Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I don't get what the invisible rabid wolverine would be an explanation of. Furthermore, you should be able to understand the difference between speculation concerning what may or may not be in the kitchen and speculation concerning what may or may not occur after one dies. One is easily tested, the other is not.
|
Testing what happens after you die is easy -- so easy that the majority of the human race has done it (as of about 2000 AD). Nobody has reported back with any reliability, however.
Note that so long as I don't go into the kitchen, the rabid wolverine hypothesis can't be disproven. And even if I do, it might be hiding and waiting for the the right time to attack -- so I should get out of there as soon as possible.
This is a ridiculous belief. About as ridiculous as most religious beliefs, really.
Quote:
The difference is between believing in things that fly in the face of what would generally be expected and believing in things that exist solely in the context of the unexpectable.
|
So are you talking about social acceptance more than anything else?
Based on what we
know about life and death of living organisms, when something dies the pattern ends. Thinking that the pattern that is the person continues really flys in the face of what generally would be expected. When enthropy happens, it is very very unexpected that it spontaneously unhappens in a magical strange way.
Now, if you are talking about
social acceptance, that is a different matter. I'm willing to grant that religion is currently socially accepted.
Fixing this will require effort.
Quote:
Quote:
Such beliefs can cover everything. And it is not that hard to construct a belief that cannot be disproven -- "after I cease to exist, my undetectable soul will be judged by how many sinful women I have killed".
If a belief is fundamentally irrational, there is no way it can be addressed or disproven using rationality. No evidence can be provided that contradicts it. No arguement can be made against it.
|
I know. Again, if you think that an effective rebuttal of faith can be administered by pointing out how unscientific that faith is you might save yourself sometime and not bother.
|
Did you read the details of that belief? It was an attempt to reflect a possible belief pattern for jack the ripper.
I'm
pointing out that religion is ridiculous. I am holding religion and those who believe in it
up to public ridicule. I believe that religious belief is mainly held together by social rules and acceptance -- so by pointing out that religious beliefs are ridiculous claptrap, I can undermine the acceptance of religion, and (mostly) cure it.
One way of doing this is taking an accepted mode of thought with a proven track record (science) and bashing religion over the head with how wrong it is, based off of things we know.
If you don't think repeated ridicule of action can work to correct behaviour, you obviously haven't seen teenagers interact socially.
And yes, if you believe in most religions, I think your beliefs are ridiculous, silly, and stupid. Note that I am pretty confident that
I hold some ridiculous, silly and stupid beliefs -- for the most part, I don't know what they are yet. Having ridiculous, silly and stupid beliefs does
not make you unredeemable. It simply means you haven't redeemed yourself yet.
I have different beliefs. I believe you are wrong. You have different beliefs. You believe I am wrong. Isn't duality wonderful?
So I will bother to point out how ridiculous many religious beliefs are, because I think humanity as a whole would be better off if we all realized how stupid religious beliefs are.
So I won't coddle their sensibilities. Now I won't do this all of the time -- I'm a greedy git sometimes, and there are other things I consider more important than pointing out you are a fool.
Science: It works, bitches.
Quote:
Science is at the mercy of reality, when it comes to viable modeling, not the other way around. So far, in terms of many of the things that theism/spirituality seek to address, reality hasn't been very submissive to the needs of science.
|
That is a silly claim to make. Theism/spirituallity once attempted to cover
everything. From the geography of the world, to the history of the world, to the origin of humanity, to the arrangement of the heavens, to the cause of lighting, to why the rains came, to the cause of disease -- and it came out wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again.
The world wasn't created in 7 days. Humanity and the world are older than 4000 years. Lighting is not the arrows of the Gods. Mt Olympus is not where the Gods hang out. The world is not made out of the skull of a Titan. Pi is not 3. Noah did not place 2 of every animal on the ark. Jesus did not rise from the dead. Nobody turned to salt by looking over her shoulder. No diety justified the mass murder of babies.
The claims that Religion and Spirituality make,
every time humanity has gained the ability to check them, have turned out to be utter and complete claptrap. The remaining claims are more and more tenuous and further and further removed from the present day -- but when something makes you 100 promises, and then provably renegs on 90 of them, do you trust the last 10 just because you can't tell yet if he broke them?
What is happening right now is you are saying
"other than the millions of ways which Religion and Spirituality have been proven wrong in the past, there are some statements that haven't been shown to be claptrap".
So far, Reality has been giving Science high-fives of insane quantities of information and accuracy, and has been very uncooperative to Religious beliefs.
Quote:
Quote:
Rational does not mean perfect, correct or predictable.
|
So then why isn't theistic belief rational?
|
Why isn't a chicken a dog?
I don't understand. Why would Rational not meaning perfect, correct or predictable mean that theistic belief was rational?
Your "so" seems to indicate that there is some connection between my observation that you don't have to be able to perfectly predict reality in order to be rational, and your question about "why isn't theistic belief rational?"
Quote:
It depends on the grounds the atheist in question uses to justify the dismissal of theism. If theism is dismissed on the grounds that it is irrational, than the supremacy of rationality must be essential to the atheist identity for that particular atheist.
|
Above and beyond the problem that your above statement is wrong, it is also irrelivent to the statement you are replying to.
The only way it could hold is if you put the cart before the horse, and claim "all atheists are actually fanatical hyper rationalists who accept no other justification for any action". If you want to make that claim, I'll laugh and disagree. If you don't want to make that claim, then I don't see how your above arguement is relevent to what you responded to.
Quote:
I haven't met them all, which is why i like to qualify my statements about christianity and christians as such. I am continually amazed how those who profess such a fondness for the exacting theories of science can't seem to wrap their heads around the notion that there is no such thing as a prototypical christian in terms of ideology or practice. Christians believe in christ as a messiah, beyond that, they're pretty diverse.
|
You said "most christians", not "some christians". Have you met most christians? What evidence do you have that "most christians" are think that their beliefs claim nothing about the nature of the pre-death universe?
(If it had a claim about the nature of the universe that wasn't meaningless, one could check the consequences of the claim, and possibly disprove the faith. Hence, anything that cannot be disproven in a world X always implies absolutely nothing about the world X.)
I think that most christians don't think about why they believe in their religion. They just go through the motions out of habit. And that a good chunk of "christians" are actually non-believers who go through the motions in order to gain social status.
I don't know these facts, but I suspect them.
Note that as societies become less insular (say, larger cities), church attendance drops off rapidly. This could be correlation and not causation, I suppose...
Quote:
Sounds downright evangelical. This isn't much of a rebuttal to what i said. It's more just a moderately ethnocentric, historically ignorant rephrasing. Do you really think theists are all stupid, and that not telling them that they are stupid amounts to coddling them? I hope you're not one of those people who wonders why atheists get such a bad rap?
|
I don't want to burn theists at the stake, if it makes you feel any better about atheists.
Some people are stupid at math, other people are stupid at theism. I'm stupid at spelling and memory.
I think that theists have some stupid beliefs. You can be a smart person and hold a stupid belief. One way to have such a belief is to not think about it, or you could have a blind spot.
And pretending to hold a stupid belief for your own advantage is dishonest, but not always stupid. I suspect many "theists" are in this category -- I have mimed theistic actions (bowing heads during grace, etc) in order to reduce social friction in the past, and when I was a child I felt compelled to go through the motions regularly.
I suspect I have stupid beliefs. Maybe one day I'll figure that they are stupid and change them.
And I believe that many theists think my belief that organized religion is an evil is wrong. I can accept that they think I'm wrong.
Quote:
I agree with you. In the context of a less than reasonable existence, it might be rational to believe in things that aren't "true" in the scientific sense.
|
Yes. And then as you gain information, you can check, correct and discard your incorrect beliefs.
Quote:
There is also a huge correlation between support for gay marriage and stem cell research and being a liberal christian. Apparently the correlation is more one of progressiveness than theism.
|
Why yes, liberal christians tend to believe in less of the religious claptrap than conservative christians.