Tradition betrayed

[DavidRoss]

"Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, is the death of knowledge."
~Alfred North Whitehead

[Bulldog]

The problem is why people have alternate opinions.

They have alternate opinions because they are humans.  You really don't understand people at all.

[Florestan]

There is a Romanian proverb: "When two people tell you that you're drunk, go take a sleep!" Jeffrey, David, jowcol and Don make four. Sweet dreams, Poju! 

[Ataraxia]

There is a saying: "People are idiots." 

[Florestan]

"People are idiots." 

All of them? 

[Ataraxia]

All of them? 

One never knows...

[Florestan]

One never knows...

The difference between intelligent and idiotic people is that the latter are idiots all the time, while the former are idiots only once in a while. 

[Ataraxia]

The difference between intelligent and idiotic people is that the latter are idiots all the time, while the former are idiots only once in a while. 

Aha!

[71 dB]

Perhaps you need to apply the scientific method and view the statistics to validate your hypothesis.  It does not explain why a majority of people in a Country like the US choose to have a faith

Maybe I am mistaken but US is a pretty religious country. Parents indoctrinate their children into religion. Also, I believe in US it's not socially that "acceptable" everywhere to be an atheist. However, there are atheists in US. Agnostic people tend to say they believe in some sort of God just in case.

Statistics? That takes funding and hard work. Maybe I can find something online.... ....but I won't search today. I want to relax after work!

when atheism is a viable option, and there is no state sanctioned religion.   Ideally,. you'd need a sample where following of religion is neither encouraged nor discouraged.

In US and Finland we have freedom to choose our religion but the problem is that children are "brainwashed". The freedom is actually weak.

Applying preconceived beliefs without any corroborating data does not sound very scientific to me.  Sounds more like a "Religion". Or some sort of brainwashing or thought control.

Yeah yeah. I am not in the field. Is anyone of us? I just have my opinions and I tell them to you. Nobody else has any data either.

Also, children outgrow a lot of stuff their parents tell them, do they not?

Yes! They sometimes become atheists!  How else would we have 150 million (estimation by Wikipedia) atheists in the world? That's one data for you.

FWIW-- we've made it clear to our kids that it's their choice, but they need to show respect for other's beliefs.

That's cool.

[71 dB]

There is a Romanian proverb: "When two people tell you that you're drunk, go take a sleep!" Jeffrey, David, jowcol and Don make four. Sweet dreams, Poju! 

I don't drink alcohol (well, extremely little amounts). I slept badly last night. I don't get your attitute. So, I am in the minority? So what? So are the fans of classical music!

[71 dB]

They have alternate opinions because they are humans.  You really don't understand people at all.

Of course people have alternate opinions but why do people still believe in 2000 years old silly stories mostly debunked by science?
That's what I think is funny.

[jowcol]

Of course people have alternate opinions but why do people still believe in 2000 years old silly stories mostly debunked by science?
That's what I think is funny.

First-- many Scientific theories have been debunked by other scientific theories, correct?  Are the earlier ones "silly?"

In terms of issues such as the creation of the universe, etc,  I would fully support only the "scientific" explanations presented to students as "fact". 

But there is a lot in a religious tradition that addresses issues in daily life (and the human experience) that I'm not sure if "hard science" offers.   What is the point of living? How do we deal with our mortality and loss of loved ones?    The human condition involves needs that are not well addressed by empirical science.  I would tend to believe this is a more likely reason that people pursue faith in current times, not any brainwashing.  Personally, I believe that even an atheist could benefit from some familiarity with religious traditions, without needed to "buy into" the whole program.  If nothing else, it helps to appreciate a culture and the art it produces.


There are also theologians, like Bultmann, that derive value from the teachings while not requiring belief in the old "silly stories", as you described them.  Your assumptions about "Religion"  seem to include a "one size fits all" description.

I'm not trying to convert you or anything.    But, whether we are talking about people's tastes in music, food, politics or religion, the basic norms of civil discourse usually encourage one to not disparage others preferences.  Just as yours should be respected here.

[71 dB]

First-- many Scientific theories have been debunked by other scientific theories, correct?  Are the earlier ones "silly?"

Some things may seem silly when you stand on the shoulders of giants. Science corrects it's mistakes (even a false scientific theory can be better then religion) in time, expands our understanding and refines things when needed. Religion does nothing and becomes more and more silly while science increases our understanding.

In terms of issues such as the creation of the universe, etc,  I would fully support only the "scientific" explanations presented to students as "fact". 

But there is a lot in a religious tradition that addresses issues in daily life (and the human experience) that I'm not sure if "hard science" offers.   What is the point of living? How do we deal with our mortality and loss of loved ones?    The human condition involves needs that are not well addressed by empirical science.  I would tend to believe this is a more likely reason that people pursue faith in current times, not any brainwashing.  Personally, I believe that even an atheist could benefit from some familiarity with religious traditions, without needed to "buy into" the whole program.  If nothing else, it helps to appreciate a culture and the art it produces.

What is the point of living?

"Hard science" gives an easy answer (at least to me): Since there is no planned out purpose of life, we need to find it out ourself.

How do we deal with our mortality and loss of loved ones?

"Hard science" is again the starting point telling us what death means in biological sense. We can build our longing and grief on that.

There are also theologians, like Bultmann, that derive value from the teachings while not requiring belief in the old "silly stories", as you described them.  Your assumptions about "Religion"  seem to include a "one size fits all" description.

Yes, you can have the good teachings of religion and forget the silly parts. But those good teachings are not a monopoly of religion. It's actually philosophy and available for all, atheists included. So, we don't actually need the religion at all. And if the is no religion, there is hardly religious lunatics that take the silly stories seriously.

I'm not trying to convert you or anything.

Convert? To what? I am an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in an imaginary creature named God. Why on earth should I be converted into believing in an imaginary creature? Why God and not Zeus or Spagetti Monster? Isn't it good that you are not trying?

But, whether we are talking about people's tastes in music, food, politics or religion, the basic norms of civil discourse usually encourage one to not disparage others preferences.  Just as yours should be respected here.

I attack religion. Not people or their tastes. Sorry if the difference is unclear.

[jowcol]

Some things may seem silly when you stand on the shoulders of giants. Science corrects it's mistakes (even a false scientific theory can be better then religion) in time, expands our understanding and refines things when needed. Religion does nothing and becomes more and more silly while science increases our understanding.

It's nice to know that All religion follows the same exact path.  I'm sure this is based on a large, statistically significant sample size and objectively measurable criteria, or else you are sounding more like a backwoods preacher than a scientist.

What is the point of living?
"Hard science" gives an easy answer (at least to me): Since there is no planned out purpose of life, we need to find it out ourself.

Many "Religions" call upon its adherents to do that was well, believe it or not.  It's not a passive exercise-- the term Free Will puts a burden on the individual. 

How do we deal with our mortality and loss of loved ones?

"Hard science" is again the starting point telling us what death means in biological sense. We can build our longing and grief on that.

Let me know how that works for you.

Yes, you can have the good teachings of religion and forget the silly parts. But those good teachings are not a monopoly of religion. It's actually philosophy and available for all, atheists included.

Yes!  This I totally agree with, and the point I was trying to make earlier.

So, we don't actually need the religion at all.

Um, I think it is YOU that doesn't need religion at all.  As you said, science tells us we need to figure it out for ourselves.  But in making the decision for others, you are contradicting yourself, are you not?  How should a free thinker react to being told NOT to think about something?   This is where, in my perception, you are crossing a line.  I value the worth of your opinion up to that point.

And if the is no religion, there is hardly religious lunatics that take the silly stories seriously.

Unfortunately, there will be other silly stories and lunatics out there with the same fervor for some ideology- if not religion, some other ism that is worth shedding the blood of large numbers of people.  Science wasn't all that useful in stopping Stalin's purges, and it was a nation that tried to remove the corrupting influences of religion.   I tend to be very skeptical about people, particularly in groups. 

Convert? To what? I am an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in an imaginary creature named God. Why on earth should I be converted into believing in an imaginary creature?

I'm an adherent to one of the world's oldest faiths, more than 2500 years old.  It does not have the concept of a deity, and seems to have trouble fitting into the generalizations you've made about religion.  And frankly, I don't think you should follow any path that you are not convinced is the one you should follow.  But you seem to discount that for others-- that is what I find perplexing coming from someone who values free thought.

Why God and not Zeus or Spagetti Monster?

Excellent reference.  I'm a huge fan of the Spaghetti Monster, and love the point that person was making in the State of Kansas were it was clear the lines between Church and State were threatened.

I attack religion. Not people or their tastes. Sorry if the difference is unclear.

Okay, let's assume  that Religion is simply a personal  preference or taste, and has no supernatural meaning.   You have used several pejorative adjectives that DID attack their personal preferences.  Personally, I'm not ticked off that you have offended God, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not that you disagree with may take on this.  But your scientific objectivity doesn't seem to have registered how other may have perceived your attacks, and a rational, ethical person, IMO, would still take this into account.

And also, why waste so much energy on it if you don't find value in it?  And, if we finish with the major religions, can we next attack the Easter Bunny?

[DavidRoss]

Um, I think it is YOU that doesn't need religion at all. 

He might not need one, but he sure has one, whether he recognizes it or not.  He's one of the many here with a surprisingly credulous belief in their own intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding as the measure of all things.  If he wants to believe something so patently ludicrous, that's his business.  The only problem I have with religious fanatics like him is that so many of them are such aggressive proselytizers, constantly trying to bludgeon everyone else into agreeing with their beliefs.  They make Jehovah's Witnesses look tame by comparison!

[Bulldog]

He might not need one, but he sure has one, whether he recognizes it or not.  He's one of the many here with a surprisingly credulous belief in their own intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding as the measure of all things.  If he wants to believe something so patently ludicrous, that's his business.  The only problem I have with religious fanatics like him is that so many of them are such aggressive proselytizers, constantly trying to bludgeon everyone else into agreeing with their beliefs.  They make Jehovah's Witnesses look tame by comparison!

Does that mean that 71 dB will be coming to my house to convert me?  Think I'll remove my door bell.

[DavidRoss]

Does that mean that 71 dB will be coming to my house to convert me?  Think I'll remove my door bell.

Ha!  Reminds me, however, of a JW who used to swing through my neighborhood in Oakland many years ago.  If they all looked like her, I'd have joined in a heartbeat!

[Florestan]

Some of you might find this article interesting, so much so as it is very relevant to the subject at hand.

[Guido]

Knight66 - you say that it's a canard that 71 dB says religious people tell atheists on forums that they have no foundations for their moral beliefs and less than 10 posts later we see exactly this! You have to laugh!

And all this stuff about religion not existing apart from the many individuals acting out religious belief, and saying "we all know this apart from you". I think this is actually a highly contentious issue, and an interesting one, but surely it's rather problematic just as stated and needs to explored: it's not self evident. How many more complex Nouns could (should) we treat in the same way? Is this built on an ultra libertarian conception of politics and society?

And oh my god, the stuff on slavery: so much denial! And then evidence is presented and no comments forthcoming from the Catholics here! Karl - you even asked a second time for the evidence. What is your response?

Let's really make it contentious and talk about the Catholic church's relationship with fascism. Actually let's not, It'll just go down the same route.

[71 dB]

He might not need one, but he sure has one, whether he recognizes it or not.  He's one of the many here with a surprisingly credulous belief in their own intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding as the measure of all things.  If he wants to believe something so patently ludicrous, that's his business.  The only problem I have with religious fanatics like him is that so many of them are such aggressive proselytizers, constantly trying to bludgeon everyone else into agreeing with their beliefs.  They make Jehovah's Witnesses look tame by comparison!

Is it the way I use English language that makes you think I am that arrogant? I am not. I have strong opinions about these things and so I make strong statements. It doesn't mean I know everything. I definitely don't. It's just that thinking about things based on the knowledge I do have (I should know something ) leads to atheism. Nothing that I know indicates the existence of God. So, I can always feed myself with more knowledge but it seems it will only strengthen my atheism.