On the interpretation of religious texts by The Lords of Distortion

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

But I didn't ask why Christians care about it, I asked why you care about it. If you don't believe in a god, what difference does it make whether it is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind, or as a conversation with the avatar of the spaghetti monster?

Because the book is the basis of a lot of poor morality which effects people in the real world. it deserves to be debunked and rideculed

Absolam wrote: »

So, saying that religion depends on indoctrination of kids would be a misrepresentation of the facts as you're aware of them then?

no , the fact that some adults convert does not disprove the importance of indoctrinating kids , I said this was a numbers games. if you want to deliberately misread my posts , work away

Absolam wrote: »

Would you say there's any more substantial basis for your prophecy than any religious prophecy? I mean, you've told us that religion depends on indoctrination of kids and then demonstrated that's not true, and you've told us that the decline in the catholic church here and other churches around the world is perfect evidence to show that people are swayed by evidence or lack if evidence, but failed to come up with any evidence for the assertion, so really, is your prophecy based on anything other than wishful thinking?

None of which actually means that a decline must happen though does it? Because, let's be honest, people 40 or 50 or 150 or 1250 years ago also had sex before marriage. Your parents probably did; I know mine did. They've been using contraception in various forms for millenia, again, I know my parents did (if not millenia ago). Divorce was not an unknown concept in Christs time, in fact he mentioned it occuring in the time of Moses. Homosexuality wasn't exactly uncommon in ancient times, and induced abortion has been practiced since at least Egyptian times. Ireland may have become more publically morally liberal in the last century or so than it was in the preceding few centuries, but I think I'd like a little more evidence for your predictions than your notion that young people are swayed by evidence or lack of evidence. I suspect reports of religions death are being greatly exaggerated; whether you call them catholics, social catholics, christians, muslims or scientologists, I am doubtful religion will disappear any time soon.

again you are misreading my posts. did you not study percentages in school? do you know the difference between 90% adhering to a set of beliefs versus say 30% or 40%?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Because the book is the basis of a lot of poor morality which effects people in the real world. it deserves to be debunked and rideculed

It's also the basis of a lot of good morality that affects people in the real world. Regardless, whether or not you think it deserves to be debunked and ridiculed, you're not exactly doing either if you have to make stuff up in order to do it, are you?

silverharp wrote: »

no , the fact that some adults convert does not disprove the importance of indoctrinating kids , I said this was a numbers games. if you want to deliberately misread my posts , work away

Well, you didn't say it was important, you said it depended on it. That's not misreading, just reading.

silverharp wrote: »

again you are misreading my posts. did you not study percentages in school? do you know the difference between 90% adhering to a set of beliefs versus say 30% or 40%?

You know what, I did study percentages in school and I do know the difference between 90% and say 30% or 40%. I also know the difference between must and might. But since you're working percentages can you
a) show where your 90% adhering to set of beliefs comes from
b) show where your predicted 30% to 40% adhering to set of beliefs comes from?

I suspect 100% of your statistics are spurious...

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

It's also the basis of a lot of good morality that affects people in the real world. Regardless, whether or not you think it deserves to be debunked and ridiculed, you're not exactly doing either if you have to make stuff up in order to do it, are you?

Well, you didn't say it was important, you said it depended on it. That's not misreading, just reading.

You know what, I did and I do. I also know the difference between must and might. But since you're working percentages can you
a) show where your 90% adhering to set of beliefs comes from
b) show where your predicted 30% to 40% adhering to set of beliefs comes from?

I would imagine any religious book would have good morality in it , it would be odd if it didn't . to at least differentiate it from documented local lore I'd expect it to have an inspired morality not of its time , there are numerous examples of a less that than inspired morality carried out at the behest of their god and other instances of the god itself being less than moral with its people. Do you deny this? And assuming you are some sort of christian what's your view of that?

The 90% was based on surveys of mass attendance in Ireland 1980's I believe , you can Google it. You can come up with endless metrics of what a Christian is . but given that the only game in town is catholism I would say mass attendance is an indicator of faith.

Can I just add that I'm none the wiser of what your beliefs are or opinions on the ot or faith levels in Ireland . do you have any opinions of your own or do you post nothing more than a constant stream of derivative questions?

Do you somehow think that a 10 year old kid today in Ireland is in a near identical situation compared to say a 10 year old in the 1970's?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

I would imagine any religious book would have good morality in it , it would be odd if it didn't . to at least differentiate it from documented local lore I'd expect it to have an inspired morality not of its time , there are numerous examples of a less that than inspired morality carried out at the behest of their god and other instances of the god itself being less than moral with its people. Do you deny this? And assuming you are some sort of christian what's your view of that?

That's a lot of imagination and assumption, but no actual justification for making stuff up in order to look like you're debunking and ridiculing?

silverharp wrote: »

The 90% was based on surveys of mass attendance in Ireland 1980's I believe , you can Google it. You can come up with endless metrics of what a Christian is . but given that the only game in town is catholism I would say mass attendance is an indicator of faith.

I could google it, but since you're offering the statistics, I'll let you provide the source(s including the 30% to 40% don't forget). Until then, I think it's fair to say they're 100% spurious, don't you? After that we can talk about the metrics we use to determine what 'adhering to a set of beliefs' is; it's a little early to change it to 'indicator of faith' I'd say; we should probably stick with your initial assertion for now.
A source for catholicism being 'the only game in town' would be great too; it might relieve those religious who thought they had a stake in a different game as well :-)

silverharp wrote: »

Can I just add that I'm none the wiser of what your beliefs are or opinions on the ot or faith levels in Ireland . do you have any opinions of your own or do you post nothing more than a constant stream of derivative questions?

How relevant would you say my beliefs or opinions on the ot or faith levels in Ireland are to your attempts to look like you're debunking or ridiculing?

silverharp wrote: »

Do you somehow think that a 10 year old kid today in Ireland is in a near identical situation compared to say a 10 year old in the 1970's?

I would say they are equally capable of being swayed by evidence or the lack of evidence. Would you not?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

That's a lot of imagination and assumption, but no actual justification for making stuff up in order to look like you're debunking and ridiculing?

I havnt read every religious book , I'd assume most would have good things to says so I dont see why you would have an issue saying i assume they do? , you seem particularly concerned of my view of the Lot incest incident. Ok here is my view on it, I actually dont believe the incident happened the way it did. Firstly there is no logical reason for daughters to rape their dad also Its practically impossible for someone who is blindly drunk to have an erection and to impregnate 2 virgins. More likely is that Lot was having sex with his daughters on other occassions as again 2 boys conceived from 2 instances of sex would be statistically unlikely. Lot was declared righteous by god who would have known what he would get up to in the future, also we must remember that Lot offered his daughters for group sex, so he has form as they'd say. As an aside can a drunkered be righteous?
From my point of view its not even high on my list of troubling incidents I have plenty others which to me are morally wrong which make the deity concerned seem absurd

Absolam wrote: »

I could google it, but since you're offering the statistics, I'll let you provide the source(s including the 30% to 40% don't forget). Until then, I think it's fair to say they're 100% spurious, don't you? After that we can talk about the metrics we use to determine what 'adhering to a set of beliefs' is; it's a little early to change it to 'indicator of faith' I'd day.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/numbers-in-irelands-catholic-church-continue-to-drop-stigma-attached-to-attending-mass-200315991-237575781.html

In 2011, it was reported that only about 18 per cent of Irish people in the Republic were regularly attending Mass, indicating a wide margin between those who claim to be Catholic and who are actively practicing.

The 2011 figure of those attending mass also shows a major decline from less than twenty years earlier in 1984 when, according to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin, nearly 90 percent of Irish Catholics attended weekly Mass.

here is where I got the 90% , the 30/40% was just to see if you understood high % against lower %. I didnt make a specific claim about how many religious people there are now in ireland , Ive no idea all I ever said its falling

Absolam wrote: »

A source for catholicism being 'the only game in town' would be great too; it might relieve those religious who thought they had a stake in a different game as well :-)

I think you are being pedantic here , people not "baptised" catholic in ireland are well under 10% of the population so catholics qualifies "as the only game in town" the other 10% divides down to a % of very little

marienbad

Absolam wrote: »

And what does that have to do with tapping into Gods mind?

I never tried to rebut the idea that peoples beliefs are incorporated into the laws of the land, quite the contrary in fact.
As for what next, should our laws only be determined by people who agree with you rather than a majority of the people? No thanks.

Just the separation of Church and State will do me fine thanks , what you do in your own time and place of worship is of no interest to me .

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

I havnt read every religious book , I'd assume most would have good things to says so I dont see why you would have an issue saying i assume they do?

I don't; the issue I pointed out was that you are imagining and assuming, in what appears to be an attempt to get away from discussing the fact that you're making stuff up in order to look like you're debunking and ridiculing a particular religion. Still.

silverharp wrote: »

, you seem particularly concerned of my view of the Lot incest incident. Ok here is my view on it, I actually dont believe the incident happened the way it did <...> be righteous?

Do I? let me put your mind to rest; I haven't queried anything about your view of the Lot incident, your view is obviously your own business. It's your extrapolation from the story that concerns me, particularly as you didn't present it as your view, you simply said that this was 'apparently' the case. You deliberately presented the biblical account as condoning something because it didn't condemn it, which I think you knew was a deliberate misrepresentation.

silverharp wrote: »

From my point of view its not even high on my list of troubling incidents I have plenty others which to me are morally wrong which make the deity concerned seem absurd

I've no doubt, and I'm sure you've put just as much thought into them as this one.

silverharp wrote: »

here is where I got the 90% , the 30/40% was just to see if you understood high % against lower %.

So, you made up the 30% to 40% because you're concerned I can't understand high % against lower %? That's touching (though in fairness, the stand out point is that you made it up), but I think you should give more thought to your own ability to understand that 'nearly 90 percent of Irish Catholics attended weekly Mass' is not even vaguely similar to '90% adhering to a set of beliefs versus say 30% or 40%'. I've no doubt the 90% of Catholics attending weekly Mass in the 80s were adhering to a set of beliefs, but I suspect the other 448,829 people who identified as belonging to a religion in 1981 also felt they adhered to a set of beliefs. Maybe even the ones who didn't identify as belonging to a stated religion as well, who knows? But I think you had an idea that Catholics attending weekly Mass weren't the only people adhering to a set of beliefs already......

silverharp wrote: »

I didnt make a specific claim about how many religious people there are now in ireland , Ive no idea all I ever said its falling

Right.... so, you threw out a bunch of numbers hoping it wouldn't be questioned? By the way, you might be interested to know (since we're talking numbers here, even if your 30% to 40% is made up) that the number of people in Ireland who stated they belonged to a religion increased from 3,983,208 in the 2006 census to 4,199,783 in the 2011 census. That's an actual statistical increase in the number of religious people of 5% to compare to your numbers you made up to see if I 'understood high % against lower %' (and an increase of 26% from 1981).

silverharp wrote: »

I think you are being pedantic here , people not "baptised" catholic in ireland are well under 10% of the population so catholics qualifies "as the only game in town" the other 10% divides down to a % of very little

So, anyone who's Church of Ireland, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Wiccan, or any faith whatsoever other than RCC, it's pedantic to point out that they exist? I think they'd probably disagree. That's before we even get to your next spurious statistic; 'people not "baptised" catholic in ireland are well under 10% of the population'.
The 2011 Census, according to the CSO (you'll note I'm citing a source for the numbers I'm using here) shows that 15.34% of people resident in the State do not identify as Roman Catholic. That's a 53.4% increase on the number you've claimed (yes... I did study percentages in school). 8.15% of people identify as belonging to a religion other than Roman Catholic, which, in case you're wondering, means that 8.78% of those who identified as belonging to a stated religion identified as not Catholic. I don't know about you, but when I was studying percentages in school, as well learning the difference between 90% adhering to a set of beliefs versus say 30% or 40%, I learnt that neither 15.34% or 8.78% are statistically insignificant numbers; so Catholicism really is far from the only game in town.

Absolam

marienbad wrote: »

Just the separation of Church and State will do me fine thanks , what you do in your own time and place of worship is of no interest to me .

Still no idea what that has to do with tapping into Gods mind, but glad you agree that the proponents of a religion have as much right to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside as anyone else

marienbad

Absolam wrote: »

Still no idea what that has to do with tapping into Gods mind, but glad you agree that the proponents of a religion have as much right to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside as anyone else

That is your expression, not mine . The problem arises when having tapped into the mind of God as you so quaintly put it, believers try to create laws based on their religion. That seems easy enough to understand .

And as for having their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into our ethos and laws - that depends entirely on that ethos . If it is the RCC ethos we know they would like contraception, divorce, civil union, ssm , never mind gay adoption ,abortion, euthanasia all made illegal or unconstitutional .

How many of the above would you like ''incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state'' ?

Absolam

marienbad wrote: »

That is your expression, not mine . The problem arises when having tapped into the mind of God as you so quaintly put it, believers try to create laws based on their religion. That seems easy enough to understand .

Not my expression, Silverharps.And Silverharps issue, as they so quaintly put it, was that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind and by implication people will use to try to effect things in the real world. My point being, if you don't believe in God then someone telling you they want to affect things because the OT taps into Gods mind is not going to incline you to assist them. More likely quite the opposite.

marienbad wrote: »

And as for having their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into our ethos and laws - that depends entirely on that ethos . If it is the RCC ethos we know they would like contraception, divorce, civil union, ssm , never mind gay adoption ,abortion, euthanasia all made illegal or unconstitutional .

Which goes back to my question;

Absolam wrote: »

should our laws only be determined by people who agree with you rather than a majority of the people?

What gives you the right to decide whose ethos can be incorporated into the laws of the State? I prefer my democracies to be, well, democratic.

marienbad wrote: »

How many of the above would you like ''incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state'' ?

As many as the majority of the citizenry want? That seems democratic at least...

marienbad

Absolam wrote: »

Not my expression, Silverharps.And Silverharps issue, as they so quaintly put it, was that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind and by implication people will use to try to effect things in the real world. My point being, if you don't believe in God then someone telling you they want to affect things because the OT taps into Gods mind is not going to incline you to assist them. More likely quite the opposite.
Which goes back to my question;
What gives you the right to decide whose ethos can be incorporated into the laws of the State? I prefer my democracies to be, well, democratic.
As many as the majority of the citizenry want? That seems democratic at least...

I never indicated I had the right to decide any ethos , you made that up all on your own .

That is the problem with your analysis is the old one , tyranny of the majority - not democratic at all . Fine when you are in the majority ,less so when you are not .

Absolam

marienbad wrote: »

I never indicated I had the right to decide any ethos , you made that up all on your own .

You did indicate you had a problem with people having their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into our ethos and laws depending on their ethos; whose opinion of their ethos does it depend on, if not yours?

marienbad wrote: »

That is the problem with your analysis is the old one , tyranny of the majority - not democratic at all . Fine when you are in the majority ,less so when you are not .

Tyranny of the majority is a catchphrase it seems most often thrown out when a minority doesn't get what they want because a majority wants something different, but undemocratic? Wikipedia places it as a variant of democracy, and it was famously called 'the one pervading evil of democracy'. I'm not sure you can even have a tyranny of the majority without democracy. Regardless, given choice between the tyranny of the majority or the minority, I think I'm inclined to the populist course...

obplayer

The basic fact here is that non-religious people want laws to be based on the principle of 'don't hurt people'. The religious want laws based on 'I know what's best for everyone so do what I say'. The classic case being the current gay marriage debate.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

The basic fact here is that non-religious people want laws to be based on the principle of 'don't hurt people'. The religious want laws based on 'I know what's best for everyone so do what I say'. The classic case being the current gay marriage debate.

Is there a particular religion that has said it wants laws based on 'I know what's best for everyone so do what I say', or would you say you're attributing a perspective to religions that no religion would actually endorse if it were put to them?

For instance, most religions like Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity would generally concur some variant of the Golden Rule, like "Do to others what you want them to do to you" is a fundamental part of their philosophy, which would seem to fly in the face of your proposition?

I'm not sure fact is the best word to describe what you're saying there....

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

The basic fact here is that non-religious people want laws to be based on the principle of 'don't hurt people'. The religious want laws based on 'I know what's best for everyone so do what I say'.

Bzzt! False dichotomy infringement! Lose ten points and miss a turn!

Enacting laws based on the principle of "don't hurt people" requires us to make judgments about what will hurt people. Both those who say, e.g., that gay marriage will be harmful to society and those who say the opposite are making such a judgment, and are urging that legislation should be enacted on the basis of that judgment. They are both claiming, in other words, to know "what is best for everyone".

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bzzt! False dichotomy infringement! Lose ten points and miss a turn!

Enacting laws based on the principle of "don't hurt people" requires us to make judgments about what will hurt people. Both those who say, e.g., that gay marriage will be harmful to society and those who say the opposite are making such a judgment, and are urging that legislation should be enacted on the basis of that judgment. They are both claiming, in other words, to know "what is best for everyone".

I will expand on that then. Non-religious people want laws based on the principle of 'don't hurt people'. If you think that a particular action will hurt people then it is up to you to prove it. I don't want to hear that your magic book says so or that the invisible man you listen to has told you so, I want hard objective evidence that this act will hurt people. In the absence of such evidence, as in the gay marriage debate, then the act should be allowed. Judgments of what will hurt people based on 'they won't get to heaven!' are based on assumptions for which there is not a scrap of evidence. No, we are not claiming we 'know', from some unearthly source, what is best for everyone. We are saying that if there is no evidence for harm then there is no reason for the law to intervene.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

I will expand on that then. Non-religious people want laws based on the principle of 'don't hurt people'. If you think that a particular action will hurt people then it is up to you to prove it. I don't want to hear that your magic book says so or that the invisible man you listen to has told you so, I want hard objective evidence that this act will hurt people. In the absence of such evidence, as in the gay marriage debate, then the act should be allowed. Judgments of what will hurt people based on 'they won't get to heaven!' are based on assumptions for which there is not a scrap of evidence. No, we are not claiming we 'know', from some unearthly source, what is best for everyone. We are saying that if there is no evidence for harm then there is no reason for the law to intervene.

The thing is, if you look at the arguments advanced by the likes of Iona, they are also not saying that they "know" from some unearthly source what is best for everyone. They are arguing that gay marriage is in fact harmful, or will be, and they are not citing the bible, or any religious authority, in support of that argument.

Just to be clear, I am not persuaded by Iona's arguments. But if you are going to counter the arguments advance by Iona (or by other religious voices), you have to counter the arguments that they actually advance. You can't recharacterise them in ways that you find easier to counter, and then counter that.

It's simply not true that religiously-inspired arguments about matters of public policy all take the form of "I have divinely-revealed knowledge which enables me to know what's best for you". Those who pretend that it is, in an effort to exclude religious perspectives, look at best like people who haven't bothered to engage with the arguments offered, and at worst like intolerant bigots.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

The thing is, if you look at the arguments advanced by the likes of Iona, they are also not saying that they "know" from some unearthly source what is best for everyone. They are arguing that gay marriage is in fact harmful, or will be, and they are not citing the bible, or any religious authority, in support of that argument.

Just to be clear, I am not persuaded by Iona's arguments. But if you are going to counter the arguments advance by Iona (or by other religious voices), you have to counter the arguments that they actually advance. You can't recharacterise them in ways that you find easier to counter, and then counter that.

It's simply not true that religiously-inspired arguments about matters of public policy all take the form of "I have divinely-revealed knowledge which enables me to know what's best for you". Those who pretend that it is, in an effort to exclude religious perspectives, look at best like people who haven't bothered to engage with the arguments offered, and at worst like intolerant bigots.

If you think that a particular action will hurt people then it is up to you to prove it. I want hard objective evidence that this act will hurt people. In the absence of such evidence, as in the gay marriage debate, then the act should be allowed. We are saying that if there is no evidence for harm then there is no reason for the law to intervene.

Give me hard objective evidence. And indeed not just for the gay marriage debate but for religion generally. What has religion contributed to the world? Antibiotics Hypodermic syringes Tarmac Flight Anything useful? No. To return to the title of this thread, one of the "Hazards Of Belief" is that it distracts people, who might otherwise be productive, into meaningless, pointless speculation which produces nothing. I am quite happy to acknowledge that this is true of many hobbies, as in how many hobbits does it take to defeat a troll, but they don't pretend their debates are relevant to the real world and should be incorporated in law.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

If you think that a particular action will hurt people then it is up to you to prove it. I want hard objective evidence that this act will hurt people. In the absence of such evidence, as in the gay marriage debate, then the act should be allowed. We are saying that if there is no evidence for harm then there is no reason for the law to intervene.

Sure. And on that basis you can counter the arguments of Iona, etc. You just can't counter them by saying that, because they have a religious motivation for advancing the arguments, therefore the arguments must be based on a theological claim and can be dismissed for that reason. That would be classic ad hominem reasoning. And we'd never do that, would we?

obplayer wrote: »

Give me hard objective evidence. And indeed not just for the gay marriage debate but for religion generally. What has religion contributed to the world? Antibiotics Hypodermic syringes Tarmac Flight Anything useful? No.

Yes, actually. Public hospitals. Universities. An end to the practice of exposing unwanted children. And these examples can be multiplied without difficulty.

obplayer wrote: »

To return to the title of this thread, one of the "Hazards Of Belief" is that it distracts people, who might otherwise be productive, into meaningless, pointless speculation which produces nothing. I am quite happy to acknowledge that this is true of many hobbies, as in how many hobbits does it take to defeat a troll, but they don't pretend their debates are relevant to the real world and should be incorporated in law.

And one of the hazards of unbelief is that it leads people to assume that anything motivated by beliefs which they do not share must be meaningless, pointless and produce nothing, when in fact there is no reason to think this, and still less any evidence to show it. And they go on to make the even mor extravagant assumption that positions motivated by beliefs which they do not share cannot be "relevant to the real world" and ought to be discounted in public policy.

Curiously enough, they themselves are happy to advance positions based on their own beliefs ("if there is no evidence for harm there is no reason for the law to intervene") and it doesn't seem to occur to them that anyone might have any grounds for objectiong to their beliefs shaping public policy.

RikuoAmero

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bzzt! False dichotomy infringement! Lose ten points and miss a turn!

Enacting laws based on the principle of "don't hurt people" requires us to make judgments about what will hurt people. Both those who say, e.g., that gay marriage will be harmful to society and those who say the opposite are making such a judgment, and are urging that legislation should be enacted on the basis of that judgment. They are both claiming, in other words, to know "what is best for everyone".

Problem here is, that for the anti-gay marriage side, they have to ignore all the other nations and states that have so far passed pro gay marriage legislation and have yet to collapse or have any of the doom and gloom that we hear so often about come to pass.
I did hear of one recent tactic, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-woman-raised-by-lesbian-couple-comes-out-against-samesex-marriage-10120368.html, where a bad experience from one daughter of a same sex couple is now being projected towards everyone else and is being used as "evidence" that same sex couples are harmful, and that no-one should be allowed to have same-sex marriage...all because this one woman wanted a dad.

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Problem here is, that for the anti-gay marriage side, they have to ignore all the other nations and states that have so far passed pro gay marriage legislation and have yet to collapse or have any of the doom and gloom that we hear so often about come to pass.

Sure. Remember, I'm not advocating Iona's position here.

But I would say this much; legal marriage equality is a relatively recent phenomenon pretty well anywhere in the world, and the truth is that as yet we have little direct evidence, on way or the other, on the long term effects that it is likely to have. The fact that a recent policy hasn't yet had adverse outcomes isn't, in itself, much of an endorsement for the policy.

Most of the arguments to the effect that marriage equality will - or won't - have adverse social consequences aren't based on the experience of places that have already introduced it. They're based on observations or beliefs about the nature of human conjugal relationships, the nature of human societies, and the social significance of the institution of marriage.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I did hear of one recent tactic, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-woman-raised-by-lesbian-couple-comes-out-against-samesex-marriage-10120368.html, where a bad experience from one daughter of a same sex couple is now being projected towards everyone else and is being used as "evidence" that same sex couples are harmful, and that no-one should be allowed to have same-sex marriage...all because this one woman wanted a dad.

Yup. One person who was close enough to a same-sex marriage to be affected by it thinks she was adversely effected? Colour me unimpressed. Perhaps the dynamics of that particular relationship did affect her badly, but we could find countless opposite-sex marriages of which the same is true; that's hardly a knock-down argument against opposite-sex marriage. I don't think individual anecdotes have huge probative value in this particular discussion.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Not my expression, Silverharps.And Silverharps issue, as they so quaintly put it, was that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind and by implication people will use to try to effect things in the real world. My point being, if you don't believe in God then someone telling you they want to affect things because the OT taps into Gods mind is not going to incline you to assist them. More likely quite the opposite.
Which goes back to my question;
What gives you the right to decide whose ethos can be incorporated into the laws of the State? I prefer my democracies to be, well, democratic.
As many as the majority of the citizenry want? That seems democratic at least...

I stand by that , if the bible for instance said honour homosexual people because they have a special place in gods house, christians would believe they should do this , the fact that it says Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them." has been gleefully taken on board by christians over the years. What other conclusion is there but that christians think they doing what god wants?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

I stand by that , if the bible for instance said <...> what god wants?

So... your issue now is that christians think they're doing what god wants? Even though you know that god doesn't exist, so they can't possibly be doing what god wants?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

So... your issue now is that christians think they're doing what god wants? Even though you know that god doesn't exist, so they can't possibly be doing what god wants?

your are creating contradictions in your own head. Why do you try your best to misread my posts. Its christian believing in an entity (which there is no evidence for) and using that belief to affect things in the real world I have an issue. If you act out of incorrect beliefs about how the world works it will cause problems.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

your are creating contradictions in your own head. Why do you try your best to misread my posts. Its christian believing in an entity (which there is no evidence for) and using that belief to affect things in the real world I have an issue. If you act out of incorrect beliefs about how the world works it will cause problems.

I am? Did you not say:

silverharp wrote: »

What other conclusion is there but that christians think they doing what god wants?

I think you keep mistaking reading for misreading.
Anyhow, can you explain how someone can use a belief in an entity to affect things in the real world?
Let's take one person who has a belief in an entity and is prepared to use it. What advantage does he have over the other person who doesn't have a belief in an entity, so can't use it?
Particularly when confronted by a person who knows that the entity doesn't exist?

RikuoAmero

Let's take one person who has a belief in an entity and is prepared to use it. What advantage does he have over the other person who doesn't have a belief in an entity, so can't use it?

Obvious easy answer would be zeal, or fanaticism. Someone who is convinced that God is infallibly correct in his moral teachings, and that among those teachings are, say, don't allow homosexual marriage, will be more likely to be unceasing in their efforts to prevent said marriage legislation. They're much more...passionate is the word I think most fits in here.
The other person, the guy who doesn't believe in that entity, is less likely to be as zealous or fanatical in promoting homosexual marriage.

I have to ask why you asked that question. The answer is obvious, unless there's something else you're thinking of?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I am? Did you not say:
I think you keep mistaking reading for misreading.
Anyhow, can you explain how someone can use a belief in an entity to affect things in the real world?
Let's take one person who has a belief in an entity and is prepared to use it. What advantage does he have over the other person who doesn't have a belief in an entity, so can't use it?
Particularly when confronted by a person who knows that the entity doesn't exist?

Its not an advantage , religious parents would be more likely to treat their homosexual kids badly , ask any gay people that had to grow up in Catholic Ireland or in extreme religious groups in the US.
Religious attitudes to kids born out of wedlock damaged a lot of people in the past. In Ireland look at the laundries and less than above board adoption system.
On a group level , Rigging an educational system to ensure maximum indoctrination . here or other countries in the past , Italy under Mussolini for example. Other society issues like divorce or abortion where groups of religious people have very dogmatic views whereas a secular view would appreciate that there are limits citizens can be dictated to.

Thargor

Absolam wrote: »

So... your issue now is that christians think they're doing what god wants? Even though you know that god doesn't exist, so they can't possibly be doing what god wants?

Pathetic attempt there Absolam.

Absolam

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Obvious easy answer would be zeal, or fanaticism. Someone who is convinced that God is infallibly correct in his moral teachings, and that among those teachings are, say, don't allow homosexual marriage, will be more likely to be unceasing in their efforts to prevent said marriage legislation. They're much more...passionate is the word I think most fits in here. The other person, the guy who doesn't believe in that entity, is less likely to be as zealous or fanatical in promoting homosexual marriage.

Well, firstly that doesn't address the initial question of how someone can use a belief in an entity to affect things in the real world.
But to your point; I have a suspicion that the proportion of zealots amongst the religious is unlikely to be dissimilar to the proportion of zealots amongst atheists; so whilst a zealous religious person might be more committed than a disinterested atheist, a zealous atheist has an equal advantage in passion over a disinterested religious person. Since Silverharps objections weren't directed towards the fanatics, I think we can set them aside as we discover why there seems to be an issue with (or even evidence for) people using their belief in entities to affect things in the real world.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I have to ask why you asked that question. The answer is obvious, unless there's something else you're thinking of?

I asked it because Silverharp has been telling us about their problem with their idea that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind and by implication people will use to try to effect things in the real world.
It doesn't seem obvious to me that anyone believing that the OT is represented as tapping into Gods mind (if anyone does) would gain any facility to effect things in the real world as a result.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Its not an advantage , religious parents would be more likely to treat their homosexual kids badly , ask any gay people that had to grow up in Catholic Ireland or in extreme religious groups in the US.
Religious attitudes to kids born out of wedlock damaged a lot of people in the past. In Ireland look at the laundries and less than above board adoption system.

I think you may be throwing out spurious statistics here again; instead of me asking any gay people, how about you present some evidence for your assertion? An assertion which seems to be wandering somewhat afield of your point (again). Would you care to come back to the question?
Can you explain how someone can use a belief in an entity to affect things in the real world?
Let's take one person who has a belief in an entity and is prepared to use it. What advantage does he have over the other person who doesn't have a belief in an entity, so can't use it?
Particularly when confronted by a person who knows that the entity doesn't exist?

silverharp wrote: »

On a group level , Rigging an educational system to ensure maximum indoctrination . here or other countries in the past , Italy under Mussolini for example. Other society issues like divorce or abortion where groups of religious people have very dogmatic views whereas a secular view would appreciate that there are limits citizens can be dictated to.

That's probably interesting... but are you saying it has something to do with the question?