a fact that there IS a God or Gods, etc, but I believe that there is, not that I want to believe that there is. It's not something I have a conscious choice in. Religion gives people a common language to express this faith, some clearly more vehemently than others, and some people will indeed put their own spin on it.

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.

You missed the point of the analogy. A young child isn't aware of the psychology that explains why they may feel they are different from their ascribed gender, in the same way as a young child isn't aware of the psychology that explains why they have faith. It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as though you think everyone has a choice in the matter, and logic and reason will work that faith right out of them.

I just don't think it's that simple, and given you've stated earlier that you have no interest in the person, only in their ideas, given you think there's no point in faith, I don't think you'll ever understand why someone doesn't think the same way you do, because your mind is completely closed to the fundamental question as to why someone may have faith in the first place. I don't think it's as simple as "because they choose to", or "because they want to", or anything like the "self confirmation bias" ideas you're putting forward. I believe it goes much deeper than that. I believe that's the question science should be asking.

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.

I asked you the question simply because I was interested in your opinion, that's all. Has science ever questioned the reasons for why people have faith? How far up the priority list are they, given that evidence of people who have faith is a bit more than anecdotal at this point? To a person who has faith, have you tried to tell them all we know about the brain, give them explanations we think currently explain, or are suggestive of an explanation for their claims, and then stick them on the to-do list for later research? Have you ever researched this idea for yourself?

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.

I didn't accuse you of doing so. I asked you would you think it was acceptable, not whether you would or wouldn't do it. I was directing the question at you because I was interested in your opinion. I haven't mistaken you for another user. You answered the question anyway so it's all good.

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.

I asked for your opinion of Richard Dawkins because I was interested in your opinion of Richard Dawkins. It's a discussion forum nozzferahtoo, I like to discuss ideas and learn from other people who have different opinions to my own and see do we share any common ground or understanding. Dawkins doesn't seem to respect or regard anyone who has a difference of opinion to his own, and that's why I believe he is damaging to Atheism, he has been a negative influence on Atheism, rather than a positive one. I believe that anyone who isn't open to understanding a person as a whole, and where their ideas come from, that lack of understanding is going to be a stumbling block in enabling them to put forward their own ideas.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Well, not really "out loud", but I get what you mean. I do believe in one God, it doesn't say "I know there is one God". I don't know there's one God, and that whole "one true religion" thing, I don't buy that either. I think that all the different religions have pretty much the same thing in common though - the belief in the existence of a supernatural deity or deities. They just have different names for them, and there's nothing wrong with that IMO.

"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.

I know what you mean, but in fairness I can't answer for nox. Two different people, so nox is going to read something one way, I'm going to read it another way and could relate to it completely differently to the way he does. One of the reasons why I ever began to question faith and religion and the whole lot in the first place wasn't simply because I read the Bible, but because my parents inflicted intolerable physical, mental and emotional cruelty upon me in the name of religion, and I felt that they were corrupting religion to justify their behaviour, which of course I couldn't explain at the time, but I felt that what they were doing was wrong. I had nothing to compare it to at the time, it was nothing more than instinct I had to go on.

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

That's cool, I know plenty of people who identify as atheist who would try and impose by force or law their own personal way of thinking on others, but I'm fortunate enough too that I know far more people who identify as atheist who think like you do. I don't think that's peculiar to atheism though, I think it's just dependent on the mindset of the individual.

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)

I also oppose any religious involvement in Government or education and I believe State schools should be secular. I don't agree with interference in private schools or interfering in parent's decisions in how they choose to raise their children with regard to their religious beliefs or indeed their absence of belief, or anywhere in between. I don't think the State should be allowed to impose at that level, and I don't see how it could be legislated for or policed either. That's not a secular State, that's getting into fascism, and I for one would oppose such a move. I don't think you'd gain much support for such an idea either tbh.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This, to me, simply reads as though you give no consideration to other people.

If that is the spin you wish to put on it then sure ok. The point is that consideration for others has its place. And pandering to their vicarious offence if you question their beleifs is not one of them. Thinking consideration does apply in a given case, is not the same as me having absolutely no consideration for other people. That is like saying that because I do not eat peas, I do not eat anything.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

so there is no attempt made to understand each other. You simply end up talking over each other's heads.

I can not speak for anyone else in a conversation with me, or their attempts to "understand" me. But my not pandering to offence when I question ideas is not the same as me not trying to understand them. Quite the opposite in fact. I evaluate the claims they make. That involves understanding the claims. As above I think you are just putting some spin on something and coming up with a result that does not describe me at all accurately.

I will attempt to understand, then accept or rebut, a persons claims, position or ideas when they espouse them. Simple as that. Whether it offends them for me to do so or not.

Sometimes more so because while you might wax lyrical about pandering to such offence and how I should be more motivated to understand the other person and listen to them..... the fact is I do try to understand people and listen to them. But I have seen the "offence" card being used too often to shut down discourse and it is actually the person doing so, not me, that you should be directing your ire at for not being motivated to consider the other persons point of view deeply enough. As I say: Not pandering to such things is not the same as having no interest or understanding in them, or the other persons view point. Shutting down discourse because "It offends me" however: very much is.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yep, you're definitely missing the point of faith.

Nope. And you simply declaring that I am, does not make it so. I also think faith should be personal. If someone actively espouses or vocalizes their belief then I do not care if it is "faith" or not. They have made a truth claim, and it is fair game for evaluation, rebuttal, consideration or anything else. So it is not that I have "missed the point" of anything. It is that I do not think the "point" is applicable in the first place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Religion gives people a common language to express this faith

Or, as is all too often that case, it gives them a way for other people to express it for them without them having to. Or to teach them what to think on the matter so they do not have to make any conclusions themselves.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You missed the point of the analogy.

The analogy being a poor one does not mean I missed anything.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as though you think everyone has a choice in the matter, and logic and reason will work that faith right out of them.

You are indeed wrong. It is the faithists that tell me I have "chosen" to reject belief in god when I have done no such thing. Belief for me is not a choice. I can not speak on anyone else. I can not choose to believe or not believe a claim. And I can not get into the head space of people who can. There is either compelling substantiation for a claim, in which case I can not help but subscribe to it, or there is not.

For the existence of your god, I am not aware of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer from anyone.... much less you.... to suggest such an entity exists. IF pointing out this fact happen to offend some people.... bully for them. Not my problem and not for me to pander to in any way.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

your mind is completely closed to the fundamental question as to why someone may have faith in the first place.

Quite the contrary. I have studied this heavily. I find it very interesting as Human Psychology and neuroscience are top of my list of areas of interest and study. As is evolutionary biology. And I can write reams of pages on the subject of why our species has religious belief and faith and so forth.

I just think these things to be, while interesting, wholly irrelevant to the points I am making here about the evaluation and rebuttal of ideas.... and how (not at all as it happens) we should modify or structure that behaviour in the light of people getting antsy and haughty when we engage in it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I believe that's the question science should be asking.

Has science ever questioned the reasons for why people have faith?

And it does. At great length. There are some wonderful studies current on the matter too with people evaluating what "belief" even is at the level of the brain. Data and results from which will be massively interesting on the subject.

And we have looked at it from an evolutionary perspective too. Massively interesting here is the concepts of "The Intentional Stance" and "Hyper Active Agency Detection" both of which together explain the religious impulse quite powerfully and well. It is inate in our species, for good evolutionary reason, to view an object, or event, with the perspective of "Who did this and what is their intention towards me". And this is the core of the religious impulse when looking at the universe.

Further, due to the rise of mirror neurons and the ability to adopt the perspective of others, we are a species powerfully prone to anthropomorphic tendency. It is a small step to apply this to the universe and existence and then coupled with the IS and HAAD mentioned above, to simply see a mind behind it all and hence a god.

And on top of all these we are a pattern seeking animal to an extreme that means we see patterns where none actually exist. Which for people infected with this faith meme means they will quite quickly see evidence.... not actually there.... which will powerfully verify their religious notions to them. The "seeing a sign" type people and people who just see verification of the god claims in the world around them.

I could go on. And on. With more things like this that explain the religious impulse and why people have it, and when submission to these impulses and simply thinking true what our inate impulses have us feel is true, is about all the stock I put in what your "faith" actually is.

Suffice to say however, the answer to your question as to whether science has turned its eye to the question of faith is very much a yes.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't accuse you of doing so. I asked you would you think it was acceptable, not whether you would or wouldn't do it. I was directing the question at you because I was interested in your opinion.

Whether it is acceptable? If it were to be shown to be true that the religious were of statistically lesser intelligence on average than people without religion, then of course it would be acceptable to point this out. It would be a fact. And I have no issue with pointing out facts. If facts offend people then, as I am sure you know by now, I do not actually care.

The fact is it is not true however. Religious people come from all walks of life and levels of intelligence and in fact there are good arguments as to why the more intelligent people can be more prone to religious thought. In our great scientific minds for example we see Hubris at play. There have been minds that, when they reached the limits of their ability to explain something, appealed to a god. Even Newton did this when he could not wholly explain the motion of the planets. The motivation for this being they feel if they can not explain it with their great intellect, then there must be a god at play behind it. So god beleif in them validates their own limitations to their great intellect.

But thats just one example. There are many reasons why highly intelligent people are religious. There have been some correlation with religious thought and intelligence and education levels. But I do not put much stock in them so far. I do not think being religious means someone is stupid, less intelligent or less educated. Intellectually lazy yes, in many many cases, but that is about all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I asked for your opinion of Richard Dawkins because I was interested in your opinion of Richard Dawkins.

On the subject of religion I have few opinions about the man. He is a useful media presence in establishing atheism in the public consciousness and discourse. And a gateway point for people who have not consider the subject too deeply. I do not find him remotely as rude or condescending as many people try to make him out to be (motivated by their offence usually rather than any actual examples of lack of decorum from him in reality). Nor do I see any negative influence as you describe. And I tire of witnessing people misrepresent things he has said for their own ends.

Other than that, no real opinion on the man on the subject of religion. Most of my opinions of him relate to his work on biology.

One eyed Jack

Such grandiose verbosity, and yet nothing worth responding to.


"Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff—you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search."

The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 1.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Such grandiose verbosity, and yet nothing worth responding to.

Quite the cop out there. Reply to nothing, but throw in a baseless throw away remark to cover the departure. Especially given your own posts. Or perhaps you were referring to your own posts here. Quite accurately. I however do not cop out of replying to them despite this.

If you can not, or will not, reply to anything I have written then no one is forcing you to do so. But let us not act like the failing is mine, not yours.

nozzferrahhtoo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

I see no difference, an attack on my ideas or beliefs is an attack on me as far as I'm concerned.

nozzferrahhtoo

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I see no difference, an attack on my ideas or beliefs is an attack on me as far as I'm concerned.

And that is your choice but as I said I am not seeing a reason for me to pander to this. Nor has anyone on the thread offered a reason.

If you wish to feel vicariously attacked on behalf of your ideas, that is by all means your choice to do so. It is entirely irrelevant to me and how I evaluate and discuss ideas however.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think that all the different religions have pretty much the same thing in common though - the belief in the existence of a supernatural deity or deities.

But no matter what shape or form any such deity or deities might take, the fact remains that most religious ideas about them are wrong, since they contradict each other.

And given that we know for a fact that most of them are wrong, I see no reason to suppose any of them are right, in the absence of evidence or argument which supports one particular religion.

farmchoice

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Such grandiose verbosity, and yet nothing worth responding to.


"Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff—you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search."

The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 1.

game set and match to nozzferrahhtoo then.

Grayson

some of these posts are really really long.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But no matter what shape or form any such deity or deities might take, the fact remains that most religious ideas about them are wrong, since they contradict each other.

Do they? I mean, I've already said I don't buy the "one true god" stuff and I explained why. I also said I don't even know if a supernatural deity does or doesn't exist, but I don't think all religious ideas about them are wrong or right. I think they're just different interpretations of the same phenomenon. How each person interprets and relates to these ideas and incorporates them into their own ideology is up to them. Some people just don't relate to them at all, and that's all good too. It's like you're asking me to argue the existence of God, when I've already said I don't know if he exists or not. I believe he does, and that much I can't explain to you why as I haven't got the scientific knowledge to be able to explain it to myself yet, let alone explain it to anyone else. There's nothing in science yet that I can relate to which would explain why I have this faith that I really didn't ask for. I like to think of myself as a rational person, and yet there is this thought process I find completely irrational, and I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation for it. Perhaps Sam Harris, someone who knows far more about neurobiology than I ever will, was onto something when he described religion as a mental illness. I'm not sure that would be a socially acceptable explanation though so I don't imagine that one appearing in the DSM any time soon

And given that we know for a fact that most of them are wrong, I see no reason to suppose any of them are right, in the absence of evidence or argument which supports one particular religion.

Well that's where our perspectives would differ - I don't see most of them as wrong, I see no reason to assume any of them are wrong or right, therefore I'm not going to make any argument that supports one particular religion over another. I don't see any particular reason to do that, unless I were someone with chips on his shoulders who decided that I was going to use religion to inflict harm and suffering upon other people. Not really my bag though tbh.

catallus

Well, i hope all of those soulless pagans know that there is still room in the infinite love and wisdom of GOD for them.

We should pity them in their wilful nescience; pride has eaten their humanity!

Philo Beddoe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Such grandiose verbosity, and yet nothing worth responding to.


"Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff—you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search."

The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 1.

A rather sad admission of defeat. You don't think even his response to your suggestion that science should be looking for a reason people have faith is worth responding to?

One eyed Jack

farmchoice wrote: »

game set and match to nozzferrahhtoo then.

Philo Beddoe wrote: »

A rather sad admission of defeat. You don't think even his response to your suggestion that science should be looking for a reason people have faith is worth responding to?

What's this about games and defeats? Lads it's a discussion site, I don't think it's worth responding to walls of waffle that fail to make any substantial point worth taking away and thinking about, no. The post itself, and the one that followed were simply barrel scraping at it's best when caught with their intellectual pants down around their ankles.

I'm not one for kicking a man up the arse just because I think I can. I'd sooner look to help him up than lord it over him for platitudes from the audience.

nozzferrahhtoo

Except none of how you are decribing my post is accurate. And the only one with the intellectual pants down is the one who copped out of the discussion through the use of dismissive and throwaway remarks about my post that lack any actual substance to them.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except none of how you are decribing my post is accurate. And the only one with the intellectual pants down is the one who copped out of the discussion through the use of dismissive and throwaway remarks about my post that lack any actual substance to them.

I don't wear any pants :pac:

Quite liberating when I don't claim to hold myself up as a rational, critical thinker who uses logic and reason to make my arguments, then abandons said way of thinking when confronted by the unexpected, only to resort to as I said, barrel scraping.

What else would you like me to do when your posts are lengthy obfuscation and waffle filled diatribes of utter nonsense?

Ain't nobody as they say, got time fo' dat.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't claim to hold myself up as a rational, critical thinker who uses logic and reason to make my arguments, then abandons said way of thinking when confronted by the unexpected, only to resort to as I said, barrel scraping.

And yet since you are the only one barrel scrapping, the lecture is misdirected. Nor have I abandoned any way of thinking anywhere on this thread. You are simply making this all up to dodge replying to a post you simply are not capable of replying to it seems.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What else would you like me to do when your posts are lengthy obfuscation and waffle filled diatribes of utter nonsense?

We will cross that bridge when we come to it. It has not occurred here. Do not conflate your inability to deal with my post with my inability to write one. No one else appears to have suffered as you have. Or as they say: Its not me, its you.

farmchoice

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's this about games and defeats? Lads it's a discussion site, I don't think it's worth responding to walls of waffle that fail to make any substantial point worth taking away and thinking about, no. The post itself, and the one that followed were simply barrel scraping at it's best when caught with their intellectual pants down around their ankles.

I'm not one for kicking a man up the arse just because I think I can. I'd sooner look to help him up than lord it over him for platitudes from the audience.

it didn't come across as that, it came across as throwing in the towel. the reply that nozferatoo gave was anything but waffle, anyone reading it can see that.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet since you are the only one barrel scrapping, the lecture is misdirected. Nor have I abandoned any way of thinking anywhere on this thread. You are simply making this all up to dodge replying to a post you simply are not capable of replying to it seems.

You gave me nothing worth replying to!

What part of that are you having difficulty with, and perhaps I could adumbrate it in such a way that you could parse it and map it and do whatever the hell else you want with it?

We will cross that bridge when we come to it. It has not occurred here. Do not conflate your inability to deal with my post with my inability to write one. No one else appears to have suffered as you have. Or as they say: Its not me, its you.

It's funny because it's true, but I see no reason to enlighten you. Instead I'll just get on with my day and leave you to your soapboxing.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You gave me nothing worth replying to!

And yet you replied all the same with a cop out throw away remark. As you continue to do here. If you can not reply or will not reply to a post, that is fine. No one is compelling you to. The cop out dodge of pretending this is due to the quality of my post however appears to be convincing no one but yourself so far.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's funny because it's true, but I see no reason to enlighten you.

Another cop out then. Because you can not do it, you simply pretend you are not compelled to or have no interest in doing so. We see this kind of cop out on this forum all the time. You are not the first.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Instead I'll just get on with my day and leave you to your soapboxing.

Ah good, another chance to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet posting" which states that "The probability of another reply coming from a user increases in proportion to the number of times they indicate they will not".

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see most of them as wrong, I see no reason to assume any of them are wrong or right, therefore I'm not going to make any argument that supports one particular religion over another.

It sounds as if we're talking about Jogging vs. Pilates: which one works for you?

But religion is not like an exercise regime. "I believe God exists" is a statement like "I believe Australia exists", not "I believe I'll find it easier to stick to Pilates than do Yoga".

And I believe Australia does exist, and God doesn't. These are questions about reality, with right and wrong answers.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It sounds as if we're talking about Jogging vs. Pilates: which one works for you?

The Catholic Pilates...


Kneel, sit stand, chant, etc (Shamefully ripped from the A&A forum! )

But essentially yes, that IS what we're doing, is talking about two different things, from two different perspectives, so you're getting one concept - reality, works for you, grand; and I'm getting another - reality, plus a little something on the side, if you like. Jogging works for you, but Pilates being the competitive sport that it is, I have an artificial enhancement. I didn't ask for it, I know it's not reality, I didn't seek it out, but there it is, and I can either use it to have a positive influence on my life, or a negative influence. I tend to use it positively in the same way as anyone else uses mindfulness techniques and meditation and so on. They'll go to a gym for a yoga class and I'll go to a Church. It's not actually all that different really.

But religion is not like an exercise regime. "I believe God exists" is a statement like "I believe Australia exists", not "I believe I'll find it easier to stick to Pilates than do Yoga".

It totally is! Well, depends again on what works for you and what doesn't, but I find it a great mental workout. Just because I say I like yoga better than jogging doesn't mean jogging is going to disappear? It's under no threat whatsoever. "I believe in God", that statement itself is not threatening in any way, shape or form to anyone else. Now if I said it while holding a machete, I can understand why that might cause a few sphincters to tighten, but otherwise no, not really harming anyone, is it? We just relate to different things, differently.

And I believe Australia does exist, and God doesn't. These are questions about reality, with right and wrong answers.

I hardly need to quote you the line from Mythbusters about reality now, do I? If someone else is willing to accept that their reality is all that they can sense, and observe, and know, then that's A1 by me, but I'm just not willing to accept that standard for myself. I still wouldn't impose that upon anyone else though, but I do like to seek out people who i share common interests with, and that's where the community part of religion comes in.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I also oppose any religious involvement in Government or education and I believe State schools should be secular. I don't agree with interference in private schools or interfering in parent's decisions in how they choose to raise their children with regard to their religious beliefs or indeed their absence of belief, or anywhere in between. I don't think the State should be allowed to impose at that level, and I don't see how it could be legislated for or policed either. That's not a secular State, that's getting into fascism, and I for one would oppose such a move. I don't think you'd gain much support for such an idea either tbh.

I think it's the opposite of fascist actually. Fascism was not a secular ideology. In the 20th century, fascism was deeply connected with religion and one of the tools of fascism was that the education system was used to essentially brainwash the children with the values of the fascist state.

I'm not saying that all religious schools are extremist, but some of them absolutely are. And as the state schools become more secular, private educational trusts are more likely to become more fundamentalist than they currently are. There are 'faith schools' in ur nearest neighbour in the UK which are little more than isolation units to keep children immersed in the religious and cultural practises of their parents.

If we are going to become an intercultural society, we should be pursuing inclusionary policies. it works both ways. Some Irish people send their kids to 'catholic schools' because they don't want their children to associate with 'immigrants' while some people from islamic and other religious backgrounds want religious schools to keep their children from being exposed to western values.

I think schools should be centers of inclusion and all children should be treated exactly the same. I think schools have a duty and a responsibility to teach children about inclusion and diversity and every single school should have intercultural policies that focus on assisting people from minority communities in making friends and getting involved in the school and the community.

Here's a recent article that mentions how young islamic people are feeling alienated and isolated from their peers.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/research-finds-irish-muslim-teenagers-face-isolation-and-racism-1.2069057

We can either continue walking blindly down the path of ghettoisation and alienation that we will inevitably find ourselves in, or we can make clear policy changes in favour of integration and secularisation in our schools.

By secularism, I mean that schools should not promote any individual religious ethos and all reasonable accommodations should be made to make children from all backgrounds feel equally welcome in the school.

Philo Beddoe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You gave me nothing worth replying to!

What part of that are you having difficulty with, and perhaps I could adumbrate it in such a way that you could parse it and map it and do whatever the hell else you want with it?





It's funny because it's true, but I see no reason to enlighten you. Instead I'll just get on with my day and leave you to your soapboxing.

This is genuinely annoying. Nozzferahtoo responded to your post in good faith (for want of a better word) and clearly put a bit of time into addressing each point you made. If you don't want to discuss the topic any further, or maybe just don't want to discuss it with him/her, why not just say so? Simply announcing that the post is nothing but waffle and not worthy of responding too is a complete cop out, not to mention insulting. As it is what you have done looks like a transparent attempt to exit from the conversation without losing face which has backfired badly.

El_Duderino 09

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I see no difference, an attack on my ideas or beliefs is an attack on me as far as I'm concerned.

That's one of the saddest things I have ever heard. Does that mean any time someone offers you new information about something you hold as a belief, you take it as an attack on your self? How do you ever learn anything new?

Please say you misspoke.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's one of the saddest things I have ever heard. Does that mean any time someone offers you new information about something you hold as a belief, you take it as an attack on your self? How do you ever learn anything new?

Please say you misspoke.

On this topic I stand by my comment.

Akrasia

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I see no difference, an attack on my ideas or beliefs is an attack on me as far as I'm concerned.

Then you are too far invested in your ideas.

I believe in secular humanism and scientific scepticism. If someone attacks the idea of secular humanism, I am confident enough to defend those ideas, if i can no longer defend the ideas, then I am open to the fact that maybe I was wrong and I should re-examine my position

What I don't do is take personal offence if someone attacks a political or ideological view that I hold. To me, that is a mark of insecurity, that you don't feel that your reasons for believing are robust enough to defend them, and you are worried that someone might put forward an argument that convinces you of something 'against your will'

Akrasia

Grayson wrote: »

some of these posts are really really long.

Yeah they are.

This is my second attempt at replying to this post. The first went on for 1500 words

catallus

When one's words are inspired by God the essence of the post serves as a balm for the self-inflicted wounds of the wanton ignorance of the damned.

One eyed Jack

Philo Beddoe wrote: »

This is genuinely annoying. Nozzferahtoo responded to your post in good faith (for want of a better word) and clearly put a bit of time into addressing each point you made. If you don't want to discuss the topic any further, or maybe just don't want to discuss it with him/her, why not just say so? Simply announcing that the post is nothing but waffle and not worthy of responding too is a complete cop out, not to mention insulting. As it is what you have done looks like a transparent attempt to exit from the conversation without losing face which has backfired badly.

If it helps your understanding, I spent nearly all day the other day on trying to figure out nozzferahtoo's earlier posts, because I really wanted to understand where they were coming from, I did this because like I said, I was genuinely interested in their opinion. I found logical fallacies and misinterpretations of my position and insinuations of personal attacks where there were none.

I wasn't trying to be a smart arse or "win a debate" or any of the rest of it. I was interested in having a discussion of ideas. I like to understand where those ideas come from, which is why I was asking questions, not simply because I wanted to get one over on anyone. That's unlikely to be conducive to reaching an understanding of each others perspectives.

I wasn't going to quote the whole post this morning just to say - "There's nothing in there that's even worth discussing, there's nothing new for me, and in fact most of it is just condescending waffle which I have no interest in dissecting in order to address positions I haven't expressed, etc". It can be very frustrating when you get the feeling that someone is basically fcuking with you for the lulz. I don't like it, I'm not sure anyone likes it, and so I responded in kind - we can all regurgitate waffle. Then nozzferahtoo decided to take a very underhanded swipe, grand, you may not have seen it, but I saw it, and the old adage - "What can you expect from a pig, but a grunt" came to mind. That's when I simply lost all respect for them, and couldn't take them seriously any more, and so chose to break off any engagement in any discussion with them.

I would like the discussion to continue, I haven't exited the discussion at all, I simply chose not to get side-tracked into a mud-flinging match where the two of us were hogging the podium like they do on those "existence of God" 'debates' you'll witness on YouTube as I don't believe they ever achieve anything only intellectual's massaging their inflated ego's while the rest of us actually live in the real world.

Akrasia

catallus wrote: »

When one's words are inspired by God the essence of the post serves as a balm for the self-inflicted wounds of the wanton ignorance of the damned.

I think Cattalus is trying to start a Word-off against nozzferrahhtoo.

Here's some advice, you're gonna need to make your posts
1. Much longer
2. Coherent

It's also a little bit sad that you think your words are 'inspired by god'.