As much as badchad is a complete ass, he didn’t claim Polycarp swearing at him was justification. Let’s stick to pointing out his actual flaws, shall we?
Sorry, “he started it” gets on my very last nerve.
badchad, as I said earlier I think you could probably contribute a lot to the board, but how you make your argument is at least as important as the point you’re trying to get across. Any point you may have had was lost in the fact that you not only chased a well-liked and respected member from the board, you then went on to gloat about it. People will tune you out no matter how right you are if you’re an insufferable dick. As I’ve said (a few times now), agreeing with you in principle doesn’t mean anyone is going to see you as anything other than a jerk because of the way you went about it. The ends don’t justify the means.
Sure, lots of people believe in God. Lots of intelligent people believe in God, too. You can be a very talented accountant, farmer, sandwich artist, auto mechanic, banker, executive, programmer, or whatever and still believe in God.
Plenty of very intelligent people believe in God, but if their particular field of expertise may not hold any conflicting evidence to his existence. I personally think that these intelligent people just don’t examine their beliefs to the same extent that they would a business deal, and just stick with the default belief in God. Also, with their limited knowledge in particular fields, they can be fooled by pseudo-scientific falsehoods that specifically target people with little scientific background. So then they think “Hey, this makes sense to me, and I’m a smart guy, just look at my successful business. It must be true.” Instead of saying “Well, this seems to make sense, but if it’s that simple, why is it not accepted theory?” and then actually asking someone who has spent more than 2 hours on that particular subject. They need to ask the geologist, or biologist if what they are being told is based on sound reasoning or scientific fact.
So I will agree with you. 5 billion people are not idiots. They just need to know when to sit down and shut up when they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
Those people, of course, are certainly free to research for themselves.
So I take it one shouldn’t even begin to argue one’s religious beliefs unless one has academic expertise in philosophy, logic or theology, or has researched these fields to gain understanding of the soundness of their reasoning? How about the depth and breadth of their textual knowledge and understanding as well? To what standard should the research be done? Is consulting dictionaries and Wikipedia enough? Should I spend time in a seminary? Learn Aramaic?
Or are you just speaking to claims involving scientific principles? (And are you claiming that no scientists believe in God?!) In which case, same questions - how much research is enough to allow me to discuss, say evolution? Tachyons? Hydrogeology? Global warming?
Is there a different standard for theology, and if so, why?
Thor is real. He speaks to me in my dreams. My life is guided by the principles of Thordom.
You owe your very existence to Thor. I find it sad you’re in such a lonely place, that you haven’t embraced Thor. Everyone who hasn’t embraced Thor is a heathen bound for an eternity of torment.
There is no other God than Thor. Any belief otherwise is incorrect, incubated in the ignorance of someone who never had the Joy of Thordom in their childhood.
From this point on I hope I can expect Thor to get the same respect as Yahweh, Allah, God, Jesus, and Kali.
I love Thor. Thor loves me. Would you like a pamphlet?
-Joe
I would not like a pamphlet, thank you.
I would appreciate a clear statement of your point, however. Was it attempting to address the question of mine you quoted? If so, please indicate what standards for discussing theology you’re trying to illustrate.
But on the subject of Thor, and respect, I can say that I’m happy for you that Thor loves you, but I believe you to be incorrect in your belief that yours is the only valid belief system. It also doesn’t jibe with my limited experience with Nordic disciples. At least Freyr (the SDMB poster) never came into a thread and proselytized or declared Freyr (the Nordic god) the only true deity.
(Or would that be “Norse” god? Guess I’ll do some research!)
Generally when discussing these things, one is expected to have a cite. Instead of me personally asking an evolutionist or hydrogeologist what she thinks, I can read her book and get a pretty good idea. Because I don’t really expect anyone to give a shit what my conclusions are unless they have been evaluated by people competant in the field.
Of course, then there is the matter of quality of sources. If I wanted to claim that the Grand Canyon was gouged out by Paul Bunyan dragging his axe through the ground which was told to me by Dr. Joe Loon who has a Ph.D. in Bunyanology from Greasy Upstairs University, and you contested that it was carved out from the Colorado River and cited a geologist from a renowned university, and with the full support of other geologists, then you would make the more compelling case.
Absolutely agreed. Didn’t really answer my question though…
You’re in a side discussion involving what sort of respect and interaction belief in God should receive. Your category “statements which conflict with known scientific principles or evidence” is a very narrow subset of religious statements, and I don’t think you’re going to get much argument from Dopers that this narrow subset of religious beliefs should (and does) face stringent argument citing actual science. You certainly won’t get me to argue against science.
But my question was what is the standard of knowledge required to argue with another about the other’s theological beliefs? If I make a claim about my own beliefs, not trying to convert or rebut, should I not expect a reasonable attempt by the other party to understand my beliefs as I’ve stated them? This is the crux of the problem I have with the aggressive ‘Xian slaying’ (to coin a phrase) we’ve been seeing from some quarters. It’s been aimed not at farcical antiscientific statements from bible literalists or at homophobic activism or racist agitation, but at the theistic beliefs and scriptural interpretations of one specific nonproselytizing Christian, with absolutely no attempt by the ‘slayer’ at understanding the very theology he’s attempting to ridicule.
That’s the point of my question.
I have never actually seen someone make a claim about his own beliefs who wasn’t trying to convert or rebut. I guess I would wonder why you would have to make that claim completely out of the blue like that? I am under the impression that anything posted on a message board of your own free will is fair game for discussion. If you are just wanting to talk about your own personal beliefs, the xenophon brand of spirituality which has a sole adherent, perhaps you should be prepared for people to ask questions or for you to qualify a statement or two.
So anyone can participate, but show up with a little ammunition. The people who need to “sit down and shut up” are the ones who cling to the scraps of some monolithic belief in the face of vast amounts of evidence that is presented to them.
Don’t be silly; of course it has waned. There are far more agnostics/atheists than exisited centuries ago, and even the majority of religious people take their relgion less seriously - in the West, at least.
No, but they were done using scientific methods and scientific theories. Not by reading holy books or divine revelation, because being religious and therefore nonsense, they would fail. Science is a technique; as long as you apply it properly to a problem you can solve that problem scientifically, whether or not you apply science to anything else in your life. Science has brought about those advances because it works; religion has not, because it does not work, which is why it did not produce those advances.
Idiots, fools and lunatics. And as for the state of the world - I consider that a major support for my low opinion of the majority of humanity.
Actually, xeno, the ‘slayer’ may just as well understand the theology just fine – I believe the wolf’s argument is that it’s the believers that don’t understand the full implications of the theology, which is probably true for the bulk of the population, but the problem as I see it is the apparent conclusion "they should shut up until they have first deconstructed their belief system and seen if it still holds up"; that’s fine if you’re a candidate for a degree at the Philosophy Department, but at a mere message board? – but anyway be convinced that the very idea of holding to that theology is such a daft line of thought that you must NOT be allowed any comfort in holding it.
As you say, anyone can participate on a public message board. Maybe you should follow the logical implications of that premise and see that it would hardly be an unusual situation for “anyone” to interject an examination of beliefs into an ongoing discussion among theists. And of course when that happens, it’s perfectly fair to expect the theists to have to qualify a statement or two – or even to be drawn into another thread to discuss certain aspects unfamiliar to the interlocutor.
Evidence is almost exclusively for something. Evidence against something like a “monolithic belief” (and you should probably define that phrase if you’re going to keep it) held by billions would have to be pretty damn conclusive. You can certainly present evidence showing that certain precepts of foundational texts cannot be true, but if you’re faced with the statement that belief in the literal truth of those precepts is not a requisite for the faith, it should cause you to consider taking your own advice until you know more about the subject.
I know that sounds a little harsh, but honestly, why should they say it if they haven’t thought out? If a few lines of text from a complete stranger can shake their beliefs, maybe they weren’t as substantial as they thought.
Perhaps someone on the message board read another posters discussion on “what’s in it for me to try and be good?” Since I have a faith the pretty much requires me to try and be good, explaining my beliefs could be useful to them.
Well, I won’t get into what bizarre illogic causes you to expect something to be fair, but yeah, more or less, I expect answers, both in agreement, and in exception. What I don’t expect is to be dismissed as ignorant and stupid because I believe in Christ. I also don’t expect that fact to be used to dismiss my understanding of human experience, and even astronomy. I don’t expect it to be a replacement for understanding astronomy either.
I must not be on the mailing list for the vast amount of evidence that my beliefs are false. I have read many contentions to that intent, but really, none of it rises to the level of evidence. But, I would point out again; many people who are Christians are not trying to convince you to be one. I am one of them. I will encourage you, if you wish, if you ask me, to consider the Love of God. But not in a logical argument about what is real and what is not. I have evidence, but it is not evidence that serves to convince other people, and if some other me tried to use that same exact evidence that turned my heart to the Lord as an intellectual argument for someone else to convert based on logic, I would rebuke him for defiling a miracle.
It isn’t about logic, or reason. It lies outside those things. If you don’t believe that anything can lie outside of those things, then so be it. I live in a different universe than you do. But my question about your expectation of fairness then becomes even more poignant.
Tris
You know, this is about the fourth dumbest thing said in this thread, in a thread with a lot of dumb stuff.
It is wilful ignorance. You just don’t care to understand WHY people believe things that on the surface make no sense. No, they’ve all got to be morons, lunatics, or lying conmen. Except you know that the vast majority of people in the world don’t fit this description, yet a startlingly large proportion of them believe in stuff that just doesn’t make any sense.
And you have no interest in why this is the case. You’ve closed your mind. You’ve chosen the side of ignorance. I’m not saying that the stuff they believe in really does make sence, I agree with you that it doesn’t make sense, and I believe that anyone who really sat down and thought things through would come around to my point of view. But the fact is, most people DON’T agree with me. So why is that? Because they’re idiots? I don’t think so, and even if it could be shown somehow that the smarter someone is, the more likely they are to be arreligious, it doesn’t follow that all religious people are dumb.
I just know too many religious people to believe that. To paraphrase Mill, sure, most dumb people are religious, but that doesn’t mean that most religious people are dumb. And they aren’t lunatics, and they aren’t lying con-men.
What about the people I talked about earlier…my Christian, Jewish and woo-woo new age neighbors who nevertheless generously helped my family? Were they really all idiots, lunatics, or con-men? If you really believe that, then fuck you. Of course there’s no such thing as God, you dolt, but people believe in God and other false crap for complex reasons. Very rarely due to stupidity, insanity, or fraud. And if you really cared to change people’s minds, you’d pay attention to why they actually hold false beliefs…but of course, you don’t.
In fact, your understanding of why people hold such obviously false beliefs is an Ourobouros, since it is an obviously false belief in and of itself. And you’re so fucking high on self-righteousness that you can’t even evaluate your own belief-system skeptically, let alone the belief systems of others. No, you’d rather cling to a belief system that flatters your own little ego…that you’re one of the Illuminati, and everyone else is a sub-Omeguloid drone. And thus you serve as one example of why people hold certain obviously false beliefs.
But for those who do have an understanding of those implications, who have done such deconstructions and reconciled whatever conflicts they’ve found? The wolf assumes those theists don’t exist, I think.
I agree that’s a problem. Not the only one. For instance, it’s not just about the comfort of the believer. The certainty of the nonbeliever regarding the daftness of the believer’s line of thought is completely dependent on suppositions about that line of thought that aren’t in evidence. Our ‘slayer’ attempts to hold all believers -billions of them- to the same structure of thought so that he can knock the whole belief system down with a few well-placed blows.
Hey, maybe he got most of Christianity with his flailing, much good may it do him. But it says nothing about what must be believed to be Christian, it says nothing about theism in general, and does nothing to either promote or defend (as if it was necessary) atheism.
So they aren’t appearing in those threads aren’t trying to endorse a certain belief, or lack there of? Don’t see a lot of that around here.
I meant a belief that is rigid, unyielding, unevolving. Did I misuse the term? I would be happy to correct it. OK, evidence is for something. That is why “evidence in favor of a mutally exclusive alternative” can usually be shorthanded as “evidence against”. In my analogy above, I don’t have any evidence that a giant axe didn’t make the Grand Canyon, but when I am writing on a message board and not writing a doctoral thesis, I feel I can get away with speaking a little more casually.
I am also quite aware that not all Christians believe every word of the Bible, and that there are analogues for other faiths as well. So go ahead a believe what you want, but someone may ask you for your reasoning behind it all.
Of course I do. As I’ve said elsewhere, I believe it to be a combination of genetic tendancies towards religiosity and constant religious propaganda. The “idiots, fools and lunatics” part comes in because of all the people who don’t override those things.
Well, too bad. I hate to break it to you, but people can be nice and fools at the same time.
I wish I did believe that; it would satisfy my ego. I’m not “one of the Illuminati”; I just pay attantion to the obvious truth; the same truth that the vast majority of the population is capable of seeing. They just don’t want to. I’d hold the majority in far less contempt if I did think I was some sort of “Enlightened One”, because then it would be me that was special, and not them who were fools.