Why do you believe what you do? And how did you get to that belief?

[snakelegs]

I couldn't agree more... I find some of them to be the worst group of zealots... which really goes to show you, you don't need to be a part of any religion to be a loon. It is the condition of some of man-kind unfortunately -- wilber logic is also non sequitur here... since I believe this is a Muslim forum and all the Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Zoroastrians etc.. are here by choice... at least I am hoping this didn't come here at gun point!
peace!

maybe there is a "preacher" gene? come to think of it, health food fans can be a bit preachy too!
but yes, i've noticed atheists can be really heavy handed.

 

[snakelegs]

i am preaching against preaching! mg:

 

[جوري]

maybe there is a "preacher" gene? come to think of it, health food fans can be a bit preachy too!
but yes, i've noticed atheists can be really heavy handed.

lol.. you are probably right-- as good a hypothesis as any I have heard as of late! These are the ones on the forum... I have met some odd balls in real life... almost bordering on schizotypal..

peace!

 

[zoro]

Snakelegs: If you missed 9/11, you might want to read some recent books to try to get “up to speed.” For your convenience, I’ll provide a couple of quotes, first from Sam Harris’ book The End of Faith. These quotes are available at www.samharris.org/ .

“It seems that, if our species ever eradicates itself through war, it will not be because it was written in the stars but because it was written in our books; it is what we do with words like “God” and “paradise” and “sin” in the present that will determine our future.” [p.12]

“Our technical advances in the art of war have finally rendered our religious differences – and hence our religious beliefs – antithetical to our survival. We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation, or any of the other fantastical notions that have lurked in the minds of the faithful for millennia – because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that these developments mark the terminal phase of our credulity. Words like “God” and “Allah” must go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal,” or they will unmake our world.” [p.13]

“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.” [p.19]

“Our world is fast succumbing to the activities of men and women who would stake the future of our species on beliefs that should not survive an elementary school education. That so many of us are still dying on account of ancient myths is as bewildering as it is horrible, and our own attachment to these myths, whether moderate or extreme, has kept us silent in the face of developments that could ultimately destroy us. Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past.” [p.25]

“We live in an age in which most people believe that mere words – ‘Jesus,’ ‘Allah,’ ‘Ram’ – can mean the difference between eternal torment and bliss everlasting. Considering the stakes here, it is not surprising that many of us occasionally find it necessary to murder other human beings for using the wrong magic words, or the right ones for the wrong reasons. How can any person presume to know that this is the way the universe works? Because it says so in our holy books. How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world.” [p.35]

“We live in a world of unimaginable surprises – from the fusion energy that lights the sun to the genetic and evolutionary consequences of this light’s dancing for eons upon the earth – and yet paradise conforms to our most superficial concerns with all the fidelity of a Caribbean cruise. This is wondrously strange. If one didn’t know better, one would think that man, in his fear of losing all that he loves, had created heaven, along with its gatekeeper God, in his own image.” [p.36]

From the Epilogue:

This world is simply ablaze with bad ideas. There are still places where people are put to death for imaginary crimes – like blasphemy – and where the totality of a child's education consists of his learning to recite from an ancient book of religious fiction. There are countries where women are denied almost every human liberty, except the liberty to breed. And yet, these same societies are quickly acquiring terrifying arsenals of advanced weaponry. If we cannot inspire the developing world, and the Muslim world in particular, to pursue ends that are compatible with a global civilization, then a dark future awaits all of us…

Religious violence is still with us because our religions are intrinsically hostile to one another. Where they appear otherwise, it is because secular knowledge and secular interests are restraining the most lethal improprieties of faith. It is time we acknowledged that no real foundation exists within the canons of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any of our other faiths for religious tolerance and religious diversity.

If religious war is ever to become unthinkable for us, in the way that slavery and cannibalism seem poised to, it will be a matter of our having dispensed with the dogma of faith. If our tribalism is ever to give way to an extended moral identity, our religious beliefs can no longer be sheltered from the tides of genuine inquiry and genuine criticism. It is time we realized that to presume knowledge where one has only pious hope is a species of evil. Wherever conviction grows in inverse proportion to its justification, we have lost the very basis of human cooperation. Where we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith; where we have no reasons, we have lost both our connection to the world and to one another. People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of power.

Next, consider some of Richard Dawkins ideas.

If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr’s death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naïve and frustrated young men are clamoring to be selected for suicide missions? (“Religion’s Misguide Missiles”, September 15, 2001)

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a “they” as opposed to a “we” can be identified at all. (The Devil’s Chaplain, 2004)

My last vestige of “hands off religion” respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the “National Day of Prayer,” when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place.? (The Devil’s Chaplain, 2004)

Our Western politicians avoid mentioning the R word (religion), and instead characterize their battle as a war against 'terror', as though terror were a kind of spirit or force, with a will and a mind of its own. Or they characterize terrorists as motivated by pure 'evil'. But they are not motivated by evil. However misguided we may think them, they are motivated, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them. They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith. (The God Delusion, 2006)

I would therefore suggest that atheists and agnostics are doing more “preaching” because we’ve decided we’d rather prefer to live, thank you very much, and in liberty. Recently Marc Perkel said it quite forcefully (at http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/ ):

Why Belief in God is Dangerous to Humanity

“So…” you may be asking, “So, I believe in the Bible. What’s the harm? Why do you care if I want to waste my life pursuing insanity?” Yes – that is a strong point generally. The right to be wrong is one of the core principles of the Church of Reality because we often make a lot of mistakes on the path to discovering the truth. But when a group of people threatens the well being of others, then it’s a different story.

In particular, Christians believe in the Apocalypse, or the end of the world. And because it’s important to them that they not be wrong, some of them are working towards making the world actually end. Others are just irresponsible and think that it doesn’t matter how bad they mess things up, because God will fix it and forgive them. That causes them to be irresponsible for their behavior and dangerous to society.

Faith in God is a dangerous thing. On September 11th 2001 a group of Muslims, acting on behalf of God, hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into buildings killing over 3000 people. The reason these people did it was because they believed they were acting on behalf of God and that God will reward them by giving them 70 virgins to have sex with for eternity. The fact is that these mass murderers are not in Heaven and that they are not having sex with 70 virgins. They are dead along with their victims.

Why did this happen? Because they had faith! And as a result of their faith the world is a more dangerous place. Now, Christians are seeing this as an opportunity to use their influence in the American administration to not only wage a war to kill a bunch of Muslims, but to take control of the world and impose God’s laws (or rather what they believe are God’s laws) on the rest of us by force…

Jesus is dead (if he ever existed at all) and he is not coming back. But people who believe he is coming are much more likely to destroy the Earth and use God as an excuse to make it happen. If religious fanatics get control of weapons of mess destruction, they will use them as part of their ritual fantasies – and the rest of us will suffer the consequences.

We live on this small ball of dust, and this ball is all we have for now. We have the technology to destroy all life on this planet (well, anyhow, all life of any complexity) and this is our home – and it’s home to all of us. So if some people believe in the Book of Revelations and use that as a basis or excuse to destroy the home for the whole human race, then they are encroaching on our rights.

Historically religion is the basis for most war. Christians slaughter Muslims, Muslims slaughter Jews, Jews slaughter Palestinians, Catholics slaughter Protestants. They all think that God gave them property. They think they are the “chosen people” and they all think they are acting on behalf of God. Because God is impotent and incapable of acting on his own behalf, these people have to do God’s work for him, which often includes slaughtering the nonbelievers. Nonbelievers like me.

So, because of religion, some moron might start a nuclear war or similar and wipe out the human race; then, this planet will become just another lifeless piece of dust in the universe. Or maybe the cockroaches will take over and become intelligent and form a better society, but I have to admit that I’m partial to humans – one of my prejudices, I suppose. I just think it’s a bad idea to annihilate the human race. As the founder of the Church of Reality, I’m going to go ahead and abuse my powers and declare that annihilating humanity is officially a sin…

What Perkel failed to mention, however, is that it’s the “little guy”, the “quiet believer”, who’s actually a major part of the problem: such people don’t fly airplanes into building or threaten to kill millions of us, but what they do is demonstrate to the terrorists that it’s “perfectly legitimate” to hold beliefs more strongly than the evidence warrants. Exposing that fallacy is what I would hope even you would start “preaching” – to everyone – for your own sake – and for the sake of the rest of humanity.

 

[جوري]

look how many scientists and movements are being silenced about 911..

Today I thought you Schizotypal now I am sure of it with severe paranoia

911Truth.org ::::: The 9/11 Truth MovementAn archive of hundreds of "mainstream" news articles providing the basis for 9/11 skepticism: from "Afghanistan" and "Anthrax" to "White House" and "World ...
www.911truth.org/ - 48k - May 14, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

research - www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=resources
about us - www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20061014120445472
Multimedia - www.911truth.org/911truthmedia/911truthmedia.htm
911 Truth - www.911truth.org/links.php
More results from www.911truth.org »

Scholars For 9/11 TruthQuestions the events surrounding 9/11 by international scholars. Includes research studies, papers, and video.
st911.org/ - 3k - Cached - Similar pages

 

[جوري]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770

 

[zoro]

Ambrosa: Thank you for the free diagnosis -- it was worth every penny. As Dalton said, "one might as well try to use reason with a dog."

 

[جوري]

Ambrosa: Thank you for the free diagnosis -- it was worth every penny. As Dalton said, "one might as well try to use reason with a dog."

you are most welcome.. and to you I say it best with Shakespeare
"Thou art a fool, a coward, one all of luxury, an ass, a madman."
: Measure for Measure


peace!

 

[ranma1/2]

Please stop insulting each other and please stay on topic.

 

[snakelegs]

zoro,
you have raised some valid points. when you single out 9/11 tho, you are assuming that such things are part of islam and that there were no political factors.
i am very offended at the way 9/11 has been exploited.
i know that i am quite alarmed by the growing influence of christianity on my gov't and increasing religious intolerance in the world at large. it seems that all types of fanaticism are having a field day.

Religious violence is still with us because our religions are intrinsically hostile to one another. Where they appear otherwise, it is because secular knowledge and secular interests are restraining the most lethal improprieties of faith. It is time we acknowledged that no real foundation exists within the canons of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any of our other faiths for religious tolerance and religious diversity.

this is true.
religion has caused (and still does) division and conflict. personally, these are the reasons why i am anti-religion. (are you familiar with j. krishnamurti?)
still, i will not tell the individual muslim or christian that they are wrong - how could i? isn't that arrogant? i think it is a form of violence to try to make people give up their beliefs. (which is why i hate missionaries).
somehow i find it possible to condemn the rivers of blood religion has caused and yet still be able to respect the individual who believes. maybe that is schittzy. :-[
the problem is more the way people use their religions, whether it's to do suicide bombings or to blow up abortion clinics. all religions have good teachings and if people practiced them, it would be a better world.
but there is indeed a special problem with religions that claim a monopoly on "the truth". ultimately, they cannot allow the other to exist.
however, when i read what some muslims and christians say, i cannot help but wonder if it is only their religious beliefs that keep them from going out and committing all sorts of horrible crimes? (i've been asked all my life what keeps me, as an agnostic, from killing people). if this is so, we must pray that they keep their religions!
but i do understand better where you're coming from.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Ambro: ‘Statistics’ is different from ‘probability’, a ‘humanitarian’ is different from a “humanist”, and no “miracle” (in the religious sense) has been made available for scientific scrutiny.

Grace Seeker: It’s not a “theory” that probabilities lie in the range between zero and unity; it’s a definition found to be convenient. If you want to start your own “trend”, you can have your probabilities run between, say, zero and ten (you don’t even need to start at zero), but the rest of the people in the world would probably divide your values by their maximum possible value (which is the meaning of “normalization”), and if necessary even “re-zero” your values, yielding the familiar range of probabilities, ranging from zero to unity (or 0% to 100%).

Re. the possibility of certainty about anything: such is possible for closed systems (e.g., in the game of bridge, you can be certain that your ace of trump beats all other cards; you can even be certain that Superman is invulnerable to anything except kryptonite – cause it says so, right there in his “holy book”). But in reality, Popper’s principle is that the best we can do is find other principles (such as all the principles of science) that are falsifiable but not yet falsified. As for how certain one can be of Popper’s idea: it’s falsifiable, but not yet falsified; so, so far it stands quite firm – maybe a 99.99 % probability of being “true”. Similarly, for example, the probability that Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics are “true” seems to be about 99.99999999999 % -- but if you can show that they’re false (and certainly they’re falsifiable), you can win yourself a Nobel Prize.

Woodrow: It does seem to be obvious that various statements (such as “God exists” or “all invisible flying elephants are pink”) must be either or true or false, but that’s not the point. The point is that, in reality, we must struggle to try to determine whether such statements are true or false, and although you apparently have been able to convince yourself that all invisible flying elephants are pink (or whatever), that’s your subjective judgment – which generally is of no value to the rest of us, especially those equally convinced by their own subjective judgments that all invisible flying elephants are purple.

Meanwhile, for knowledge (aka science) to advance, you need to provide evidence for you claim that all invisible flying elephants are pink, evidence that can be examined, tested, prodded, etc. by the rest of us. Of course, you could form a club of all people persecuted because of their persuasion that all flying elephants are pink – you could even initiate terrorist attacks to force your perspective to prevail – but don’t expect that the rest of us will be pleased with your perversions, especially those convinced that the revered elephants are purple.

It just so happens, that the other day I was outside observing the usual parade of pink elephants that pass by my house daily. Now, each of these was certainly visible. When along came a space between them. Now the elephant in front of the space had it's tail being held up in the air as if carried by perhaps another elephant behind it, and the elephant behind the space had its trunk stretched out as if perhaps holding something in front of it. But of course what was inbetween these pink elephants was entirely invisible, at least to me. So, I ran to catch up with the line of elephants, though they move along at a pretty good clip I don't mind telling you, and asked Henry, the last pink elephant bringing up the rear of the parade, if he could tell me about why there was a space in their parade today. He told me -- I don't know if you realize it or not, but all pink elephants are also quite fluent in at least two and sometimes three or four human languages -- he told me that I should ask Harvey himself. Well, I had no idea who Harvey was. I had met Henry, Harry, Henrietta, Hortence, Harold, and Horton all before, but I had never met Harvey. So, I called out for Harvey, and the entire line of elephants came to a stop. I heard a voice call out to me, "Up here." And I ran up the line to were Henrietta was, but could see no Harvey.

I turned to Henrietta, she was the one who had been following the empty space in the parade of all the pink elephants, and asked her if she knew Harvey. She did, and she warned me that if I wasn't careful I was about to meet him a little more cloesly than I might like. And as she said that I suddenly ran smack into something, though I couldn't see anything there in front of her.

Then I heard the voice again. "Hey, watch out!"
"Who said that?" I asked, still feeling something warm and slightly rough to the touch in front of me, though seeing absolutely nothing there.
"It's me, Harvey. You wanted to talk?"
"Uh- N-n-no," I stammered, still not sure what to make of a voice coming from the blank space before me. "I was just asking Henry about the blank space in the parade and he told me to ask someone named Harvey."
"Well, I'm Harvey. How can I help you?"
"Umm," I gulped. "Well, I guess I was just wondering why there was this blank space in the pink elephant parade today?"
"There's no space. I'm tired of taking up the rear day after day, so Henry said he would switch places with me."
"Oh," I replied. And then getting a little more accustomed to talking to an invisible elephant, I challenged him, "But I thought this was a pink elephant parade?"
Harvey sounded indignant. "And just what color do I look like to you? Blue?"
"No, quite honestly you don't look like any color, you look invisible."
"Well," Harvey retorted, "That's your problem. As you appear to well know this is a pink elephant parade and only pink elephants are allowed to participate in it. There is no law that says only visible pink elephants permitted."
"I see," I said, trying not to appear as dumbfounded as I felt at the moment. "Tell me," I asked, "are all invisible elephants pink?"
There was no response.
"Harvey, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. But see, I've never meant an invisible elephant or anything before, that is unless you count that rabbit several years ago. Come to think of it, his name was Harvey, too. Are all invisible animals, named Harvey?" I querried.
Again there was no response.
Finally Henrietta spoke up.
"I'm sorry. Harvey's gone. He's been rather moody lately, and I guess he decided he didn't want to be in the parade today. So, he just flew off."
"Huh? What do you mean?"
"I mean, he dropped Harold's tail and flew back home. Or at least I think that's where he probably went, as you noticed he didn't say a world."
"I think I have to sit down. You mean that elephants can not only be invisible, but they can fly too?"
"Don't be silly," Harold chimed in. "Not all elephants can fly, only invisible elephants can fly."
"But, that would be incredible if only I could see a flying elephant," I said.
Henrietta laughed, "That would be rather ridiculous wouldn't it? How could you see us once we turned invisible?"
Henry came up from behind me, and grabbed me with his trunk put me on his back between his shoulders.
Speaking to Henrietta, Henry said, "Well, maybe he can't see invisible flying elephants, but we can give him the next best thing." And with that I suddenly found myself a good 15-20 feet in the air witih nothing visible beneath me.
I started to get scared, and quickly I was back on Henry's back on the ground.
"What was that?!" I exclaimed both terrified and excited all at the same time.
"Oh, I just thought that since we can't show you a flying elephant, maybe you would like to ride one?" answered Henry.
"You-you-you can fly?" I gasped.
"Sure," Henry said, "All pink elephants can fly, but we have to turn invisible first."
"That's incredible! How come I've never seen that act in the circus?"
"Those are just your common grey elephant," Harold interrupted. "They're nice enough, but rather simple beasts if you ask me."
Hortance trumpted in response to what Harold had said.
Harold turned to her, "Now Hortance, you now I didn't mean anything disrespectful by that." Then turning to me told me, "Her brother flew off to be with a grey elephant last year, and she hasn't heard from him since."
Well, about this time Harry rumbled back to the middle of the herd and announced, "Horton says he's heard another Who, so we had better be on our way. You all wasted enough time talking to this human I'm afraid we had better fly."
And with that, they all turned invisible right before my eyes and were gone.


So, I don't know if all invisible invisible flying elephants are pink, but if Henry is to be believed, it seems the probability is high. I heard it straight from the horse's (or in this case, invisible flying pink elephant's) mouth.

 

[zoro]

Grace Seeker: That was beautiful!!!

But then, it reveals something that can be quite dangerous.

To illustrate, let me quote from the end of Chapter Ix3 in my book (http://zenofzero.net/docs/Ix03GenesisandFloodMyths.pdf , in which the “Dear” is, explicitly, my teenage granddaughter but, implicitly, any teenager who invests the time to read the book). The story at the end of this quotation is “true” – and reveals the danger.

But that’s enough for me, at least for this chapter – except for a few comments and suggestions.

My first comments deal with my amazements that there are so many flood myths and how much work Isaak has done [reference: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-mths.html ], putting them all together – more than five time more than I’ve shown you! Also, I’m amazed, once again, at the wonderful internet, which makes all his work available to so many people so easily!

Meanwhile, my first suggestion concerns a possible response to all the crazy “creationists” who want the Bible’s Genesis taught in our schools as an “alternative” to evolution. Rather than argue with them, maybe scientists should agree – provided, of course, that “equal time” is given to all creation myths, not just those of the a bunch of silly old Hebrew sheepherders. Then, when the school kids learn about all myths (I don’t know how many creation myths there are in total, but surely many hundreds of them), let the kids decide which myth they prefer! As for me, I think I’d choose Coyote and the Beaver as the best story – and then stick with the hypothesis of evolution as containing the only science.

My second suggestion is this. As part of any course for kids to learn about creation myths, an assignment should be for the kids to create their own! That is, Dear, whereas all myths are just made up – with none “better” than another (for they’re all just stories), except in so far as how fanciful they are and how colorful are the images they might induce – then I suggest that kids would learn much about all myths and all religions if they were challenged to create their own creation myths – and maybe even their own religions!

For fun, Dear, maybe you’d like to create a story to “explain” creation! If you’re so inclined, maybe you could have fun by transferring your story into the form of an “epic poem” – in a form that surely the first myths were remembered during the many generations before they were written. And if you do try making up some myths, I trust that you’ll see the key to a good myth: use your mythical creation (e.g., your god) to “explain” facts that your audience knows (the earth and sun and stars exist, much life appears to start in various types of shells, the Columbia Gorge is huge, snakes slide on their bellies, childbirth is painful for women, etc.), because your audience may then be duped into making the leap in illogic from agreeing with you (about what they know) to agreeing with you about what you concocted!

Actually, though, there’s something here about which I should caution you. To introduce it, let me tell you what happened. More than 30 years ago, when I was coaching my daughter’s (your aunt’s) little-league baseball team (and she was the first female little-leaguer in our town!), apparently one of the kids on her team asked me something about gravity. I’m sorry, but I don’t remember the details – in fact, I had forgotten about the whole incident, except years later, when my daughter reminded me about the consequences, which continued for years.

Anyway, I’ve been known, on rare occasions, to “kid around” (who, me?!), and I know that I’ve always tried to impress on kids how much we have yet to learn about nature: What really is an electron? What if anything is inside it? What really is light? How can light be formed by annihilation of electrons by positrons? And so on, including what, really, is gravity? Why do masses attract one another (according to Newton) or in terms of Einstein’s general relativity, why does space-time become warped by the presence of mass? What is mass? How does mass turn into light?

In any event, when a kid asked me about gravity, I’m sure that I would have tried to stimulate the kids to think about such questions. But apparently I ended my response with some “kidding”, apparently similar to: “Personally, I think that the center of the Earth is made out of caramel pudding, and the real reason why everything falls toward the center of the Earth is because everybody and everything really likes caramel pudding, so everything tries to get to it.”

My message to you, Dear, is: be careful with any myths created by you (or, for that matter, created by anyone). Recently, my daughter informed me that, for years and no matter how much she protested, some of the kids “believed” what I said about the Earth being made out of caramel pudding! So, Dear, be careful about any claim you may make about any myths you make up or repeat! Don’t say something similar to “everything I have told you is true” – not only because, as with all myths and all stories, there’s no way that anyone can ever “prove” that they’re false, but also because, believe it or not, someone might believe you!

 

[zoro]

snakelegs:

You make many good points – yet, let me provide some notes on some of your comments.

when you single out 9/11 tho, you are assuming that such things are part of islam and that there were no political factors

Yes, after having read the Qur’an, I infer a connection, but no, I’m not assuming an absence of political factors.

i am very offended at the way 9/11 has been exploited

As am I – and maybe “offended” insufficiently reflects my concern.

it seems that all types of fanaticism are having a field day

I agree.

are you familiar with j. krishnamurti?

He was an amazing fellow. For me, his message was Zen (as in www.zenofzero.net !). As Shunryu Suzuki said: “The most important point is to accept yourself and stand on your [own] two feet.”

still, i will not tell the individual muslim or christian that they are wrong - how could i? isn't that arrogant?

In my view, that’s the key to ending this “field day” of “fanaticism”. I would urge you to give your response more thought.

I agree that it’s unwise to tell anyone that specific points about some dogma are wrong: though that may be your conclusion, saying so almost certainly won’t lead to your desired outcome (and will probably generate hostility). Instead, effort should be expended toward revealing the fundamental error in holding any “belief” more strongly than is warranted by relevant evidence. And I don’t think it’s “arrogant” to promote that concept, any more so than it’s “arrogant” to promote “common sense”.

i think it is a form of violence to try to make people give up their beliefs. (which is why i hate missionaries)

I have a similar feeling about missionaries, and I agree that my suggestion (and the suggestion of many others) is a form of “violence”. But then, if you find a kid playing with matches near a can of gasoline, it’s also “violence” to try to stop her – but simultaneously, almost certainly, it would be done out of kindness.

Thus, as is so common in life, one must choose between “means” and “ends” – and my experience has been that the best procedure is to assess the relative value of the “ends” versus the “means”, which are ends in themselves. In particular, I’m convinced that an “honorable” means to achieve the “desirable” end (of having more people use common sense, viz., evaluate the evidence supporting their beliefs) is to try to alert them to their fundamental error (viz., their falling into the “proof by pleasure” logical fallacy).

And of course (and in general) I couldn’t care less what other people believe – so long as their beliefs don’t influence me (e.g., “kill the unbelievers”). But then there’s an insidious connection between all religious beliefs: all such believers consider it acceptable – even admirable! – to adopt ideas (and hold them strongly) in the absence of appropriate evidence (to just have “faith”). Such has been demonstrated to be very bad news for the rest of us.

To stimulate you to think about such matters, let me put it this way. Four of the most famous supporters of the terrorists are OBL, the Pope, Blair, and Bush. That is, by displaying their own commitment to accepting ideas in the absence of evidence, the Pope, Blair, and Bush provide enormous support to OBL’s similar stupidity.

when i read what some muslims and christians say, i cannot help but wonder if it is only their religious beliefs that keep them from going out and committing all sorts of horrible crimes?… if this is so, we must pray that they keep their religions!

Yes, I understand – but then, I doubt (and I expect that you doubt) that it’s so. I love the story about dolphins (the truth of which I’ve had trouble validating): a dolphin will swim beneath its wounded cousin, periodically lifting it to the surface, so that it can breathe. I expect that the vast majority of people are instinctively as kind as dolphins – since, as similar social animals, such kindness gave an advantage to the survival of the species. I therefore expect that without their religions, most people would behave at least as well as dolphins. As Stephen Weinberg (winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics) said:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

 

[Grace Seeker]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

There is some truth in that statement. Of course, it depends on your definition of good and evil, and also of religion. I submit the following slight modification to your quote which I think would still be true.


"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes poltics."


Of course, though both statements seem true on their own. They actually falsify each other. If either religion or politics can get good people to do evil things, then it isn't the religion or the politics that bring the evil out, it is something else that they share. For the moment I'm going to suggest that the true source of the evil is untempered enthusiasm -- "I know the answer to your problem, and I'm going to force it on you." My guess is that you'll even find this in science. It is when we apply our beliefs (be they religious, political, or other) to other people's lives in forceful ways, not respecting them as persons able to think for themselves and apply whatever truth we believe we have found, that we become evil. It is sort of like we think of ourselves as God. So, I guess you are right, it all does get back to religion. The religion of self as arbitrator of the world.

 

[جوري]

"With or without religion, yo would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes poltics."

That is a brilliant statement.. and evidenced by the fact that more atrocities were committed under Atheist leaders than all the so-called religious wars of the world combined...
How soon do they forget such things?

peace to you Gene

 

[zoro]

Grace Seeker:

For the moment I'm going to suggest that the true source of the evil is untempered enthusiasm -- "I know the answer to your problem, and I'm going to force it on you." My guess is that you'll even find this in science. It is when we apply our beliefs (be they religious, political, or other) to other people's lives in forceful ways, not respecting them as persons able to think for themselves and apply whatever truth we believe we have found, that we become evil. It is sort of like we think of ourselves as God. So, I guess you are right, it all does get back to religion. The religion of self as arbitrator of the world.

I agree that “untempered enthusiasm” can be dangerous. It brings to mind the wisdom of the Seven Sages (of Ancient Greece): “Nothing too much.” And actually, similar is found in Homer’s Odyssey (Book or Chapter XV): “Moderation is best in all things.” I’m also very much opposed to forcing anything on anybody, especially children. But I should point out that, in my experience, there's relatively little of such “untempered enthusiasm” in science (at least, in the physical sciences). In science, we have a very forceful “arbitrator of the world”, namely, Mother Nature herself!

There’s value, too, in considering other wisdom from Ancient Greece. Socrates said, “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance” – although I wish he had said (and maybe he did, but I can’t read Greek): “There is only one good, willingness (even ‘eagerness’) to learn, and one evil, refusal.” In addition, Socrates’ contemporary Hippocrates said: “There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter, ignorance.” I think that the two concepts could be profitably combined (and with the concept of basic human rights) into something similar to:

Normally, very little good and sometimes great evil result from actions based on opinions derived from ignorant speculations; in contrast, rarely undesirable consequences and more likely substantial good results from actions based on opinions derived from applying the scientific method (guess, test, and reassess) – provided that the basic rights of all humans are vigorously protected.

 

[zoro]

Ambro:

evidenced by the fact that more atrocities were committed under Atheist leaders than all the so-called religious wars of the world combined...

You really should pay more attention to relevant data and their analyses. If you had, you’d be aware that the most compelling correlation is that they all ate carrots. Dawkins deftly pointed out that both Stalin and Hitler had mustaches, and even I had proposed the idea that the true reason was that all those megalomaniacs had left legs, but as far as I know, the carrot hypothesis is currently most secure.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Ambro:



You really should pay more attention to relevant data and their analyses. If you had, you’d be aware that the most compelling correlation is that they all ate carrots. Dawkins deftly pointed out that both Stalin and Hitler had mustaches, and even I had proposed the idea that the true reason was that all those megalomaniacs had left legs, but as far as I know, the carrot hypothesis is currently most secure.

Ah, but being one who looks not just to science, but to many other fields of study -- for I would not be ignorant of them, but desire to be learned in more than one field -- I find in religion a different answer. I suggest that Stalin, Hitler, and all the rest that you might care to list with them, even some of the "good" guys because they also had their "bad" days, had one other thing in common. After all I don't believe that Ghengis Khan is believed to have eaten carrots, Mussolini did not have a moustache, and Henry VIII didn't have use of his left leg (and Captain Hook his hand ). But each of them, from the worst to the (supposed) best is reported to have been born with a condition called sin. Yes, I propose that sin is the root of the problem. If only we could find a way to eliminate sin from the human condition then I think we could eliminate war, fatricide, and a whole host of other evils. We might even begin to take care of one another.

Now, how would we falsify that statement? If we can convert everyone and see them sanctified and we still experienced sin and the problems you have mentioned, that would falsify it. Will you take up the experiment?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Born with sin?

That we are all deserving of punishemnt for the wrong done by our ancestors is one of the more repugnant concepts that religion has cooked up. Ranks up there with the concept that one person can be killed and his death pays for the wrong done by others.

 

[جوري]

Ambro:



You really should pay more attention to relevant data and their analyses. If you had, you’d be aware that the most compelling correlation is that they all ate carrots. Dawkins deftly pointed out that both Stalin and Hitler had mustaches, and even I had proposed the idea that the true reason was that all those megalomaniacs had left legs, but as far as I know, the carrot hypothesis is currently most secure.

Stop confabulating.. I don't find it amusing!
Dawkins, is not my G-D, maybe he is yours? and you are free to follow him into the abyss for all I care..... I can simply look at history-- and it tells a different story from yours and your dawking!

here is some light reading-- enjoy!
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/kim-il-sung.html
http://www.nndb.com/people/028/000028941/

Yes funny guy (Atheism not carrots!) is what they all had in common -- one of them actually established the world's first Atheist state... Maybe you can brain wash a different population with your humbug? Anyone with minimum knowledge of history will tally up the count of the dead under Atheists and can clearly see who wins at being evil by a thousand miles...

Funny you should mention noble prize winners.. I find it so ironic that a man who invented dynamite would want to reinstate grants for those who succeeded him.... it is soothing to know some of history's greats declined their awards-- Jean-Paul Sartre refused to accept his award and in 1958, and In 1925 George Bernard Shaw accepted the award but declined the monetary compensation. both citing objective reasons, and to the discerning reader, we know what those are!

peace!