Failing to see how ridiculous religion is until you escape it

liamw wrote: »

No, you hold a strong belief in something. Athiest's don't hold a strong belief in anything. We simply reject your belief. Of course I wouldn't say any old belief is evidence of some sort of brainwashing, but your entire belief system is based on a book written a few thousand years ago with stories of a jewish guy walking on water, turning water into wine, talking snakes etc. etc. You're entire belief has zero empirical evidence to back it up.

This isn't just any simple belief either. It tries to answer the biggest questions that mankind faces, but of course fails really badly, because 'God did it' is a non-explanation. Going even further and asserting that a specific God exists, answers your prayers and let's you into heaven is a massive massive leap of faith and when there's no need to invoke god in today's world I see it as even more pointless and ridiculous.

Sophistry.

Someone might believe in God, You believe that invoking god is pointless and ridiculous. 2 beliefs.


And as I said before, I'm sure most people see other's conflicting views as brainwashing.

To give a flip example, you might believe in string theory or the big bang explanation as to how the universe came into being.

But both these theories are incredibly complicated, I find it difficult to believe that everyone who adheres to them fully understands the science behind them.

Has someone who doesn't understand the implications of or science behind the big bang been brainwashed into believing it? Why else does he believe it.

Watch me say something ignorant that makes that scientific theory, which amounts to a belief for most people, seem ridiculous- "Something being created out of nothing! Ridiculous!"

To reiterate my previous argument, the brainwashing argument is a difficult one because it can be used in all directions by prople who firmly believe they have the truth. So let's all stop using it in general terms. I, of course, have no objections to it being used in specific terms.

Glenster wrote: »

Sophistry.

Someone might believe in God, You believe that invoking god is pointless and ridiculous. 2 beliefs.


And as I said before, I'm sure most people see other's conflicting views as brainwashing.

To give a flip example, you might believe in string theory or the big bang explanation as to how the universe came into being.

But both these theories are incredibly complicated, I find it difficult to believe that everyone who adheres to them fully understands the science behind them.

Has someone who doesn't understand the implications of or science behind the big bang been brainwashed into believing it? Why else does he believe it.

Watch me say something ignorant that makes that scientific theory, which amounts to a belief for most people, seem ridiculous- "Something being created out of nothing! Ridiculous!"

To reiterate my previous argument, the brainwashing argument is a difficult one because it can be used in all directions by prople who firmly believe they have the truth. So let's all stop using it in general terms. I, of course, have no objections to it being used in specific terms.

Well in a nut shell, you're completely wrong. Yes some people believe in the big bang because it's thrown around so much. But there's a reason it's called the Big Bang THEORY! Scientists and anyone who has any interst in the subject, accept that they don't understand it and are working with the theory that seems most likely given the data we currently have.

It's a much more progressive and healthy imo approach to perhaps one day finding some answers. But even if those answers are never found we still cannot accept such a preposterous idea such as "Well God must have done it". Belief in God is a definitive approach, science and atheism in general never claim to be definitive in our approach to understanding the bigger picture.

I'm sure someone here can explain that a lot better than I can, but it doesn't seem to matter, religious people will always try and explain away atheism as another belief system despite it being the complete opposite.

Glenster wrote: »

Sophistry.

Someone might believe in God, You believe that invoking god is pointless and ridiculous. 2 beliefs.

You're going to get nowhere calling atheism a belief mate. It's not. Not believing that some Jewish guty rose from the dead is not a belief, it's a lack of belief

Glenster wrote: »

To give a flip example, you might believe in string theory or the big bang explanation as to how the universe came into being.

But both these theories are incredibly complicated, I find it difficult to believe that everyone who adheres to them fully understands the science behind them.

Has someone who doesn't understand the implications of or science behind the big bang been brainwashed into believing it? Why else does he believe it.

Watch me say something ignorant that makes that scientific theory, which amounts to a belief for most people, seem ridiculous- "Something being created out of nothing! Ridiculous!"

To reiterate my previous argument, the brainwashing argument is a difficult one because it can be used in all directions by prople who firmly believe they have the truth. So let's all stop using it in general terms. I, of course, have no objections to it being used in specific terms.

Do we have to have this discussion again? Religious faith is not the same as accepting science no matter how much you like to think otherwise. As I said the last time, one comes down to whether or not someone is lying to you and the other comes down to whether you accept that someone knows something that they cannot possibly know

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Again, that was the point being made. The guy was laughing at the beliefs of others because he thought they were ridiculous while getting offended at others laughing at his that others think are equally ridiculous. He was being hypocritical

And that's a point I completely agree with.

There's nothing worse than a hypocrite. Particularly a stubborn and easily offended one.

Glenster wrote: »

Therefore saying that ash Wedsnday or cat sacrificing or throwing money in a wishing well is ridiculous is all well and good but it you must always remember that you are not stating a fact but expressing an opinion, a belief.

I'll try to illustrate the agnostics/atheists' point of view here with a lotto analogy.

With the lotto, the odds of winning depend on two things:

1. How many balls there are
2. How many balls get picked out

In general, if there are more balls, the lesser your odds of winning, and the more numbers you are required to match (up to a certain point), the lesser you chance of winning even more.

From an agnostic's point of view, the question of theism is a lottery with one trillion numbers, and you have two options:
1. Pay €10,000 and choose ten numbers and hope that when you die, you have chosen the ten numbers that were drawn, or
2. You have the option to not play the game.

For all intents and purposes, the odds of your ten numbers coming up from a drum of a trillion numbers is close to 1 in 1 trillion to the power of ten. That's a 1, followed by 120 zeroes.

So from an agnostic's point of view, choosing option 1 is a mug's game. The odds of winning are so astronimically unlikely that no human being who has ever lived (and will ever live) is going to win this lottery. Therefore you're better off keeping your money and enjoying it.

An atheist's view isn't far off that, except that the drum contains an infinite number of balls and theism represents a few million or billion or trillion (doesn't matter) balls in the drum, and each theist chooses that one ball which represents their belief. Mathematically and scientifically, with an infinite number of balls, the chances of your ball being selected is zero.

Therefore spending your money on a game where it is mathematically impossible to win is utterly ridiculous and laughable.

Glenster wrote: »

I hear Stephen Fry on QI tell me that lumberjacks in canada suffer from a disease and i think "Oh really?"

They enter my brain as facts.

But Stephen Fry, unlike the Pope, really is infallable!

Glenster wrote: »

It's the lying bit that I dont accept. They dont have to be lying to you, they could just be wrong in their interpretaion of the facts.

That is another option but the point is that there are facts to interpret! If I don't accept a scientist's conclusion I can look at the evidence he used to arrive at it and see if his reasoning is sound. I cannot do that for religion because no matter how convincing an argument might be, there is no way to independently verify it. The ancient greeks used to think that science could be done through reason alone but our reasoning is flawed which is why things need to be verified. One example of this (probably a myth but it makes the point) is that the ancient greeks used to think that heavier objects fell faster because that made sense to them. Then apparently Galileo dropped two objects of different weights off the leaning tower of pisa and saw that they landed at exactly the same time. A simple experiment proved a thousand years of philosophical reasoning wrong. Then if I don't accept what Galileo says I can perform the experiment for myself

Glenster wrote: »

And FYI I'm not talking about religion and science per se, I'm trying to bust down the artificial distinction being made between beliving a religious ideal and believing any other kind of thing.
...
And that is why I dont have any truck with that oft used slur leveled at religious people that they are just sheep and that if they checked the facts yada yada yada. It might be true but it's true for everything........
...
Note that I'm not attacking the science behind it. I'm just concerned that it's hypocritical to deride religious belief for not being based in fact and then to turn around and blithely accept a scientific theory without checking or understanding the facts of it.

It's not an artificial distinction as I keep trying to explain to you.

Glenster wrote: »

We're all guilty of it, I see david attenborough telling me that a bat evolved a specific type of toe to survive better in this region of brazil and I think
"yeah OK"

I hear Stephen Fry on QI tell me that lumberjacks in canada suffer from a disease and i think "Oh really?"

They enter my brain as facts.

For all I know they could be wrong.

It's funny you mention that because those things don't enter my brain as facts. Many times I've heard something on QI and gone to look it up for myself before repeating it and if I hadn't done that I would always qualify it with "I heard this on QI" to clarify that Stephen Fry had said it but that doesn't mean it's right. And I was able to do that because everything that's said on QI and everything that David Attenborough says are independently verifiable, which religious claims are not. I have to accept them "on faith" which is why religious claims are not the same as other claims

Glenster wrote: »

The hole in the analogy is that you assume that it is highly unlikely to win in the religion lottery. That there is only one answer. Upon what is that assumption based?

There are thousands and thousands and thousands of religions and at most one is right

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That is another option but the point is that there are facts to interpret! If I don't accept a scientist's conclusion I can look at the evidence he used to arrive at it and see if his reasoning is sound. I cannot do that for religion because no matter how convincing an argument might be, there is no way to independently verify it. The ancient greeks used to think that science could be done through reason alone but our reasoning is flawed which is why things need to be verified. One example of this (probably a myth but it makes the point) is that the ancient greeks used to think that heavier objects fell faster because that made sense to them. Then apparently Galileo dropped two objects of different weights off the leaning tower of pisa and saw that they landed at exactly the same time. A simple experiment proved a thousand years of philosophical reasoning wrong. Then if I don't accept what Galileo says I can perform the experiment for myself

You could theoretically test this, but you haven't (for the purposes of this argument you haven't tested everything you believe to be true), you just accept it.

Gallileo has my infinite respect, he tested something everyone told him was fact. But even he couldn't test everything, there were something he had to accept as true without evidence, like all of us.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not an artificial distinction as I keep trying to explain to you.

I cant see the difference between the person accepting a religious truth and a person accepting a scientific truth. I understand the difference between the two methods, religion & science, but I dont get what makes one of those people more correct or more rational than the other.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's funny you mention that because those things don't enter my brain as facts. Many times I've heard something on QI and gone to look it up for myself before repeating it and if I hadn't done that I would always qualify it with "I heard this on QI" to clarify that Stephen Fry had said it but that doesn't mean it's right. And I was able to do that because everything that's said on QI and everything that David Attenborough says are independently verifiable, which religious claims are not. I either have to accept them "on faith" or reject them, which is why religious claims are not the same as other claims

Well then you must bethe person who checks up the facts on everything he hears (it must be exhausting).

I know the difference between the religous claims and claims made through the scientific method and they are different. I'm not talking about the scientist and the church leader, I'm talking about bob and joe on the street.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But that's not the game. The game is thousands of people all telling me to pick different numbers or I'll be killed

Thats not the theoretical game.

And it's not real life either, no-one's ever told me to pick a religion or they'll kill me.

There's no point in being facecious.

Glenster wrote: »

What if the game was 'pick the right number and you wont be killed' and it was free to enter? Would you enter then?

But it's not free to enter. It's never free to enter. Every religion requires something from you. Otherwise it wouldn't be a religion.

The lotto analogy isn't entirely accurate because it can't reflect the fact that you enter the draw whether or not you pick any numbers.

To make it more accurate, you have to imagine that some of the balls (those representing theism or any other religious belief) cost €10,000 and you can only pick one. The rest of the balls cost nothing and you are allowed to pick as many of them as you like. By default, if you do not pick, you are assigned all of the free balls. If your ball comes up, you win.

What would you pick? The expensive ones with zero chance of coming up. Or the free ones with an mathematical certainty of coming up?

Also mathematically impossible is a confusing term, it is usually used to mean that the possibility is negligable. Surely mathematically possible makes more sense.

No I mean mathematically impossible - the chances of your number coming up when drawn from an infinite pool of numbers is effectively zero.

Glenster wrote: »

You could theoretically test this, but you haven't (for the purposes of this argument you haven't tested everything you believe to be true), you just accept it.

Gallileo has my infinite respect, he tested something everyone told him was fact. But even he couldn't test everything, there were something he had to accept as true without evidence, like all of us.

I cant see the difference between the person accepting a religious truth and a person accepting a scientific truth. I understand the difference between the two methods, religion & science, but I dont get what makes one of those people more correct or more rational than the other.

Do you remember my analogy about the two doors?

There are two doors. You have been told that one has a bottomless pit behind it but there might not be a pit behind either. In a moment you must put a blindfold on and walk through one. A person is standing in front of each of the doors.

1. The first guy says: I have looked behind this door and I saw that there is no pit. You can look yourself before putting the blindfold on if you want
2. The second guy says: I have not looked behind this door. No one has. The door is locked but I believe that there is no pit behind it

Yes the first guy could be wrong and he could be lying but no matter how much trust you put in the second guy, he doesn't know any more than you do. He can't be lying because lying implies he actually knows something but he can be wrong and he is far more likely to be wrong than the first guy because he has no way of testing his belief for validity. With the first guy it comes down to his ability to interpret the evidence in front of him and if you don't trust his ability you can check for yourself but you might as well randomly pick a door as ask the second guy. You have just as much information as the second guy but he claims to know something you don't, something that he cannot possibly know

Glenster wrote: »

Well then you must be the person who checks up the facts on everything he hears (it must be exhausting).

No I don't but if I ever intend to make a decision based on something I will look it up. Many things don't actually matter, it makes no difference if you're right or wrong so there's no point verifying it. An example of this for me is global warming. I know there's a contraversy and I get the impression the deniers are wrong but it doesn't make any difference to how I live my life so I don't care enough to look it up. Your religious belief is not one of those things. It's an important decision that effects how you live your life in a big way so it matters if you're wrong. That's why I asked the questions I would ask of anyone who was making a grand claim and I found that the religious leaders could provide no answers and just told me to have "fath" that they were right and all the other thousands of religions are wrong. That doesn't cut it I'm afraid.