The General Conversation Area

[ilmaestro]

Belated Happy Birthday from me, too. I guess the thing we should all think about is who put those fossils there, and why?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-23-japan-chart-my-little-sister-cant-possibly-be-this-cute-takes-top-spot

lool, I see you Illmae! Don't worry shun, they just playahating you, you still the big dawg.

I love you too much, man. :lol:

I signed up just to post my verdict. I mean come on! they're complaining for all the wrong reasons!!!

Haha, awesome, have a +1 from me.

 

[ayase]

Uh oh, mega-post time again.

I don't think comparing universal humanity's teachings and belief in God to the Tooth fairy is any kind of reasonable or mature comparison.

Why not? If I start a religion of the Tooth Fairy and claim that she has spoken to me and given me a moral code for humanity to abide by, does that make the analogy similar? Scientology is a very good recent example of a belief founded on the back of nothing but one man's word. Mormonism slightly less recent. It follows that it's more than likely that Islam, Christianity... you get the picture.

But fair enough, lets say we want to look at the way in which religion has comforted the masses (which is certainly a service it provided and does provide). I say, well if it doesn't cause harm and only comfort and peace of mind, why would it bother anyone the slightest bit at all?

If religion didn't cause any harm, it wouldn't bother anyone. However, it does, so that's a moot point.

I think the problem is that I don't believe it is possible to have a society where there is absolutely zero spiritual aspect and in which the majority of people are actually reasonably content and happy, no matter how rational or scientific we become. We seem to go from societies that push organised religion to forefront, but then people get sick of having often corrupted teachings forced on them and we turn secular, but then depression becomes more common as do suicide rates and discontentment, and then we'll probably have some distorted religious fanatical movement born from there, and so on. I think we need to evolve beyond all this, and realize that a balanced society which can cater to our intellectual, physical and spiritual yearnings is surely the only way forward. Because these yearning will never dissipate, they will only grow distorted if not catered to.

If happiness is the goal then people are free to delude themselves (but not others) all they like with that in mind, but I can't help but think that drug addicts and alcoholics probably feel the same way. And I can't believe that contentment and happiness is the goal of the Taliban or the people who bomb abortion clinics.

Yeah, it's hard for some people to accept that life has no universal purpose. It's hard for some people to shoulder the burden that they alone are responsible for their own lives and actions. But people should face reality. If they can't cope with it and go mad/die then that's unfortunate, but it kinda bears out the whole "survival of the fittest" concept, no?

While I do prefer to experience certain emotional and physical states, I can confidently say that I have no spiritual yearning. Everything I desire is available (or if not yet available, at least theoretically achievable) through action in the physical world. What would I be yearning for, something I can't comprehend? How would I yearn for that?

If we could go from childhood to adulthood and still have presents mysteriously appear on Christmas day or a pound appear under our pillow if we get a tooth knocked out, then we absolutely would!

Some people would because they like the thought of being looked out for and being looked after by something powerful which grants their wishes. It makes them feel more powerful and significant themselves. That's also why many people love the bits of the Bible where God answers people's prayers and helps them acheive great things, and conveniently forget about the torture, rape, slavery and genocide he sanctions. If instead of giving us coal, "Father Christmas" threatened to torture us for all eternity for being naughty, I think all things considered it would be a net benefit to learn he wasn't real, even if it meant you didn't get the presents. Once people are being selective about the bits of a religion they believe, they've already proved they don't really believe it at all.

But if you are receiving peace of mind from God, who else but God could be providing that peace! Even if it is just the idea of God, if take away that belief and the contentment goes, it was still God that was needed...

I believe the reason many of the more hard line atheists are so hard line, is that it brings them comfort. What is more frightening than actually being accountable in one way or another for the actions you commit?

Are those two points not a little contradictiory? People need God for comfort but Atheists are as/more comfortable?

The second point is treading close to the "you can't have morality without religion" argument. We're accountable to ourselves and to the rest of humanity, based on the fact that we know what effect our actions have on others by virtue of being human ourselves. I don't go around insulting or punching people in the face because I know that firstly it's painful or hurtful, secondly that it may well lead to retaliation, which will end up with me being hurt as well. The knowlege of what it's like to be physically or emotionally harmed does a pretty good job of regulating my actions towards others in most cases. Does the knowledge that I'm not in an inescapable open prison where my every move is watched and judged by an invisible third party (and if the Bible is to be belived, an erratic, jealous, melolomaniacal and quick to anger one at that) make me feel more comfortable? You bet it does, in the way that I imagine North Koreans would feel more comfortable outside of North Korea.

I think it's misguided for any atheist to believe that they are any less delusional just because they don't believe in God. As from my perspective (and many others), they are still trapped in the grandest illusion of all!

I would love to hear what you consider illusory about a universe governed by scientific laws backed by evidence, but I imagine it relies on unprovable personal experience again. Oh, maybe it's all an illusion, maybe (to borrow maestro's phrase) God did just put those fossils there to test our faith - Ha ha, very funny God, you so crazy (which might be proof of God's existence, but would also be confirmation that God is also a complete tool). But where do beliefs like that come from, huh? I don't recall there being anything in Genesis about God burying fossils. It's just another case of people believing whatever they want to believe and making up things that validate their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary. Like I say, my beliefs are evidence based, so if one day conclusive proof that all those fossils were put there by God happens to be found, I will have been proved wrong. Until that day however, the explanation with overwhelming evidence in support of it is the most rational one - to believe otherwise is definitely irrational.

 

[ilmaestro]

If religion didn't cause any harm, it wouldn't bother anyone. However, it does, so that's a moot point.

Come on man, don't be so naive. People cause harm, and use religion as an excuse. If you don't think they would simply find a different excuse, your understanding of humanity is not as deep as the length of your posts would suggest you think it is.

 

[ayase]

If religion didn't cause any harm, it wouldn't bother anyone. However, it does, so that's a moot point.

Come on man, don't be so naive. People cause harm, and use religion as an excuse. If you don't think they would simply find a different excuse, your understanding of humanity is not as deep as the length of your posts would suggest you think it is.

Oh I certainly do, but I think the reasons they would have for causing harm (and as such the targets of their wrath) would be different. Of all the reasons people cite for committing acts of violence or discrimination, religious belief is by far and away the most unjustifiable. Challenged only by racism and sexism, both of which are also advocated by some religions. If people are going to cause harm, at least if they had rational reasons for doing so it would be more understandable. "That man tried to rob me, so I hit him" is a far more rational reason for using force than "I stoned that person to death for witchcraft".

But I think in many cases religion does cause harm that wouldn't otherwise be there. Parents demanding their children behave a certain way due to their beliefs and punishing them if they don't, for example. I don't think this is 100% down to the parents having controlling or violent personalities. The idea of being God-fearing has massive potential to cause unnecessary suffering, because it is well understood that fear makes people behave in a different way than they otherwise would. Besides, I've seen people's attitudes completely change on both finding and abandoning religion.

If religion is just an excuse to do harm, and everybody who causes anyone any harm would do so regardless of their religion (or lack of), then surely it also follows that religion is nothing more than an excuse to do good either, and everybody who does good things would do so regardless of their religion (or lack of) as well! That fires a pretty devastating volley through the hull of religion's claim to act as a moral compass. Religious belief must lead people to do bad things and good things, or have no effect at all. You can't say that religion's influence leads people to act positively, but then when they act negatively in the name of that religion claim it isn't responsible.

 

[Joshawott]

@Lawrence - When I was in Forbidden Planet yesterday, I noticed both Clannad and Baka & Test. If you want though, I can ask my older brother when he gets home from work (He works at HMV in the Trocadero, Piccadily Circus; although he's in the music department).

I know Sony weren't very friendly with them when they had troubles late last year (for example, they weren't given any stock of One Direction's er...."music").

 

[Vashdaman]

Why not? If I start a religion of the Tooth Fairy and claim that she has spoken to me and given me a moral code for humanity to abide by, does that make the analogy similar? Scientology is a very good recent example of a belief founded on the back of nothing but one man's word. Mormonism slightly less recent. It follows that it's more than likely that Islam, Christianity... you get the picture.

Call it whatever you want, look at nearly every corner of the globe and right throughout ancient times to today, there has always been belief in the Tao, Kami, Krishna, Johova, Ishvara, God or Allah. Different names and slightly different interpretations of the same force. This is undeniably something that is extremely deep rooted in humanity and it is showing no signs of becoming any less important to world. The Toothfairy or the Spaghetti monster (which is the other example I believe he uses) are not comparable, these concepts have only ever had significance to children. That is why I feel they are poor choices Dawkins is just using for the effect.

When look at many of the ancient teachings and spiritual texts there are actually an awful lot of uncanny similarities in the concepts, even during periods when they could have had little to no influence on each other. I think the important things are always to found in multiple places (that's how you know it's important!).

f religion didn't cause any harm, it wouldn't bother anyone. However, it does, so that's a moot point

It doesn't have to though. And as Illmaestro right pointed out, it's usually the way certain individuals corrupt the original teachings and use it for their own purposes (like Shinto, Christianity and nearly every religion has been) that causes the harm and very rarely the religion itself.

If happiness is the goal then people are free to delude themselves (but not others) all they like with that in mind, but I can't help but think that drug addicts and alcoholics probably feel the same way. And I can't believe that contentment and happiness is the goal of the Taliban or the people who bomb abortion clinics.

Are you seriously comparing all those who believe in God or any other spiritual concept to drug users or certain fanatics? It's easy to look at the worst examples on both sides of the fence, it's harder to actually be reasonable.

But people should face reality

Can you tell me why? And lets not forget it's a reality that you don't even know is a reality, hence why you and Dawkins admit you can not be sure there is no god and you never will be.

If they can't cope with it and go mad/die then that's unfortunate, but it kinda bears out the whole "survival of the fittest" concept, no?

I don't really understand this. Are you saying you would prefer people to go mad and die rather than hold a belief you deem to be irrational? We all have ways and little tricks of getting through things and making life easier or better for ourselves, and your ways are not superior.

While I do prefer to experience certain emotional and physical states, I can confidently say that I have no spiritual yearning.

From my own perspective I would say that when we are in those positive mental and physical states (which are assume are the ones you prefer) we have a much greater connection with the 'God' inside of us. So I would say that we all have spiritual yearnings. we all always want to be happy and we never want to be sad, we always want to be calm but never out of control. But how many of us actually achieve a state and can live in it constantly without ever breaking out of it no matter what is thrown our way? Not many. And the only ones I have met who have achieved this are not the ones you would describe as "rational", though I would. There is nothing more rational than wanting to attain that state of being.

I think all things considered it would be a net benefit to learn he wasn't real, even if it meant you didn't get the presents. Once people are being selective about the bits of a religion they believe, they've already proved they don't really believe it at all.

That is not true. Believing in what resonates deeply within you, but choosing to follow the advice of the more dogmatic sections does not mean you don't really believe. It means your not dogmatic.

re those two points not a little contradictiory? People need God for comfort but Atheists are as/more comfortable?

No, not really. Some believe in God because it brings them comfort, some disbelieve because it brings them comfort. Depends on the perspective of the person.

The second point is treading close to the "you can't have morality without religion" argument

You can have morality without religion just as you can have immorality with religion. It doesn't change the fact that there are some who don't like the concept of being accountable. It doesn't have to be God, as I've told you before I believe in Karma, which functions on a very simple and logical principle that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and there is no escaping it. But it's not about being in a prison, it's about taking responsibility for both what you do and what happens to you. As I'm sure your aware, many don't like the idea of either of those. Maybe you think Karma is childish, but if you believe in it your a lot less likely to say "it's not my fault" or any other such typically childish sayings.

I would love to hear what you consider illusory about a universe governed by scientific laws backed by evidence

Everything. Scientific law is illusion.

@Genki

Thanks!

 

[ilmaestro]

ayase - You put religious belief (often at best a smoke-screen for political movements, involving indoctrination and actual physical threats to some of the people who end up carrying out the violence) above racism for lack of justification? How can you put something above "zero" on that scale?!

You can't say that religion's influence leads people to act positively, but then when they act negatively in the name of that religion claim it isn't responsible.

Did I do either of these things? Or are you asking me to defend other people's arguments?

vash - seriously, who planted those fossils there? Are you able to fly away from the Earth's gravity due to being able to see through this "illusion" of science?

 

[ayase]

Vash, I need to think about those points a bit... Some of them I can't think of anything to say because I have a feeling your answer will hinge on the "personal experience" thing to which I really have no adequate response. You think you've experienced things, and are clearly wilful enough that there's nothing I can say to make you question these experiences. Likewise, I have not experienced these things (I don't even pretend to begin to understand what they might be) and there is nothing you can say to convince me that they are possible.

ayase - You put religious belief (often at best a smoke-screen for political movements, involving indoctrination and actual physical threats to some of the people who end up carrying out the violence) above racism for lack of justification? How can you put something above "zero" on that scale?!

Abhorrent as racism and sexism are, there is at least the knowledge and the evidence that men and women and black people and white people are different. That doesn't make any of them worthy of being discriminated against for being different of course, but it is possible to understand how differences in physiology would have led people to form theories (however flawed) about their different capabilities. Since religious belief is all in the mind, there is no evidence to create even flawed theories from, people can make up whatever they like and tell people to "have faith" in it. We have evidence to the contrary for all three beliefs, but it's a lot easier to refute evidence if your belief never claimed to based on evidence in the first place. So it's more the fact that it's easier to convince people racism and sexism are wrong, I suppose.

You can't say that religion's influence leads people to act positively, but then when they act negatively in the name of that religion claim it isn't responsible.

Did I do either of these things? Or are you asking me to defend other people's arguments?

No, but the important point I was making in my reply which that statement ties into was that "Religious belief must lead people to do bad things and good things, or have no effect at all." If you think religious people who act in a destructive manner would do so regardless of whether they were religious or not, I presume you believe the latter. I happen to believe the former, but I think the negative effects of religious belief (on both society and the individual) outweigh the positive. I am, as ever, far less bothered about what people choose to do to themselves than by what they do to others.

That's why these arguments become so bloody stupid when argued by people who have no desire to meddle in the lives of others - vash can believe what he likes as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure he's fine for me to do likewise. Neither of us is having a negative effect on society or other individuals by my reckoning, but I still say there are plenty who are and whose influence needs a counterweight in the form of assertive anti-religion. You can't fight extremism by taking a moderate stance, and now we've almost gone full circle back to the use of force(ful argument) again!

 

[Mutsumi]

Everything. Scientific law is illusion.

False. Everything we know about science, we know because smarter people than us either proved it, or theorised that it is extremely likely to be true based upon what parts of it they have been able to prove. The results they get doing the science is more real than any spiritual feeling. If science says it is true, it is, because until they can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, they will not claim it to be proven, lest the other scientists disprove them.

Though I suspect your homeopathic fondness may be a part of your disbelief of science. Gonna leave that be though.

 

[Vashdaman]

vash - seriously, who planted those fossils there? Are you able to fly away from the Earth's gravity due to being able to see through this "illusion" of science?

Alright, let me state my position more clearly. Within this physical universe (which I would say is illusion) there certain "laws" driven by nature which do function within it (though, mainstream "good" science does not yet even nearly grasp an understanding of all these "laws", hence why the laws of Qi aka Prana aka the vital force, and other such forces that are understood throughout the world are completely impossible to measure through current "good" scientific means). However it is still ultimately illusion (IMO) and when one has broken free and no longer bound to this illusion many things that you would currently consider impossible to achieve under these "laws" become completely possible. This is why there are many stories of Yogi's who could turn themselves invisible or even regrow limbs. While I have not seen anything that dramatic in my life, I have certainly seen enough to know that claiming anything is impossible is foolish.

But yeah, to use a pop culture reference point, it's a bit like the matrix.

vash can believe what he likes as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure he's fine for me to do likewise. Neither of us is having a negative effect on society or other individuals by my reckoning, but I still say there are plenty who are and whose influence needs a counterweight in the form of assertive anti-religion. You can't fight extremism by taking a moderate stance, and now we've almost gone full circle back to the use of force(ful argument) again!

Let me make my position clearer on this as well. The main points I was making in this debate was to explain that believing in God is not as silly or worthless as you might think. I am not trying to defend all organized religion. Religion has certainly played it's part in many horrors that the world has seen and can act as a dividing force which can lead some to narrow mindedness. I am not part of any religion as I don't wish to even risk narrowing my world view. However there are swings and roundabouts really, and I can understand how religion is helpful as well as unhelpful.

False. Everything we know about science, we know because smarter people than us either proved it, or theorised that it is extremely likely to be true based upon what parts of it they have been able to prove.

Even strictly in the world of science, laws are far more complicated then we can fully understand. Look into some of the work done in the field of Quantum mechanics, these atoms and particles act in an extremely complicated way, we're not nearly close to understanding how things really work. So claiming there is any "law" set in stone is a bit silly. Though, this is different from my previous point about illusion.

 

[ayase]

To elaborate on my last post, I think I could probably sum up my opinion WRT the moral effects of religion with the quote: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." I first heard that quote used by Dawkins in one of his television programmes, but it came from a speech given by theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm

It makes for a very good read, in which a more intelligent man than I puts forward all the points I have made with far greater ability. Try and see it through to the end, even if you start zoning out when he talks about carbon atoms (I did).

-----

On an unrelated note, this is hilarious: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18269833

Yes, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has actually given people the perfect tool to rip the piss out of it.

 

[ilmaestro]

ayase - You put religious belief (often at best a smoke-screen for political movements, involving indoctrination and actual physical threats to some of the people who end up carrying out the violence) above racism for lack of justification? How can you put something above "zero" on that scale?!

Abhorrent as racism and sexism are, there is at least the knowledge and the evidence that men and women and black people and white people are different. That doesn't make any of them worthy of being discriminated against for being different of course, but it is possible to understand how differences in physiology would have led people to form theories (however flawed) about their different capabilities. Since religious belief is all in the mind, there is no evidence to create even flawed theories from, people can make up whatever they like and tell people to "have faith" in it. We have evidence to the contrary for all three beliefs, but it's a lot easier to refute evidence if your belief never claimed to based on evidence in the first place. So it's more the fact that it's easier to convince people racism and sexism are wrong, I suppose.

This, to me, just supports the position that Religion is not what causes people to do harm. Religion, in this case, is the exact same as skin color. You are of course going to point to religion being optional, rather than something you are born with, but I would still put your reasoning as tantamount to "people having different colored skin causes harm", which is at best a little bit combustible.

You can't say that religion's influence leads people to act positively, but then when they act negatively in the name of that religion claim it isn't responsible.

Did I do either of these things? Or are you asking me to defend other people's arguments?

No, but the important point I was making in my reply which that statement ties into was that "Religious belief must lead people to do bad things and good things, or have no effect at all." If you think religious people who act in a destructive manner would do so regardless of whether they were religious or not, I presume you believe the latter.

Actually, it does not follow, at least not in equal terms. One of the biggest mistakes you are making is to assume that the people "doing harm because of religion" are all religious in any way, and not just borrowing religion to their ends.

Your conclusion that it does more bad than good has no more value or convincing evidence than vash believing in fairy dust and magic beanstalks, as far as I can see, just your vague "feeling", your "belief", your "faith" in this being the case.

But yeah, to use a pop culture reference point, it's a bit like the matrix.

So why can't you fly?

 

[Vashdaman]

So why can't you fly?

I fear I may have made it sound all too simple. As I said I think these "impossible" things are probably "possible" for some (though surely astral travel would be more efficient than flight ). But I would imagine these powers probably manifest very differently for each individual, and I want to stress that it is not necessarily indicative of being on higher level than those who can't (or don't) use these powers. In fact these powers are often actually considered unnecessary distractions. It's not the powers that actually important at all, rather they are just by-prodocts sometimes produced.

Obviously there's no way I could do any of these things any time in the foreseeable future, though, even if I wanted to loooool.

It is actually an interesting subject, but I fear you may be looking at me like I'm crazy right now

[/i]

 

[Vashdaman]

So why can't you fly?

I fear I may have made it sound all too simple. As I said I think these "impossible" things are probably "possible" for some (though surely astral travel would be more efficient than flight ). But I would imagine these powers probably manifest very differently for each individual, and I want to stress that it is not necessarily indicative of being on higher level than those who can't (or don't) use these powers. In fact these powers are often actually considered unnecessary distractions. It's not the powers that actually important at all, rather they are just by-prodocts sometimes produced.

Obviously there's no way I could do any of these things any time in the foreseeable future, though, even if I wanted to loooool.

It is actually an interesting subject, but I fear you may be looking at me like I'm crazy right now

Oh a somewhat separate note, check out this guy

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VOwcusSBRUY?version=3&amp;hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VOwcusSBRUY?version=3&amp;hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

It is completely real.

 

[Mutsumi]

Actually, it does not follow, at least not in equal terms. One of the biggest mistakes you are making is to assume that the people "doing harm because of religion" are all religious in any way, and not just borrowing religion to their ends.

Jihad?

 

[ilmaestro]

Pff, it seems my bro needs a wall to help him with his fancy handstand.

I will not debate the amazing nature of the human body and mind - and I don't think many scientists would, either. I broke my collar bone pretty badly, and my body just said "don't worry dude, I'll grow you a new piece of bone to join the two bits of old collar bone together WE'RE GOOD".

When I am falling, though, my body is more reluctant to oppose gravity.

As far as astral travel goes (I assume you mean astral projection, rather than inter-stellar travel), I think it has some significant drawbacks compared to flight, but equally I can see times when it would be more useful.

Actually, it does not follow, at least not in equal terms. One of the biggest mistakes you are making is to assume that the people "doing harm because of religion" are all religious in any way, and not just borrowing religion to their ends.

Jihad?

A much debated term, yes.

 

[Vashdaman]

I will not debate the amazing nature of the human body and mind - and I don't think many scientists would, either.

Yeah, but there are reasons Hai-Tank could do that. His Qi Gong practice (he was the first pioneer of Da Bei Qi Gong) . And that's what I mean about "good" scientists like Richard Dawkins (for example) who will deny until the cows come home that practices like Qi Gong have any grounding in reality, yet he is absolutely unable to explain how these feats are otherwise possible. Maybe it was that dastardly placebo effect again?

 

[ilmaestro]

There are reasons for many things, there are reasons why Usain Bolt can run the 100m in 9.58s (this is, imo, as fantastical for any normal human being as floating in mid-air, never mind balancing on a finger, it is just easier for someone to mentally digest), they do not fall outside of the realms of science.

Richard Dawkins specifically spends too much of his time arguing with idiots, because he is well aware of how many books that can sell. I would deny many things until the cows come home for six figure advance cheques.

 

[Mutsumi]

Ilmae, I mean that I'm pretty sure the jihaders are extremely religious.

 

[ilmaestro]

Some members of terrorist organizations are truly religiously motivated? It is likely, anyone would have to agree. I stand by my statement that it is a massive oversight to think this is true of all of them, though, and likely becomes less and less the case the further up the chain you move.