Skip to main content

Topic: The Awesomesauce with Religion (Read 121093 times)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
The Awesomesauce with Religion
I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference? :)
  • Last Edit: 2014-02-20, 18:13:52 by Frenzie

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #125
Fourth, my aim with this debate was to get to learn about your world view, fairly personally.

Well, that explains a lot: I thought the topic was the Harris video. You already know my world view. Everything is physical, and morality is based on feelings.

I'll include a few of the points I wrote before I reached the end of your message.
Also, I note that you make this a case against Christianity rather than against religiousness as such. Christianity is our culturally traditional downtrending religion, already submissive and doesn't resist much. If you think that by refuting one easy victim among religions you refute them all, I disagree. It would be thinking like by refuting Newtonian physics one refutes all physics, or perhaps even all science.

The context is Christianity, specifically the type Craig and the audience practices. You keep throwing in this completely unrelated stuff while proclaiming none of what Harris said applies. Well no, of course not. Big surprise.

So, you say "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" is mainstream Christianity. Then I suppose it won't be too hard for you to dig up an actual reference for this claim by a theologian you consider mainstream, right?

Missionaries exist to save souls. But let's feign ignorance of the real world and go ad fontes.
Quote from: John Calvin
As language cannot describe the severity of the divine vengeance on the reprobate, their pains and torments are figured to us by corporeal things, such as darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth, inextinguishable fire, the ever-gnawing worm (Matthew 8:12; 22:13; Mark 9:43; Isaiah 66:24). It is certain that by such modes of expression the Holy Spirit designed to impress all our senses with dread [...] Wherefore, the Apostle made no trivial declaration, when he said that unbelievers shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).


Or maybe you didn't listen to the reason. Such as, if good and evil people exist, and God is just, then appropriate reward and punishment for the people also exist. Where would you put Hitler? In heaven? With Hitler there, how can you call it heaven?

Hitler wouldn't go to Heaven because he committed suicide--unless possibly if he managed to repent in his last fleeting seconds. You're making the exact same argument Harris made, yet somehow if he says it he's an idiot.

The more serious question to you is this: What is a good reason for you? Good according to whom? Good according to hippies? Religions are well-rehearsed in defining good and evil. Let's see you perform better right now.

Of course I am perfectly aware that you won't define anything. As long as this is so, it's dishonest of me to accept any of your judgements that some things are good or evil. You have to make the concepts of good and evil intelligible first, then it will be intelligible to judge. Your judgements thus far are unintelligible.

I have already laid out my system of morality and its bases, and you already rejected it as immoral claptrap. Been there, done that. But you would quibble that among billions of Hindus and Taoists and Buddhists there are not at least few good people to be found, whose only "flaw" is not being Christian? Seriously?

Everybody have parents who enable their birth. We don't enable our own birth. The same way, the entire humanity has a parent or guardian. Without it, the common properties and concepts shared by all humans, such free will, responsibility, good and evil, etc. don't make sense and should provide no topic.

Above all, those three paragraphs are a giant red herring. I reply only to say that ignorance of evolutionary theory can be cured by reading The Selfish Gene or one of its more up-to-date successors (e.g. Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True or one of Dawkins' own later works), and ignorance of cognitive neuroscience and its philosophical implications might be cured by reading something by e.g. Damasio or Dennett.

How does the semantics of these statements work for you? What is the theoretical concept system that provides the background against which you read them? The answer appears to be that since these staments make a mockery of theological definitions, then this is for you a sufficient reason for accepting them, nevermind that at the same go they violate any and all logical definitions, including the rules of scientific terminology and taxonomy. I am simply baffled how this is all okay for you. But okay, I just take note and move on.

No, Harris wasn't laying out a world view. So what? It's like you watched a movie and afterwards complain it had too many images and not enough text in it. However many issues there may or may not be with Harris' world view, this particular one is a silly fabrication.

Above you casually mentioned something called apathism to Jim. This sounds like it could explain much.

Back in the '90s, I used these devices called diskettes to transfer files between computers. What does that explain?

I'm not sure how accurate of a description apatheist is in any case. I knew vastly more about a wide variety of religions past and present than most of my friends and acquaintances, especially those from religious backgrounds. Then as well as now I still do more to increase my knowledge. Just last year I read The Cambridge Guide to Jewish History, Religion, and Culture. You'll find that's a common trait among atheists.

In the sense I meant it, you too are an apatheist. Whether or not God exists, God helps those who help themselves (and others).

but if I would, another debate with you is precisely the way. Thank you very much.

Textual debates especially, but to some extent also radio debates, are a very different animal compared to debates you attend in person or watch on TV.

Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #126
Tomas of Aquino has demonstrated why it is wrong centuries ago.

My 6 years old daughter knows more about the facts of life than he knew.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #127
Incidentally, the Dutch philosopher Floris van den Berg wrote the book Philosophy for a Better World about why philosophy is not noncommittal. I haven't read it, but I might go listen to him on Monday if I find the time.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #128

Tomas of Aquino has demonstrated why it is wrong centuries ago.

My 6 years old daughter knows more about the facts of life than he knew.

I hope not. He was known for having a life of vice before entering monastery... (therefore the importance of the questions he got an answer, such has why not doing something if it gives us pleasure... )
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #129
I hope not. He was known for having a life of vice before entering monastery.

There are priests today who like boys little boys, so you don't have to burrow into the past for examples of divines gone bad.

Hopefully, Francis will be more successful at dealing with that problem, but it doesn't look hopeful at the moment.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #130
There are priests today who like boys little boys, so you don't have to burrow into the past for examples of divines gone bad.

And plumbers, English teachers, military, house wifes, etc...
A matter of attitude.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #131
Hopefully, Francis will be more successful at dealing with that problem, but it doesn't look hopeful at the moment.

Francis is my favorite saint, and the Franciscans are my favorite Catholic order. I don't mind indirectly being named after him, indeed. :)

house wifes

Ah yes, The Graduate.

Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #132
And plumbers, English teachers, military, house wifes, etc...

Indeed, but none of take vows of celibacy. They are all scum, however.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #133
Indeed, but none of take vows of celibacy. They are all scum, however.

And how is that related with your advices to me that I should not mention Tomas of Aquino?
A matter of attitude.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #134
Ersi MUST be wrong - just because he "needs" so way too many words to "explain" "the truth".

Another Bloody Mary, please... make it double...
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #135

You already know my world view. Everything is physical, and morality is based on feelings.

Actually, I don't remember you putting it so succinctly before. Thanks. It's pretty outlandish for me to consider these things as the basis for everything else, even hard to imagine, so I appreciate that you spelled it out this way now, stunningly clarifying. Particularly the latter, "morality is based on feelings." It makes me speechless. Luckily I am typing here, so speechlessness doesn't show.

I can see now how the rest of what you've said largely makes sense - from your point of view. I can see how Harris has become to enjoy your admiration, even though I haven't encountered a single favourable review of his books. "Morality is based on feelings" easily translates to "I'm right because I have a burning extrovert passion that drives me to condemn what disgusts and repulses me. It feels right to me to do it, therefore it is right that I do it." This is the gist of Harris for me. The more I hear of him, the more this impression solidifies.

Your point of view will never become my point of view. Physical existence never worked as the basis of everything else for me. I tried, but could not build on such basis. I have always been very skeptical of sense-data and only dealt with things in life that keep recurring and refuse to go away (like in that Philip K. Dick quote). I had an intense intellectual struggle trying to reconcile psychic facts (first-person, not what other people say or think on the matter) with materialism. Sadly, materialism proved to be lacking. Various forms of dualism handily explain what I needed explained, but I suppose this is where you agree - Occam's razor calls for monism -, so I sided with monism as soon as I found a good exposition of it. In my case spiritual monism of course.


So, you say "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" is mainstream Christianity. Then I suppose it won't be too hard for you to dig up an actual reference for this claim by a theologian you consider mainstream, right?

Missionaries exist to save souls.

We will forever disagree on what it means to save souls.


Quote from: John Calvin
[...]unbelievers shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

We will also forever disagree on what unbeliever means. Calvin's understanding of it was political. He was the fundie of his era, even considering that witchburnings were pretty mainstream at the time. He was fundier than that. The current mainstream interpretation of "unbeliever" is definitely not "whoever stands in the way of expansion of my church". You can interpret Calvin this way, but not modern Calvinism.

Anyway, your original wording "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" implies that unbeliever should mean something like "anyone not living in a Christian country and/or not baptised and/or not a Church member". This is a discordant interpretation of the word for any era. There's even a Bible verse against such interpretation: "Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts." (Romans 2:14-15)

I admit that questions like "Will the BC generations and people born in non-Christian countries go to heaven or not?" are recurring among rank-and-file Christians. This question particularly puzzles the members of any stricter sects, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bible verse I cited implies a brighter eternity for any Good Gentile, but I can see how from neoatheist (and militant fundie - these two are of the same mind) point of view, the mere emergence of the question already gives sufficient reason to jump to "Anyone born in the wrong place at the wrong time will go to hell." However, this is an uncharitable assumption, not a source quote from a mainstream theologian. For example the official doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses (whom I do not consider mainstream, but rather a bunch of apocalyptic literalist fundies, who luckily don't riot) does not allow for such interpretation.

I appreciate your quote-digging. Nice try. Anyway, enough Christianity. This never was the topic for me. I hope you're not like Macallan and bone-headedly assume that I am Christian. I am not. I am simply someone with a first-person view on religiousness, so I know what devout Christians think and feel. And I also know what they write, of course. *Devout* believers of all religions are alike. Mere nominal church/temple/mosque-goers are not. Hypocrites of any ideology will always bicker and fight against their own likes, religious hypocrites against religious, commie hypocrites against commies, crony capitalists against other cronies.

Also, Harris' video never was the topic for me. It merely gave an occasion to talk about how things really are from non-atheist perspective, if you care to drop the double standards some day. Henceforth, I disregard points on Christianity.


Everybody have parents who enable their birth. We don't enable our own birth. The same way, the entire humanity has a parent or guardian. Without it, the common properties and concepts shared by all humans, such free will, responsibility, good and evil, etc. don't make sense and should provide no topic.

Above all, those three paragraphs are a giant red herring. I reply only to say that ignorance of evolutionary theory can be cured by reading The Selfish Gene or one of its more up-to-date successors (e.g. Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True or one of Dawkins' own later works), and ignorance of cognitive neuroscience and its philosophical implications might be cured by reading something by e.g. Damasio or Dennett.

Evolutionary theory is okay by me. Except the materialist version of it.

My aim with the concept of guardian of humanity was fairly modest. I was merely putting a name on the metaphysical placeholder of common properties and values of humanity. The reasoning goes this way: Life exists. Free will exists. So do all the other human capacities and values. Where do they exist? How? This is where the metaphysical placeholder comes into play. This is how universals work in the realist perspective - there are metaphysical placeholders, species and categories ('realism' as technically understood in philosophy). This is standard philosophy, but of course I understand that this is something you refuse to acknowledge.

The point where I radically disagree with you is the assumption that cognitive neuroscience has any philosophical implications. For example, Krauss believes that quantum theories give him reason to say that something came from nothing - existence cropped up just so, for no reason, but definitely did! - and 2+2=5 "for very large values of 2". My reply is that philosophy must always stay rational and logical. In fact, philosophy *is* rationality itself. Mad Scientist (I wish it were just a literary character, but it isn't) cannot declare rationality null and void due to some of his alleged findings. There will always be more findings and *you have to make sense of absolutely all findings,* and this is what philosophy is for - to make sense of things. With rationality and logic declared null and void, how are you supposed to continue to make sense of things?

So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.


No, Harris wasn't laying out a world view. So what?

He was arguing against a world view. Nonsensical quibble can't refute a coherent world view. Maybe it can in Harris' science, but it can't in philosophy. In philosophy, when you are up against a world view, you have these choices:

1. Destructive criticism. Demonstrate the internal incoherence of the world view by means of the tools that built the self-same world view. You have to use the same tools, concepts and reasoning which built the world view, because if you can make it implode by its own methods, then this is what it means to demonstrate its internal incoherence. (But if instead you go with irrationality against rationality, you are not demonstrating the internal incoherence of rationality. You are only demonstrating your own irrationality.)

2. Constructive criticism. Offer a better alternative. To replace a world view, build another world view and demonstrate how it's better, has a bigger explanatory scope, is more economic or elegant, etc. In the constructive approach, it definitely takes a properly laid out world view to challenge a world view.

Whether destructive or constructive, Harris miserably failed at criticism.


In the sense I meant it, you too are an apatheist. Whether or not God exists, God helps those who help themselves (and others).

This is flattering, so I say I agree with the "God helps..." bit. In fact, I completely agree with it. Even more, my assent with this bit is more than nominal. I know also *why* and *how* God helps those who help themselves and others. And this knowledge motivates me a lot in life.

So, now to the disagreements again. Since the described knowledge is briskly and brilliantly motivating, I find the apatheist label inappropriately gloomy. Better descriptive terms can be found. And "Whether or not God exists" sticks out as unnecessarily undermining its own context. It's semantically discrepant and rhetorically superfluous.


but if I would, another debate with you is precisely the way. Thank you very much.

Textual debates especially, but to some extent also radio debates, are a very different animal compared to debates you attend in person or watch on TV.

Just a loosely related quote from myself not so long ago: Debate is an exercise of argumentation. Debate doesn't lead to truth, but shows who can build more solid and coherent argumentation, which in a good case should lead both participants to some considerations as to their overall world view, if they have it. Rather than a way to convince others of something, a philosophical debate is a good opportunity to learn about one's own beliefs oneself.

@String
Promise: I will answer in a separate post in this thread.

  • string
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Forum Staff
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #136
So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.
I suspect you may be thinking of theology; Philosophy is derived from the Greek Philosophia, love of Wisdom.

Not that theology is the private playground of anyone either.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #137
I can see now how the rest of what you've said largely makes sense - from your point of view. I can see how Harris has become to enjoy your admiration, even though I haven't encountered a single favourable review of his books. "Morality is based on feelings" easily translates to "I'm right because I have a burning extrovert passion that drives me to condemn what disgusts and repulses me. It feels right to me to do it, therefore it is right that I do it." This is the gist of Harris for me. The more I hear of him, the more this impression solidifies.

Currently morality is obviously more than "just" feelings, but feelings are of the utmost importance: rather than is based on perhaps I should've written depends on. In any case, feelings and desires play an extremely important role. Without feelings, morality fails. Someone who doesn't feel pain doesn't develop empathy, and thus no concept of right and wrong beyond the self. The outcome tends to be even worse when someone's mirror neurons are lacking. But when I say morality, I actually do mean rational reflection of the matter too, not only blindly trusting our feelings or gut "instinct".* To that I might add that without the feeling of the heart and a couple of other vital organs, there's no consciousness, no self, at all. Philosophically speaking, these scientific facts lead me in a direction similar to especially Spinoza but also Hume, and far removed from, if not downright opposed to, Kant.

* We have a very clever "gut". It uses our memory of past events to statistically determine what response to a particular situation will most likely make us feel good or bad, all subconsciously.

The Bible verse I cited implies a brighter eternity for any Good Gentile, but I can see how from neoatheist (and militant fundie - these two are of the same mind) point of view, the mere emergence of the question already gives sufficient reason to jump to "Anyone born in the wrong place at the wrong time will go to hell."

No, that's not the "neoatheist" perspective. The "neoatheist" perspective is that God does not exist and Hell does not exist, no matter what "God" and "Hell" might mean unless they are used purely metaphorically. That includes all versions of God and Hell, including a semi-just Hell according to your interpretation of the Bible.

Also, Harris' video never was the topic for me. It merely gave an occasion to talk about how things really are from non-atheist perspective, if you care to drop the double standards some day. Henceforth, I disregard points on Christianity.

Double standards such as what?

My aim with the concept of guardian of humanity was fairly modest. I was merely putting a name on the metaphysical placeholder of common properties and values of humanity. The reasoning goes this way: Life exists. Free will exists. So do all the other human capacities and values. Where do they exist? How? This is where the metaphysical placeholder comes into play. This is how universals work in the realist perspective - there are metaphysical placeholders, species and categories ('realism' as technically understood in philosophy). This is standard philosophy, but of course I understand that this is something you refuse to acknowledge.

If you're purely using these word as a convenient handles then all atheists are believers, or alternatively you're not a believer. Your "argument" is dishonest and you know it. Calling the common properties of humanity "guardian" obviously implies much more than merely the common properties of humanity. You can't go around saying "this ball is red" and when I say "no it's not", reply that I'm denying the existence of green because that's how you were using the word red.

So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.

Well, that leaves me speechless. Without science, your inductive reasoning can basically be described as garbage in, garbage out.

1. Destructive criticism. Demonstrate the internal incoherence of the world view by means of the tools that built the self-same world view. You have to use the same tools, concepts and reasoning which built the world view, because if you can make it implode by its own methods, then this is what it means to demonstrate its internal incoherence. (But if instead you go with irrationality against rationality, you are not demonstrating the internal incoherence of rationality. You are only demonstrating your own irrationality.)

Translation: "How dare you not accept my utterly ludicrous premises! You should take my premises and try to find something inconsistent in my reasoning based on those premises instead." It does not matter one iota how internally coherent your views are if they do not align with reality.

2. Constructive criticism. Offer a better alternative. To replace a world view, build another world view and demonstrate how it's better, has a bigger explanatory scope, is more economic or elegant, etc. In the constructive approach, it definitely takes a properly laid out world view to challenge a world view.

Whether destructive or constructive, Harris miserably failed at criticism.

Just because he didn't spell out the (seemingly) obvious conclusions? A proper argument should give you the facts in such a way that you can make up your own mind about them, not get you to regurgitate the conclusions.

And "Whether or not God exists" sticks out as unnecessarily undermining its own context. It's semantically discrepant and rhetorically superfluous.

It would work fine for me with Spinoza's or Einstein's "God", but I feel that using the word in such a way is unhelpful. Hence the admittedly inelegant addition.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #138

So to some extent we are at cross purposes here. But it is an interesting consequence of your concept of an aloof God that it rather rubbishes the idea of any religion based on its own conception of God. No religion is correct (because correctness is not a human prerogative), nor is it important which one is followed, nor does it matter anyway because "God" will continue to ignore what is done. To assign consequences to acts one needs to enter into religions again, which is a futile act because none can ever be correct.

Isn't it a little bit too fatalistic to conclude that none can ever be correct? As long as you have energy to continue the quest for truth, your conclusion that all is futile is not completely sincere.


We've clashed over the matter of evidence for God, or rather the lack of it, and the answer always amounts to "don't expect physical proof, the proof lies in properly applied reasoning and my reasoning is better than yours, therefore there is a God". I'm sorry but that remains not very convincing.
The point is not to convince anyone to accept any particular persuasion. The point is mere demonstration of reasoning, rationality, intellect, that's it. It's for show. The fact that, to demonstrate reasoning, one needs a thesis to defend, or an opposing motion to go against, is secondary. The show itself is the main thing.

It's a form of bravery to participate in such public displays, because you are making your intellect vulnerable to attacks. Yet it's all perfectly worth while because your intellect gets training in the process. I suppose materialists would say that brain muscle also needs training like any other muscle, and I'd have to agree, even though I'd clash with them on the notion that intellect is as if a physical muscle. Either way, fitness is not a too terrible idea. Intellect is a live thing and needs exercise.

The point is this: Assuming that rationality and irrationality are distinct and not of the same value,there's a need to distinguish between them and choose your preference. Either you side with rationality or irrationality. Having picked your side, live with your choice the rest of your life and be happy.

Please don't think that I am trying to push you either way, but I personally happen to care for rationality a lot. I don't care much which side you choose, but whenever I encounter people in my life, I evaluate them on the scale of rationality and irrationality and I enquire if they made an informed choice in this area. This is my version of the so-called Socratic method.

You can choose either side, but it matters to make an informed choice, right? And then you can follow your own path. You don't have to listen to others any more, because you know perfectly well for yourself where you are going. Rather, when other people ask about it, you will be able to explain yourself. Which is generally good for getting along with people.


But, as an agnostic myself (with, I admit, atheist leanings) I am comfortable with the idea of positing alternative God Concepts and exploring what it would mean, as long the result is not put forward as "THE TRUTH", the same as in all those defunct Religions.

The same way as in science, in the end you select the most workable theory. Even if not the absolute truth itself, it shall serve you as the best guideline you honestly managed to muster.


Religion has been responsible (and still is) for all kind of atrocities and wasted lives. Reason enough I would think.

Yes, I know. It's tough. Still, my immediate ancestors experienced the regimes of Stalin and Lenin. Reason enough to think about atheism too. Think well.


So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.
I suspect you may be thinking of theology; Philosophy is derived from the Greek Philosophia, love of Wisdom.

Not that theology is the private playground of anyone either.

I meant precisely philosophy, Love of Wisdom. Theology is one of the carousels or such in the playground of philosophy, not for beginners.

Science (Latin: knowledge) is the mass of data to make sense of. Maybe think of it as sand in the sandbox. Kids try it out with their little buckets to give it nice shapes. Otherwise it's formless, senseless, purposeless.

Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #139
Without science, your inductive reasoning can basically be described as garbage in, garbage out.

In time.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #140

1. Destructive criticism. Demonstrate the internal incoherence of the world view by means of the tools that built the self-same world view. You have to use the same tools, concepts and reasoning which built the world view, because if you can make it implode by its own methods, then this is what it means to demonstrate its internal incoherence. (But if instead you go with irrationality against rationality, you are not demonstrating the internal incoherence of rationality. You are only demonstrating your own irrationality.)

Translation: "How dare you not accept my utterly ludicrous premises! You should take my premises and try to find something inconsistent in my reasoning based on those premises instead." It does not matter one iota how internally coherent your views are if they do not align with reality.

Better translation: Know well what you criticise. This is to make the implosion of the construct doubly certain, if this is what you definitely want - and safe for both of the parties involved, if you care about lives. Harris' performance was subpar.


2. Constructive criticism. Offer a better alternative. To replace a world view, build another world view and demonstrate how it's better, has a bigger explanatory scope, is more economic or elegant, etc. In the constructive approach, it definitely takes a properly laid out world view to challenge a world view.

Whether destructive or constructive, Harris miserably failed at criticism.

Just because he didn't spell out the (seemingly) obvious conclusions? A proper argument should give you the facts in such a way that you can make up your own mind about them, not get you to regurgitate the conclusions.

I agree with your "should" bit. Harris failed by this very measure. And don't make the mistake of thinking that I am defending Craig here. The fact that I don't side with Harris doesn't mean I side with Craig. They are both annoying obstacles for me to get myself across to YOU.

I need to rest for a few days now. No, I am not asking for permission. I just take it.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #141

Quote from: string on 19 February '14, 11:18:34
Religion has been responsible (and still is) for all kind of atrocities and wasted lives. Reason enough I would think.
Yes, I know. It's tough. Still, my immediate ancestors experienced the regimes of Stalin and Lenin. Reason enough to think about atheism too. Think well.
Would you mind thinking, genius?
All sorts of ideology are quasireligions - or even religions formally.

Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #142
the Problem with religion is everyone have their own religion .

how many Human in this earth , that's the Number of religion .

Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #143
Would you mind thinking, genius?
All sorts of ideology are quasireligions - or even religions formally.

Ouch! You pricked the Russian in Josh, String. Be kinder next time.

At any rate, name one religion that's doing harm in the world today. ;)

Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #144
I thought Stalinism and atheism weren't exactly the same thing.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #145
Exactly! Meaning you're right.
But in terms of social psychology (oh, my!), both, to take, stalinism and poo-tinism are diseases. And are alike sorts of faschism. Such regimes (speaking of the ruling) base on the mass's attitude to the reality - which is very close to religious one, often: initially "the people" enthrones some "heroes"/leaders who allegedly were believed to overthrow "the bad guys" and bring in "the better future for the nation".

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #146
Better translation: Know well what you criticise. This is to make the implosion of the construct doubly certain, if this is what you definitely want - and safe for both of the parties involved, if you care about lives. Harris' performance was subpar.

Well, if you put it like that. I'm not sure if I agree that the implosion should be so disastrous in the specific context, but I might be wrong. In any case, both approaches are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Some people might respond better to Harris' approach, others to yours.

I agree with your "should" bit. Harris failed by this very measure.

That's true, but that's one of the reasons I think such debates tend to be borderline useless. Their very nature pushes toward such unsatisfactory argumentations.

Quote
And don't make the mistake of thinking that I am defending Craig here. The fact that I don't side with Harris doesn't mean I side with Craig. They are both annoying obstacles for me to get myself across to YOU.

I'm happy to hear it.

I need to rest for a few days now. No, I am not asking for permission. I just take it.

Please, take weeks. I should be doing other things.

Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #147
Please, take weeks. I should be doing other things.

I know all about that, but I don't bother doing them, either.

  • string
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Forum Staff
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #148

Would you mind thinking, genius?
All sorts of ideology are quasireligions - or even religions formally.

Ouch! You pricked the Russian in Josh, String. Be kinder next time.

At any rate, name one religion that's doing harm in the world today. ;)
I think Josh was reacting to ersi's emark, not mine. That happens sometimes in the way quotes are displayed, it can be misleading.

Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #149
I think Josh was reacting to ersi's emark, not mine. That happens sometimes in the way quotes are displayed, it can be misleading.

[whispers=everybody but Forum Staff]Forum Staff can really be annoying.[/whispers]