The day you are saved - from religion

[arthwollipot]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Burke)

That's a pithy and oft-repeated quote that frequently takes the place of thought.

 

[quadraginta]

That's a pithy and oft-repeated quote that frequently takes the place of thought.

Does that mean you think it has no value at all, or just this time?

 

[truethat]

Evidence of closed mindedness? That's honestly a huge accusation and one that usually comes from those who think that not being gullible means being closed minded (see religious and alt med communities for examples).

The below video explains what open mindedness is extremely well and I'd like for you to demonstrate where I am closed minded using this knowledge if indeed you agree with the definitions and still think I am.

Would I proselytize if I were religious and believed that the only way to heaven (or not hell) was belief in a proposition (and/or subsequent "acceptance of Jesus Christ" or whatever) then yes I would try to convince everyone in order to save them from eternal damnation. I actually still struggle to believe there are people who can't empathize with this position who are not sociopaths.

I have been saying throughout the thread that your behavior is no different than a converter Christian type.

Why do YOU feel responsible for what other people believe? Don't you recognize a sort of arrogance here that YOU know what is better for them than they do?

The key is living in a myopic world where your perspective for everything is based on your personal opinion as being the omniscient truth.

When you operate that way, it really is a mental delusion no different than a fanatic who believes in Jesus.

It's weird and irrational. That's why rationalization is so part of your reasoning.

 

[sylvan8798]

Wow, lots of arguing here.

I've spent the better part of my life with a fairly hazy, nebulous set of religious beliefs (never including, for example, a god who answers prayers that I can find a parking space at the mall). For maybe half of that time, I've been dragged to (Catholic) church on a regular basis. I've never felt the need to actually codify a belief set. Hazy was fine. "Whatever" was fine. Now, somehow, I feel like there might be a need to identify what I actually DO believe. Is it normal to go through that? How does one go about that process?

Stop arguing about arguing and get back on topic, class!

 

[pharphis]

I have been saying throughout the thread that your behavior is no different than a converter Christian type.

Why do YOU feel responsible for what other people believe? Don't you recognize a sort of arrogance here that YOU know what is better for them than they do?
The key is living in a myopic world where your perspective for everything is based on your personal opinion as being the omniscient truth.
When you operate that way, it really is a mental delusion no different than a fanatic who believes in Jesus.
It's weird and irrational. That's why rationalization is so part of your reasoning.

I've just answered this twice in a row and many times beforehand.

Good thing I don't operate on the assumption that I am omniscient. I wouldn't be a skeptic if I was and I certainly wouldn't waste my time talking to you, either. However, I believe my position to be factually based and through inference it seems to be true. Or do you challenge the following statement which is the crux of my position (as has been pointed out many times):

The better our models of reality reflect reality, the more likely our actions are to accomplish our goals*

*I also recognize that we are a social species and we generally want to be healthy, happy, free, etc. . . this represents our goals as humans.

If you can challenge that claim as being unreasonable, then I will change my position but you've not attempted to show my position to be incorrect, and certainly no less correct than that of a theist. All you've done is call me mentally ill and tell me that I shouldn't care about what people believe despite my (dare I say) incredibly simple and digestible explanation.

However, I have one counter to your claim that my behavior is that of a religious converter. I don't claim to have certainty and my goal isn't to convert people to another religion. My goal is to spread scientific skepticism and critical thinking which I believe consequently leads to agnostic atheism. I COULD be wrong about what the most accurate position is. I'm not advocating for a position, I'm advocating for a methodology which I think demonstrably provides the most accurate positions, even if that position is simply "I don't know"

 

[pharphis]

Wow, lots of arguing here.

I've spent the better part of my life with a fairly hazy, nebulous set of religious beliefs (never including, for example, a god who answers prayers that I can find a parking space at the mall). For maybe half of that time, I've been dragged to (Catholic) church on a regular basis. I've never felt the need to actually codify a belief set. Hazy was fine. "Whatever" was fine. Now, somehow, I feel like there might be a need to identify what I actually DO believe. Is it normal to go through that? How does one go about that process?

Stop arguing about arguing and get back on topic, class!

I think that's entirely normal. I think a lot of believers realize they don't quite believe what they've identified as (even if only hazily like yourself) and eventually they realize that they are unaware of what they DO believe, rather than just a subset of what they don't believe.

no you stop arguing about arguing

 

[truethat]

Wow, lots of arguing here.

I've spent the better part of my life with a fairly hazy, nebulous set of religious beliefs (never including, for example, a god who answers prayers that I can find a parking space at the mall). For maybe half of that time, I've been dragged to (Catholic) church on a regular basis. I've never felt the need to actually codify a belief set. Hazy was fine. "Whatever" was fine. Now, somehow, I feel like there might be a need to identify what I actually DO believe. Is it normal to go through that? How does one go about that process?

Stop arguing about arguing and get back on topic, class!

There's a great article by Penn Jillette that really does that well.

http://www.npr.org/2005/11/21/5015557/there-is-no-god

 

[Carlotta]

Before my birth my Catholic mother was forced to take fish for lunch while she worked for John Hancock Inc at their headquarters in Boston. She couldn't convince the folk that Argentines, Uruguayans and Paraguayans are excused of that ritual because beef is the food of the poor people in the continent (A rule I don't think it applies while living or visiting other country). Anyway, she had it her way once but the accusing glances of Tyrians and Trojans were so nasty that she had to yield and eat fish during all her contract.

One of the many similar reasons my parents didn't emigrated to the States: square heads everywhere. In our culture ignorance seem to fade away and not to affect your life -though it does-. There, it seems to come back like peer pressure and shenanigans. That's why religious folks à la americaine are so unbearable to me.

And you don't understand why atheists in the US are annoyed by the dominance of fundamentalist Christianity??? You must eat fish on Friday! You must accept Jesus!
It is not "insane" to protest loudly against these attitudes.
(By the way, do a bit of learning about the phrase "square head", it is offensive.)

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

(By the way, do a bit of learning about the phrase "square head", it is offensive.)

Antiquated too.

Is South America where our obsolete pejoratives go to die?

 

[Carlotta]

Oh come on, you know exactly what he means. I can pretty much bet that the majority of your posts on this site are on RELIGION

So why would you obsess about something you purport not to believe?

The only way to rationalize it to yourself is pretending that you are standing up against the fanatical believers. But you don't really. You (not you personally btw you in general) You treat all believers the same way.

It kinda comes across as, "Well if I can't enjoy it, I'll ruin it for everyone else as well."

Pathological is a good word to describe it, don't you think?

Funny, I see tsig's insightful comments in many, many different thread topics!

 

[The Big Dog]

And you don't understand why atheists in the US are annoyed by the dominance of fundamentalist Christianity??? You must eat fish on Friday! You must accept Jesus!
It is not "insane" to protest loudly against these attitudes.
(By the way, do a bit of learning about the phrase "square head", it is offensive.)

I don't think Catholics are considered fundamentalist...

I also don't think they force atheists to eat fish on Friday, although if you are in Boston, why the hell wouldn't you eat fish?

 

[Carlotta]

I don't think Catholics are considered fundamentalist...

I also don't think they force atheists to eat fish on Friday, although if you are in Boston, why the hell wouldn't you eat fish?

A few are. The mother of a long-ago boyfriend was a born-again Catholic. She was so high on the Lord, she had a car accident while singing hymns! Really!

 

[arthwollipot]

Does that mean you think it has no value at all, or just this time?

I think its valid applications are far fewer than the number of times it is used to justify being a dick.

 

[truethat]

I think its valid applications are far fewer than the number of times it is used to justify being a dick.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Evidence of closed mindedness? That's honestly a huge accusation and one that usually comes from those who think that not being gullible means being closed minded (see religious and alt med communities for examples).

The below video explains what open mindedness is extremely well and I'd like for you to demonstrate where I am closed minded using this knowledge if indeed you agree with the definitions and still think I am.

Would I proselytize if I were religious and believed that the only way to heaven (or not hell) was belief in a proposition (and/or subsequent "acceptance of Jesus Christ" or whatever) then yes I would try to convince everyone in order to save them from eternal damnation. I actually still struggle to believe there are people who can't empathize with this position who are not sociopaths.

Sorry, no video there, so I don't get what you were talking about. For me the hints of closemindedness come from a variety of sources, starting for the particular way to quote other people's posts and the inability to follow simple protocols to do it properly like most of the other users. Asking about the meaning of words that are in freely 10-seconds-away available dictionary is another source. Dealing with a divergent problem like the one in this thread as it is a convergent one from a personal point of view but with a variety of convergent approaches a people is entitled their own opinion; this another source. But maybe I'm mixing up just-high-school and its narrow palette of approaches with closemindedness, besides foreign peculiarities with stereotypical nuances reminding me of that (I'm sure this works both ways)

 

[aleCcowaN]

I've never felt the need to actually codify a belief set. Hazy was fine. "Whatever" was fine. Now, somehow, I feel like there might be a need to identify what I actually DO believe. Is it normal to go through that? How does one go about that process?

I'd rather say this processes are by their own nature, personal. I have come to learn that they even depend on your brain architecture. For instance, my empathic brain doesn't connect well with my senses, so I can conceptualize other humans very well in an abstract way, and put me in their shoes, so to speak, but I can't associate creaking sounds with ghosts and other "flexible" mixes of perception and intellectualizations that bring others to think they are accompanied by Jesus or the Great Spirit. I can say that I am over-rational in a way I can't even parse the phrase "I believe in <insert imaginary friend here>", no matter the language. This is just to say what you're asking is personal and doesn't fall into any standard as the combination of personal circumstances and abilities is endless.

Thank Darwin, we live in times we don't have to believe to survive.

 

[aleCcowaN]

And you don't understand why atheists in the US are annoyed by the dominance of fundamentalist Christianity??? You must eat fish on Friday! You must accept Jesus!
It is not "insane" to protest loudly against these attitudes.
(By the way, do a bit of learning about the phrase "square head", it is offensive.)

I'd rather say that by promoting atheism people is failing to see what the problem is. A Protestant forcing a Catholic to eat fish on Friday is a good example of violation of basic human rights and lack of the most basic morality; not an example of why religion is "bad" and should be replaced by fake skepticism (I use k instead of c when I talk of this specific scepticism).

The case of that Kim-Davis freak is a good example of watering cans pointing away from the forget-me-nots. Everybody mixed up her mitigating circumstances in the moment of being sentenced -her religious beliefs- with the fact that she committed a crime. Davis' church is not bound to religiously marry same-sex couples and they are in their right to believe it is an abomination, but Davis broke the law by denying same-sex couples what is needed to fulfil their basic right to be legally married. Behind this there is a society that mixed up both marriages: the civil marriage, which is the only one who matters to society, and the religious marriages which may include traditional Mormons with multiple wives what is no my business to consider an abomination or not.

That's why in most countries you have to marry "twice". In Argentina, if you are a religious person, a lukewarm religious person or a non-religious person who believes in tradition, you marry on Wednesday or Thursday in civil premises -the real marriage- and you marry on Friday night or Saturday in church -the religious marriage, that cannot be performed unless the real marriage has taken place-. You may google "casamiento por civil" and "casamiento religioso" to look the attires and whatnot related to both ceremonies.

In the States there's such a confusion with that "by the power invested in my by the State of Californication" and the jury system where any mangia cirio (literally "candle eater", that is, religious freak) can overturn a guilty verdict, that they think it's a good idea to attack the rats in their burrows and try to brainwash them into "atheism" instead of having the law abode and public morals observed. In the States religion seems to be above the law and morality and non-theist freaks tend to confirm it with their actions.

 

[pharphis]

Sorry, no video there, so I don't get what you were talking about. For me the hints of closemindedness come from a variety of sources, starting for the particular way to quote other people's posts and the inability to follow simple protocols to do it properly like most of the other users. Asking about the meaning of words that are in freely 10-seconds-away available dictionary is another source. Dealing with a divergent problem like the one in this thread as it is a convergent one from a personal point of view but with a variety of convergent approaches a people is entitled their own opinion; this another source. But maybe I'm mixing up just-high-school and its narrow palette of approaches with closemindedness, besides foreign peculiarities with stereotypical nuances reminding me of that (I'm sure this works both ways)

Sorry, video is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Wow, so there's some "proper" protocol for quoting people? If it's nto obvious what my response is to, maybe you should ask for clarification instead of attributing it to CLOSED MINDEDNESS. No, it's much more simply explained by laziness.

Right, because asking what someone means when THEY use a word is closed minded... how? If anything, I'd say those adhering to strict dictionary definitions are the closed minded individuals. All I did was ask for clarifications.

Sorry but I have no understanding by what you mean re divergent/convergent here. Feel free to quote me the proper way in order to explain yourself. Or not. You can explain yourself by any means if you'd like, I'm pretty open about that sort of thing.

Are you calling me a high schooler? I'm not sure what you mean here. What the hell is a "narrow palette of approaches with closed mindedness?"

 

[quadraginta]

I think its valid applications are far fewer than the number of times it is used to justify being a dick.

Okay.

So what about this time?
Do you think it is invalid when applied to religious excesses? Should someone be considered a dick for speaking out against the mistreatment of gays? Blue Laws? When religion is used to justify laws against mixed marriages? Laws permitting chattel slavery?

How do you determine which times are okay, and which are not?

 

[quadraginta]

I'd rather say that by promoting atheism people is failing to see what the problem is. A Protestant forcing a Catholic to eat fish on Friday is a good example of violation of basic human rights and lack of the most basic morality; not an example of why religion is "bad" and should be replaced by fake skepticism (I use k instead of c when I talk of this specific scepticism).

Is this related to your anecdote? Because you didn't mention that they were held down and had fish stuffed down their throat, or that there were guards confiscating sandwiches when people came to work and barricading the doors so they couldn't go out and eat somewhere else.

Or is this a new and different usage of the word "forced".

The case of that Kim-Davis freak is a good example of watering cans pointing away from the forget-me-nots. Everybody mixed up her mitigating circumstances in the moment of being sentenced -her religious beliefs- with the fact that she committed a crime. Davis' church is not bound to religiously marry same-sex couples and they are in their right to believe it is an abomination, but Davis broke the law by denying same-sex couples what is needed to fulfil their basic right to be legally married. Behind this there is a society that mixed up both marriages: the civil marriage, which is the only one who matters to society, and the religious marriages which may include traditional Mormons with multiple wives what is no my business to consider an abomination or not.

That's why in most countries you have to marry "twice". In Argentina, if you are a religious person, a lukewarm religious person or a non-religious person who believes in tradition, you marry on Wednesday or Thursday in civil premises -the real marriage- and you marry on Friday night or Saturday in church -the religious marriage, that cannot be performed unless the real marriage has taken place-. You may google "casamiento por civil" and "casamiento religioso" to look the attires and whatnot related to both ceremonies.

In the States there's such a confusion with that "by the power invested in my by the State of Californication" and the jury system where any mangia cirio (literally "candle eater", that is, religious freak) can overturn a guilty verdict, that they think it's a good idea to attack the rats in their burrows and try to brainwash them into "atheism" instead of having the law abode and public morals observed. In the States religion seems to be above the law and morality and non-theist freaks tend to confirm it with their actions.

In defense of the state of Kentucky (something I wouldn't do lightly) Kim Davis has been compelled by law to issue valid marriage licenses in spite of her alleged religious beliefs.

In fact, across all the states such intransigence has been a rare enough exception as to provide news value mostly as an oddity, generally portrayed without a great deal of sympathy for the intransigent. The matter is, for all practical intents and purposes, settled. And relatively quickly at that.

So this diatribe of yours seems to not be particularly germane.

And the last sentence verges on incoherent.