The General Conversation Area

[Tachi]

Back in work, was in a car crash on monday just as i finished work. Not very happy as i've spent tuesday in hospital and wednesday recovering with thursday being the day i tried to get my car repaired.... they've managed to do very little so far, my dad repaired the majority of the bodywork on monday night before flying out to the canaries for a week.

So as i'm third party fire and theft i'm paying out of my own pocket for the repairs and the idiot who crashed into my drivers side door and wheel arch just claims on his fully comp insurance and be laughing his way down the road at 50mph again by now.

Insurance blamed both drivers as i was pulling out of a parking space (nevermind that i had indicators and was 3/4 of the way out of the space before the idiot came hurtling up the road) and his fault for speeding..... yet police didn't want to know.

3 car length tyre marks wasn't enough evidence apparently.

Im fine now btw, thank god its the weekend today.

 

[MaxonTreik]

Sounds **** but at least you're fine. My brother went around with a big dent in his passenger side door for months when some stupid bitch in a Land Rover reversed into his (parked) car. He couldn't even afford to get it fixed at the time. Sometimes I wish I had a car but stories like these make me glad I don't.

 

[ayase]

@Tachi - Well that sucks, hope everything works out man.

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.

I base it on evidence I have seen and heard, and could probably list if I had the time and inclination. If people want to provide me with larger quantities of compelling evidence that the influence of religion has been more positive then they are welcome to do so. The evidence I am aware of at this time indicates to me that religion has done more harm. This could in part be influenced by personal bias as to what I consider more harmful or more positive, I'm willing to admit that. But personally I'd call that a subjective opinion based on my understanding of the facts, differing from religious belief because that claims to be objective (here we go again). I consider my beliefs open to change upon the presentation of new evidence, this is where they differ from religious beliefs.

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...

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.

Who's being cynical and conspiratorial about the people at the top now, hmm? If the footsoldiers didn't believe in their generals, they wouldn't follow them (and we're talking about the Jerry Falwells of this world as much as the Osama Bin Ladens) so their belief is still harmful to others even if their leaders don't really believe. It seems like a bit of a cheap "two can play at that game" but if we're going to call my opinion about the effects of religion "belief" then surely we can't call your opinion about religious leaders' motivations anything else either? If their position leads them to become a multi-millionaire living in a huge palace who violates their own religion's laws then yeah, I'd say they're probably not the most devout. If however their beliefs lead them to being stuck in a cave far from civilisation being shot at constantly, something tells me they're not just in it for themselves.

 

[Tachi]

Sounds **** but at least you're fine. My brother went around with a big dent in his passenger side door for months when some stupid bitch in a Land Rover reversed into his (parked) car. He couldn't even afford to get it fixed at the time. Sometimes I wish I had a car but stories like these make me glad I don't.

I guess everything has its pro's and con's, pro's being that you can go anywhere, do anything no matter the distance and have the freedom to go buy things without the awkward "now how to we get this back home using public transport?"

Cons:
If you own it, someone will break it. might not be intentional but it will still happen. You'll be taxed on petrol, car tax, and on any repairs you need. Your crippled with insurance until you go a few years without a knobhead using your car as an airbag to slow down.

@Tachi - Well that sucks, hope everything works out man.

Thankfully i've just been paid, with my new payrate too, just sucks that i have to pay off £300 of my credit card and now the car.

On a happier note, i've just been tasked with putting together everything for the recruitment of this department. My job is set in stone but others will have to apply. Despite sickness lastweek, car crash this week and a bank holiday next week.... one week i'll get back to a 5 dayer!

 

[Vashdaman]

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.

I absolutely agree. Standing on one finger is absolutely not outside of the realm of science, just as the system of Tai ji quan is actually founded on scientific facts, and even the various forms of Yoga are actually also founded on solid science. I was not putting standing on one finger in the same category as invisibility or astral travel (which may be outside the realm of science to a degree) despite included it in the same post. No, there is absolutely science working behind these things. However, can that science be understood or measured with currently accepted mainstream scientific recording systems? No, probably not, or at least not to the extent that would bring it validation in the mainstream. It's exactly the same problem with homoeopathy. Though a difference with homoeopathy is the fact that it has no unified universally accepted theory of how it works amongst practitioners (like Tai ji or Yoga has), so this automatically puts homoeopaths at a disadvantage.

However, it is not just Richard Dawkins or Ben Goldacre who dismiss these practices, its the majority of the mainstream scientific community. These practices are labelled as "bad science" due to the fact that the science they are based on does not correlate with mainstream scientific community's world view. The groupthink is so strong, that if a respected scientist does then produce a study with a result that could be seen as favourable for these "bad sciences" that scientist will quickly find him/her self being labelled as a"quack". It's a shame. We know these things work and are real (we even know that meditation changes the physical matter of brain in ways previously thought impossible, thanks to a study done in 2009 I believe) yet we are still mis-educated about them constantly. I'm probably far more openly cynical and conspiratorial about the mainstream scientific community than ayase is about any religion. I think you'd have to silly to not believe that there isn't at least some vested interests and intellectual arrogance at play here.

Anyway me and my "magic beanstalks" will fall back for now, as this has nothing to do with the religion debate that I'm quite enjoying between Imae and ayase. I can understand the points your both making, to be honest.

 

[MaxonTreik]

Sounds **** but at least you're fine. My brother went around with a big dent in his passenger side door for months when some stupid bitch in a Land Rover reversed into his (parked) car. He couldn't even afford to get it fixed at the time. Sometimes I wish I had a car but stories like these make me glad I don't.

I guess everything has its pro's and con's, pro's being that you can go anywhere, do anything no matter the distance and have the freedom to go buy things without the awkward "now how to we get this back home using public transport?"

I don't think public transport is that bad if you're in or near a city. Cars only become a necessity when you go to rural areas.

 

[ilmaestro]

@Tachi - Well that sucks, hope everything works out man.

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.

I base it on evidence I have seen and heard, and could probably list if I had the time and inclination.

"My friend had a problem with this insurance company, they are clearly a bad company overall"

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...

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.

Who's being cynical and conspiratorial about the people at the top now, hmm?

I don't think it is a conspiracy or an uncommon theory to suggest that people at the head of terrorist organizations are generally motivated by political ideals and personal goals over genuine religious beliefs, no. Worst case scenario is to take a literal reading of my statement which was that not all of them act purely out of religious motivation... are you actually going to argue against that?

 

[ayase]

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.

I base it on evidence I have seen and heard, and could probably list if I had the time and inclination.

"My friend had a problem with this insurance company, they are clearly a bad company overall"

Trolling much? If you really think I base my opinions only on what I hear other people I know say, fine. People can believe whatever they like, as I've said. However, I'm not gonna respond to groundless accusations like that.

I don't think it is a conspiracy or an uncommon theory to suggest that people at the head of terrorist organizations are generally motivated by political ideals and personal goals over genuine religious beliefs, no. Worst case scenario is to take a literal reading of my statement which was that not all of them act purely out of religious motivation... are you actually going to argue against that?

No, and I think it's pretty obvious I don't believe all religious leaders act 100% out of religious motivation from the rest of my post you chose not to quote. And this still doesn't address the other point I brought up which was the beliefs of the people who follow the leaders. Would those terrorist leaders have any power if there weren't people willing to die for them because they really do believe in their religious convictions? I wasn't just talking about terrorists either, religious leaders include people like the Pope and Pat Robertson. Teaching other people who believe you have some kind of divine power destructive, harmful ideas not grounded in reality isn't restricted to terrorists. Not using condoms in countries with very high instances of HIV and AIDS is pretty destructive. Does more people having AIDS give the Pope more power?

 

[ilmaestro]

The people who follow the leaders are not the people who cause harm. You blame, for example, the suicide bombers who carry the bombs over the people who coerce them to do it?

As for the "trolling" (it was designed to provoke a response, of course, but not to cause offence so I apologize on that score), it is quite hard to make any other sort of reply unless you develop the "time and inclination" to demonstrate that your opinion is based on anything more personal. I would be most interested to read your accounts of your interactions with people who have benefited from religion.

 

[ayase]

The people who follow the leaders are not the people who cause harm. You blame, for example, the suicide bombers who carry the bombs over the people who coerce them to do it?

Uh, what? So someone asks you to kill somebody and you do it, but you're not to blame? I'm not sure how well that legal defence would go down. Perhaps it might work if the person in question didn't posses free will? Surely the people who do the bidding of a powerful person are the only reason they have power? Yes, I do blame the people who actually do the enforcing as much as (if not more than) the person who tells them to do it. They should see that it's wrong and refuse.

I'll see if I can find the time and inclination. No offence caused, my dear maestro! It's simply a response I've developed to certain kinds of antagonism, and it's hard to convey feeling online and easy to misinterpret, as we all know (just always imagine me wagging a finger with one hand, but holding a pint in the other and most definitely grinning when I'm in DEBATE MODE and you'll be most of the way there). What I meant is that my experiences of the effects of religion are not all first hand - much of it is accounts I've read or seen in various forms of media (and not just biased press either, first hand accounts people have written online and the like). I've been around on the internet for a long time before I came to AUKN, and have read many stories from lots of people. I've heard some first hand and had a couple of friends with ****** religious upbringings I wouldn't exactly feel right reiterating. Oddly enough, people tend to speak out about their bad experiences of religion rather than their good ones so I've not heard many, but the bad ones I've heard have been bad enough for me to think that no religious experience could possibly be beneficial enough to redeem the most harmful. I don't want this to be a cop out, but it would involve me trawling the 'net for numerous examples or feeling as though I'm betraying people's trust, since I'm not entirely anonymous here.

 

[ilmaestro]

They should see that it's wrong and refuse.

This is a smashing analysis from the comfort of a UK sofa with a glass of wine in your hand and some anime playing in the background - I'm not quite sure how far it flies when the lives of your family are being held hostage and you have no legal or political system to turn to for support, or you have been very cleverly and calculatingly brainwashed by extremely persuasive men in positions of power.

What is your opinion of WWII Nazi soldiers, in general? Because I don't even think the people fighting against them day in and day out "blamed" them for what they were doing.

Oddly enough, people tend to speak out about their bad experiences of religion rather than their good ones

This is something close to what I was really getting at, exactly.

 

[ayase]

They should see that it's wrong and refuse.

This is a smashing analysis from the comfort of a UK sofa with a glass of wine in your hand and some anime playing in the background - I'm not quite sure how far it flies when your families lives are being held hostage and you have no legal or political system to turn to for support.

Again, the Pope? He holds people's families to ransom and forces them not to use condoms? Why does it always have to be Bin Laden and suicide bombers?

What is your opinion of WWII Nazi soldiers, in general? Because I don't even think the people fighting against them day in and day out "blamed" them for what they were doing.

Conscripts is difficult, as is anyone forced to do something rather than merely persuaded. That's a big difference. The bravest people are the ones who refuse to do harmful things even at gunpoint. I can understand people who would do so at gunpoint. I can't understand people who do so willingly. And I think there are more people who force harmful religious beliefs on others willingly than not. Like I say, it's not like they all have the Taliban on their back if they refuse to go along with what their religion and its leaders decree. Some of them do, but not here in Britain or America.

I'm going to bed now, we both keep editing our posts to try and keep up.

 

[ilmaestro]

I think you are using words figuratively, where I am using them literally.

My position is not a prosecutive "Religion is a 100% Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah experience for all people", but a defensive one against your claim that you can somehow say that religion quantitatively "causes more harm than good".

If you are going to use "people have their own free will" as a point for you, then this is surely equally true of the choices they have in their sexual practices?

 

[ayase]

If you are going to use "people have their own free will" as a point for you, then this is surely equally true of the choices they have in their sexual practices?

One more then. If you're talking about sexual orientation, they find more evidence to suggest that's genetic as time goes on (not conclusive yet, but if I can get away without making any statements that might be taken the wrong way, it is pretty obviously genetic in most cases). Or do you mean whether people have free will in choosing what practices they do and don't want to engage in? In that case yes, they have free will but I think a mixture of mental and emotional factors arising as a result of experience determines what they think they like and influences their choices.

If so I think I get the point you're making there, in that it's likely the same for religion and if someone has been taught that something is good or bad they'll be more or less willing to do it (which would therefore also be the case for people who do harm in the name of their religion). I don't argue with that, everybody is taught to think differently so one person might more easily be able to do something someone else would find abhorrent. That's why I think advocating and encouraging self-deprogramming is better than simply allowing people to go on holding potentially harmful beliefs - Most people wouldn't do that with someone suffering from suicidal depression, or a murderer who believed they had a right to kill more people when they got out of prison. But as is pretty apparent by now, we're going to have different views on the extent of what exactly is harmful and what isn't.

 

[ilmaestro]

I think it's likely even more the case that we have very different views on the good that religion does, tbh. For example, I gather from another comment you made (possibly in a different thread, possibly mis-read by myself) that you are no great fan of the Church of Latter-day Saints - I would also question some of the financial aspects of some of its branches fwiw - but I can't imagine how you would even begin to quantify the good that comes out of institutions such as Brigham Young University, how you would weigh up the guidance and direction that thousands of young people are given there against (similarly difficult to quantify) all this "harm" that you attribute to religion.

If so I think I get the point you're making there

That was indeed the correct reading of what I said, sexual orientation is very much another discussion entirely. ^^;

I also am reminded that I tend to start being quite firm with my Mom if I hear her start to argue with someone about religion, so I am happy to call it a day here.

 

[ayase]

I think it's likely even more the case that we have very different views on the good that religion does, tbh. For example, I gather from another comment you made (possibly in a different thread, possibly mis-read by myself) that you are no great fan of the Church of Latter-day Saints - I would also question some of the financial aspects of some of its branches fwiw - but I can't imagine how you would even begin to quantify the good that comes out of institutions such as Brigham Young University, how you would weigh up the guidance and direction that thousands of young people are given there against (similarly difficult to quantify) all this "harm" that you attribute to religion.

I wouldn't want to single any one religion out for criticism above others - I have in fact been pretty vocal in my criticism of people who point the finger at Islam and say it's worse than other religions for the harm it does, and would do the same if someone decided to pick on Mormons. There are individuals of all beliefs who cause harm to others in the name of those beliefs and equally there are those that don't. I pointed earlier to believers who follow a monastic lifestyle being a prime example of those who seek to have no influence on the outside world.

Similarly, I don't deny that people of no belief do no harm. People point to Stalin and Mao fairly often in this regard, though they were at least attempting to create functioning societies based on rational beliefs. It was the fact that they were irrational in other ways such as their paranoia, egotism and refusal to accept that some of their theories hadn't worked when put into practice. Really, my enemy is not religion but the irrational thought processes which I consider to be the driving force behind it. All irrational thought is negative whether religious in nature or not. I admit that I have irrational thoughts sometimes, although I'd far rather I didn't and I certainly don't expect anyone else to accept my irrational thoughts as fact. I mentioned Star Trek's Federation before as a good model of a rational society, but if we follow through the elimination of irrational thought to it's ultimate conclusion, we probably end up with something more akin to the Vulcans, beings of absolute logic. That's the way progress lies. Once we agree to act on facts and not beliefs we can start to move society forward in a way that is beneficial to everybody. I imagine people will still hold irrational beliefs for a good long while, but if leaders at least refused to base their decisions for society as a whole on these beliefs and only on logic, reason and fact (this is my problem with democracy and why I think rule by supercomputers is the way to go, but I'll leave that for another time) we could start the ball rolling.

In the case of a higher learning establishment sponsored by religion, my opinions are mixed. Statements such as "more than 98% of [the university's] students are active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" "Both LDS and Non-LDS students are required to provide an endorsement from an ecclesiastic leader with their application for admittance" and "97% of male BYU graduates and 32% of female graduates took a hiatus from their undergraduate studies at one point to serve as LDS missionaries" suggest that most people arrive and leave as believers in the LDS Church. There has to be a narrower scope for hearing different viewpoints on subjects (in both an educational and social context) if a learning establishment's founders, staff, intake and alumni all have very similar religious beliefs. I think examining and being willing to consider other ways of thinking is a very important part of education, and this Wiki page and it's sources would seem to suggest that there are some problems with freedom of expression at BYU. In short, I imagine it's a great university to go to if you're a) Mormon and b) don't question your beliefs. That still can't top a secular university which doesn't require either of those things of it's students. It's doing good yes, but could be doing more good if it removed the religious limitations.

 

[Vashdaman]

Really, my enemy is not religion but the irrational thought processes which I consider to be the driving force behind it. All irrational thought is negative whether religious in nature or not. I admit that I have irrational thoughts sometimes, although I'd far rather I didn't and I certainly don't expect anyone else to accept my irrational thoughts as fact. I mentioned Star Trek's Federation before as a good model of a rational society, but if we follow through the elimination of irrational thought to it's ultimate conclusion, we probably end up with something more akin to the Vulcans, beings of absolute logic.

But the problem is where do you draw the line? Because if you dismiss all of what you would call "irrational thought" you would surely be dismissing some very worthwhile thoughts too. For example, you mentioned earlier that belief can not conjur things into being. So therefore if a was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow and the doctor told me I had only a couple months to live at best, the rational thing according to you would be to take his word for it and prepare for your death in all likelihood and not to believe that you can 'believe' yourself better. However, as I have already mentioned to with the placebo effect, the mind and the power of perspective is stronger than you realize, and there have been some people who have adamantly refused all the doctors prediction and quite literally thought themselves better, never for a second believing they would die in two months. I'm sure many would class this dogged self belief as completely irrational as scientists simply don't understand this phenomena. Yet it could save your life.

While I fully accept that having a sharp and rational mind is often a virtue, we must also accept the limitations of our rational mind. You can't really rationalize yourself to happiness and contentment, you can certainly use rational thinking to aid yourself in that pursuit but happiness is not born of pure rationality. There are many concepts are rational/intellectual brains can't fully comprehend. And to claim that any thought which is not born from rationality is "negative" is wrong.

In fact I think if certain concepts from spiritual philosophy (again things you class as "irrational") where taught to us all correctly and free from dogma, we could live in world that is far more harmonious than any place in Star Trek. If we all were taught to completely overcome negative emotions, desires, to have a healthy level of detachment from everything in this life, and to only cultivate compassion. Tell me, would life not be better for all? With a proper implementation of those teachings we could surely extinguish nearly all human pain. I don't think it's in any way possible to achieve this through exclusive use of a rational and materialist mind.

So while I can't help but agree with many of your points on religion, I think you need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Zin5ki]

Mom

Gadzooks, is that how they say it in Durham?

 

[ilmaestro]

I think we have the "Mom is standard in the Midlands" discussion about once every six weeks :lol:

I think it's likely even more the case that we have very different views on the good that religion does, tbh. For example, I gather from another comment you made (possibly in a different thread, possibly mis-read by myself) that you are no great fan of the Church of Latter-day Saints - I would also question some of the financial aspects of some of its branches fwiw - but I can't imagine how you would even begin to quantify the good that comes out of institutions such as Brigham Young University, how you would weigh up the guidance and direction that thousands of young people are given there against (similarly difficult to quantify) all this "harm" that you attribute to religion.

I wouldn't want to single any one religion out for criticism above others

I didn't mean to imply that you would, only to illustrate that a particular branch of religion that you would criticize along with others provides quite large dollops of good, by my standards.

 

[ayase]

In the case of things like the placebo effect and other things we have limited evidence for, we're in a situation where we can't actually tell what's baby and what's bathwater. As such, we need to investigate further until we can declare it one or the other. I'm fine with doing that, enquiring minds which want to know the truth should be. I don't agree with statements to the effect that there are things which can never be understood by any level of intelligence - As far as I'm concerned everything can eventually be understood and explained. It might take a very long time, but given everything humanity has already learned and discovered in such a short period, I don't see any reason to believe otherwise.

I guess I have some irrational thoughts and feelings I quite enjoy, but in the back of my mind I'm aware that it would be better to give those up if it meant an end to the destructive power of irrational thought. Because I think it is only destructive at the end of the day, even seemingly good irrational things like love and compassion are accompanied by other negative ones like posessiveness, jealousy and pity. I think it's probably for the best to just do away with all of them.

I have for a long time admired machines over people in their efficiency, logic and the fact that the way they operate makes complete sense. In machines, we've created something better than ourselves in every way, and I often wonder if it's the machines which will carry on on the evolutionary path into the future, perhaps at the expese of humanity ourselves. Sometimes, given much of humanity's refusal to change, that seems like the only future worth contemplating.

Apologies for any typos in this post, in was typed up on my phone with autocorrect off.