More Religious Nutters

[Elok]

I'm not angry, I'm mildly depressed. We're getting nowhere, and your POV as you've expressed it is such that you wouldn't accept any God I could show you. I don't even especially want to convince you. This is the sort of question individuals have to decide for themselves, and I only joined in because Wezil and BlackCat were being total douchebags about the people in the OP. Sorry for getting vicious, it's what happens when I get frustrated.

[Whaleboy]

Personally I think that Douglas Adam's "Artificial God" or a transcendent conception of godhead is most convincing but since these present themselves as psychological models or psychological phenomena, (just like someone navigating by the stars will use a geocentric model) they do not purport to make claims as to the empirical existence of God.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Personally I think that Douglas Adam's "Artificial God" or a transcendent conception of godhead is most convincing but since these present themselves as psychological models or psychological phenomena, (just like someone navigating by the stars will use a geocentric model) they do not purport to make claims as to the empirical existence of God.

That seems to be what Oncle Boris argues/was arguing for. It's so defanged, though, that I almost prefer honest atheism.

[Whaleboy]

It's not a matter of being defanged, after all if the god of the bible is untenable scientifically then it is intellectually dishonest to believe in him when you know better.

Adams' Artificial God is an essentialist explanation of the existence of God while the more transcendent idea of God is entirely compatible with atheism (in that it doesn't require the "the" component). It's only defanged if you insist to clinging on to your Judeo-Christian beliefs.

On the other hand, if you propose the empirical existence of God you need to make a scientific case, and you've got a bit of a mountain to climb. I wouldn't say it's insurmountable but I certainly wouldn't like to try!

[Whaleboy]

I wouldn't call it suffering, because the experiences are generally pleasant, and harmless. The worst thing that they can cause is some silly beliefs to be supported.

I call it suffering for the same reason that I say the afflictions of an alcoholic of heroin addict is "suffering". IMO it fosters a state of mind which prevents you from truly understanding the world. I can understand that religion is a crutch for some people and I'd certainly rather people were religious than alkies or junkies, but it seems that Elok has sufficient intelligence to rise above that. I guess I think it's a shame to see good intellects afflicted by religion.

Oh for Pete's sake, Elok isn't a great menace to society or anything. Certainly he believe some nutty crap, but believing in some nutty crap doesn't make you crazy or anything.

Agreed, but I was just pointing out why I (and probably others) get frustrated, albeit for a fleeting moment before patience kicks in.

[Perfection]

Originally this was about religious experience, but it's transforming into religion itself. I'm just rolling with the change and am not talking strictly about religious experience anymore. If anyone cares to go back to it, just bring up something interesting abut it.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I call it suffering for the same reason that I say the afflictions of an alcoholic of heroin addict is "suffering". IMO it fosters a state of mind which prevents you from truly understanding the world.

I don't buy it. Alcoholics and heroin addicts reall do suffer from the loss of relationships and the like. Religion doesn't make you a social pariah or destroy your life.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I can understand that religion is a crutch for some people and I'd certainly rather people were religious than alkies or junkies, but it seems that Elok has sufficient intelligence to rise above that. I guess I think it's a shame to see good intellects afflicted by religion.

We all have our things that we stick onto beyond good reasoning. Penn & Teller, two of my favorite atheists and great debunkers of bull**** on thier show "Bull****!", believe in the totally bull**** Ayn Rand Objectivism stuff thinking it's completely logical.

The lesson is don't feel too bad for religious folk, because they're just like the rest of us. We just happen to identified one of thier bull**** beliefs.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Perfection
Why should the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt be neccessary requirement for belief?

Not for belief, but for justified belief. I could believe that UFOs have visited the earth, but there's no justification for such a belief. I don't really have any more reason to believe it than not to.

Similarly, it is perfectly possible for people to believe in God, but there's no justification for it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Perfection

We all have our things that we stick onto beyond good reasoning. Penn & Teller, two of my favorite atheists and great debunkers of bull**** on thier show "Bull****!", believe in the totally bull**** Ayn Rand Objectivism stuff thinking it's completely logical.

Ayn Rand can be debunked in about 5 paragraphs.

She believes that it's rational to be selfish, on the grounds that I can only ever follow my own interests. Unfortunately, there's no logical constraint that requires that my interests be selfish interests. I have an interest in seeing Plato's works survive past my death, but this cannot possibly benefit me.

She believes that it is human nature to be selfish. Anyone can point to all sorts of human behaviour that is altruistic (such as parents making sacrifices for their children). So it appears that Rand's claim is verifiably false.

Even if people were selfish, there would be no reason to accept her political philosophy, since the optimal state of affairs would be a tyranny run by yourself.

Even if it is true that people are selfish, it does not follow that they ought to be (you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is").

Ayn Rand's ethics basically make falling into collective action problems morally obligatory (cases where if everyone is selfish, everyone ends up worse off). This means we end up in a Hobbesian state of nature. Her ethics basically mandate the destruction of civilization.

You really have to be some kind of dumb to believe that crap. That's not to say that there aren't more respectable forms of Libertarianism (like Nozick's).

The reason Penn & Teller like her is because they are obnoxious dicks, and Objectivism is basically the philosophy for obnoxious dicks.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Agathon


Not for belief, but for justified belief. I could believe that UFOs have visited the earth, but there's no justification for such a belief. I don't really have any more reason to believe it than not to.

Similarly, it is perfectly possible for people to believe in God, but there's no justification for it.

The ability to prove beyond resonable doubt is not the same as justification.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
It's not a matter of being defanged, after all if the god of the bible is untenable scientifically then it is intellectually dishonest to believe in him when you know better.

Adams' Artificial God is an essentialist explanation of the existence of God while the more transcendent idea of God is entirely compatible with atheism (in that it doesn't require the "the" component). It's only defanged if you insist to clinging on to your Judeo-Christian beliefs.

On the other hand, if you propose the empirical existence of God you need to make a scientific case, and you've got a bit of a mountain to climb. I wouldn't say it's insurmountable but I certainly wouldn't like to try!

...and by "empirical existence" you mean actual existence, as opposed to existing only as a concept in our minds? That's a hell of a choice...I must say, I resent your opinion that religion makes me some kind of cripple. I enjoy my life, thank you. I'm not punishing myself or neglecting this life in the hope of a better next life or whatever horror story is prevalent among secular humanists atm to describe the Evils of Religion. Wasn't some study done indicating that believers, on average, live longer and claim to enjoy life MORE than atheists do? I don't really follow those sorts of thing.

There's also the matter we've discussed before; I can't find a secular theory of morals that works any more than you can find a scientific explanation of God. **NOTE FOR INDIGNANT READERS: I am not claiming that atheists are immoral people, only that all naturalistic ethics appear to either beg the question ("you should be moral because you should be moral") or promote a blatantly perverted and unethical lifestyle, e.g. Objectivism. Many atheists do act morally, or as moral as any human can act; their behavior is just more in line with my beliefs than theirs IMO. Please do not pull a Sandman and call me "a horrible bigoted idiot I give all my money to third-world children with cleft palates and blah blah blah." END NOTE** To me it's a matter of being illogical or being unethical. If I switch to atheism I'm just a different kind of illogical.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wezil


Hint: And that's the difference. They changed b/c others were the problem. The nutters in 666 area code are changing b/c the area code is the problem (not others). Try again.


edit: The people of the 666 area code would want to change regardless if anyone outside the area made a comment b/c as the article staes they are "good Christian people". The people of Commerce know and understand the reason for the change and it is b/c they are tired of others calling them ****, PA (as Rufus puts it). Not at all the same thing. Perhaps you don't grasp it?

Wezil! This is the only statement in the article you posted that discusses their motives:

"It's been a black eye for our town, a stigma," Walker said. "I don't think it's anything bad on us, just an image."

It's a stigma, just an image!

And yet you continue to complain about the people there who wanted it changed just because of the number.

I guess suffering caused by an irrational belief in non existent entities despite all evidence to the contrary isn't just restricted to religious nutters eh?

[Blake]

Buddhism is nice because it doesn't get hung up on existence.

For example, to say that "The mind exists in the universe" is wrong, as is to say "The universe exists in the mind".

It is clearly possible to make a strong case for BOTH of these. Clearly, the mind encompasses everything you actually know of the universe, as such the universe DOES exist in the mind. But by the same token, it seems as if you observing the universe does not actually cause it to exist (maybe , quantum theory!), and as such, it must be the mind existing in the universe.

In Buddhism to take any absolutist stance like that is wrong and delusional; rationalization is recognized for what it is and the unknowable is left as unknowable rather than speculated endlessly on.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Perfection
The ability to prove beyond resonable doubt is not the same as justification.

It's one kind of justification. Certainly justification based on probability would be another.

I don't really see what your point is.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Geronimo

It's a stigma, just an image!

And yet you continue to complain about the people there who wanted it changed just because of the number.

Thank you, Geronimo. That's the point I was making.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Elok
There's also the matter we've discussed before; I can't find a secular theory of morals that works any more than you can find a scientific explanation of God. **NOTE FOR INDIGNANT READERS: I am not claiming that atheists are immoral people, only that all naturalistic ethics appear to either beg the question ("you should be moral because you should be moral") or promote a blatantly perverted and unethical lifestyle, e.g. Objectivism. Many atheists do act morally, or as moral as any human can act; their behavior is just more in line with my beliefs than theirs IMO. Please do not pull a Sandman and call me "a horrible bigoted idiot I give all my money to third-world children with cleft palates and blah blah blah." END NOTE** To me it's a matter of being illogical or being unethical. If I switch to atheism I'm just a different kind of illogical.

I actually find equanimity to be the most legitimate morality (As in the hardest to argue against without sounding like a major dick).

A common attitude people hold, expressed through action is:
"My happiness is more important to me than your happiness"

Whether people verbalize this (and most don't, most don't even think it), it's clearly true in their actions. This is especially true, in their interactions with non-human entities. But it's also readily apparent with all forms of bigotry, with victimless crimes, and so on.

Now clearly, when you have multiple people all with this belief, something is off:
Person A: Person A's happiness is more important than Person B's happiness.
Person B: Person B's happiness is more important than Person A's happiness.

Clearly both of these can't be simultaneously true!

However taking this attitude:
"Your happiness is equally as important to me as my happiness"

Such contradiction does not arise. In fact it's the only stance, where contradiction does not arise.

Putting such morality into practise, it's clearly only possible to directly effect our own happiness.
In practise this involves harmlessness; not willfully doing things which would cause others to suffer, combined with thankfulness; when someone does something you appreciate you be grateful in mind, speech and action. Trying to go around making people happier with "random acts of kindness" doesn't actually work, but when you interact you consider the other parties happiness as if they were you (if you don't want to do this, refrain from the interaction), so think of this attitude as a code of conduct for interaction, not a moral imperative for your life.

Truly embracing the attitude "Your happiness is equally as important to me as my happiness" actually causes the ego to fade away and is thus beneficial both for them and society at large (the ego is a terribly destructive thing, both at individual and societal level).


It is more helpful, to think of moral code as an attitude than a belief.

A belief, I tend to define as something like this:
"I believe that if I put my faith in God, i will be rewarded in heaven after I die"

While an attitude, you see the effect it has, it is measurable, you can adopt and keep that attitude because you see it has positive effects.