My mistake it was the terrorists that flew planes into the WTC that you said were rational, sane, and justified.
Sorry for the mistake.
See post #31.
Once you accept a belief is justified on faith you cannot turn around and argue against the action that flows from that belief.
If a Catholic is justified in his belief that condom use (even between married partners where one person has HIV) is worse than the spread of HIV he is absolutely correct to oppose the use of condoms even knowing that will cause death and suffering.
The problem is that his beliefs are not justified.
We need to work to remove these unjustified beliefs whether are religious or not. We also to fight against unjustified pseudo-scientific beliefs like social Darwinism and communism.
It seems like nobody here cares about the truth and everyone is arguing that people should believe any damn idea they want regardless of the evidence.
*Nobody *cares … ? *Everyone *is arguing … ? Since these statemens are clearly unsupported by the evidence, I must assume that you are taking them on faith.
Based on the thread title I will say that there is a certain concept among some Christians that bothers me. That is, the idea that somehow Christianity has dibs on this country and changes made as our culture becomes much more diverse are somehow an attack on Christianity.
They seem to feel attacked because things are changing and long held traditions are being reinvented. or abandoned. Their reaction seems to be to feel they are soldiers for Christ so that anyone who chooses to criticize or challenge them only makes them feel even holier as they are persecuted for Jesus sake. It’s pretty wacky.
Fortunately I think there are plenty of other Christians who respect and accept the beliefs of others and many others who are believers in various religions or even no official religion, and that helps the balance.
Nobody should respect beliefs or just accept them. Beliefs should be evaluated to see if they are justified by the evidence. Respect for a belief is just not necessary. We do not blinding respect beliefs in any area except the area of faith. The beliefs that should be respected are those that are justified. We would not respect an belief in the Flying Spagetti Monster (FSM). If someone really believed in FSM, we would call him a nut. The same should be true of a belief in Yahweh, a divine Jesus, or Allah.
But, you see, that’s just what we’re doing in this thread: taking the bizarre set of beliefs you have about what religious people do and believe, and subjecting them to rational analysis and disproving them! 
Aren’t you glad you found some people who will follow the principle you espoused? 
Religious belief is not the sort of belief that can be justified by evidence. It is outside the purview of science.
Some information is gained via logic, but not all is. Logic is an epistimology that is constrained by its axioms.
If a person tells you he has had a religious experience, and that he has gained information based on a revelation, such a claim is neither logical nor illogical. It is not the sort of claim that logic addresses.
Cosmosdan and Polycarp, I’ve begun attending church again. It’s the denomination that I grew up in. My more open beliefs haven’t changed of late, but I find there are many like me there. It feels comfortable and it’s really meaningful to take Communion again. There are some good outlets for social activism too. I am surrounded by people that I was friends with in college forty years ago. I feel like Homer – finding my way home.
I was an English major, you know. I could never prove scientifically the value of great literature.
Thank you for all of your words here and elsewhere.
On the contrary: since actions actually have objective existence, they are far more legitimate targets for countermeasures than whatever nonsense inspires them.
Ammonius asserted that no one had ever presented evidence for any religious belief. I replied that Catholics had presented huge amounds of evidence. Therefore I proved that Ammonius believes something which is flatly untrue. This flies in the face of his hysterical claims to rationality.
I don’t know, as I haven’t read it all. But within the twenty-odd books of theology that I have read, I haven’t encountered anything that meets either of those descriptions. If you don’t mind me asking, how much theology have you read? If the answer is “none” or “very little”, then you’ll look rather silly passing judgement on a body of work that you’re ignorant of.
Tons of it. Many Christians alive today study the works of Augustine, Francis, Teresa, Aquinas, Luther, and others on a daily basis. In some parts of the world, those writers are frequently referenced in the daily press.
No doubt this assertion has some relevance to your argument, but it just isn’t clear to me.
Actually I can already read right now, believe it or not.
If you believe that certain statements are wrong, you’re welcome to join a Bible study group and argue the case. As long as you don’t act like a jackass, they’d be happy to have you. If you think you have a proof that a certain statement is or isn’t correct, you’re welcome to publish it with anyone who will accept it. Whether a given publisher will accept your argument depends on how sound it is.
This ignorant Christian thought that peer review meant review by peers. No doubt a sane and rational atheist will soon arrive to correct him.
I never asserted that scientific journals are concealed from everybody, only that they’re concealed from almost everybody. The latest scientific results in any given specialty are accesible only to a small clique. The rest of the human race is asked to simply accept that this clique is correctly finding and double-checking the results. We are, in short, asked to take the results on faith. The same is not true for the latest results in theology.
I’m honestly baffled by how so many people can lay such complete trust in the peer review process. I’ve probably read about a hundred journal articles in my life. The majority of them contained serious errors, despite the magic of peer review. Moreover, when I find those errors, I have no means of forcing the author to correct them. If I know the author personally, I can politely ask him or her to corrected the error. Otherwise the error goes unfixed. Only person who nas no experience with the system would assert that the system works to prevent and fix errors. Scientific papers are like laws and sausages: you’ll enjoy them more if you don’t know how they get made.
You don’t have to accept a belief as justified by faith in order to honor the individuals right to hold that belief. Since we all hold a mix of rational and irrational beliefs why shit on others unnecessarily? However, when beliefs cause interaction and confrontation {and they always do} then we do have to deal with the action that flows from that belief.
I would say you deal with the results of the beliefs first and work backwards to where the belief comes from. The* results* of this belief becomes the reason it must be confronted and examined not just the existence of the belief.
Who gets to decide what beliefs are justified? I’m all for examining religious beliefs in the light of objective scientific evidence. The problem comes when you cross from the objective side of beliefs to the subjective. How do we choose which subjective beliefs are justified? Who gets to make that decision?
It doesn’t seem that way to me at all. It seems like people just don’t agree with your version of what the truth is. As a believer I think the spiritual journey is all about the truth. I don’t see anyone arguing that people should believe any damn idea. I see the argument as , the reality is people *do
- believe a wide variety of things, some logical and some not. These various beliefs result in choices that bring either negative or positive consequences.
We can respect each individuals right to make choices about what they perceive as truth, and let the interaction of those choices be the catalyst that changes the details of our beliefs.
IMHO when you get to the subjective part of our beliefs, which is where a lot key choices are made that shape how the world is, you can’t really base your beliefs on objective evidence anymore. Perhaps to a limited extent but not to any significant extent. That being the case your proposal here falls short of accomplishing it’s goals.
I think you can work to distribute information and give that information credibility. In that sense challenging people to examine their own beliefs is a pretty positive thing.
They are relevent only because the OP has made statements to the affect that those who hold various religious beliefs accept them without debate (which is not true), and without evidence. (Which may be true, depending on what you classify as evidence.)
To further clarify: eyewitness testimony may be given. “I swore I saw Saint so-and-so heal the blind with the laying on of hands!” That’s evidence. Does it meet the SDMB standards? No. Not at all.
How about the Shroud of Turin? (I may be behind the times on this one, so bear with me…) The faithfull claim that through a minor miracle, the image of the Christ was embedded in it.
There is definately an image that can be discerned in the material. Scientists have been unable to explain how it was placed there. (It ain’t pigment.) They have tried to date the cloth, and have had mixed results. So, it’s a big fat question mark.
To some, (and probably a lot of us here) all that doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. But the shroud still bears evidence that something interesting happened to it.
The OP has further gone on to stipulate (paraphrasing again) that no evidence will be forthcoming, as the exisistance of god (not just Christian god, he targets all religion) cannot be proven. In other words, he has already decided that there is no god.
The OP has also gone on to say that all the religious nutjobs need to be confronted, and proof demanded. (I am not sure to what extent he feels that the nutjobs need to be confonted.) He has given various policies (condom vs. AIDS) and dogma (the Eucharist) as issues he disagrees with, and that’s fine. But he does not limit his demand for confrontation during secular policy debates. (Which is were most of us draw the line.) He seems to be advocating “total war against ignorance”. See here:
What is the purpose of calling someone out, and labeling them a nut? Usually, it is with the intent of reducing that persons credibility. Why seek to reduce someone’s credibility? Well, we don’t want any “nutjobs” running things, do we?
I wish I had all the answers, or at least was smart enough to figure it all out on my own. I am not sure why God chooses to be so hard to find, if He exists. Philosophers may speculate that God wants us to explore ourselves and our Universe, in order to “grow” in some way, on our own, without interference.
We can do that without labeling the religions (and faithful) as nutjobs, IMO.
Then let me restate and clarify. I meant respecting people’s right to hold their own beliefs. That doesn’t mean we don’t react or respond to actions based on those beliefs. Again you use the word justified. How exactly do you propose justifying subjective beliefs with evidence?
When it comes to our subjective beliefs I believe subjective evidence is acceptable. Our interpretation of what that subjective evidence means can be way off but that too is part of the equation. It simply cannot work the way you are describing. If someone truly believes in the FSM or IPU or the invisible dragon in their garage it simply does not matter until it affects their interaction with others. What if they believe in the FSM and they happen to be an extremely kind and loving person who is a great benefit to their friends and family? Should they be dismissed and their contribution minimized because of that detail of their belief? OTOH if someone is grounded in science and evidence but is morally repugnant and a blight on the people they deal with, do we applaud their rational mind? How do we justify the internal beliefs that form the foundation of our moral choices. I don’t think science is capable of that.
Glad to hear you’re enjoying it Zoe I hope to find something like that myself.
What evidence? If there is evidence then please bring it forward, because up until now all thats ever been presented is twisted logic and appeals to emotion.
I have read quite an unfortunate amount of theology, and nothing Ive read anywhere holds any water at all. If youre hiding some secret writing that gives some real evidence of god, well haul it out into the light, cuz Ive certainly never seen it.
And what about the 100s & 1000s of other books that get ignored? All the gospels that never made it into the bible? Whats wrong with them? Ive read at least some of all the people you mentioned, and it all looked the same to me. If they were talking about god, it was all just mixed up ‘logic’, the god of the gaps, appeals to emotions, etc.
Join a bible study group and tell them something in their book is wrong? Hahahhhahahhaaaahaa. No really, why bother? You cant tell a Catholic something in his faith is wrong, at the least he’ll just ignore you and keep on believing what wants, at worst he’ll get mad and burn you at the stake. If you try to say anything they believe is wrong, youre labelled a jackass, regardless of how its presented.
Its more than just review by peers. The reason youre allowing your peers to review isnt just so they can ohh and ahh over it and congratulate you for writing down something everyone knows for the jillionth time. The difference between scientific review and religious review is that in scientific review there is no such thing as dogma, nothing that is unquestionable. If someone publishes X, and someone else can show that X is wrong, X is discarded. Scientists dont keep on thinking X cuz it makes them feel better, or they have a book that clearly says X, its gone. Religious review just checks to see that everything that gets published agrees with established dogma, and thats it.
So what youre saying is that you dont trust scientists as a group to govern themselves and their work? Well, theres a simple way to check this. Lets check the scientific journals we can look at and see if theres any complete bullplop that is accepted as true. We can even go a step further and see if any of the complete bullplop has been used unsuccesfully to do or make something. Find any?
See if a scientist publishes something, all the other scientists that review it arent reading it to see if they agree, theyre reading it to see if they can prove it wrong. It has to fit into existing knowledge frameworks. It has to use proper methodology. It has to use proper logic. If a scientist does publish something that is crap, and it isnt caught, then when that something is used to build a nuclear power plant, and the nuclear power plant doenst work, then hes busted. Scientific findings are expected to work, if they dont, back to the lab.
Besides, if you had the absolute latest published findings in quantuum physics, how much of it could you follow? I think we should let the people who understand quantuum physics to review the quantuum physics journals, and those people tend to be quantuum physics scientists.
If someone publishes something about god, as long as it doesnt contradict established dogma, hes home free, cuz no one can prove him wrong. No one ever asks for proof, its all just faith. No one expects anything hes written to do anything, its just faith. Of course, no one’s actually ever proven god exists, so its all moot anyway.
What latest results? People arent discovering new things about god, theyre just rewriting old things. Nothing written about religion can contradict established dogma, and until you find more established dogma, nothing new can be written about it. Everything else is just a big circle jerk with everyone agreeing with everyone else that what they wrote has to be true, it agrees with what everyone else wrote.
So the system isnt perfect. Of course, its based on humans. But you endorse the practice every time you turn on your computer, or use your cellphone. You think that technology just happened? Of course not, it all went through the peer review process. It was all corrected and changed and reworked and argued about and everything else that happens, but the key idea here is: computers and cells phones work. They arent the result of one person in a garage making stuff at random, theyre the result of a process, that many people contributed to.
If you cant get people to see errors in methodology or conclusion or whatever, and I am assuming you mean scientific journals, then maybe youre doing something wrong. What journals are you trying to correct, and what organizations are you going to?
And then what? At what point are we allowed to intervene? We have people trying to change what is taught to children as science, and people trying make laws determining whether or not two people can marry, and its all being done based on beliefs no more valid than the FSM or the IPU. At what point can we can say that a belief is no longer allowed because its invalid?
You are free to reject the validity of religion.
But you alone are not free to decide what is a valid belief system for me or everyone else, nor “intervene” and prevent them from making decisions based on those beliefs.
At this point, I would say your are free to express your views and try to win people over to your views.
You are free to offer up ballot measures and/or pieces of legislation, and cast your vote accordingly.
Holds up a mirror for you
You obviously don’t like it when folks mess with your life and belief system (as expressed in your reference to gay marriage laws). Yet you feel justified in doing so, based on your own belief system?
Be careful, lest you become that which you hate.
Religion is not just a subjective belief. It is a belief about the objective nature of the universe. It supposes some form of higher being (there are exception to this). A belief that God exists is a belief about the objective nature of the universe. People holding this belief need to bring forth evidence to justify this claim.
Religious people cannot say they have a subjective feeling that God exists. If they did they would have to admit they have no evidence that God actually exists. They would only have evidence that they have a feeling that God exists. But that evidence in no way would support them believing that God exists.
Evidence that a person has a feeling that God exists is not evidence that God actually exists even to that person.
Have you been reading the posts?
Yes some religious beliefs are about the objective. I’ve already addressed that. The problem I have with your OP and the several I’ve seen that are similar is that in your eagerness to dismiss religious beliefs you don’t make the important distinction between the subjective nature of a belief system and the objective.
No, people who believe in God are in no way obligated to bring forth evidence to satisify you or anyone else as long as they hold their beliefs as their own beliefs. It is at the point that a belief affects those around them that evidence may be asked for. If they knock on your door to preach to you by all means ask for evidence. If they try to pass laws withholding civil rights for others because of their interpretation of a 2000 year old book then please demand evidence. If they try to change what science is taught to children based on religioous myth then I’ll take a stand against them. If they use their free time to feed the hungry and serve the needy because they believe in God I will applaud their compassion in action and not demand they justify their belief.
They can and do.
Actually many believers will admit they have no evidence that others are obliged to accept as any kind of proof. The evidence of their own subjective spiritual experiences are enough for them. If I don’t demand that you believe as I do then you cannot demand that I prove my beliefs. Well, not successfully anyway.
Huh? Actually it* is* evidence to* that* person.