To add to that thought, when you look at groups who today oppose gay rights and generally are homophobic, you wonder how these people don’t realize they’re on the wrong end of history, right? We’re living the civil rights era all over again. Younger people are less hateful and more tolerant than older ones. You can see the demographics shifting towards a better, less hateful society. And so you wonder how the people who fight so hard for it don’t realize that they’re on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the hate vs tolerance debate.
The best places in the world in this regard - the places that are most tolerant and least hateful - are also among the least religious places in the world. People who give up on age old prejudices and pre-modern thinking are the most humanism oriented cultures. Meanwhile, the most devoutly religious places, the places where religion is so dominant that it’s codified into law and wields the greatest amount of power, are the most miserable, backwards, and hateful places.
It makes me wonder when religious people are going to realize they’re on the wrong side of history. Just like people desperately keeping their racism, homophobia, and other regressive cultural traits alive, it should be immediately apparent that part of why a place like the Netherlands is better than a place like Saudi Arabia is the degree to which they’ve evolved. The rate at which you throw away your hatred and prejudicial views tends to match the rate at which you either leave religions, or water them down.
To be clear, I’m not saying that all religion is as hateful as racism or homophobia - some certainly is, but (fewer) religious people can be motivated by love and charity. Some have evolved into simply throwing off religions as unneeded anymore, and others have responded by softening their religion, focusing on the positive and less primitive factors to try to modernize their views. Those others who feel the power base of their traditional beliefs slipping while others modernize their view fight back and become even more regressive, just as you saw with the civil rights movement and the early part of the gay rights movement.
I do think that in a hundred years people will look back at the people who fought so hard to maintain their religious identity even as the rest of us evolved past them and think “didn’t these people realize they were on the wrong side of history?” just we look back on people who fought against civil rights.
Again, to be clear, I’m not saying religion = anti-civil-rights. I’m just saying that the demographics and humanism-oriented thinking that allows us to become less hateful also seems to alleviate the need and motivation people feel towards religion.
Why the tirade? I understand much of it. Anyone can, they’re very basic concepts. Except being touched by the divine. I’m left to wonder if it happens by choice, or has god decided to exclude me, and if so if it’s my fault.
I’m not imposing anything on anyone and I certainly didn’t intend to upset you.
You have I am sure heard of the blind men and the elephant, each one sure that an elephant is a rope, a wall, a snake … does the elephant not exist because each blind human, limited in their ability to perceive, concludes an elephant is something other than another blind human does?
Or is there something to said that all of them were sure that there was something there?
Now mind you in the case of religion I am personally not convinced that the something to be said is that any God exists, but minimally that the tendency to believe in God is heavily selected for in our brains by evolution, that the tendency to belief has served some vital function in our evolutionary history. But the fact that there are different perceptions of God is not evidence against God.
Amazingly enough your (and others posting in this thread) hateful diatribes do a piss poor job at helping humanity transcend magical thinking and at getting people to stop beliefs that they experience as adding value to their lives.
As a physician I have no problem with keeping an open mind to the possible efficacy of, say, Chinese herbs, even if I personally do not believe in the basis of the Chinese medical system. First sometimes they turn out, upon study, to actually work. Second, there is nothing wrong with a placebo effect. Someone having a belief in a system that I consider not science is not a problem in and of itself. Most of the time I can get better compliance with evidence-based approaches if I do not disrespect those beliefs.
Oh poor baby is insulted.
I’ve called you intolerant, contemptuous, arrogant, and a jerk. All of which I stand by. And when Dawkins went beyond a full throated defense OF atheism to attacking the beliefs of others he also was those things. Not militant, but as Professor Higgs (y’know, of the Higgs boson) expressed: “embarrassing.” I’ve not accused you of violence or being militant. Not of being a madman or of having excessive spittle. Your drool is your business. Putting words in the mouths of others is a good sign of the poverty of the position.
But no, it is not true that the only intolerance that matters is that manifested by physical violence.
Now if you want to attack particular times when religion is used by some as a tool of intolerance and oppression I will be with you on that. And I would not exempt the Haredim from criticism in that regard. It would be hard to find a fundamentalist portion of any faith that not deserve criticism for that. Of course I can also find people of faith who have specifically worked for the rights and freedom of others based on their religious beliefs. The Abolitionist movement anyone?
Again, not personally a believer in God as most would recognize the concept, and in general someone who finds much more to blame upon the institutions of religion (not the same as faith itself) than positives to credit them with. But again, we have evolved with a strong biologic tendency to believe … I think that rumors of the impending death of religion are somewhat exaggerated.
Upon review … okay, I have pointed out that the intolerance shown by some in this thread is a similar mindset to religious fundamentalists. Still not quite the same as saying you are violent or militant yourself … you just share the same intolerance to others’ beliefs and desire to see them eliminated.
No, of course not. I bet most if not all of ancient cultures had some sort of explanation for why the sun moves across the sky that involves some sort of agency. The sun is a god who walks around the world, or he’s a fireball pushed by an invisible dragon, or other such explanation. Does that mean that even though their explanations differ, they must be onto something, because they all agree something is there?
If you were writing a fictional story about the culture and practices of a long lost tribe of people on some forgotten island who hadn’t had contact with anyone else for 10,000 years, would they have a religion? Almost certainly. Does that mean their god, the one you just made up, is real?
Because there’s a cultural need to have some sort of religion - to the individual to provide some sort of comfort towards uncertainty (with fear of death being the greatest driving motivator) and from a leadership/cultural perspective because it allows some people to control society and create the rules.
Religion adapts to the level of knowledge of its adherents. Early religions were primitive and typically gave agency to all sorts of unknown things. Why do the rains come sometimes and not others? What are the sun and moon? What is lighting and thunder? We explain these by creating primitive religions that give explanations and a sense of control to these things.
As we learn more about the world, our religions adapt to move to areas that are still unknown. “Advanced” monotheistic religions no longer needed for there to be a sun god and a moon god - I’ve speculated actually that monotheism is a defense against knowledge. Multi-god/pantheistic systems where god-like agency is given to all sorts of natural forces have a hard time adapting when the need for a god runs out because we now know what’s behind the process we once created a god to explain.
Monotheism is much more liquid. God did everything. When you learn something, you just tack “God did it” to the end and it still stays consistent with your religion. God can be exactly as big or as small as you need to fill the gaps in your psyche left by the unknown and by empowering you to feel like you somehow have control over uncontrollable factors, or to be able to find meaning in meaningless ones.
Or, to give you a very concise way of understanding why you’re wrong: let’s say we lived in a universe that had no god. Would you expect, in this universe, that people would create religions that featured a god?
As you’re a physician I’m a little perplexed by your flippant use of this attempt at evolutionary psychology. What evidence do you have that evolution selects for religious belief, or that evolution, rather than cultural and memetic factors are responsible for the creation and spread of evolution? Even if you were right, our brains have evolved to spot patterns that do not exist. Evolution isn’t some sculptor of perfection. Would you say “a belief in ghosts or ancestor spirit is extremely common through different societies, therefore ghost-belief is selected by evolution”, right? And even if you did, you wouldn’t present it as some sort of evidence to suggest that ghosts are real.
If religions are mutually contradictory, then yes, that’s evidence that at least one of those belief systems isn’t true. Maybe you can say that Islam/Judaism/Christianity are similar enough since they do have some cultural inheritance are similar, but are you suggesting that those, Hinduism, Norse mythology, the Greek gods, and the hundreds of different variation on pagan beliefs are all just different takes on the one true god?
To the contrary, I’ve written at length about religion and I’ve had a number of people personally tell me that it was what I said or wrote that gave them the tools or motivation they needed to critically reform their views. I’m not going to say this thread is my best work or anything, but I absolutely have made a difference.
Tell me, in my last post, the one you’re replying to, what was the “hateful diatribes”? If I take any other position than “all religions are unique and beautiful and should be respected”, is that a hateful diatribe?
Yep, and if we suddenly got some new compelling evidence for god, I’d want to know what it was, and then I’d believe in that god if it were the best explanation. Herbs are drugs. There’s a plausible mechanism for them to work. Most of them do not simply because ancient Chinese folk doctors were not versed or interested in proper test methodologies. There’s no plausible mechanism by which we know of god except indirect reports on some third party’s personal revelation thousands of years ago. Even if you thought that there must be some sort of creator of some sort, how do go about knowing about him? How do you decide that your god hates gay people, wants you to wear silly hats, and wants you to eat ice cream with every single meal? “This guy said he was a prophet and here’s what god wants” is the only explanation, and as someone who understands how to evaluate the quality of evidence, you know that this is worthless.
Here’s the thing. In this thread, I haven’t personally insulted anyone over religion in this thread. I’ve only insulted to people saying insulting things to me directly. And of course I’ve attacked the idea of religion. And in fact I explicitly apologized to someone who felt that I was targeting him personally with an insult aimed a group, because it wasn’t my intent to insult people personally here.
On the other hand, you’ve called me scum and repeatedly insulted me saying that I’m an intolerant asshole because I can’t stand that people have beliefs different from mine. But you have attacked me on that same basis, and much more personally, and you were the initiator of all the attacks.
You have been less civil than I, initiated all of the personal insults, and seem completely oblivious to the fact that your criticisms about getting angry over someone believing differently from you applies more to you than it does to me.
You call me scum, but your behavior towards me has been far more scummy than mine towards you.
Will you at least admit that you would never call me intolerant, contemptuous, and arrogant if I made the exact same attacks I’m making on religion if I made them on some other magical thinking like homeopathy, psychic mediums, vitalism models of health care, or astrology? Would you admit that you demand special treatment of religion compared to other magical belief systems?
As for Dawkins, how does one make a defense of atheism without attacking the idea of religion? Saying “Hey, there’s no reason to think religions are correct, they’re arbitrary explanations with no evidence” is one of the core premises of atheism, but how do you express that without “attacking” religion?
Also, your appeal to Professor Higgs is one of the weirder appeals to authority I’ve ever seen. Who cares what Professor Higgs thinks about Dawkins? Was that meant to be some sort of “see, even a scientist thinks atheists are wrong!” attack? Very silly.
Other people in this thread have used the word “spittle” and “hysterical” and other such things thrown at me. Did you use those words? Maybe not, I’m not going to look back on every post you made to this thread. But by calling me scum and likening my attitude to ISIS, you have certain used hyperbole to describe the positions I’ve stated in this thread. One of my central points is that apologists for religion will consistent label atheistic arguments as being more aggressive and hostile than they actually are as part of their attempts to suppress them.
Accusing me of having a poverty of position is absurd. I’m sure you’re a smart guy, but I could easily crush you on a debate on the intellectual merits of religion in almost any context because you’ve got the disadvantage of attempting to defend an absurd position that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Similarly, I could destroy even a really smart, excellent debater who felt the need to defend the practice of astrology. The best intellectual defenders of religion can come up with is shit like the ontological argument, or some variation of "there must be some kind of god out there… therefore it must be my hate-gays, silly-hats, ice-cream god.
Religion has never held up to scrutiny, it has only suppressed it. Through most of history, questioning it or rejecting it would get you killed or exiled. Some places in the world today this is still true. In more advanced societies, like our own, you’re merely ostracized and shouted down. People will use the fact that religion has been sincerely believed by most people who ever lived, played a pivotal role in the development of our society, and has been a constant factor for a long time as special pleading that it not be held up to the same scrutiny as other beliefs. Maybe in 2000 years, after scientology has killed and conquered and forcibly converted untold millions of people, it can demand the special privilege of the Judeo-Christian religions too.
I’d like to see racism eliminated too. I’m intolerant of the belief of racism and think that the world would be a better place if it didn’t exist. I guess I’m just like ISIS. They murder non-believers and bulldoze shrines, and I’m intolerant towards racism. Same thing, more or less.
No. If you setup a blind test between a haredim family and a secular one, both heating food or whatever, and you can’t tell which is which, I don’t think an accident can be blamed on religious beliefs, like I don’t think it can be blamed on their taste in music.
Does that invalidate saying sabbath played a roled in this particular tragedy?
Crock pots were not mentioned a single time in the two NYT articles I read about the community.
Besides maybe sometimes the Haredim wish to eat other things besides stews on sabbath.
Everyone seems to recognize that current practices for observing sabbath have problems: namely the community itself and fire safety officials.
Not you though. Something about driving. I tried explaing the concept of causal chains, without much success. Can you at least stop implying that anyone thinks that these people must use unsafe cooking practices because of religion?
I actually didn’t think the risk statistically significant because I assumed the problem was self-correcting in such a close knit community. It may still be but it’s difficult to assume much from people “not allowed to ask why” but who believe “god has a plan” in the face of tragedy.
Let me guess, of all the billion valid reasons to criticise Orthodox Judaism, I managed to miss the mark again.
Then that ends your participation in this thread - clearly, if you believe that, then you believe religion isn’t the problem here.
Do you even know what it was they were heating? From the stories, the hot plate was being used “… to heat a stew known as cholent …”
Know what was item was specifically invented to heat cholent?
The crock pot.
In summary, the exact same dish that was involved in this fire, was the direct inspiration for the invention of a utensil used for the exact purpose - to safely heat the stew known as cholent.
These are all verifiable facts - and that the stories you happened to read did not mention them, makes no difference.
Bullshit.
Guess who mentioned, repeatedly, that the exact same hot-plate fire scenario happened in 2010 - and so the community ought to have known that it was unsafe?
That’s right - that was me.
You lack success because you don’t understand it.
Yes, everyone knows that these folks made stew on an unsafe hot-plate because of Shabbat. Just like a driver may drive unsafely to Church because of Mass.
In both cases, the actual risk-factor implicated in the accident is the unsafe practice - not the religious motivation.
I’m not implying that at all.
I’m outright stating that if religion doesn’t actually mandate an unsafe practice, it makes zero logical sense to blame the outcome of an unsafe practice on religion.
Somehow, you can’t seem to wrap your head around that notion. It is like you are compelled, by the existence of a tragedy casually connected to a religious practice, to hold the position that this demonstrates religion = bad, in spite of that position making no logical sense whatsoever.
If a similar tragedy happened beacuse single moms were using hotplates to heat food while they were out working, I somehow doubt you would be saying “single working moms = bad” because of “casual chains”. Or would you?
You were wrong - and if you’d read my posts, you would have known you were wrong.
Yup, you miss again. The article posted above as to reactions in the community quite clearly outlines that the Orthodox are, as a result of the publicity and scale of this disaster, questioning their practices - such as buying up smoke-detectors and switching to what they perceive to be less-risky cooking methods.
In short, that they are reacting much as non-religious people would react to such a tragedy - that is, seeing if they can do what they always have done, only safer.
Hell, you yourself reference this: "Everyone seems to recognize that current practices for observing sabbath have problems: namely the community itself … "
Again, why worry about minor details like the facts or logic when you can just make shit up?
So you think there is some religious reason why the Orthodox don’t use a crock-pot?
Odd - as the links already posted indicate that some do in fact use a crock-pot.
[emphasis added]
As for the relative distribution of these devices between religious and non-religious families - I really have no idea. I would be very surprised if you did. Yet, you are making this the cornerstone of your argument?
I rather suspect some use one device, rather than the other, out of habit, beacuse a crock-pot costs money and they are poor, or an incorrect perception of relative safety. Just like secular people.
Oh, that would be a “no”. If the tradition was “sensible”, it would have lead to tragedy just as easily as if it was “idiotic”.
So what exactly is the significance of 1 and 2, in your mind?
Yeah, I see the temptation to take a cheap shot at “idiotic” religious tradition, but it was dumb to give in to that temptation, much less attempt to justify it at length.
Really? A family’s kids burn to death, and it would not make the news?
BTW, in my hypothetical, “single momness” no more leads to tragedy than orthodox Jewness lead to tragedy in this case: unsafe cooking lead to tragedy in both.
Your position is exactly the same as that of an antifeminist raising much-needed yuks by poking some fun at “idiotic” single working moms, whose cooking habits “lead to” tragedy. It doesn’t follow for them, and it doesn’t follow for you.
I agree.
So why are you guys still acting out that caricature?
I have expressed no opinion on whether these beliefs in particular are good, bad or neither.
I am merely poking some scorn at the absurd logic exhibited by you and others in this thread.
I am pretty much ready to quit banging my head against the serious SenorBeeefing going on in this thread but a few comments deserve responses.
Yes. Precisely. I am reminded about a comment in a GD about Free Will: Free Will may or may not be a delusion but if it is it is a necessary delusion.
Well you didn’t click on my other links so probably won’t on this one or this one either.
God concepts are not the only possible means of establishing and maintaining moral communities. We can also accept, just as axiomatically, truths that we hold to be self-evident. Funny thing though, most atheists (and virtually atheist pantheists like me) still behave as if someone or something is watching us.
How about if I start with your first posts?
Shocking you were not smothered with hugs and kisses! I guess “you liberal douchebags” does not count as a personal insult but AGAIN insults lobbed personally at me are less offensive than hate aimed at entire groups of people.
Takes some lessons from these people. You can witness and proselytize for what you do believe without attacking the beliefs of others. As annoying as I find witnessing and proselytizing to be, what you do is worse. Again, the difference is the same mindset that motivates militants to violence. You are not explaining why you believe what you believe, you are wanting to attack the beliefs of others for no reason other than that the fact their believing it somehow offends you.
Many here who find the religion bashers posts to be hateful and idiotic are more commonly arguing on the side that religious institutions are more often used by those in power for oppressive purposes than for the betterment of humanity and have a significant distaste for fundamentalism of any stripe, Haredim inclusive. The difference is that we still do have some respect and curiosity for our friends’ beliefs and feel no need to insult our friends (be they going to Mass or not lighting fire on Shabbat or kneeling towards Mecca or not eating beef) just because it is incomprehensible (or even magical thinking) to us. It serves a purpose for them and adds value to their lives, as they judge it. I find learning about their beliefs and how they feel it adds value to their lives to be much more interesting and useful than mockery … unless they behave with their beliefs like you do with yours.
Do you believe that leaving a hot plate working overnight to keep food warm is logical? An act guided by reason?
What would be the purpose for a rational person to do that? Why would someone who wants to heat food using a hot plate not turn it on 15 or 30 minutes prior to eating, instead of say 12 hours overnight?
Please don’t tell me they had other methods available, or that it could have been a clothes dryer short, or that space heaters also cause fires, or that some dishes require one month cooking time, or that people can also slip and break their necks.
I know that already. I answered you questions directly and concisely, can you answer at least one of mine?
It was an act guided by a ritual purpose: to conform with the laws of Shabbat.
The “purpose” of conforming to the ritual was to subscribe to a community of belief, which at the post immediately above yours reasonably points out, as apparently described in a Science article, has all sorts of possible benefits to the member.
Now, I don’t believe that most folks join a community of belief because they sit down and think “gee, it would be really a good idea to join this here community - look at all the logical and rational benefits derived from that”, no. Most are simply born into it and accept it without much question. However, there is a pretty basic “logic” at work: conform to the ritual if you wish to be a member of this particular community.
Rituals don’t have to have any “logic” higher than that: ultimately, that’s the point of most of 'em. Same with, say, bowing towards Mecca 5 times a day, or a wedding ceremony, or a funeral, or a flag-raising, or whatever. None of which do I think are “idiotic”, “illogical” or “irrational”. They are rituals.
Ok, so no, it was not an act guided by rational thought. I assume you are not playing a semantic game that ritual is a logical reason.
I would call that significant. I would say that fact sets it apart from the act of “using” a car guided by reason, an analogy invoked by you. I would say I am justified in allowing such an irrational act to inform my judgement of the tragedy.
We can have that discussion, but the question was yes or no, in long form.
