Archimedes, thanks for your answer. I can’t say that I agree with you, as I feel that there are many paths to Divinity, not just one, but I respect your opinion on that. Which is to say, I won’t attack it or try to argue you out of it.
Revtim, I understand the frustration of - as I put it in my previous post - watching people rub blue mud into their navels when you know it does no good. However, I believe your argument ignores some very important points.
As adults, we are individually responsible for our own beliefs and actions. As we are responsible for them, we have the right to hold whatever beliefs we prefer and pursue whatever actions - so long as they are legal and hurt no one else. The cost of this right is that we can’t tell anyone else how to believe.
Put another way, the only way you can guarantee your right to believe the way you choose is not to impose on others. Certainly you can go around grabbing Mormons and Wiccans by the collar and insisting that they listen to why their beliefs are silly and wrongheaded, but then you really shouldn’t complain if someone did the same to you. Besides which, you’d get to be pretty unpopular after a while.
The other problem is that when you start declaring one person, one religion, or one methodology as being the One and Only Truth, you pretty much guarantee that those who are in a position of authority will abuse it. Not so much because of any flaws within the proclaimed truth, but because some people - unlike your principled self - will use that power to persecute others they don’t like or feel threatened by.
Me, I would rather be surrounded by a bunch of people rubbing blue mud in their belly button than have to show my True Believer credentials in order to drink at the water fountain. But that’s just me.
Depends on what your goal is. I can’t recall who was using it as a sig line around here, but they said something like, “You cannot use rationality to argue a man out of a position he did not use rationality to reach.” Most people did not arrive at their religious beliefs through rational means. Thus, trying to rationally prove them wrong is usually an exercise in futility.
Note that I am talking about something that I would characterize as a faith-based belief, not an evidence-based one. There are creationists, for example, who claim to have actual evidence to support their beliefs. I have no problem using rational arguments against those sorts of things, because they have left the realm of pure faith and entered the realm of science.
Here, I would have to say yes if you have some evidence. For example, there are many who believe that this is the case with Scientology, and they have gone to great lengths to try to alert society to the problems they perceive.
Should people only believe things that are true? In my opinion, yes. Do they? No. In some cases it is both impolite and politically incorrect to seek the truth (just see the way Contestant #3 has reacted to some of us skeptics challenging his UFO claims in the first Art Bell thread – I’m sure he thinks we were impolite). I have received e-mail from various people because they didn’t like that I was seeking the truth, and apparently felt insulted. That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop, though.
Depending on what type of belief it is, there may be many people showing it is wrong; but there also may be many ignoring them.
“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi
What’s so hard to believe in the fact that God would say the same thing to two different peoples? And that he would have the foresight to make sure that his words in the two different accounts would be almost exactly the same in the future when the two accounts came together? God is omniscient, after all. I suppose you would be complaining that God wasn’t consistent if the two accounts didn’t match.
Being right also requires that one DOES right, THINKS right and treats all animals, including genus homo, right------ unfoundedly declaring that others are wrong is making judgements based on opinion and opinion only and is fundamentally a wrong thing to do.
So, those who point the finger of intolerance are perforce wrong—what could be simpler?
I came to a logical conclusion once. There can only be one truth, all else is wrong. Therefore only one religion (atheism included) can be correct. If two religions are correct, then they are the same religion.
Thus, until the truth is clear, we will never attain peace.
Slight misperception, Beeruser. Atheism is not a religion. Being an atheist is not saying"The is no God!’. It is saying"Don’t see a god, don’t see a tooth fairy, don’t see Santa Claus, etc." When I grew up, I realized that fairy tales are entertaining, but imaginary. I don’t believe “in”, I believe “that”. I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun, but I don’t believe in Peter Pan.
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson
Doh!
Yes, I made a typo, it should have been www.ulc.org .
jodih - I agree with those who do not like what they see about the Christian belief, due to their agressive attempts at conversion. Since I myself believe that the Christian belief is false, anyone trying to convince me of it irritates me.
I’m an atheist, and all my life I’ve been very tolerant of religions. Until lately. Suddenly, I’m just very, very tired of it. Ghosts, God, psychics, demons… I seriously think society would be better off without religion and supernatural beliefs.
I started a thread asking if there had ever been societies where the majority did not have supernatural beliefs. There was very litle response, I guess because there haven’t been any (plus it wasn’t a very interesting topic). I should have asked there has ever been a religionless society. I don’t think communist countries count, because I think the majority of people still believed in their religions.
Here’s a question for the Teeming Millions: has there ever been a religious practice or belief that helped a society, that could not have been started simply to help society, without a religious aspect?
Example: Thou shalt not Kill. Obviously, a very helpful tenet for a society to follow. But one could easily come the conclusion that society works better when you minimize people killing each other, without any kind of supernatural belief attached to it.
I think society will work better when people realize that morality is good not because Allah wills it, but simply because it helps society and the individual.
For the record, believing in a particular religion, even Christianity, does not have to mean believing that all other religions are wrong. I, for one, belive that Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.” I therefore believe that anyone who encounters the Father (i.e., God,) does so through Christ, whether or they are familiar with the name “Jesus.” To explain it a different way, since the Bible also says that God is Love, any religion that causes people to experience Love, partakes of the Word Jesus embodied. This might seem like a radically non-orthodox view, but it’s not. Ancient and medieval theologians argued that since the names the Bible uses for Christ include “logos” (word) and “truth,” that the Greek philosohers who sought truth through logos were worthy of incorporating in their interpretations of scripture. In fact, they often refered to Socratese as if he were a sort of “pagan Saint.”
How about the ideas of non-violence and passive resistance to evil. These ideals were exemplified by memberss of two totally different religios traditions, Gandi and Dr. King. Even though neither Hinduism nor Christianity has consistantly advocated these ideas, either before or after these men, the bases from which they drew their ideas were, as far as I know, exclusively religious.
Another cost of this is that we, as a society, will never be in a situation where the majority believes in The Truth, whatever that may be.
This is my biggest frustration, lately. I was content my whole life to ignore other’s beliefs, and keep mine to myself. But something changed in me recently, I don’t know what. I feel suddenly very motivated to change the world. I’m not content to let people wallow in what I see as ignorance.
I REALLY want people to turn away from supernatural beliefs. I don’t want to rule the world under my iron fist and force people to abandon their religious practices, or suffer consequences of law. I want people to see the truth, and believe it.
And yes, I know everybody feels the same way about their own beliefs. But I’m right.
I didn’t ask my question very well; in fact it was a flawed question to begin with. What I was trying to prove was that a good-for-society idea from a religious source could have easily heve come from a non-religious source.
But, almost by definition, a good-for-society idea could have come from the humanistic goal to improve society.
Personally, I put God and other faith-based belief systems in a different category than ghosts, psychics, etc. God and religion can never have any real evidence against them (as I think I mentioned earlier, people did not arrive at their faith through a rational process, they just believe). Ghosts and psychics, though, are supposedly interacting with the physical universe and can be objectively analzyed, thus putting them in a different area.
[quote]
I started a thread asking if there had ever been societies where the majority did not have supernatural beliefs. There was very litle response, I guess because there haven’t been any
[quote]
That’s why I didn’t bother to respond.
Definitely – as seen by the rapid increase in religious observance in the USSR when the communists lost power.
Precisely. People shouldn’t have to be scared into doing only good things (“You’ll go to HELL if you…”). Heck, I think it’s kinda scary if somebody is only being good to avoid the fires of hell.
“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi
REVTIM – You say that you “REALLY want people to turn away from supernatural beliefs” and “see the truth, and believe it,” but at the same time you recognize that “everybody feels the same way about their own beliefs.” I read this as a desire to attempt to convert people, even though you want to convert them to rationalism instead of a particular religion.
But you seem to be well aware of the three major problems inherent in this: 1) not every one believes in the same “truth” as you; (2) you are unlikely to be successful in your attempts, because “you cannot reason a man out of a position he did not use reason to reach;” and (3) very few people will thank you for trying – they will instead take your attempts to be attacks upon their belief systems. I think that those who are interested in your POV will approach you, if you are open to discussion, but that attempting to engage people who are NOT interested will only serve to alien them and piss them off. That, at least, is my reaction to those who zealously try to convert me.
David B.,
I was amused to see you actually agreeing with me on a religious thread for once. I think you are right in saying that the “New Tolerance” is part of Post-Modernism. I was also glad to see that it isn’t just my Evangelical Christian friends who think it is silly to say that all ideas are equally valid.
And for all those who say you don’t appreciate agressive evangelism tactics on the part of Christians, I hear you. While I don’t mind talking about what I believe, I’m not always terribly fond of hearing about what YOU believe, and it is usually polite to offer the other person equal time. Therefore, I tend to focus on “friendship evangelism”, with the emphasis on friendship. So, most of the time, we just go along being friends, but if religious topics come up in conversation, I don’t hesitate to share my convictions. I have been known to come on a little strong at times, but I don’t drop the “Gospel Bomb” into conversations, unless I have reason to believe that the person I’m talking to wants to hear it, and will listen with an open mind. I don’t usually see the point of arguing for the sake of arguing. (Despite what my actions on this message board may indicate. )
I don’t have the exact citation to hand right now, but the Book of Mormon has Jesus repeating the entire “sermon on the mount” verbatim, in the exact language of the King James translation, including the words “for Thine is the kingdom…for ever and ever”, which did not creep into the Bible’s text until the Middle Ages (the words were commonly said after the Lord’s Prayer during services, and monks incorrectly assumed when they didn’t find them in the Bible that they had been accidently left out). Now, since Joseph Smith claimed that his text was a miraculously preserved original, translated by miraculous translation spectacles, there is no room for error. Therefore, he lied.
Fundamentalists claim that the Bible is perfect, with no contradictions, errors, etc. But most intelligent Christians say that Fundamentalists are wrong, so it’s no good using that as a stick to beat all Christians with. Indeed, no serious scholar believes that Jesus ever gave “the sermon on the mount” in the words given in St. Matthew, if only because as a sermon it sucks, and Jesus, whatever else He was, was quite obviously not a bad preacher, Who would string together a bunch of “great quotables” like that with no connection or reinforcement. He may well have said all those things, but He didn’t say them all together in that way as a sermon.
As for “toleration”, if anyone does not believe in the value of truth for its own sake, what is he doing on this web site to begin with?
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Might I humbly suggest that many of the laws of Kashrus (eating only Kosher) has had that effect on Jewish society? The lack of trichinosis, for example. Also, the abundance of Jewish religious hand-washing, especially at mealtimes, probably cut down on diseases such as cholera. Also, it has been suggested that the Jewish taboo against sex during menstrual periods is responsible for the significantly lower divorce rates amongst observant couples. The Sabbatical year for crops, the law that no plowing or sowing of crops must be done every seven years (in Israel), is healthy for the land, as any crop-rotating farmer knows. Yet all these laws, which have improved the society in which they were followed, are extremely unlikely to have been instituted for non-religious reasons.
How do you figure they couldn’t have been instituted for non-religious reasons? Why couldn’t someone had noticed, “hey, when Menochem over there ate that pork, he was sick for a week and hurled so much he practically spewed up his own toenails. Maybe it’s dangerous to eat pork.”
It’s my guess that is indeed how that and other helpful religious laws came into play. It was the enforcement of such laws where people felt the need to attach religious significance.
