[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[DanishDynamite]

How are they knowledge to the contrary?

One is a belief in a magic sky-daddy as someone who has all the answers and a belief in his earthly underlings expousing his will through magic knowledge of what the magic sky daddy wants. The other is a method of obtaining the truth about how our world works, one you can do yourself no matter where you are, and one which has an almost infinite record of being right.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Oh, well, if you're going to get involved in a DD thread, you ought to have friendly warning:

Life's just better if you don't.

 

[DanishDynamite]

That experience did not suddenly change my mind, but was one the I can clearly recall. You reasoned your way out; it is difficult to do otherwise, but it cannot be denied that it is easier if born (if you are Danish) in a country where religious belief is not so strong. You may not be aware of what influenced all of your reasoning.

It is not that the religious need to provide evidence; but that they can't. The cases of used car-salesmen or green socks are not the same. Religious people are often aware of the rules of evidence, and what is a fact, but they make a special case for religion. An explanation for this double-think is that it was of evolutionary advantage. It may have passed it's sell by date, but I can't agree that makes religious people idiots.

There is currently no explanation for the religiously inclined. I wish there was, as we could then just classify it as an illness. I hope more research will be done in this area as so many are afflicted.

 

[Egg]

One is a belief in a magic sky-daddy as someone who has all the answers and a belief in his earthly underlings expousing his will through magic knowledge of what the magic sky daddy wants. The other is a method of obtaining the truth about how our world works, one you can do yourself no matter where you are, and one which has an almost infinite record of being right.

So you've defined the terms as you understand them, but you've not answered my question.

 

[AkuManiMani]

So they are all equally idiotic based on their belief in the "supernatural"?

"Supernatural" is just a point of view. To believe in the "supernatural" is to believe in the reality of things beyond one's conception of what constitutes "natural" law. If isolated hunter-gatherers are exposed for the first time to cutting-edge modern technology they would consider such artifacts supernatural by their understanding of the world. If we were exposed to phenomenon or technology based on principles unknown to us we to could consider them supernatural as well. But ofcourse such things would be natural in the sense that they have basic underlying rules that govern them and can -- in principle -- be understood. To claim that a group of people are "idiots" because of their belief in the "supernatural" is extremely presumptuous.

No it isn't. There are currently no unexplained phenomena which are not thought to be crackable by scientific investigation.

Read the bold. Any phenomenon -- even the "supernatural" -- can in principle be understood. My statement still stands that your OP is presumptuous.

 

[humber]

There is currently no explanation for the religiously inclined. I wish there was, as we could then just classify it as an illness. I hope more research will be done in this area as so many are afflicted.

In the same way that homeopaths are waiting for research to prove them right?
So the best thing would be if religion were an illness?

There is a lot of evidence, and a quite a number of books that explore the evolutionary susceptibility to religious thinking. Religious experience, as an effect, can be induced in a subject despite their beliefs

It is not necessarily a bolted on meme or idea, but integral to the way we think, and probably connected to other irrational responses such as the placebo effect

 

[DanishDynamite]

Read the bold. Any phenomenon -- even the "supernatural" -- can in principle be understood. My statement still stands that your OP is presumptuous.

If the supernatural can be understood through the usual scientific method, then it is not supernatural. I suspect most believers' view of what they believe in, is not that it's a natural law. Hard to undertand people praying to a natural law.

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

When you have something of relevance to say, please do so.

What would be of relevance? Don't you like being disagreed with mate? if you start a thread like this you should be ready to come across some one like my self!

Now I understand that your an athiest like most people here, BUT why try starting a thread off by saying any one like myself is an idiot for believing in God then go and try to deny what you said then try saying unless the other person should go get something relevant to say or bugger off unless they live in a cave some where.

OK enlighten me oh grand exhaulted athiest please put me back into my "idiotic" place then, or untill then why don't you find some thing of relevance to say YOURSELF, then accept the fact that not all religious people are idiots.

 

[DanishDynamite]

So you've defined the terms as you understand them, but you've not answered my question.

If every phenomena around us can eventually explained by the scientific method, then where is the room for a magic sky-daddy? If the sky-daddy is just a natural law, how ridiculous is it to pray to this natural law?

 

[Senex]

And of course, there is also the distinction between 'idiotic religions' and 'religious idiots'.

Sometimes it seems a small distinction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=519097&in_page_id=1811

 

[ceo_esq]

One is a belief in a magic sky-daddy as someone who has all the answers and a belief in his earthly underlings expousing his will through magic knowledge of what the magic sky daddy wants. The other is a method of obtaining the truth about how our world works, one you can do yourself no matter where you are, and one which has an almost infinite record of being right.

That doesn't really answer Egg's question of why "The scientific method and the record of its achievements" necessarily constitutes "knowledge to the contrary" of religious belief, particularly if they constitute non-overlapping magisteria. (Granted, certain particular bodies of religious belief do overlap the scientific magisterium, and that's problematic - but it's not a general characteristic of religion.)

 

[DanishDynamite]

In the same way that homeopaths are waiting for research to prove them right?
So the best thing would be if religion were an illness?

The best thing would be if no such illness existed. But, yes, if it is an illness, it would be very good to so determine as therapy methods could then be looked for more easily.

There is a lot of evidence, and a quite a number of books that explore the evolutionary susceptibility to religious thinking. Religious experience, as an effect, can be induced in a subject despite their beliefs

No doubt. As I said previously there is evidence that a "god" center exists in the brain.

It is not necessarily a bolted on meme or idea, but integral to the way we think, and probably connected to other irrational responses such as the placebo effect

Why would you think so?

 

[DanishDynamite]

That doesn't really answer Egg's question of why "The scientific method and the record of its achievements" necessarily constitutes "knowledge to the contrary" of religious belief, particularly if they constitute non-overlapping magisteria. (Granted, certain particular bodies of religious belief do overlap the scientific magisterium, and that's problematic - but it's not a general characteristic of religion.)

I hope I explained the connection in my reply to Egg's question.

 

[Egg]

If every phenomena around us can eventually explained by the scientific method, then where is the room for a magic sky-daddy? If the sky-daddy is just a natural law, how ridiculous is it to pray to this natural law?

Can you show by the scientific method that every phenomena around us can eventually be explained by the scientific method?

If you were just a natural law, how ridiculous would it be to talk to you?

 

[Damien Evans]

Exactly. DD disrespects those who believe in God. DD insults someone solely on their beliefs, and is rude, arrogant, ignorant and his behavior is uncalled for. So I agree with you that only idiots engage in the behavior DD engages in.

I like the way you put that. Very cleverly worded.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Can you show by the scientific method that every phenomena around us can eventually be explained by the scientific method?

Obviously not. But as I said, there is no reason to suspect otherwise.

If you were just a natural law, how ridiculous would it be to talk to you?

Extremely!

 

[ceo_esq]

No doubt. As I said previously there is evidence that a "god" center exists in the brain.

There may be evidence that a "god" center exists in the brain, but the larger question is: if it does exist, what (if anything) is its existence evidence of? After all, some people think that a "god" center is exactly the sort of thing we would expect to find if God actually existed. Somewhere in Lewis' writings, for example, he argues roughly to the effect that the presence of our "food" center points to the external reality of food, the presence of a "sex" center points to the external reality of sex, and so forth.

 

[AkuManiMani]

If the supernatural can be understood through the usual scientific method, then it is not supernatural. I suspect most believers' view of what they believe in, is not that it's a natural law. Hard to undertand people praying to a natural law.

As I said, "supernatural" is a subjective point of view -- it is a relative term. If a phenomenon is beyond our current explanatory framework or understanding it would be "supernatural" to us. Or, if that particular term causes you to break out in hives, you could use Dawkin's neologism -- "perinormal".

Being that it's obvious that reality [even the portions that we know of] is not completely understood, and it is impossible to fully grasp its infinite workings, its a state of fact that existence itself is "supernatural".

 

[Egg]

Obviously not. But as I said, there is no reason to suspect otherwise.

So, to summarise your argument, you're saying that because of your belief which you can't prove by the scientific method, religious people are idiots for having beliefs which they can't prove by the scientific method. I guess there's no refuting that one .

 

[DanishDynamite]

There may be evidence that a "god" center exists in the brain, but the larger question is: if it does exist, what (if anything) is its existence evidence of?

If such a center exists, perhaps it is a remnant of something that once was useful. Perhaps it was the appendix of the brain, something we carry with us in our genes, but which is at best useless, nowadays.

Who knows, at this time?