I'm confused by some idioms and cultural artifacts. This occurred to me as it seems clear than one way to do a convincing impression of some other culture (speech wise anyway) is to use and understand its unique idiomatic language. Obviously there are weirder ones in English. Or in England. And in other languages. But these came up over the last week and have been bouncing around.
XYZ "saves lives". - What are they being saved from? People still all die, yes? Our intention is clearly to suggest that people are being spared from death when we use this term. They are not. They can be spared from suffering, pain, perhaps an earlier and unfortunate demise. But not from death itself. They are saved only at that time, not indefinitely. We don't have that kind of technology. Why then do we use the term as we do? I suppose lives are that valuable to us, as mortal beings, that even temporary relief from death is a salvation of sorts. But we speak too often of this as a general theme, and also too often overlook things like quality of life improvements in our apparent haste to avoid dying. The focus we have on an idiom like this doesn't do us any favors.
An insistence on using the term "Constitutional Republic" when "democracy" will do to describe, broadly speaking anyway, the system of government used by liberal, Western states like the US. The specificity is not necessarily useful and confuses people when discussing various economic and geopolitical theories related to a broader interpretation of "democracy" than the mere literal direct popular votes entailed by a direct democracy. Which almost no one wants or uses anyway. The term is more or less useless outside of an academic setting. Why do some Americans bother to bring out the word police baton when we might use them more generally to describe a system of government involving equal protection of civil rights and unimpeded participation in the political process (ie, voting, peaceful protests, etc)?
Asylum Isn't As Crazy as Trump Claims
1 hour ago
Posts
61 comments:
"Quality of life improvements" cannot be empirically measured or standardized.
What is the standard for "quality of life"? How can improvement of "quality of life" be determined? Why did you use this idiom to contrast with "save lives"?
I choose that term because it can at least be quantified in some manner and can certainly be stated empirically that there are health care events that improve and extend quality of life, even if you or I can't agree on a quantifiable average improvement. But I did not suggest that they could be quantified in the post (in theory they are by health care economists in the form of QALYs). I'm not sure why you bring that up as a result.
There is not a health care event that "saves lives". That is a meaningless term and isn't contrasting anything as a result. When we have immortal humans, I'll accept that as a meaningful term that has a cost-benefit comparison to make.
It's not that difficult to see things like relief of suffering or pain or improvements in our circulatory system as "quality of life" even if you cannot quantify it.
Your religious views are the only thing stopping you from accepting the term "saving lives"? This entire post was a rant against people who believe in eternal life?
Quality indicates quantifiable as saves indicates an intervention.
Is "saves money" an idiom? Or "saves time"? In both of these cases the object is not really saved.
If an intervention had not occurred during a specific event, the life, money, or time would all have been gone. Because of the intervention, some of the life, money, or time remains to be expended after the event.
What religious views indicate that we have immortal physical bodies that can be spared from the event of death? There are metaphysical beliefs about the afterlife sure, but I know of no belief that says there isn't a process of death that comes in there somewhere.
"Saves money" is an equally meaningless idiom in the abstract, but in the specific event in which we are speaking, a financial transaction, money can be saved by the buyer or gained by the seller over and above what they would ordinarily pay/receive. In the case of the life, the life is not spared by the intervention. It is merely improved by maintaining its existence for a little while longer.
Also, I've been ranting about "your" foolish and dangerous beliefs in afterlives and eternal life for a while now, yes. In my opinion there are a few billion people who are badly deluded most of the time about life and death and healthfully aware only at the moment of someone else's death just how precious their lives are. That might have been on my mind, but it's not the main reason I'm opposed to the phrase. There's nothing being saved there.
Indeed, if your belief IS in an eternal life, I don't see how you'd say a life was spared and thus how it would enter the conversation at all.
Put another way, the money analogy and comparison makes even less sense. How often is money destroyed during a transaction? Lives can be lost, or at least ended.
All the money does is be transferred. We can speak of transferring "life" or "lives" at the most general and abstract way where we are discussing how at large our health care systems, availability of food and other resources and the work required to produce or acquire such, are set up. That introduces some trade-offs. As does military strategies involving the protection of lives versus the deaths of others.
But at the individual level the only trade-off we're talking about in a "saving lives" scenario is usually whether or not to do risky health care procedures or more palliative ones. With money there's an actual shift in the level of transfer which could be described as "savings".
That is a difference of opinion, you think lives can be lost/destroyed based on your religious beliefs.
Foolish and dangerous?
To whom are my beliefs dangerous?
Perhaps it is a difference of belief, but as I said, I don't see how then the problem of "saving lives" enters the conversation if your position is to be that there is such a thing as eternal life to begin with.
Such beliefs are dangerous to yourself and, especially, to others. The "eternal life" or afterlife belief taken to its logical ends will, at its most extreme, lead to things like suicide bombings (or plain old suicide), and more generally lead to reckless behaviors justified against some presumed salvation, and a general disinterest in your actual life in favor of things which one is told to be important for their "immortal life". Which will no doubt vary based on the flavor of their chosen teller of such things.
I would see that as dangerous and foolish. Fortunately I also find that the character and expression of death in our societies tends to cut against most people taking this belief in an afterlife very seriously.
see this post for starters and in particular the attached discussion link.
http://suntzusaid.blogspot.com/2011/04/in-which-religious-fundamentalism-is.html
The reality of these beliefs in afterlife and immortal life is cutting against these being a very healthy set of beliefs.
Christians believe:
1)God gives life.
2)Sin seperates from God.
3)Seperation from God is death.
4)Breaking the rules/commands that God sets in the Bible is sin.
Which command[s] in the Bible "lead to things like suicide bombings (or plain old suicide), and more generally lead to reckless behaviors"?
Principally, I am referring to the mindset of religious fundamentalism as a whole and in particular, the relationship between "this life and the next", where more importance is placed upon "the next" over and above "this". This makes it possible for people to commit all manner of behavior in the theory that they are "saved" already as the premise of their salvation is only through grace/faith, and not through deeds, which are rendered almost worthless relative to one's belief and faith. This is a common strain of (Protestant) Christian belief, even if it is one you don't subscribe to personally. I've noticed you have some very non-mainstream notions about what it means to be Christian, this perhaps being one of them. I have personally seen this sort of behavior to be common to evangelicals, stemming from this "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will". Whether or not all their "sins" are to be forgiven by a just and loving god, that they have these "sins" should also have for them the cause to make amends for their errors and the suffering and pains they have imposed upon others. Deeds seem just as fine a cause as salvation, to someone like me, more so. But to many a Christian believer, deeds are rendered meaningless through salvation and redemption. No deed is sin under that logic. There's a rap lyric that describes this problem, as I see it, perfectly "Saturday sinners Sunday morning at the feet of the father".
Secondly, where more importance is placed on afterlife and rewards promised through faith and other holy commands, it's very easy to attach extra importance to commands issuing violence and atrocity upon others. I'm not sure what Bible you are reading, but both the Old and New Testaments are filled with notions that their God is pleased with violent retribution, animal sacrifices, and so on. To give some examples:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
"And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea."
"Every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." - interpreted as a commandment ordering the deaths of non-Christians (and non-Muslims where it appears in similar form in the Qu'ran).
"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon."
"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
"having made peace through the blood of his cross" - blood is necessary for peace?
"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope." - this concerns our current disagreement over eternal life. I still see no reason why people who believe in eternal life should be greatly concerned with "saving lives".
"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people."
"Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."
"And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer."
"And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword."
"And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."
In these commands and passages I see the idea that the death of unbelievers is just and a worthy cause commanded by god. And I didn't even touch the Old Testament. Where that idea really shines through. The Bible is hardly a work of peace and mercy, and its followers have hardly accorded themselves in a manner unsuitable to their holy book as a result.
Is that an answer to a question I asked?
I cannot follow your answer. How does your response answer my question?
I know Christian beliefs. But as for other religions, I cannot answer for their beliefs. I know almost nothing about Atheist fundamentalism, but I think your explanation of "the mindset of religious fundamentalism as a whole" does not include the mindset of Atheist fundamentalism.
"Which command[s] in the Bible "lead to things like suicide bombings (or plain old suicide), and more generally lead to reckless behaviors"? " - Is that a question you asked or not?
If not, then I should speak to the version of your words that did ask it. Perhaps we can come back to this discussion when you start to take it a little more seriously and ask questions that you actually want answers to. YOU asked where I found the Bible to instruct such actions as I see to be dangerous and reckless and to permit violence toward others and yourselves, and I so responded. If it didn't answer your question, then you should say so. It's not that hard to find more passages in your books to support my case.
As far as "atheist fundamentalism" I don't think you will find one exists. That's the problem with including it as a mindset of fundamentalism. What atheist doctrines are there to adhere to strictly? What atheistic texts are there to conform to as dogma as in the Qu'ran or Bible? On what points are atheists inflexible to changing their minds in the manner of a religious fundamentalist, rejecting out of hand evidence where it can be presented and verified? To put it succinctly, why, in your view, should it be considered a form of fundamentalism?
Further. Suppose hypothetically it is to be so considered, why should it be compared on the same level of danger as Christian or Islamic fundamentalism? Is there some mass movement of atheists that I'm unaware of that has threatened society as a whole in the manner of the Crusades or the Intifada? I'm sure you could bring up Communism, but that's not a fundamental requirement for atheism, nor is it a dogma that need be adhered to by atheists. There was no central commands moving atheists to the support of the USSR. There was a central command moving Russians and Ukrainians and Poles to the support of the USSR. It was a dogma required by the state rather than by "us". There is no great center where atheists should go to learn of and be indoctrinated in the ways of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin. There are such centers for Christians and Muslims to be taught the ways of Jesus and Mohammed. Even though these ways of prophets be better in my view than those of communists, they still have their dark sides that can be focused upon by those willing to embrace them. That's my point. You may not embrace those darker points, but some do. Enough to cause considerable mayhem and dismay upon others in the name of their holy prophets and books.
To address your earlier points
1) God gives life. This isn't in contention. I don't belief in god, and you do. Our contention centered around not the existence of life but its permanence and length.
2) Sin separates from God. I don't recall where I've indicated this is a problem. I've said that belief in afterlife can lead to reckless and dangerous behavior. Whether or not these specific behaviors are regarded as sinful is up to you and your religious beliefs....
3)Seperation from God is death. I suppose the implication that follows from #2 is that eternal life is granted only to a few, ie those who are not sinful? I was under the impression that some guy died on a cross to get around that problem of sin and that THAT was a central tenet of your faith. Perhaps I've been reading the wrong Bibles?
4)Breaking the rules/commands that God sets in the Bible is sin. I am indicating with my responses quoting the holy book of your religion that the things I'm suggesting happen can happen without violating those commands and rules and thus would not be seen as sin. At least by some who adhere to this faith. Ie, that your rules and commands are open to some interpretation. Depending greatly on which passages you place more importance upon. There are plenty of passages in the Bible, both Old and New to command the faithful to slay unbelievers, to judge the "wicked" and punish them, and so on. If these are to be taken as a part of that faith, then how is what I'm suggesting happens as a consequence of accepting eternal life as a belief, another tenet of that faith, suggesting that these people are "sinners"? Are they not following the same holy commands and rules as you? Just following some of them a little more strongly?
Is there a fundamental teaching all atheists hold in common? This or these teachings are Atheist fundamentalism.
The idea that one can claim an explanation of the mindset of religious fundamentalism without including their own religious fundamentalism is intellectually dishonest.
The premise you want me to accept is that your religious beliefs do not constitute a religion. My religious beliefs are a religion, but yours are not.
Every argument comes back to this fundamental premise that is, as far as I can tell, false.
"Is there a fundamental teaching all atheists hold in common?" So far as I know of, no. If you have one in mind, I asked you to suggest one by asking "what atheist doctrines are there to adhere to", and "what atheistic texts are there to conform to?"
Insisting that atheism is a religion and in particular has fundamentalist adherents is not evidence that it is and it does when it fails these criteria. I don't see how that is intellectual dishonest because the criteria are laid out already for both of us to evaluate and atheism fails to hold to them. I've asked you to show me how atheism is a religion and you have ignored this question as though it should be assumed.
Therefore, yes... the premise I suppose I would have you accept is that I do not have religious beliefs. Full stop. What I have not seen you do is make an attempt to show that this premise is in fact false. You simply assert it as though it must be true and that it is impossible that I should have no religious beliefs of any kind. Simply stating that you believe this premise, that atheists in fact DO have a religion of some sort, does not prove that point. It is an unproven assertion that you are making and which I, and most other atheists, would reject for lack of evidence in support of it.
To simplify matters:
here is the definition of a "religion"
1) a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: eg the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
Where do atheists agree upon a set of fundamental beliefs and practices? I think we would find very little similarity in their fundamental worldviews between any two random atheists, probably less than between any two random religious people of any faith. Perhaps this claim is wrong, but without a core set of teachings that atheists receive from evangelists, of a sort, I'd think it likely. There isn't even a code of morals that is unified and accepted across atheists.
Where do they ascribe supernatural agency? We usually don't. That's kind of the point, that there is not evidence for nor a method to understand and study supernatural events and thus we reject them as false understandings or metaphysical subjectivism. You're probably making it up through tricks the human brain uses on most human beings to anthropomorphize events and ascribe purpose to natural phenomenon. That's a useful evolutionary trick for a social creature like humans to have, but it fails to show that the supernatural is any more real than when primitive peoples used to offer sacrifices for rain or to avoid drought and bad storms. Praying isn't any better at these things than bleeding a cow or a goat for creating supernatural effects.
What rites and rituals do they have? We have no rituals or sites of religious and spiritual importance.
The absence of belief is not the same as having a positive set of beliefs. We don't worship your negative god for instance. Claiming this is the case is going to get you nowhere. I'm not even sure how, even if you could hypothetically demonstrate that there is some set of beliefs taken to an unhealthy and literal extreme, that "atheist fundamentalists" would constitute some threat to the greater community. What threat and danger do you suppose is being caused since you insist the group must exist?
Do you believe there is a god or gods? Do any atheists believe there is a god or gods?
This is atheist fundamental doctrine. There is one teaching and all adherents of atheism must believe it. It is not possible to be an atheist without adhereing to the fundamental doctrine of atheists. See your definitions #2 and #3. Your religion has no other fundamental teachings, just the one.
All atheists are religious fundamentalists, unlike any other religion.
You want to claim a lack of belief, but that is the realm of agnosticism. You have a fundamental belief as an atheist. Why ignore the fact? Why claim it is not a fact?
It is not taught as doctrine. It is a conclusion reached independently by many millions of people based on the available evidence, human history and anthropology, and the philosophical/metaphysical structures used to develop theology and construct religions. This is a distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but it is not a "requirement" in the sense that we kick you out of the church, so to speak. There is no "teaching". Nobody told us this was the case and nobody compels us to believe it is the case. This is unlike religious fundamentalism where there are compelling social bonds, strong charismatic figures, and thousands of years of cultural history to draw upon that can be used to restrict and control followers.
If there were to be uncovered and developed and tested new evidence, we would change our minds (I view this as astronomically unlikely). This is a strong case against atheism being a fundamentalist dogma, where by there is a strict requirement to adhere to the underlying dogmas.
As for it being a religion and your insistence that is one, if it lacks the features and characteristics of a religion, and indeed, is defined fundamentally (in your words) by the absence, by the lack of a belief, then how is it a religion at all? How would it be a form of RELIGIOUS fundamentalism, much less any other kind, if it is not a religion?
The analogy I have seen which works best here is to claim that "not playing baseball" is a sport. You are claiming that someone who lacks a positive belief has a belief.
That makes no sense.
Two further comments.
1) I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "fundamentalism". By your description of it relative to atheism, ANY irreducible religious belief, such as that of Christians that Jesus is their savior, or merely that they must believe in a deity, would seem to be a symptom of religious fundamentalism. That's not fundamentalism. What we're usually talking when discussing "fundamentalism" is strict doctrinal adherence to (theological) dogma. This is most often characterized by people disregarding oppositional evidence and usually occurs as a reaction to modernizing influences (ie, science and secularist societies). Since atheism is largely a response to evidence available rather than a rejection of it, I'm not sure how it can be regarded as "fundamentalist". More to the point, large numbers of atheists don't care very much to think it over. The absence of their beliefs and attached religious rituals is based on the absence of interest in deities, theology, and metaphysics.
2) I think we are completely and thoroughly disagreed that atheism is even a form of religion. You have yet to demonstrate how it could be so considered. You still are relying on the "I said so, therefore it is" defence. Again, rejecting evidence that it is clearly not.
What evidence?
irreducible religious belief: There is no god.
Every atheist believes this. It is not an absence of belief. It is the presence of the belief: There is no God.
You are arguing that your belief is a negation of something, therefore not a belief.
You do not understand the fallacy of your own argument?
The argument you are making could be applied in several similar scenarios.
1) Most people don't believe in dragons.
2) Most theists reject most of the pantheistic gods (Vishnu, Thor, etc).
I don't think most people would consider these to be "beliefs" by having no belief in something that they do not see exists. Hence, I am not sure what causes you to insist that atheism is a belief as this is not evidence that it is a religion (and again, I defined "religion" some time ago, which atheism fails to attain, and points to which you have not bothered to reply).
For most atheists, any belief, positive or negative regarding deities of any kind would be like asking if they believe in dragons or aliens living on the planet Mars. These are questions that do not occur to most of us to ask because there isn't even sufficient evidence to suggest that these things are even possible.
Further scenarios...
1) Imaginary friends
2) Santa Claus
3) Inter-dimensional beings
... Essentially when what we are asked to believe in is the imagination of other people, I'm not sure you would call rejecting the reality or even the plausibility of that imagination a belief.
Um... Would you explain why you think society established religion, please?
Social cohesion, same reason we establish governments and laws. It's an evolutionary behavior involving what a social creature must do in order to foster cooperation (something that religions actually do very well at creating in-group unity by demanding conformity to a group's traditions and thinking, weakened by its unfortunate ability to be very good at creating out-groups by according negative motivations to non-aligned groups, like other religions. Very similar to nationalism in that respect).
This is combined with the human brain's somewhat unique ability to perceive, and in more extreme cases, imagine, motivations and causes behind events and to develop plans and responses to such stimuli (like weather). Most humans will anthropomorphize the universe and see purpose and motive where there is merely process (they see a "why" where there is only "how"). That leads, eventually, to thinking of a personal god, though most of that is created through accepting pre-existing social customs.
Religions as customs evolved out of simple and primitive superstitions (things like what must be done to prevent drought or to prevent sickness) and as societies became more sedentary began using oral traditions to create a stratified culture (ie, "we" know what the god/gods wants so you may prosper and even live, so you must do what "we" say). Prior to that, societies relied more on forager mentalities which have a more egalitarian sensibility and no sense of "religion" as a set of enforced rituals and rites, only superstitions. But the underlying process used to create both systems of thought is equally flawed as they both rely solely on myth and superstition and not upon anything non-imaginary.
The structural difference between Thor and Jesus isn't very much in my book. That is: there are obvious differences of emphasis for the societies around which worship of Thor or Jesus developed, but the underlying systems are the same. Make up and tell some stories, attach some moral significance to them, give them a deified body backing them to make them seem more official, move on to the next moral lesson. This has obvious uses for any society. But it's still just mythology either way.
Societies only need religions because we have not taken the trouble to demand of people the necessity and responsibility to behave themselves and to learn how to do so (for themselves) in a just and humane manner. God, to me, looks a lot like Santa Claus for adults. Parents can probably say about how useful this practice actually is for modifying behavior (not as much as they'd like it to would be my guess), but it can have some impact on repressing culturally unacceptable action and creating conformity around a basic set of morals shared by the broader community. For a social animal, that's necessary for survival and so religions propagate themselves as an evolutionary useful tool.
I'd also hasten to add that, not surprisingly, religions have been borrowing from each other for thousands of years some of the same stories or same concepts. Islam is Christianity is Norse gods is Roman is Persian is Judaism is Egyptian mythology and so on down the line.
They borrow it because it seems to "work", in that it satisfies demand for religious notions and questions by the common person. Not because it was any more true. There's a reason why the Christian bible includes the books it does and disposed of others as an example.
Since you asked the question, why do you think religion exists?
Also relevant to ask: why is it then necessary in your view?
I would argue it is unnecessary (one can attain a set of morals and the desire and ability to attempt to adhere to them and never read a word of religious scripture, indeed, one would be better off socially and morally in some cases if they did not read some parts of religious scripture). But it isn't going away either because there are elements of human nature and psychology that make it popular, useful, and difficult to override. The growth of religious fundamentalism in the US in response to a perceived intrusive rise of "secularism" (in the form of globalisation, the pervasiveness of the internet, and increasing tolerance of some non-traditional norms) is evidence of this resilience.
God.
I would argue it is unnecessary (one can attain a set of morals and the desire and ability to attempt to adhere to them and never read a word of religious scripture, indeed, one would be better off socially and morally in some cases if they did not read some parts of religious scripture).
I would agree, but not without God.
If every religion splintered from one personal knowledge the same observations concerning religions of the world would be equally corresponding.
"[T]he necessity and responsibility [of people] to behave themselves and to learn how to do so (for themselves) in a just and humane manner."
Why do you think it is necessary that people behave themselves in a just and humane manner?
"God" is not an answer, certainly not one compatible with human history. If we invented god, as I claim we did, then that doesn't bode very well for where religion comes from if "god" is your answer for where it comes from or why it is necessary.
I obviously disagree that god makes morality or is even necessary for it. Human beings ought to take responsibility for that themselves and at least attempt to learn how to think and behave ethically. Even if you are to be religious, this ought to be a burden to be tackled as best you are able rather than one avoided by simply taking what you are told.
Because we're social animals it's necessary that we learn to get along. Hence being "just and humane" is kind of part of the ballgame.
Yeah, you already said you didn't believe in God. You said that your set of beliefs wasn't a religion.
I honestly have no idea why as social creatures we would need to be just or humane. I thought that because we get along, some people think we are social creatures. Because we are just and humane, we appear to be social creatures.
How do you know which is your premise and which is your conclusion?
It's not just that I don't believe in God. Saying "god is why we have religion" is a tautological fallacy. Because we only have god because we have religions. Which premise is correct?
Human beings have evolved to be social creatures. Social creatures all the way down to ants have developed methods of cooperation and coordination in order to survive. Human beings cannot survive, or at least competitively survive and flourish the way that we do, without using similar systems to coordinate and establish relationships with other human beings. That makes us social creatures. It isn't "because we get along" that we think we are social creatures, it is our essential nature as living beings to be social. Period. Being just and humane is not an essential nature, it is an extra nature that allows humans to get along better and more effectively, without the messy downsides of being unjust and inhumane.
The fallacy is not tautological as the definition of religion does not state: a set of beliefs in or about god.
Instead it is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe[.]"
Especially is a term that does not mean exclusively, but generally connotates.
Usually is a term that does not mean always, but frequently.
The clause markers in the definition are ignored by you in the fallacious manner of the ignorant and/or the deceitful.
I have not self-defined the terms. But you have committed agregious self-defining. Insisting on definitions not in evidence.
While it is true that the definition does not encompass ALL manners, it is sufficient for most purposes to state that religious beliefs do entail deities, supernatural, and rituals, as well as moral codes. Where these are lacking, it is harder to discern that a religion exists and that there will likely be considerable division in a "group" without such links. Secondly, if our definition of a religion is limited strictly to "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", I don't see how you have established that "absence of belief in god" is a set of beliefs concerning any of those things. You have repeatedly claimed it. But you haven't offered any proof that it is a belief of any kind.
It is still a tautology. You cannot say that religion exists because of god when god exists because of religion (that is, that human beings in the course of their social behavior have invented religious deities to worship). It is at the very least, circular and donut looking logic. Which comes first in priority in your mind then? God or religion?
No, you believe the idea of God exists because of religion, because you don't believe that God exists.
Assuming God exists: Obviously religion comes from him. God necessitates religion.
You asked "Why do you think religion exists?" "What necessitates it?"
Assuming the "Garden of Eden" in the Bible is factually accurate: God dwelt with man as a physical being. Man is expelled from the Garden, and an angel is set to guard against man eating of the "Tree of Life." This is the beginning of the seperation of man and God.
Through the first few chapters of the Bible, God continues to come to men in physical form. Then the Bible says that "men began to call upon the name of the Lord." A further seperation of God and man.
Then messengers from God: refered to in the Bible as "angels" deliver his messages to chosen people. A further seperation.
As God seperates from man the ability of man to remember God becomes vague. The stories are all oral tradition without as yet written languages. What is amazing is the similarities of religions on different continents: Burnt unblemished sacrifices to atone for misdeeds, the great flood, the prohibition of drinking blood, and the confusion of a master tongue are consistant with all ancient religions.
Lol. I'm sorry that one just doesn't bear arguing with. I will give you the points on admitting your religious views and speaking to them rather than leaving them on the bench as you usually have done.
But damn. There aren't that even that many Christians I know who take the Bible as a factual story (I know plenty actually, but not relative to the much larger number who don't), and I've already demonstrated that it shouldn't be taken as a text containing literal facts. It borrows, it steals, it revises, and it is a story. That is all. It might be a useful story, but nobody reads about Zeus and Thor and Isis today and says that shit actually happened and that it is a part of human history. There's a reason they don't. You might want to look into that.
As for your last "point", you might want to recall that I covered that... religions operate to propagate themselves to foster cooperation between and among groups of people. One way to get cooperation with a new group of people is to announce a set of common ground, such as a shared mythology. There's a reason Christmas is in December for example (and it's not because that's when Jesus was born). Things like that happen all the time. Large portions of Islam or Christianity are built upon the existing edifices of previous religious traditions. The reason was that those traditions "worked". People accepted them, practiced them, and if all one had to do is shift the direction of their prayers and offerings to a different named deity, it's a lot easier than getting them to conform to a whole new set of rules right off the bat. This is hardly "amazing". It's an artifact of human history and anthropology and the evolution of humans across these eras. One can look at the development of written languages across different continents and see the same sorts of pattern as the development and spread of religions. It's not some unique process that we should imbue with any special priority or be especially impressed by as though the process involves the unique discovery of facts across continents. It involves the spread of existing "facts", through mythology and philosophy.
Two further points.
1) I am amused and pleased that you are willing to declare your religious views. I don't think it necessary to argue with them. But this is largely because they are beyond reasonable argument, there are not facts that I or anyone else could appeal to if those are your facts. I have no power to convince you that you have silly and foolish views and no desire to do so. I am mostly attempting to dissuade you of a far sillier logical error in believing that the lack of sharing in those views is somehow constituting a religion and a fundamentalist one at that. I don't care what your faith is, how strong it is, but won't find it convincing evidence that not sharing it is a belief of its own. There's just too much anthropology, evolutionary psychology, and human "history" in the form of mythology in the way to take these sorts of beliefs seriously as worth submitting them as facts.
2) Stating such things, as I already indicated, does not answer the question of "why does religion exist" or the more pressing one of "what necessitates it". It creates a circular message whereby the statement of beliefs is a sufficient cause for the existence of them. That's not necessity. What makes those beliefs essential? Nothing in your story requires it and humans could just as easily have rejected it. Why did/do they not? I have submitted an argument for why this happened.
It is you who have not demonstrated why these beliefs are any different from previous religious dogmas that are now discarded and rejected or even from other supernatural inventions like dragons, zombies, or ghosts. Why someone who doesn't believe in those things isn't subject to the same amount of petty ridicule as you would subject atheism to seems beyond your power to explain. Simply stating what you believe is not sufficient to state that "not believing" in your (imaginary) beliefs is grounds for that absence of belief to be considered a religion. You can repeat that argument as many times and as many ways as you want. It is not convincing and is not even coherent or reasonable.
As for your insistence (or even, to be charitable, assumptions of for purpose of argument) on biblical literalism, I will try to keep the mocking voice in my head to a minimum. I will say that if you want some atheistic advice on improving your reasoning abilities, at least toss out the Old Testament (save the book of Job) and Revelations as something to be taken as literal and holy and to be viewed and read without skepticism. Those were thoroughly debunked about 250 years ago by secularists (Paine and Jefferson for starters) and there's plenty of theological scholarship suggesting the same even within Christianity. Biblical literalism of the sort you are suggesting at is kind of quaint and pathetic, and by extension amusing and occasionally dangerous (as I've suggested its appearance behind religious terrorism throughout human history is hardly surprising), but it's not a useful way to convince people of anything.
If that is what you actually believe and you have discarded your mask, basically, I feel sorry for you.
Says the man who believes that man evolved from non-living matter on a planet that is only 5 billion years old.
The statistical probability of that occurring is less than the statistical probability of you surviving entirely intact ground zero of the detonation of a hydrogen bomb.
Empirical scientific data for evolution does not exist.
I feel sorry for you.
1) At least you're willing to admit the planet isn't only 6000 years old or some other nonsense. There's hope for you yet sir.
2) It's not that complicated for life to evolve over a matter of billions of years. In fact once evolution starts with living material, that we would end up with a complex organism like a human being is hardly surprising at all. The difficulty for most people is understanding just how long a time scale several billion years is. Geological time is not like lifetimes.
Adam and Eve weren't created as infants or fetuses, either.
I read Genesis and was convinced that it is more fantastic than any other story I'd ever read.
I examined evolution.
Tell me: How many billions of years would it take for the proteins that are the composition of the virus and the amoeba, and all other life, to achieve the complex structures only duplicated today in certain metabolic functions of amoeba to the point that life could begin? What kind of event would cause it without denaturing the proteins involved or aborting the life it was creating?
I have no scientific evidence that this is possible. Therefore God, however absurd, is the only logical explanation.
Disproving evolutionary theory, however improbable that may be in the face of evidence in support of it, does not mean that "god, however absurd, is the only logical explanation". That is not a logical conclusion that evolutionary theory is opposed completely and only by creationism.
There are all manner of scientific like theories which have been debunked or disproven in favor of more advanced understandings in the light of new evidence. Physics is littered with discarded theories of this sort. Supposing macro-evolutionary theory is conflicted with real evidence debunking its mechanisms (of the sort that you have not presented here by presenting a mathematical problem of probabilities. I think you very much overestimate the problem of protein strands forming and organising into primordial lifeforms), this merely means the theory is invalidated and a new theory which takes account of this new evidence would be needed.
It does not automatically follow to conclude that there must be a god, much less a personified deity of the Christian tradition, or that there must be a creationist element to the universe. This is not sound reasoning nor is it itself empirically grounded in the manner that you are suggesting that evolution is not. You offer no proof that you or rather your beliefs are and must be correct. Only an attempt (feeble at that) to demonstrate that a set of scientific conclusions are wrong.
It does not even follow that acceptance of evolutionary theory is automatically a denial of the existence of god. There are various religious institutions around the world which hold both features to be true in the universe. Trying to use your objections to such as an argument for proving god makes no sense as a result.
I suppose also you have finally made clear what it is that you think constitutes religious beliefs of atheists. I would not agree that "evolution" is a "belief", nor that it is a required belief shared by all atheists (or agnostics, or even theists). Some atheists do not spend a great deal of time concerning themselves with the fundamental nature of the universe and their rejection of belief in deities is based more upon personal disinterest in metaphysics than upon some positive example that disproves these beliefs for themselves. One might consider these to be intellectually lazy people, and certainly where it comes to philosophy this might be true, but they're usually concerned with studying other things (biology, physics, etc).
As far as the claim itself, this is like claiming that the Earth is part of a solar system, and revolves around our sun in an elliptic orbit is a "belief". As amusing as Hoyle's Fallacy is, it's been around a while, it's not a new or revolutionary creationist objection, and it is an entirely unconvincing statistical miscalculation that only attempts to object to natural abiogenesis (not evolutionary theory as a whole). However implausible it may seem to be, there is not evidence to declare that it requires a deity or a theistic universe in order to occur. Indeed, it is more implausible to advance that claim that it is required; particularly with scientific tests over 60 years old that demonstrate how organic matter can form, even very quickly, from inorganic matter using basic chemical processes. As I said, you're dramatically overestimating the improbability of such events.
As was cited by a Christian in a post above, a reliance upon complete rejection of science (a la creationism) does not bode well for intelligent people accepting religious beliefs over the long term. Such reliance will drive many modestly intelligent people away from faith by doing so because it will sound like a the words of raving idiots to them. People are better off if they wish to be religious being skeptical of science but moderately accepting of its claims that appear to be supported by evidential data and are thereby testable hypotheses, like evolutionary theory is, and sticking to metaphysical assumptions about supernatural/theological inventions like the soul or moral messages about social organisation for uses for religion. Science usually has little to say about "why" a society is the way it is as it is usually only good at answering "how" questions. The why stuff is usually stuff we make up and religion is and has been good at such things. Trying to use religious dogma to explain the workings and natural processes of the world around us does not compute as a fine and wondrous use of theology because it usually requires adherence to textually expressed understandings of the world that are thousands of years old and not evidence.
"Trying to use religious dogma to explain the workings and natural processes of the world around us does not compute as a fine and wondrous use of theology because it usually requires adherence to textually expressed understandings of the world that are thousands of years old and not evidence."
What evidence do you have that Thomas Jefferson ever existed; that his ideas were not "invented" in 1962?
You have never approached your beliefs in a scientific or philosophical fashion, and you never will for fear that they will be beliefs.
Every one of your last six comments is an appeal to emotion. As you know I have no emotions, you must be talking to yourself.
It was not my intention to persuade you of anything. I cannot change your mind, only, you can do that. I, simply, wished to understand. I think I understand somethings a little clearer, now.
Thank you.
I would recommend examining the clean/unclean laws written in Leviticus from a purely scientific perspective.
1) Are these practices practical in observance?
2) What is the purpose of these practices?
3) Does any other "religion" teach these practices?
4) How did the authors' of the text come up with these practices?
5) What were the authors' purposes for these practices?
And now the last defence of the defeated: that there must be no reality at all and that we're all just imagining everything, which somehow invalidates all reasonable conclusions about recorded history and scientific observation. I imagine if we did live in a monoist universe this conclusion would have merit. I imagine the possibility exists that apples could fly upward tomorrow or the sky would turn a forest shade of green instead of its present blue. But I would have to say that the likelihood of such events is so infinitesimally small that I care not to acknowledge the possibility in common conversation. Besides which, if you or I did inhabit such a universe, not only would it not matter which of us is right or wrong, but there would be no purpose in having your beliefs nor my own views. The possibilities certainly do occur to me that our reality is not what it seems. But if it is not, we have not the mental ability to discern this. Human beings lack the mental and sensory ability to experience alternate and alternative realities of the sort you would depict here. As such, it is unnecessary to pretend that we should admit them as our reality. Or that this tacit and safe assumption that they are not real is somehow in and of itself a form of religion. Considering it is the fundamental day-to-day experience of all human beings, I find it very difficult to presume that they should have to consider consciously and repeatedly that they are in fact a brain living in a vat somewhere or are the only being and mind in existence and are simply making up the universe around themselves instead as living breathing animals interacting with a physical, material universe containing other complex mental beings. As interesting as those thought experiments are, they are beyond our ability to experience and to present them as true would be to reject what we do and can experience as false and ultimately to reject our experiences as unnecessary (the very idea which I have claimed is most dangerous and suspect in afterlife theories and theology, that they reject our natural lives as unnecessary.) There is no reason, without evidence, to reject that these experiences are, and indeed, must be false as a result or then move to assert positively that there is some other plane of existence instead. They may be incomplete or flawed in some respects, but they are what we can know and share in as a species. That is enough to find them convincing experiences.
To apply this to your specific case. There is substantial evidence through human understanding of cause and effect and by extension observed study of history that Thomas Jefferson existed, that he produced documents some many years ago (that can be dated to the rough time frame we know of his existence), and that thus he did not appear suddenly in 1962 as part of some extensive and elaborate plot of secularists to ruin your fun. To suppose that he did not exist prior to 1962 is in part to suppose that anything prior to 1962 did not occur or that the entire idea of recorded history is an abjectly useless cause. For instance, it would be just as easy, if this is the sort of reality and logic you wish to use, to advance the idea that Jesus did not exist prior to 1962 or that the idea of a deity and religious beliefs did not. Why should we suppose that these things, the things you believe, are true and other notions are false if this is the sort of logic to be used? Such denialism is amusing, but I don't think it helps your arguments to indulge in it. The logical conclusion of such a reality is to claim that nothing exists but yourself, nothing that can be proven anyway (Descartes did this one for you a couple hundred years ago. Though apparently Descartes does not exist in your world, so you can be forgiven for not realising this when you presented the question). The idea of someone talking to themselves looks to be an error you yourself could be engaging in if this is the reality you believe we experience.
I don't see where I am appealing (solely) to emotions or that you have at all indicated previously that you lack them. Perhaps you do not experience emotion (an idea which would suggest some serious mental health problems as a human being bereft of emotion lacks motivations to act and is paralyzed when confronted with the need to make choices of any kind.) But I also don't see where this was relevant to this conversation. Because if you had (actually) read the above 6 statements you would find that I have stated plainly in them that there are available facts and evidence accumulated contrary to your beliefs or suppositions and in them have advanced specific gaps in your "logic" that, if not directly invalidating them, at the very least require you to offer up positive evidence in support of your theories, evidence that you lack, in order to show that they would be true. As I indicated, merely falsifying theories of evolution or science, which you have not successfully done, does not by itself prove theological conclusions to be true. There's a big missing step there that you would have skipped. This is a serious logical error that you are content to chose to ignore, and was not an emotional plea for sanity. As for evidence, I mentioned that scientific experiments have been done for decades now directly contradicting your objection that somehow inorganic matter could not be disposed to assemble itself through normal natural chemical reactions into simple proteins without some external force (like a creator), and which given geological time scales would certainly be capable of assembly into sustainable primordial life forms starting down the chain toward complex organisms like human beings as we have now. Maybe you were unaware of this fact when you replied thusly, but you don't get to continue to deny such things simply because they are inconvenient for your arguments or because it contradicts the rhetorically meaningless flourish accompanying Hoyle's fallacy.
Since you have not seen fit to dispute these claims or correct your logical assumptions but instead move now to deny that our very idea of reality must exist at all in order to prove them false, I could assume that you cannot or will not refute them. An alternative assumption would be that you exist in some alternate dimension or form of reality. Perhaps. But Nebraska seemed very real to me at least when I drove through it or have flown over it. It certainly did not seem a very magical realm where history does and can not exist and where human beings are merely brains living in isolated vats stripped of their emotional content and being subjected to sense-data.
In any case, this has long since gotten boring for me. I've read your creationist playbooks already and you're advancing nothing new and nothing that is not decades out of date in terms of accommodating available scientific
empirical evidence. It is that reason why I see no need to reconsider my positions. Not because I am unwilling to reconsider them under any circumstances, as you apparently are (your psychological problem with projectionism has returned with a vengeance in this last post). Please read some more books sir. The one is not enough.
I've already quoted your book several comments ago. I see no reason to respond to your questions about it to me if you're not willing to respond to my questions about it. That is not a polite and equal conversation that we would be having. It would be rather you ignoring me.
Have a nice day.
To be polite and indulge your question..
1) They can be practical. However they are ultimately arbitrary. There are clean and unclean animals alike whereby eating or handling undercooked meats may transmit illness (cows, sheep, fish, chickens, along with pigs or oysters) and even being around in constant contact could be lethal and hazardous by spreading disease and plagues. Particularly in the manner of nomadic sheperds and herdsmen or medieval families where animals and humans slept alike under the same roof. A hunter hunting a wild boar has a chance of dying, but the same man living with his pigs, or even the city man who buys his pork had for many centuries a much higher chance of death. This was not because the pig was particularly special in agriculture as a lethal product however. It's because humans and animals, particularly mammals, share enough common bacteria and viral ailments to transmit them to each other. Some of which evolved over the millennia of domestication. This is in fact a key reason why Europeans were able to settle the Americas. Modest smallpox immunities built up from centuries of living with plague inducing animals that didn't even exist in the New World. Which exterminated millions of natives as a result without firing a shot or raising a sword. All it took was some blankets and coughing, and some new animals.
Disease or plague is a huge killer for most of human history, but it's not limited to a handful of creatures as causes or carriers. To suggest that an ancient text and culture stumbled upon these ignores that it (deliberately) overlooked other disease carriers.
2) I assume the purpose is believed to be healthy (clean) living of some sort. As suggested above, it's hard to see how this is established as anything other than arbitrary cultural practices if animals which are, in practice, as dangerous to humans as pigs or shellfish are considered safe while they are not.
3) Sure. Almost all of them come from the same region or cultural background however. Islam-Christianity-Judaism. Hindus have a very different justification for avoiding eating pigs, and avoid eating cows and sheep and other birds and mammals in addition. Cultural traditions local to the area are more in line with explaining this than religious determinations. Pigs were eaten and domesticated in different parts of the world and indeed, the great bulk of pig-consuming cultures today are descended from Christian societies. One would have to acknowledge the flexibility of these doctrines to allow pork or shellfish to be eaten in places that it already was a common meal. In which case, it lacks the sort of divine authority that I think you would like to provide it.
4-5) Likely the same way primitive societies do today. Perhaps it is too much to expect you to know anything of anthropology, so I will explain. There are primitive cultures present on isolated Pacific islands, nomadic tribes in the outback of Australia or the mountains of New Guinea that exist even today. These societies do not worship gods, have no written works or languages, and yet are able to distinguish between hundreds of different types of mushrooms to discern which are poisonous or would make a person sick and which are fine to eat (and do so far better than even dedicated Western mushroom hunters, largely because they must). This happens because they have social and cultural institutions available to teach their children and communities about safely foraging and preparing foods to eat. Such institutions are very old in our history and would predate monotheistic culture of the Abrahamic tradition. You might argue that these prohibitions were given or revealed by god (I'm assuming that's why you're bringing this up). I would argue that they already existed, possibly for centuries if not longer, and all the OT did in Leviticus is write them down or record them and sanctify such things as religious tradition or dogma. I think I have a lot more "faith", so to speak, that human beings can do their own work to survive and thrive as far as determining their diet and dietary habits simply because I'm aware that they can and do this work still when it is necessary to survive. As it is in primitive cultures, and as it was then.
It's even possible that there were rent seeking opportunities exploited for economic purposes by this culture. Cows or sheep have a longer interaction with human history as domesticated products of agriculture than say pigs or oysters, pigs being more recent and farm raising shellfish or fish generally being a very recent human innovation, relative to cattle, dogs, or horses. It's likely that with limited resources, cattle herdsmen and shepherds of the Mesopotamian and Nile regions were loathe to give up their share of the economic pie to competition. Human beings have always disliked new technology for this very reason and to suppose that the motives of men recording the texts of the Bible or other canonical works were all holy and noble is to ignore the nature of men and their ability to exploit positions of power or influence to their advantage.
Actually, I wasn't thinking of clean and unclean animals. Read the book sometime.
You claimed that it "requires adherence to textually expressed understandings of the world that are thousands of years old and not evidence."
I was pointing out that we adhere to textually expressed understandings of the world all the time, and you agree that some textually expressed understandings of the world written centuries ago are evidence.
I was curious as to the difference in your opinion. Instead I got an emotional metaphysical rambling.
Clean/unclean rules on animals are most certainly in Leviticus and are most certainly among the rules laid out generally dealing with clean/unclean practices. Perhaps you should read the book sometime yourself sir. Or, more generously, you should be more specific as to what rules you were referring rather than to exclude certain rules in favor of others and then not declare this distinction as though I would be aware of what distinctions you make in your own head. If that's how you want to play it, I really don't see how being polite and responding is going to be of use to either of us.
I am quite certain that I did not use a metaphysical rambling to explain the distinction on why Leviticus was not evidence but rather attempted to explain anthropology to you. Perhaps you should try reading my replies more carefully instead of just assuming I am presenting fact-free rambles and being "emotional". As for the metaphysics, the distinction for me is that I am willing to accept FACTUAL assertions about the past. What the OT and Leviticus has as a major flaw is that it is not a factual assertion that these rules came from god. When a text refers to events in the past that can be referenced independently and verified, and its authorship verified, I find it more trustworthy. The Bible is rarely such a text, particularly in the OT where many of its texts have no referenced author, where many lack verifiable stories or contradicted stories from other evidence, and so on, placing their veracity as true historical events as just as questionable as that of Aesop or ancient Egyptian myths. Simply because something is in a book does not make it a fact. I am skeptical of other books as well, but the Bible, among others, gives me more reasons to be skeptical as to its authenticity because of its history, in particular its history as a political text. That history continues even today where there are revisions of it to accommodate new theological positions, to revise old ones, and so on. It has become, inherently, a book that requires context and interpretation to read it rather than a book listing historical facts. Indeed, the history of some of the books is known and where it is, it is possible to identify the source of the stories involved not as the work of god, but the work of oppressed Jewish peoples living in exile in Persia or Babylon and writing about their captors or masters scornfully, in code, in order to give other Jewish faithful hope or purpose (NT books like Revelations work this way as well for Christians).
By contrast, when the Bible records rules and morals, as a similar modern text might do, like say the Declaration of Independence as a contemporary example of a shared set of values, then their existence (of these rules or morals) is not in dispute (whether those rules or morals were followed in their time, or were invented at some later time may be more questionable given the history of the bible as a book).
What IS in dispute is the authorship of the text. You can claim, but can offer no proof, that these texts can come from only from god or from events where men interacted directly/indirectly with god. My point, regarding anthropology, is that they very likely do not, and that a far simpler explanation than to invent an external being/force responsible for these thoughts and rules, is to accord these thoughts and rules to the cultures and societies of men who were alive at the time and who were responding to traditions and powers available to them in the same way that men today can define and redefine their traditions and values. All a book, even the Bible, really does is record these rules. It can surround them with divine privileges and stories, but given that this was the manner of rule in societies for millenia (ie, divine right of kings) it would be surprising if it were to convey these rules in any other way.
Ultimately, it is unnecessary to inject god into the equation to explain the existence of such morals and rules because they can evolve naturally (as with the clean/unclean animals). If they can evolve naturally, suppose that they emerged first, as I would contend is a safe conclusion from the anthropological evidence, and that religions codifying them happened later. Much later. In what way would this offer proof that the stories in religious texts are true?
More to the point, if you are content, as most people are, to reject some prior religious texts (Norse, Egyptian, Persian whatever) or other con-temporarily used religious texts (Muslim, Hindu) as false, then on what basis do you make that determination? Would it not be the same sorts of methods that I am describing? Or do you have some other means available? Why should you be certain that your beliefs are valid and theirs false? I think if you were to examine this line of thinking you would find an answer to why it is that I reject the bible as a historical text in the same way that you have rejected Greek myth as historical events.
Note: if you really expect me to reply to other clean/unclean laws in Leviticus, say what it says on child birthing, leprosy, or food storage, I would have the same replies. The clean/unclean animal example is merely the one that first popped into my head. It's definitely in there over several verses. But the idea that there would not be means for a society to handle, without biblical commands, childbirth or disease and illness in some manner doesn't bear much thought just as the idea that discerning which animals are safe to consume required such an intervention has no basis either.
So far as I can tell even, the only "reason" that most theologians have identified that explains why some animals are clean and others not is precisely the same arbitrary reasoning that I identified. If your god is that arbitrary, that's fun, but it's not scientifically useful in the way that you're suggesting it was and I was pointing that out through the history of food and animal consumption/domestication. There's no scientific reason to not consume some of the animals that are declared unclean versus those that are declared clean because each entailed potentially lethal hazards in very equal measure in a society lacking effective preservative methods for meats and other foods and often lacked effective or consistent preparation methods to cook out parasites or disease. If there isn't a scientific basis or utility for any of that stuff laid out as rules in there, then I'm not sure what you think has a scientific reason. Prohibitions on things like sex during menstruation or after child birth don't hold up either for example, these are equally arbitrary determinations. I'm not sure what you're thinking was justified and proven by modern science (cleanliness generally maybe, regarding hand washing, though not in the way we use it today, or maybe using clean pots?), but there's plenty in there that isn't.
That's a problem for the idea that somehow these were rules laid out for good and sound reasons that modern technology has shown to be accurate. It shows rather that they were probably arbitrarily lain out as rules in the way that we can select privately today what kinds of music to listen to or what culinary cuisines to dine upon to satisfy our own personal preferences. Which is nice, but isn't scientifically useful for showing that some sort of food is "cleaner", or that the text on which our choice is based is "true".
It more likely continues to demonstrate that the origin of such rules was arbitrarily laid out by men in power, not god or gods, or as the result of many years of cultural and social provisions predating recording these as laws or religious morals, ideas about which today and throughout history are often equally arbitrary when examined across cultures.
1) I have no interest in convincing you of things
2) I would however have preferred to know what you actually thought of things being discussed. You bring up and drop subjects without any notification of why. This makes you a bit of a dick to others. For example adopting an accusatory tone when I didn't pick exactly what you wanted in Leviticus out...and then still not announcing what you wanted to discuss instead of a perfectly acceptable topic based on your original non-specific prompting, that's dickish 101 behavior.
3) I have a pretty good understanding of you already I think. The arguments you do raise are predictable. It is your methods that I question. If you cannot engage with other people more politely and without condescending tones (that are in my observation, completely undeserved, you're not half as clever as you think you are), then you're not learning very much about how to be a better writer or communicator. I had thought this was among your expressed reasons for engagement with people such as myself. If it is not an actual reason for engagement, as it certainly does not appear to be (you are not any better at writing or comprehension of writing than before when you made quite the impression of yourself, as a dick then too), then I'd have to say you should stop presenting yourself as wishing for it and admit instead you have other motivations (eg, to feel superior or boost your ego). Such motivations are fine.
But it doesn't give me much reason to talk to you in the future either. I'm not learning anything from you that I cannot get from any other fundamentalist Christian if you refuse to answer questions or discuss topics openly and frankly and instead pretend that I can read your mind precisely. I forced instead to be learning something about you, which is a topic I have no interest in.
For my own benefit I propose to summarize our disagreement here. If you feel I am, in doing this, doing violence and injury by mis-characterizing your views and beliefs, you may comment upon it for correction. I dislike arguing with a straw man. Otherwise, I don't particularly care what your view and opinions are on my own views, since you have not seen fit to present any useful evidence for why you reject them. It is enough for me to conclude that you do reject them at this point. The reasons are immaterial to me mostly because I suspect I know them already.
1) That you have, at some level of certainty, a belief that the Bible is a source of inerrant facts, and contains credible sources concerning human history. I find this view absurd and ridiculous mostly because of the studies anthropology, history, and science, all of which contradict portions of the Bible, and some of which I have brought up here in our discourse. But I hinted at a further problem. Because of the Bible's inconsistencies, inaccuracies, transitions and interpretations over time, and contradictions internally. If it cannot agree on basic facts internally, things like chronology, wars, lines of kingdoms, etc, then I think it reasonable to view it more skeptically that you apparently do. Much more. Other works of history do not contradict internally in this way. They marshal evidence like chronologies and other facts and invite people to draw conclusions.
1b) Concurrently, because of this belief, you will view objections and contradictory evidence as invalid and false or slanderous. This is an important disagreement as your views are unfalsifiable and thereby more resemble "beliefs". My views are falsifiable conclusions, but based upon available evidence that lead other conclusions to look absurd and in many cases, with certainty enough to consider as factual (to the extent that in some cases even both you and I could reasonably agree they are facts. Things like "there are US States called Ohio and Nebraska" or "the sky appears to look blue to the average person" or "you and I exist", or even "Thomas Jefferson and Jesus existed".)
2) You view morality as impossible without God and/or religion. I find that the historical and anthropological record of evidence demonstrates that morality precedes religion and that all religions have done is codify pre-existing social customs, mores and morals into dogmas. Concurrently I also conclude that much religious morality is essentially arbitrary rather than containing some rational basis and little better than "disgust" morality. Basing morality, a code of behavior for everyone concerning what is appropriate and inappropriate, upon one's personal tastes and distastes is a serious fallacy as it would have to admit of the probability that other people will find your own preferred behaviors objectionable and disgusting at times. More to the point, if morality precedes religion, then morality should be able to exist perfectly well without it.
3) All that "metaphysical ranting" up there was designed to point out several disagreements
3a) That pure skepticism logically prevents any human beings from accepting anything as completely true, even religious faith. Human beings must at some level accept conclusions and thereby facts to be sufficiently verified or falsified in order to live, even that the level of stating something like the following: that we are distinct human beings, independently experiencing, through sense-data that we perceive and interpret, an objective universe that exists independent of our own imagination and minds.
3b) The difference between you and I is apparently the level of skepticism we apply, in particular, the falsifiability of our "beliefs" or conclusions. That is: that if someone were able to present evidence disprove the theory of evolution or the existence of Thomas Jefferson or even the existence of other physical beings, this would force me to change my mind. The available evidence leads me to conclude things. By contrast, in your world it seems that the available and verifiable evidence is unfalsifiable (see point #1) and therefore that your mind and associated beliefs does not change. If someone were to present evidence that showed that Jesus did not exist at all (a position I do not take), or that he was not a divine being, you would reject such evidence as false. Probably out of hand.
3c) Also, that suppositions like "the world is not just in my mind" are not a core belief of "atheists". They are a core element of "human beings". Such an idea is opposed philosophically by pure monoism or nihilism. It is not fundamentally a "belief" in the same way that "religious people believe in a deity" is a belief. As I indicated, it is still falsifiable for one. We apparently disagree that atheists have beliefs of any kind, but if this is to be considered a "belief" it is not a belief limited to atheists. Pretty much in order to accept a personal deity, another being that is, one kind of has to accept a multi-minded universe where the existence of other beings is possible. Theists as a result more than likely share this view, and there are both atheists and theists alike who reject it. This is not a shared belief or even a set of beliefs. I'm still not sure what you think it is that atheists "believe" positively as a result in order to make us into a competing religion. We don't have anything running that I can think of and pretty much everything we "believe" could be shown false tomorrow and we'd change our minds. That's not true of you fellows so far as you've expressed or as I've experienced.
4) I've probably encountered arguments and facts like yours before. I am basing what I conceive of as your likely beliefs in part on expressed statements here and prior, but also upon the evidence of others who will tend to present similar arguments. Pretty much the only people who talk about Leviticus at all for example are Evangelical Christians/fundamentalists (as I suspect you to be, as defensive as you are about your faith and upbringing is a point toward that as well), Orthodox Jews, and atheists/secularists mocking both groups as silly. "We" know what your book literally says, we're not fools. We've probably read it personally and can readily quote from it where it has serious problems in our estimation (Leviticus almost to a word being one of those places. Genesis and Revelations being a bit worse with nothing useful in there at all). So far as I can tell, by contrast, you have/had no idea what atheists think, how they conclude things. It's possible this has improved now that you have conversed with one. I'm not sure even with your tentative statements of "I understand", but I will admit the possibility that you can learn.
I conclude from this: your arguments are predictable and do not need to be made for me to know what they likely are. Mine apparently are mysterious and bizarre. To the extent that you are more curious than I am based on that conclusion, I appreciate that and have tried to tolerate your lines of inquiry and answer them (sometimes your questions are terribly phrased and prompted). To the extent that you present yourself and the methods of investigation you have thus far used, you will need to work on your people skills.
You still come off as a serious asshole with a major superiority complex toward people who don't share your worldview 100% and don't "know" what you know.
Post a Comment