Religion Astrology and Me

[David Sklansky]

Just want to make it very clear that the problems I have with the beliefs of organized religions have nothing to do with any of their moral or philosophical tenets. It is inconsequential to me that Religions may instigate wars. It is inconsequential to me that religions are anti-abortion and not sexually open. I don't care about most of the points that Bertrand Russell tries to make in Why I am Not a Christian. None of these things lead me in the slightest to make me feel that a religion is incorrect. Even the idea that God would punish wonderful disbelievers and reward horrible believers has not even the slightest to do with why I am a disbeliever myself.

On the other side of the coin the possible philosophical implications of no personal god are irrelevant to me. I have no problem conceding every point along these lines that religious people make. It just doesn't matter.

So you see I am different than virtually any of the other posters on this forum who are debating on the anti-religion side. I don't believe in the likelihood of any of the organized religions having an accurate picture of what controls the universe for the same basic reason that I don't believe astrologers have an accurate picture. And that's it. Period.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Just want to make it very clear that the problems I have with the beliefs of organized religions have nothing to do with any of their moral or philosophical tenets. It is inconsequential to me that Religions may instigate wars. It is inconsequential to me that religions are anti-abortion and not sexually open. I don't care about most of the points that Bertrand Russell tries to make in Why I am Not a Christian. None of these things lead me in the slightest to make me feel that a religion is incorrect. Even the idea that God would punish wonderful disbelievers and reward horrible believers has not even the slightest to do with why I am a disbeliever myself.

On the other side of the coin the possible philosophical implications of no personal god are irrelevant to me. I have no problem conceding every point along these lines that religious people make. It just doesn't matter.

So you see I am different than virtually any of the other posters on this forum who are debating on the anti-religion side. I don't believe in the likelihood of any of the organized religions having an accurate picture of what controls the universe for the same basic reason that I don't believe astrologers have an accurate picture. And that's it. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]


I grew up in a typical culturally jewish home and become religious on my own for two years during my mid teens. I was never troubled by the life-changes or the commitments and was heavily inspired by the moral and philosophical tenets. The only reason i stopped my practicing was because i could not have undoubtable faith. More specifically, i realized the things i had come to believe were of a similar likelihood to things like astrology. I'm sure many other "anti-religion" posters reject religion for similar reasons to the ones you've outlined.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

On the other side of the coin the possible philosophical implications of no personal god are irrelevant to me. I have no problem conceding every point along these lines that religious people make. It just doesn't matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense whatsoever. If you really believe it doesn't matter, it is a monumental waste of time to even attempt debating you. I would say it's no more than an intellectual game but it doesn't even amount to that as most games matter to at least some degree.

[Cyrus]

You wanna add "in this context" after every disclaimer - and then I'd agree with you 100%. (Context referring to whether religion possesses the right answers about our world or not. Because I am certainly very interested in what people believe and what religions proclaim! In a different context.)

[ QUOTE ]
It is inconsequential to me that Religions may instigate wars. It is inconsequential to me that religions are anti-abortion and not sexually open. I don't care about most of the points that Bertrand Russell tries to make in Why I am Not a Christian. None of these things lead me in the slightest to make me feel that a religion is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm adding: "...and not 'morally' but as a robust system of knowledge of the world".

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in the likelihood of any of the organized religions having an accurate picture of what controls the universe for the same basic reason that I don't believe astrologers have an accurate picture. So I am different than virtually any of the other posters on this forum who are debating on the anti-religion side.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're not.

Why would think that? (Do you have some obsession about being head-and-shoulders above the pack?)

[PairTheBoard]

DS --
"It just doesn't matter."

I think David should be cast in the Bill Murray role when they do the remake of the movie "Meatballs".

PairTheBoard

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

On the other side of the coin the possible philosophical implications of no personal god are irrelevant to me. I have no problem conceding every point along these lines that religious people make. It just doesn't matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense whatsoever. If you really believe it doesn't matter, it is a monumental waste of time to even attempt debating you. I would say it's no more than an intellectual game but it doesn't even amount to that as most games matter to at least some degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

an intellextual game that does not matter... like a discussion between two beings but only one person fully comprehends all views being said.

Though it may not matter to Mr. Sklansky it may indirectly matter to other posters/readers who may be more open minded all ideas.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Though it may not matter to Mr. Sklansky it may indirectly matter to other posters/readers who may be more open minded all ideas.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It does allow greater selectivity of response, however, since I no longer have to be concerned about what DS thinks.

[CollinEstes]

If any other person here made a topic like this they would get blown off. I think it comes off egotistical. Just an opinion.

[buck_thunder]

NotReady - you are 100% correct. It has always been an intellectual game for David. If you read my post on his why do jews reject jesus post you will see that i recognized this before. I have always seen it. I truly believes that he just enjoys belittling people. Half the time his arguments make no sense and he loves to take quotes out of context.

You seem like an intelligent person - it is best for you to ignore Davids rantings and keep the debating to people who actually care about what is being posted.

PS - David you are the smartest person on the 2+2 forum. There - you dont have to prove it anymore.

[Zygote]

you love to belittle david dont you? how egotistical of you to say that you were the first to realize this was an intellectual game. you must think david is at least semi-retarted since you claim half his posts make no sense. how dare you belittle someone who isn't as mentally capable as you think you are. in fact, you are so on top of this that you have the authority to command Not ready to ignore david.

Quit with your unwarranted cheapshots, you obviously misunderstnad david.

[Cerril]

Yah, I took a little bit of issue too, but you can probably add after that '...as many of the pro-religion posters argue.' The implication he's trying to make, if we don't want to be argumentative or at least to give the benefit of the doubt, is that too much attention is being paid in response to his posts to matters that don't have anything to do with his points. Too many 'but what about...' sort of arguments that aren't relevant.

So as a clarification, I'll go ahead and accept his post.

[andyfox]

Man does not live by math and science alone. Whether Christianity had an accurate or inaccurate picture of what controls the universe had nothing at all to do with the Crusades.

But maybe it's just me. It is inconsequential to me whether or not any of the organized religions have an accurate picture of what controls the universe. The problems I have with the beliefs of organized religions have everything to do with their moral and philosophical tenets. It may take some of the heat off of you, but I'll say it anyway: reading the first pages of Genesis makes me sick.

[BZ_Zorro]

You basically said you only want to discuss the claims and beliefs of religion in a search for truth, and some of the theists suddenly lost interest.

Does that say something? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Just want to make it very clear that the problems I have with the beliefs of organized religions have nothing to do with any of their moral or philosophical tenets.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I am understanding this statement correctly, you have no disagreements with any of the morals or philosophies coined by major religions? I didn't think that was possible from an informed person like yourself.

OR, are you just saying that those issues are unreleated to your disbelief/uncertainty?

The former statement would seem to imply that you don't give a [censored] about the world in general.

[David Sklansky]

On the other side of the coin the possible philosophical implications of no personal god are irrelevant to me. I have no problem conceding every point along these lines that religious people make. It just doesmatter


This makes no sense whatsoever. If you really believe it doesn't matter, it is a monumental waste of time to even attempt debating you.

I think you misinterpreted my words. The implications of God's non existence doesn't matter when trying to figure out the probablity that he exists. Obviously it matters in other ways.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you misinterpreted my words.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.
[ QUOTE ]

The implications of God's non existence doesn't matter when trying to figure out the probablity that he exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

You know I don't believe probability can be applied to the question. If it could, I think the implications would matter. For instance, one implication is that the laws of probability themselves are meaningless. Another is that the laws can change at any time for no reason. I'm sure you can think of other implications, and this should definitely affect your calculations. I have no idea what the probability assignment should be though. As I said, it's a bogus procedure.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Yah, I took a little bit of issue too,....

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto.

[ QUOTE ]
So as a clarification, I'll go ahead and accept his post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems reasonable.

But as an aside, I think of Mr. Sklansky (as he presents himself on these forums) as more of a comedian. That is meant as a compliment by the way, least it be misconstrued, by the more credulous beings that populate this meaningless forum, as an attack to demean Mr. Sklansky.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Man does not live by math and science alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But you state this and then added:


[ QUOTE ]
It may take some of the heat off of you, but I'll say it anyway: reading te first pages of Genesis makes me sick.

[/ QUOTE ]


The reaction of a Scientist? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
But maybe it's just me. It is inconsequential to me whether or not any of the organized religions have an accurate picture of what controls the universe. The problems I have with the beliefs of organized religions have everything to do with their moral and philosophical tenets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. I would add....'And how those tenets are derived, propagated, and used.

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think of Mr. Sklansky (as he presents himself on these forums) as more of a comedian. That is meant as a compliment by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he is not, Sklansky is being (excuse my French) strictly an agent provocateur.

A spectre is haunting twoplustwo — the spectre of Sklansky.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky is being (excuse my French) strictly an agent provocateur.


[/ QUOTE ]

True. Ghosts of the Psychology Forum.

But it does have a comedic effect.

-Zeno, Francophile