Bela
 

So as not to go off-topic in the other thread...

OK, so I'm an asshole about nearly everything, but I say something about religion and I get told not to be an asshole? Why does religion get an automatic pass? Why is that topic untouchable?

What you said was a personal insult to the thread creator. It's one thing to make a thread about atheism, calling all religions crap and whatnot, and another thing to rub it in their face.

So reason I called you an ass is not because your comment was something negative about religion, it was because of your insensitivity to that person.

I don't really think it was insensitive. That would imply I wouldn't know it had the possibility to offend. I'd classify it as callous disregard for their particular sensibilities.

It isn't personal. I would have said the same thing regardless of who posted it. If I step on someone's toes and they get bent out of shape because I offend their religious sensibilities, all the better.

why not just leave everyone alone and let them believe what they want? :/

Because I'm not a spineless, intellectual relativist? The rational people of the world have sat idly by for far too long and let these destructive, delusional mindsets run rampant in the public square.

Who's to say those who are religious arent rational? sure, there are extremists, but that applies to every group in the world, not just the religious. Those who believe there are more in the world, and arent simply sheep, can be just as rational as you.

Belief without proof is irrational, almost by definition.

To those who believes in certain religions, they do have "proofs" for what they believe in...

You may not understand / agree with their proofs but it doesn't mean it doesnt make sense for others, and just because you can't see the way they think, doesn't make them irrational...

I watched this interview the other day, and it was about a guy who's heavily religious, and it totally believe in science at the same time... he was using science about the universe to explain their religion....

It was really hard to understand, but it was a new perspective non-the-less...

See, the thing is...I do understand how they think. I was raised in an environment that let me get a good perspective on how the mind of a "believer" works. I understand arguments for the existence of supernatural entities. The truth-claims that are made by any religion are faulty at their very core.

Would we give the same credence to someone that says 2+2=6 or that the sky is purple? Would we listen to a person that says they are Napoleon Bonaparte reborn? Would someone that says little men speak to him in his dreams be considered rational? Of course not. It's time we stopped this sort of pathological deference to the absurdity of religion.

But not every "believer" is the same. we're a very varried group, from the "Jesus Freaks" who believe that their religion is the only one, and that all others are condemned to hell, regardless of how unreasonable it may seem, and how radically different their beliefs are from the core of the religion, *Cough*patrobertson*Cough* to the free thinking religious people who use reason to understand God more.

They all start from the point that there IS a supernatural force at work in the universe. That is a flawed assumption. Garbage in, garbage out.

Not true. They feel something more at work. Just because you dont feel the same thing doesnt make you automatically right. Just makes you different from them.

There are times I 'feel' that several small somethings are crawling on my legs. That doesn't change the reality that it is a misfiring of the nerve cells, and not several small somethings.

it's far different from that, i assure you.

An assurance without evidence. That's a surprise.

How can you prove emotion, or an experience? you cant tell a person born blind what it's like to see, let alone see the works of a great artist, or a beautiful natural occurance. you cant explain music to a deaf person. Not to say anyone's UNABLE to experience it, just that it's impossible to explain something along those lines.

What about those who can sense ghost/spirits...

Just because some of us can't see them, you can't just rule out and say they don't exist...

How does one resolve conflicts between competing ideals in your relativistic worldview? Not everyone can be right. I am concerned with objective observations and empirical evidence.

I can certainly say that until there is sufficient evidence produced, the idea that the supernatural existence will not affect my worldview. I would also suggest they compete in the Randi prize so that a) they can win some money and b) we'll finally have evidence for the existence of the supernatural. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims about how the universe works. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

if you're asking about differences in religion, i believe that, at our core, we're all worshipping the same God, just calling it by different names, and insisting that they're different. Sure, we have a few differences in the details, such as the afterlife, and some of the laws, but in the end, i believe, at least, we're all praying to the same thing.

as for emperical evidence, i have none but what i feel in my soul. And you'll call that into question and try to disprove what cant be disproved, and i'll try to prove what can only be felt. so there's no real point in debating.

Well there are proofs, it just depends on whether you choose to believe them.

If you choose not to believe them, no amount of "proofs" these people can bring up will satisfy your mind. (Photos, videos, people hearing things, predicting things, you'll give yourself reasons to not believe them - fake photo, fake video, just got lucky with coincidence etc...)

But the point isn't about whether you believe it or not. It's about your claim that these people are all just talking non-sense, ONLY BECAUSE you choose not to believe them. Maybe the ARE telling the truth...

I just don't think there's a need to make disrespectful remarks about someone else's believe only because you can't see the sense in it yourself.

And, it's a bit like, prove to me the sea is blue. But if you take a scoop of water out of the sea, it's clear.. so how come it's blue? so is the sea really blue? Or should we say that the sea is clear?

How your eyes works with your mind is not the 100% truth.

Yeah, we've gone over that bit before. I don't think a single person's perspective can be trusted. There are too many known problems with using that as a base point. If someone insists they are Cleopatra, are their subjective experiences to be treated equally as someone else? At what point do you draw the line and say "NO MORE"?

Thank you for illustrating my point. Once evidence is presented, studied, analyzed by many groups of people with rigorous methods, then I will accept it. I won't accept, merely on faith, someone's delusional idea that a Leprechaun lives in his hat just the same as I won't accept, on faith, that there is a supreme creator of the universe.

that's something that can solidly be disproved...

...is it just me, or are you trying to liken Religiousness to mental insanity? o_o

that was at your former comment.

Faith is important to me since it's something i can feel in my soul. it's something that's just there. it's impossible to explain or show you... but it's a good feeling. i hope you gain it someday. if not, then it's fine too, but it is quite... peaceful.

I think the tendency for humans to have some sort of sense of the supernatural or spirituality is a result of the physiology of the brain and our ability to quickly make patterns. I think the sense of spirituality is a misfiring of that ability. We're seeing patterns where there are, in fact, none.

I wouldn't say it was insanity, but I do think it might be classified as a neurological disorder.

Once again, i disagree. Though perhaps trying to comprehend it is a result of neurology, i doubt that the whole experience is. the feeling of it all.

But i wont debate with you, because we both know this'll end up just going back and forth for months.

I don't wish to cause anymore of an arguement, but I agree with Hrae. Feelings should not be the thing you live your life by, and just because you "feel" something doesn't mean you should live your life by it. Life has to be lived rationally. Imagine if people lived their lives totally by what they "felt". Imagine if emotions and feelings ruled people's actions. That would be a world I'd be afraid to live in. It is the mind and thought that should, and usually does, rule how people act. Because if we were ruled by emotions, we would be nothing more than animals.

Reason is the key to life. It's what separates man from beast. Without it, we would still exist in the dark age, without electricity, science, reason, thought, and all the inventions and commodities that we take for granted everyday.

And I hate the arguement "for his their own". There is only one truth. There cannot be many truths. There is right, and there is wrong. There is black and there is white. There is no middle ground or gray area. Any combination of black and white or right and wrong is a contradiction of reality, and therefore makes no sense. And wouldn't gray be a mixture of what was wrong and right? So whatever you were doing or thinking or believing, would have a piece of wrongnesss/evil in it.

You need a balance between emotion and logic, not one or the other. If you stictly follow either one alone, you'll either be a robot or an animal. You need a balance. Trust your feelings, but try to make sense of them, is what im saying.

and im not saying there are multiple truths. im saying that there are multiple PERSPECTIVES to different religions. Maybe they're all looking at the same thing at a different angle.

You shouldnt live your life by merely emotion or reason. you should have a good mix of both.

Or perhaps they are looking at reality and getting a skewed perspective due to parallax.

my toe hurts i think it got like crushed today

I just want to put in a reminder here that posts made against someone's religion for a discussion is allowed, but "making fun of them" when it is uncalled for is disrespectful. Personal insult or not, whether you say it to one person or to everyone, it's disrespectful and rude, end of story. Definitely not encouraged on the forums.

You can't say that just because you have a feeling means your religion exist. Its not sufficient evidence and anyone can make it up. I think you need a little more physical evidence.

@ Enen - Yeah! That's exactly what I was trying to say~ -feels so happy someone understands-

"an idea/thought that the existence of something is limited to the acceptance/knowledge in the human mind"

Nicely put!

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING HERE!:cries:

hi everyone ;D

Emotion is not something that should be cast aside and ignored. But they should not be the things that lead your actions in life. They should not control your actions. That should be what your mind is for. Yes, emotions are important, but you must use logic and your mind to understand what to do with them, not let the emotions make you impulsive and non thinking.

...that's kinda what i just said. im not wise enough in the subject, and have know proof. all i know is what i feel, and what i can make out of it. did you notice the last sentence of that? :/

and sec, i know they cant control all of your actions, but they CAN lead you to right and wrong. if you're doing something wrong, you'll get a sense of guilt, will you not?

That depends on the society in which one was raised. One culture might see the existence of catamites as "wrong" while another doesn't have a problem with it. Also, see: slavery.

Do you think an Arab feels a sense of "wrong" as he gleefully stones someone to death?

I dont know. i'm not in their shoes, nor are you. Neither of us know who the actual executioners feel about it. For example, i believe there was one queen in Britain who forgave her executioner, making him feel sadness over what he had to do. Also, nice little bit of propaganda in there with the "Gleefully" part.