View Full Version : Why do some atheists care that there are theists?
Trantor
10-10-2005, 01:43 PM
Or to restate the question, if you care enough to post arguments trying to persuade theists they are wrong, why do you?
bocablkr
10-10-2005, 01:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Or to restate the question, if you care enough to post arguments trying to persuade theists they are wrong, why do you?
[/ QUOTE ]
If someone told you 2+2=5 would you try and persuade them otherwise?
[ QUOTE ]
If someone told you 2+2=5 would you try and persuade them otherwise?
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. I needed a good chuckle today. I'm sure they would find some explanation for it not being true.
There are many reasons for me but probably the most important is that I find theists to often buy into irrational stories that serve as justification for them to do some of the most despicable acts the world has ever known.
Even when their beliefs don't lead them to actually kill others for no good reason, they can lead them to deny rights to gays, be indifferent to long term environmental planning because some are convinced that the world is ending soon anyway, block stem cell research which could otherwise extend my life and the lives of loved ones someday, deny or impede access to birth control which creates unwanted babies and spreads deadly diseases.
Do I need to go on? Because I probably would if I thought it might convince someone to reconsider their unfounded beliefs which lead to what I believe to be so many incredibly cruel actions.
bocablkr
10-10-2005, 02:06 PM
Nice post.
purnell
10-10-2005, 02:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Or to restate the question, if you care enough to post arguments trying to persuade theists they are wrong, why do you?
[/ QUOTE ]
Religion gives some religious people the motivation to do things that are unacceptable, like what happened in Waco, TX, or in New York on Sept 11, 2001.
I think it's something that we would be better off without, so I argue against it.
To Brenner and purnell,
I can’t agree more. But, I think you are “preaching to the choir” when done here on the forum. (At least I hope this is the case of all of us in the choir here).
The conclusions seem only to give a reason for the “bashing”. It does not give a good reason (IMO) for the “bashing” in context of the theoretical discussions.
How can one argue that if all mankind followed what Jesus taught, “To love one’s neighbor” the world would be better off?
The error I think some make here is confusing some folk’s practice of their religion with the Religion itself.
RJT
[ QUOTE ]
Sport.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is a good reason (again IMO).
valenzuela
10-10-2005, 02:50 PM
ok this is my first ever real post here:
I go to a jesuit school and they pray every fcuking day..it makes me sick and unconfortable, specially when I see a teacher leading the prayer. I think that makes me kinda hate religion because they shove it on my face all the time.
That is probably the reason why I try to convince christians how wrong they are.
bocablkr
10-10-2005, 03:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
ok this is my first ever real post here:
I go to a jesuit school and they pray every fcuking day..it makes me sick and unconfortable, specially when I see a teacher leading the prayer. I think that makes me kinda hate religion because they shove it on my face all the time.
That is probably the reason why I try to convince christians how wrong they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where were your other 1745 posts?
[ QUOTE ]
ok this is my first ever real post here:
I go to a jesuit school and they pray every fcuking day..it makes me sick and unconfortable, specially when I see a teacher leading the prayer. I think that makes me kinda hate religion because they shove it on my face all the time.
That is probably the reason why I try to convince christians how wrong they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is the stupidest "fcuking" logic I've read -- and that says A LOT on this forum.
[ QUOTE ]
ok this is my first ever real post here:
I go to a jesuit school and they pray every fcuking day..it makes me sick and unconfortable, specially when I see a teacher leading the prayer. I think that makes me kinda hate religion because they shove it on my face all the time.
That is probably the reason why I try to convince christians how wrong they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe it should also be your last.
imported_luckyme
10-10-2005, 03:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The error I think some make here is confusing some folk’s practice of their religion with the Religion itself.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually that seems a reifictation error and I'll take a couple of runs at it in an attempt to stir up a deeper look at this aspect of the topic.
"Religion" doesn't exist on it's own, like a horse. Relgion only exists, like running, in the actions of those who are 'doing it'. If I watch the Marathon it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to say "that's not real marathon running" when the 2,000 people just passing me claim to be marathon runners and doing it at the time.
To study penquin mating I would be looking at what they do, not what some paper says they should be doing. It's the 'practice of religion' that is the interesting, useful and meaningful object of attention, not what some unfollowed text may say.
Muslim, christian or any other cult is usefully studied in this "what do Dulquists do? How do they practice their religion? etc". It'd be a real ivory tower waste of time to study something that isn't practiced. As some of the replies indicate, some atheists that buck religousity are doing it because of how it affects their lives and their views of whats good for humanity, etc. Sure, it can be a mindsport to debate the logical flaws that follow some certain belief systems in theory, but that's almost a given and motivates only a few.
luckme
JackWhite
10-10-2005, 03:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Religion gives some religious people the motivation to do things that are unacceptable, like what happened in Waco, TX, or in New York on Sept 11, 2001.
I think it's something that we would be better off without, so I argue against it.
[/ QUOTE ]
And atheists have never done anything bad, we all know that. No atheist has ever committed an inhumane act.
In all seriousness, if we were to get rid of religion entirely, would that include getting rid of all those Christian hospitals and Christians schools. Our former beloved President, William Jefferson Clinton was educated at Georgetown, a Catholic school. That school never should have been founded, since it was founded by religious people, who according to Skanskly, are stupid by definition.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Religion gives some religious people the motivation to do things that are unacceptable, like what happened in Waco, TX, or in New York on Sept 11, 2001.
I think it's something that we would be better off without, so I argue against it.
[/ QUOTE ]
And atheists have never done anything bad, we all know that. No atheist has ever committed an inhumane act.
In all seriousness, if we were to get rid of religion entirely, would that include getting rid of all those Christian hospitals and Christians schools. Our former beloved President, William Jefferson Clinton was educated at Georgetown, a Catholic school. That school never should have been founded, since it was founded by religious people, who according to Skanskly, are stupid by definition.
[/ QUOTE ]
If it means that the schools where young boys were molested would also not have been founded, then I would have preferred that Georgetown was never founded.
purnell
10-10-2005, 03:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Religion gives some religious people the motivation to do things that are unacceptable, like what happened in Waco, TX, or in New York on Sept 11, 2001.
I think it's something that we would be better off without, so I argue against it.
[/ QUOTE ]
And atheists have never done anything bad, we all know that. No atheist has ever committed an inhumane act.
In all seriousness, if we were to get rid of religion entirely, would that include getting rid of all those Christian hospitals and Christians schools. Our former beloved President, William Jefferson Clinton was educated at Georgetown, a Catholic school. That school never should have been founded, since it was founded by religious people, who according to Skanskly, are stupid by definition.
[/ QUOTE ]
If it means that the schools where young boys were molested would also not have been founded, then I would have preferred that Georgetown was never founded.
[/ QUOTE ]
1)
Charity exists outside of religion. We would still have formed communities and charitable organizations would still exist.
2)
a: I went to a Catholic school and was never molested there or knew of any such thing going on.
b: I am fairly sure little boys have been molested in public schools.
David Sklansky
10-10-2005, 04:10 PM
Hopefully most of you already know my answer. To repeat:
Because of the paradox captured best by the Prisoner's Dilemma, most people of the world are better off if they are religious in the style of Jews, Christians, Buddhists and most Muslims. The good religion does, usually outweighs the harm.
The only real problem with religion is that it is almost certainly incorrect. And, to most extremely smart people, obviously so.
Now suppose you are a ten year old child who was precocious enough to realize that the precepts of specific religions are clearly not something that make sense. If there was not a body of writng by world class minds that expressed the same opinion, the deleteriouis effect on that kid could be enough to reduce his chances that he will contribute something meaningful to society.
In other words while there is more good than harm in allowing the majority of the world to believe in these myths of religion, it is important for the five percent of the population that we count on to make progress, to be shown that their doubting thoughts are indeed scientifically, logically and statistically valid (given the knowledge of the last 50 years). Hopefully that includes a lot of two plus twoers.
tylerdurden
10-10-2005, 04:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Religion gives some religious people the motivation to do things that are unacceptable, like what happened in Waco, TX
[/ QUOTE ]
Janet Reno's religious beliefs caused her to kill a bunch of people who were minding their own business?
tylerdurden
10-10-2005, 04:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There are many reasons for me but probably the most important is that I find theists to often buy into irrational stories that serve as justification for them to do some of the most despicable acts the world has ever known.
Even when their beliefs don't lead them to actually kill others for no good reason, they can lead them to deny rights to gays, be indifferent to long term environmental planning because some are convinced that the world is ending soon anyway, block stem cell research which could otherwise extend my life and the lives of loved ones someday, deny or impede access to birth control which creates unwanted babies and spreads deadly diseases.
Do I need to go on? Because I probably would if I thought it might convince someone to reconsider their unfounded beliefs which lead to what I believe to be so many incredibly cruel actions.
[/ QUOTE ]
These are good, but of course, none of these situations are inherent to religious belief. Would you still feel compelled to pursue this action if the theist held that coercion of any other human, even an unbeliever, was unjustifiable?
Jeff V
10-10-2005, 04:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The only real problem with religion is that it is almost certainly incorrect. And, to most extremely smart people, obviously so.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your good at leaving yopurself the tiniest amounts of outs David. So does "most" extremely smart people mean 50.000001% here? If not how much?
JackWhite
10-10-2005, 04:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
1)
Charity exists outside of religion. We would still have formed communities and charitable organizations would still exist.
2)
a: I went to a Catholic school and was never molested there or knew of any such thing going on.
b: I am fairly sure little boys have been molested in public schools.
[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate your answer. Very fair. Let me just respond to the point about the charitable organizations. Sure, they are many great non-religious private charities. But there are so many great religious based charities. Presumably, many of the people involved in these do this work because they think God wants or demands they do it. If they stopped believing in God, would they still feed the sick and take in the homeless etc..
Some still would do the work, but I am guessing a lot wouldn't. It is asking a lot for somebody to sacrifice part of their life to help others. I just think many atheists don't take into account all the great work done by believers. They point out all the bad, while ignoring the good. You have to take into account both, and I think there are some who don't.
purnell
10-10-2005, 04:34 PM
Koresh was motivated by religion to hasten the destruction of the human race, something I would call unacceptabe.
David Sklansky
10-10-2005, 04:42 PM
Over 90%. Of the three hundred or so that I have met in my life it is 100% to the best of my knowledge. But I will admit that it is not a fully random sample.
sexdrugsmoney
10-10-2005, 05:09 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
In other words while there is more good than harm in allowing the majority of the world to believe in these myths of religion, it is important for the five percent of the population that we count on to make progress, to be shown that their doubting thoughts are indeed scientifically, logically and statistically valid (given the knowledge of the last 50 years). Hopefully that includes a lot of two plus twoers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you believe humanity's progress is being somewhat 'stunted' by allowing only 5% of the smart to "see the truth" while the rest of the "plebs" - who have the power to vote on important things like government policies (some regarding scientific advances) are "hoodwinked" by supposed ancient "myths"?
IronUnkind
10-10-2005, 05:10 PM
I suspect that you would automatically demote someone to a lower intellectual status based upon his espousal of religious belief. I know you are capable of such errors, based upon your belief that Leibniz's dice error somehow compromises his obvious genius. Is religion the reason you left Ramanujan off of your ten best list?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1)
Charity exists outside of religion. We would still have formed communities and charitable organizations would still exist.
2)
a: I went to a Catholic school and was never molested there or knew of any such thing going on.
b: I am fairly sure little boys have been molested in public schools.
[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate your answer. Very fair. Let me just respond to the point about the charitable organizations. Sure, they are many great non-religious private charities. But there are so many great religious based charities. Presumably, many of the people involved in these do this work because they think God wants or demands they do it. If they stopped believing in God, would they still feed the sick and take in the homeless etc..
Some still would do the work, but I am guessing a lot wouldn't. It is asking a lot for somebody to sacrifice part of their life to help others. I just think many atheists don't take into account all the great work done by believers. They point out all the bad, while ignoring the good. You have to take into account both, and I think there are some who don't.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that if they didn't believe in God, these "good Christians" wouldn't give a [censored] about their neighbors? How encouraging. And how wrong. I suspect that those who want to help others don't need a God construct -- I seem to do just fine helping others without one, I would hope a good Christian could do the same.
imported_luckyme
10-10-2005, 05:21 PM
I'm surprised to find thoughts even resembling these on a Bayesian-aware website.
- Most criminls in the USA are xtians.
- Most charity workers in the USA are xtians.
[ QUOTE ]
It is asking a lot for somebody to sacrifice part of their life to help others.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, altruism is fairly common in social animals and manifests itself in various forms. The reasons for it have nothing to do with religion even though it may be experienced in those terms by some, which is fair enough.
luckyme,
..if I thought I was wrong I'd change my mind
David Sklansky
10-10-2005, 06:27 PM
"Don't you believe humanity's progress is being somewhat 'stunted' by allowing only 5% of the smart to "see the truth" while the rest of the "plebs" - who have the power to vote on important things like government policies (some regarding scientific advances) are "hoodwinked" by supposed ancient "myths"? "
It's a trade off and it's close. Especially for the next highest ten percent.
David Sklansky
10-10-2005, 06:31 PM
"I suspect that you would automatically demote someone to a lower intellectual status based upon his espousal of religious belief. I know you are capable of such errors, based upon your belief that Leibniz's dice error somehow compromises his obvious genius. Is religion the reason you left Ramanujan off of your ten best list?"
Both guys easily make it into my top 5% list. And I have little doubt that Ramanujan would would never buy into Judeo Christian myths, especially with a little training in physics.
David Sklansky
10-10-2005, 06:35 PM
"I know you are capable of such errors, based upon your belief that Leibniz's dice error somehow compromises his obvious genius."
I was picking the ten smartest ever out of a hundred candidates with little difference to choose from. That error is glaring enough to drop him off the list. Do you think there is any chance Gauss could have thought something similar?
valenzuela
10-10-2005, 06:38 PM
Its hard to explain an emotional reasoning, Im simply bothered by theists..I know thats wrong but I cant help it.
chezlaw
10-10-2005, 06:59 PM
The reason I care is that it is astonishing to me that people can see the world in such different ways.
For a long time I thought that it can't be true, they can't really believe this, to me, nonsense, they must just be making it up to support a way of life they prefer.
Over time I have become more convinced that some people do genuinely believe, so I have had to accept that we do see the world fundamentaly differently.
I have to accept the possibility that their view of the world might be correct even though it is alien to me. This is the itch I sometimes feel compelled to scratch.
However once they cross the line and tell me that the way they see the world means that I have a need to believe or am denying my desire to believe or somesuch nonsense, then I know they have got it completely wrong and any text that says the same also has it completely wrong.
chez
JackWhite
10-10-2005, 07:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that if they didn't believe in God, these "good Christians" wouldn't give a [censored] about their neighbors? How encouraging. And how wrong. I suspect that those who want to help others don't need a God construct -- I seem to do just fine helping others without one, I would hope a good Christian could do the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say that if they didn't believe they wouldn't "give a **** about their neighbors." I said that some might not devote their lives to helping others, as they currently do.
Who does more charitable work in America, believers or atheists? It doesn't mean that what they believe in is correct, but of the people I know, the believers do a lot more charitable work than the non-believers. Granted, that is just among the people I know, but I am willing to bet that the average Christian devotes more time to charity than the average atheist.
JackWhite
10-10-2005, 07:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised to find thoughts even resembling these on a Bayesian-aware website.
Actually, altruism is fairly common in social animals and manifests itself in various forms. The reasons for it have nothing to do with religion even though it may be experienced in those terms by some, which is fair enough.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is the problem with many of you. You are so obsessed with what some philosopher said years ago, that you don't care to look at real life activity. Sorry if I'm not as Bayesian aware as you.
Help me out on this. It is getting close to the time of year that the Salvation Army people stand outside stores freezing their asses off to raise money for the poor. I have never seen the atheist red bucket outside of Walmart. I am sorry if that is not Bayesian aware, but I guess I am relying on things I have actually seen, rather than on what a philosopher might have said years ago. Sorry.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The error I think some make here is confusing some folk’s practice of their religion with the Religion itself.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually that seems a reifictation error and I'll take a couple of runs at it in an attempt to stir up a deeper look at this aspect of the topic.
"Religion" doesn't exist on it's own, like a horse. Relgion only exists, like running, in the actions of those who are 'doing it'. If I watch the Marathon it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to say "that's not real marathon running" when the 2,000 people just passing me claim to be marathon runners and doing it at the time.
To study penquin mating I would be looking at what they do, not what some paper says they should be doing. It's the 'practice of religion' that is the interesting, useful and meaningful object of attention, not what some unfollowed text may say.
Muslim, christian or any other cult is usefully studied in this "what do Dulquists do? How do they practice their religion? etc". It'd be a real ivory tower waste of time to study something that isn't practiced. As some of the replies indicate, some atheists that buck religousity are doing it because of how it affects their lives and their views of whats good for humanity, etc. Sure, it can be a mindsport to debate the logical flaws that follow some certain belief systems in theory, but that's almost a given and motivates only a few.
luckme
[/ QUOTE ]
Some how I think the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would rather we had crucified Einstein instead of Christ.
Or I wonder what Alfred Nobel would make of your suggestion.
IronUnkind
10-10-2005, 08:31 PM
I doubt it, but I also would have doubted that Leibniz could have made the error had it not been so apparent that he, in fact, did make it.
To Sklansky and others who believe that religion does more good than bad,
I completely disagree. There is a widely held misconception that I'm surprised that even Sklansky seems to buy into that if you took away religion, people would stop treating each other as well. This is not supported by evidence at all. Just look at the Netherlands today. They are a very atheistic society. Crime rates are low and charity is much higher than in the U.S. Much of the social progress in our country from the abolition of slavery to giving women the right to vote was sparked by non-believers and fought ferociously by the religious every step of the way. I think you would find that those top 5% of smart people who don't believe in religion are amongst the most law abiding people in our country.
[ QUOTE ]
ok this is my first ever real post here:
I go to a jesuit school and they pray every fcuking day..it makes me sick and unconfortable, specially when I see a teacher leading the prayer. I think that makes me kinda hate religion because they shove it on my face all the time.
That is probably the reason why I try to convince christians how wrong they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hate people forcing beliefs on me as well and that is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of religion.
But it's also one of the (many) reasons I don't try and persuade theists.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok this is my first ever real post here:
I go to a jesuit school and they pray every fcuking day..it makes me sick and unconfortable, specially when I see a teacher leading the prayer. I think that makes me kinda hate religion because they shove it on my face all the time.
That is probably the reason why I try to convince christians how wrong they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hate people forcing beliefs on me as well and that is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of religion.
But it's also one of the (many) reasons I don't try and persuade theists.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dang right. Especially if I were attending a religious school. Hudda thunk it?
benkahuna
10-11-2005, 12:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
These are good, but of course, none of these situations are inherent to religious belief. Would you still feel compelled to pursue this action if the theist held that coercion of any other human, even an unbeliever, was unjustifiable?
[/ QUOTE ]
There's no escaping coercion in society. Society is a coercive force on its own.
Even a supposedly uncoercive society (anarchist--not to be confused with anarchy) is coercive, although minimally so.
As to the original poster, I don't bother to try to get people to change their minds. I've found most people to not be so open-minded as to seriously question their beliefs. And it's not that I truly blame them either. I think faith is required to function in life. "Everyone has to believe in something."
Even given my lack of proselytizing against religion, I have a problem with the Big 3 (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) because I consider them to be very divisive forces. Divisive forces can cause otherwise similar peoples to do all sorts of terrible things to each other in some cases and even in less dramatic cases prevent cooperation for mutual benefit. In fact, I beleive religion has been the most successfully used divisive force in human history leading to the greatest war, bloodshed, forced migration and misery. It's a great tool for those in power to manipulate his constituents to gain resources, power, influence, and a chance at a well-regarded legacy.
Religion in theory, even if it is wrong as Sklansky so often likes to point out (and my inner rationalist agress with him), strikes me as a very neutral and possibly even positive influence, giving people something in which to believe and providing a means of encouraging principles consistent with my own ethos (my personal favorite being the Golden Rule) that I think make society function better and produce a society more to my taste. It's not all about me, but I think the notion of universal or implicit morality is a fairy tale so I'm trying to be honest about it being what I like, not what is inherently good. I don't even really believe in inherent good, I just see action and consequence.
In practice, I think the big 3 religions have been a disaster even while they've encouraged other useful developments in human history (such as Christianity's involvement with economic development--see Max Weber). I'm not sure that humans in general can handle religion responsibly. I think religion is largely an excuse for people to act like they want to act and that it also strengthens inherent divisive notions that we have naturally (though these notions can be minimized or removed through education, training and self-discipline.
I also disagree with Sklansky insinuation that not assuaging bright people's attitudes on religion is an impediment to societal contribution worth considering (he mentions it so he obviously thought it was worth considering). People this bright would likely be using evidence (or lack thereof) to come to their conclusion anyway and would have found what they needed based on what's out there. And thinkers of this caliber should eventually be able to reconcile their lack of faith despite any lack of analysis in the public domain by other high profile thinkers. I see such people as being secure in their convictions even lacking reinforcement from intellectual heavyweights. The only thinker other than Sklansky that I'm aware says G-d probably doesn't exist was Tim Leary in his Death and Dying book. Before you rush to attack Leary for not being a thinker, I recommend you read a little more about his career or maybe a few of his 50 or so full length books.
In the religious realm, I disagree pretty strongly with David about one thing. He doesn't seem to realize that people can have irrational beliefs related to faith and still be rational about all other issues and correctly analyze other situations. The whole notion of being able to successfully hold an idealist belief along with rationalist/materialist beliefs seems lost on our poker theory guru. No offense intended Mr. Sklansky. A single irrationality or mistake need not imply one is irrational generally or makes mistakes about other matters. It's pretty obviously the fallacy of composition to assume otherwise. It might simply involve compartmentalized thinking.
There are plenty of other divisive forces such as nationalism, the racist construct that is "race," ethnic rivalries (which in some cases are largely regionalism) and scarcity of resources (often just a function of geography), but religion reigns supreme among them.
Despite how I feel, I don't really see the point in preaching (or counter-preaching if you will) because I feel that most people believe what they want to believe. I also don't consider my opinion especially influential. I like giving people options and encouraging informed decision-making. If I had a lot of influence, I'd probably push that idea rather than atheism. Since I'm agnostic, I guess that would mean that I was promoting what I thought, agnosticism.
[ QUOTE ]
assuaging
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you a fellow Mockingbird, Ben? The only time I have ever heard that word used (either in written form or by the spoken word) in my entire life has been in Harper Lee’s classic novel. (But then again, I live a sheltered life.)
RJT
NotReady
10-11-2005, 01:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
However once they cross the line and tell me that the way they see the world means that I have a need to believe or am denying my desire to believe or somesuch nonsense,
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean you feel the need, I mean you have the need, as in lack. All are guilty, all need God's forgiveness, whether they know it, whether they feel it.
mmbt0ne
10-11-2005, 02:59 AM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
So you are saying that if they didn't believe in God, these "good Christians" wouldn't give a [censored] about their neighbors? How encouraging. And how wrong. I suspect that those who want to help others don't need a God construct -- I seem to do just fine helping others without one, I would hope a good Christian could do the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
It does seem odd that some people here are saying that if these people no longer believed in a God though, that they would suddenly start to embrace alternative lifestyles, birth control, abortion, and stem cell research.
chezlaw
10-11-2005, 04:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However once they cross the line and tell me that the way they see the world means that I have a need to believe or am denying my desire to believe or somesuch nonsense,
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean you feel the need, I mean you have the need, as in lack. All are guilty, all need God's forgiveness, whether they know it, whether they feel it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you no longer claim that I need to believe in something bigger than myself to deal with past issues?
Do you claim I have reason to believe that your view on christianity is correct? or any other claim about me 'hardening my heart' to the truth?, or denying my beliefs?, or any other assertion about how I view the world in respect of god?
chez
sexdrugsmoney
10-11-2005, 05:00 AM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
"Don't you believe humanity's progress is being somewhat 'stunted' by allowing only 5% of the smart to "see the truth" while the rest of the "plebs" - who have the power to vote on important things like government policies (some regarding scientific advances) are "hoodwinked" by supposed ancient "myths"? "
It's a trade off and it's close. Especially for the next highest ten percent.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe this top 15% should be only allowed the vote?
David Sklansky
10-11-2005, 08:03 AM
"Do you believe this top 15% should be only allowed the vote?"
I am on record as advocating that the most qualified people, not necessarily the same 15% we are speaking of here, should be given two votes while the rest have one. This increases the chances of a good result (even by the standards of the one voters who would more likely vote for someone they would later admit was the wrong candidate) without giving them power to take over.
sexdrugsmoney
10-11-2005, 08:56 AM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I am on record as advocating that the most qualified people, not necessarily the same 15% we are speaking of here, should be given two votes while the rest have one. This increases the chances of a good result (even by the standards of the one voters who would more likely vote for someone they would later admit was the wrong candidate) without giving them power to take over.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not wanting to read anything into your response that is not there, but if a certain "select" group are given double the votes of the "normal" group (ie- plebs) does that mean one "select" life is worth that of two plebs?
NotReady
10-11-2005, 09:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you no longer claim that I need to believe in something bigger than myself to deal with past issues?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't remember ever claiming that as to your feelings. You need God as do all, whether or not you feel it.
[ QUOTE ]
Do you claim I have reason to believe that your view on christianity is correct? or any other claim about me 'hardening my heart' to the truth?, or denying my beliefs?, or any other assertion about how I view the world in respect
of god?
[/ QUOTE ]
There are good reasons to believe Christianity is true whether you know them or not and whether you feel them or not. When you reject God you harden your heart towards him whether you feel it or not or know it or not.
David Sklansky
10-11-2005, 09:41 AM
You are getting way too deep. I'm talking only about the ability to come to undebatable correct answers.
I have no problem with nice but stupid people. Unless they
1. Have the ability to become unstupid and make no attempt to do so
AND
2. Claim they are smart
Almost all stupid people do not fit that criteria. But it seems that most of those few who do, have registered on this website.
benkahuna
10-11-2005, 09:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
assuaging
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you a fellow Mockingbird, Ben? The only time I have ever heard that word used (either in written form or by the spoken word) in my entire life has been in Harper Lee’s classic novel. (But then again, I live a sheltered life.)
RJT
[/ QUOTE ]
Great book, but haven't read it in 13 years. I've probably seen in somewhere else and it just struck my fancy at the time.
chezlaw
10-11-2005, 01:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you no longer claim that I need to believe in something bigger than myself to deal with past issues?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't remember ever claiming that as to your feelings. You need God as do all, whether or not you feel it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I cut and pasted it from another of your posts. I'll find it if you like but as you no longer lay claim to that belief there's not much point.
[ QUOTE ]
There are good reasons to believe Christianity is true whether you know them or not and whether you feel them or not. When you reject God you harden your heart towards him whether you feel it or not or know it or not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Great, so you except that even if christianity is true I can be genuinely mistaken and honest in my lack of belief.
Do you go further and see that no good god could possibly condemn me for an honest mistake?
chez
NotReady
10-11-2005, 01:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Great, so you except that even if christianity is true I can be genuinely mistaken and honest in my lack of belief.
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[ QUOTE ]
Do you go further and see that no good god could possibly condemn me for an honest mistake?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
chezlaw
10-11-2005, 01:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great, so you except that even if christianity is true I can be genuinely mistaken and honest in my lack of belief.
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[ QUOTE ]
Do you go further and see that no good god could possibly condemn me for an honest mistake?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your 'no' means that again I have the best possible evidence that you are wrong. Your 'yes' means (to me) that you are a lot nicer then some others who call themselves Christian.
chez
chezlaw
10-11-2005, 03:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"Do you believe this top 15% should be only allowed the vote?"
I am on record as advocating that the most qualified people, not necessarily the same 15% we are speaking of here, should be given two votes while the rest have one. This increases the chances of a good result (even by the standards of the one voters who would more likely vote for someone they would later admit was the wrong candidate) without giving them power to take over.
[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the current system already give a massive bias towards the most intelligent/expert?
I've understood you to say that its not the goals of the less fortunate you have an issue with but their ability to correctly decide how best to achieve those goals.
Then a huge number of stupid people with the same goals cancel each other out because the destination of their vote is poorly correlated with their goal. This reduces the value of their vote compared to the clever people whose vote is highly correlated with their goals.
chez
[ QUOTE ]
Almost all stupid people do not fit that criteria. But it seems that most of those few who do, have registered on this website.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
[ QUOTE ]
Some how I think the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would rather we had crucified Einstein instead of Christ.
[/ QUOTE ]
When you think of it as Christians who wanted the bomb built and made the decision to drop the bomb, your question turns on it's head.
I propose a new one. Who would the Jew's rather have had, Einstein, or Christ, considering this:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
I'll give you a hint who wrote this. It was in Mein Kampf.
Also, I'd like to address the "has religion done more good than harm" question. It's a tough question; it's difficult to quantify. What does one person murdered/mutiliated in the name of religion equal on the good side? I'd say units of good would have to be huge. I'd also like to point out that one nuke in the hands of a religious fanatic would make this question a no-brainer.
sexdrugsmoney
10-11-2005, 06:25 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I'm talking only about the ability to come to undebatable correct answers.
[/ QUOTE ]
An example of some of these undebatable correct answers are?
IronUnkind
10-11-2005, 07:43 PM
Which is worse?
1. To think that you're kinda smart when you are actually not very smart at all?
OR
2. To think that you're among the smartest minds in the world when you are merely extremely smart?
[ QUOTE ]
Which is worse?
1. To think that you're kinda smart when you are actually not very smart at all?
OR
2. To think that you're among the smartest minds in the world when you are merely extremely smart?
[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, I wish I had no smarts at all, sometimes. Life is not easy when the majority of folk around you (not that I am so smart, just…) well you get the idea. Combine this with the fact that I am somewhat of a neat freak (not obsessive mind you, more a matter of being organized) and is it any wonder why I need a God?
chezlaw
10-11-2005, 08:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Which is worse?
1. To think that you're kinda smart when you are actually not very smart at all?
OR
2. To think that you're among the smartest minds in the world when you are merely extremely smart?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I'm neither but I'd much rather be number 2.
chez
David Sklansky
10-11-2005, 11:51 PM
Only in some very specialized endeavors do I consider myself super world class smart. Such as teaching moderately intelligent eight year olds to do word problems that require quadratic equations. I'm also more likely to come up with clever shortcuts or creative analogies regarding certain types of problems, than most of those people who are a little smarter than me.
bearly
10-12-2005, 01:00 AM
theist? anyone on this thread so far take the time to define the term? b
purnell
10-12-2005, 01:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
theist? anyone on this thread so far take the time to define the term? b
[/ QUOTE ]
lifted from yahoo reference:
theism is...
" Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."
thus a theist is a believer in the existence...
IronUnkind
10-12-2005, 08:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Only in some very specialized endeavors do I consider myself super world class smart. Such as teaching moderately intelligent eight year olds to do word problems that require quadratic equations.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is there a Nobel Prize category for that?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.