Why arent they all just considered ridiculous?

Again, I do no believe in a God. I am not religious.

I do not like calling any such belief "ridiculous," though. It is to miss the point of most religion, to me.

I started formulating my response when I this comment from Chumly:

Chumly wrote:

So what do you folk do at Christmas if by chance some of your relatives wish to pray before dinner and they look at you in such a manner as to suggest you better get with the program?

Do you show them the same response you would a run-of-the-mill loon?

Praying before dinner brings up a very specific image for me -- a family that I spent a lot of time with when I was a kid (the daughter was one of my best friends, and I was forever being invited over for dinner). They said grace before dinner. They didn't shoot me a look if I failed to do so, and I understand why that would rankle. But they had the right to say grace in their own home, and were not IMO ridiculous for doing so.

There are all kinds of nice things about saying grace, especially in that household. Tradition, continuity. A moment to connect as a family.

This family was very active in social causes through their church. Helping the poor, advocating for battered women, working for civil rights -- all of these things had a root in religion, for them.

I would rather judge such results of faith than faith itself. If a person's belief leads them to try to keep evolution out of classrooms, I'll happily condemn their actions -- but not their belief. This goes the other way too -- if someone does wonderful things in the name of religion, I will praise the wonderful things without praising the fact that their religion was the impetus.

I see belief, itself, as kind of like being in love. You're in love or you aren't. It doesn't really lend itself to rationalization. If a friend of mine is in love with a woman who I find unattractive but he is genuinely happy with her, is he ridiculous for being in love with her? If she is beating him, yes. If she is cheating on him, yes. But if it's just that I don't happen to be in love with her, and can't imagine, myself, that anyone would be? No. That's his perogative, and if they're happy and not hurting anyone else by their happiness, it's not my business.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Again, I do no believe in a God. I am not religious.

I do not like calling any such belief "ridiculous," though. It is to miss the point of most religion, to me.

I started formulating my response when I this comment from Chumly:

Chumly wrote:
So what do you folk do at Christmas if by chance some of your relatives wish to pray before dinner and they look at you in such a manner as to suggest you better get with the program?

Do you show them the same response you would a run-of-the-mill loon?

Praying before dinner brings up a very specific image for me -- a family that I spent a lot of time with when I was a kid (the daughter was one of my best friends, and I was forever being invited over for dinner). They said grace before dinner. They didn't shoot me a look if I failed to do so, and I understand why that would rankle. But they had the right to say grace in their own home, and were not IMO ridiculous for doing so.

There are all kinds of nice things about saying grace, especially in that household. Tradition, continuity. A moment to connect as a family.

This family was very active in social causes through their church. Helping the poor, advocating for battered women, working for civil rights -- all of these things had a root in religion, for them.

I would rather judge such results of faith than faith itself. If a person's belief leads them to try to keep evolution out of classrooms, I'll happily condemn their actions -- but not their belief. This goes the other way too -- if someone does wonderful things in the name of religion, I will praise the wonderful things without praising the fact that their religion was the impetus.

I see belief, itself, as kind of like being in love. You're in love or you aren't. It doesn't really lend itself to rationalization. If a friend of mine is in love with a woman who I find unattractive but he is genuinely happy with her, is he ridiculous for being in love with her? If she is beating him, yes. If she is cheating on him, yes. But if it's just that I don't happen to be in love with her, and can't imagine, myself, that anyone would be? No. That's his perogative, and if they're happy and not hurting anyone else by their happiness, it's not my business.

During the first Thanksgiving I had with my girlfriends family they asked me to say grace, I refused but said that I would give thanks instead (without the 'amen'). I've never been asked to give grace again, and her mom still thinks I'm wierd because I don't believe in god. I think I've caused her to start to question her beliefs a little bit and she may resent me somewhat for that.

0 Replies

Sozobe wrote:

I see belief, itself, as kind of like being in love. You're in love or you aren't. It doesn't really lend itself to rationalization. If a friend of mine is in love with a woman who I find unattractive but he is genuinely happy with her, is he ridiculous for being in love with her?

No, because when he says "I love this woman", he is expressing a matter of taste that has no consequence outside her world and his. That changes when he says, "god created the world in seven days some time in the last 10,000 years", or "Moses inflicted plagues upon Egypt, or "the second coming of Jesus will happen real soon now". Now he is taking a stand on the same reality that I live in. Likewise when he says "it is just to have slaves and to kill your children for disobeying their parents", he is taking a stand on moral rules, some of which I'll have to live under -- as do his children and his potential slaves. Moreover, when these atrocities against reality and morality are all rooted in one text, a text billions of people hold sacred for no good reasons, I think I that gives me standing to argue and even polemicize against that text. And, yes, it gives me standing to say that this is a ridiculous text to build a moral code upon.

Sozobe wrote:

That's his perogative, and if they're happy and not hurting anyone else by their happiness, it's not my business.

The same is true of believers in spoon bending: As long as they're not personally hurting me, they have the right to live by their belief, foolish as it may be. (No skeptic in spoon-bending ever gave me any flak when I said it's ridiculous to believe in that). Likewise, one can consistently believe that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are ridiculous follies, and that people still have the right to believe in them and live them. That's the whole point of liberty -- that people have the right to do things I don't like. Conversely though, I, too, retain the right to call ridiculous some things many people do.

0 Replies

And I retain the right to say that you shouldn't call 'em ridiculous.

The "consequence outside her world and his" part is what I already addressed. Evolution in classrooms vs. civil rights. I'm happier addressing THAT -- the consequences -- than the intrinsic belief. And is that intrinsic belief that I liken to being in love.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

xingu wrote:
neologist wrote:
I must confess that I frequently find the posts of non believers to be ridiculous. I refer to the ready acceptance of the most sophomoric straw men and pathetic clinging to any excuse for moral license.

One example: the insistence of many that an all powerful god must know all things by necessity . . .

U never heard of the all-knowing God?

Where have you been?

God knows what's in all mens/womens hearts.

You do not believe God is omniscient?

I believe it is the Christians, not the atheist, who make the claim that God is all powerful and all knowing.

http://lookinguntojesus.net/ata20030330.htm
Diest TKO wrote:
I agree Xingu, it's not the claim of the non-believer that god is all-knowing, that claim is made by the believer. Neo, if you have a problem with this idea, you need to take it to the horses mouth.

I have often said the atheists have no need to invent straw men when the priests create them in abundance. But the fact is that it should be obvious that God has no more necessity to know our individual moral outcomes than you or I have to read the last page of the whodunit.

The idea of necessary omniscience plays well into the hands of those who are selling predestination and reprobation. These folks have are reaching for your pockets folks, and their sermons don't come from the bible.

How can you say atheist invent straw men "when the priests create them in abundance." If they're already created how did atheist invent them? When atheist repeat what Christians say and believe is that an invention?

0 Replies

Quote:

The Bible Ascribes Attributes to Jesus Christ, Which Can Only be Predicated of God

1. Jesus Christ is all-knowing (omniscient)

Matthew 12:25-"Jesus knew their thoughts."

Matthew 27:18-"For [Jesus] knew that for envy they had delivered Him."

Luke 6:8-"He knew their thoughts."

John 2:24-25-"But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man."

John 21:17-"And [Peter] said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee."

Revelation 2:23-"All the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each of you according to your works" (NKJV).

2. Jesus Christ is all-powerful (omnipotent)

Ephesians 3:20-"Now unto him [Christ] that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us."

Philippians 3:20-21-"...the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself."

Colossians 2:10-"Ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power."

Hebrews 1:3-"[Jesus Christ is] upholding all things by the word of his power."

Revelation 1:8-"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Revelation 2:26-27-"He who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations-'He shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the potter's vessels shall be broken to pieces'-as I also have received from My Father" (NKJV).

http://www.seekgod.org/bible/jesusisgod.html

This is not an atheist site.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

And I retain the right to say that you shouldn't call 'em ridiculous.

Oh, you absolutely do! I couldn't agree more.

sozobe wrote:

I'm happier addressing THAT -- the consequences -- than the intrinsic belief. And is that intrinsic belief that I liken to being in love.

One reason I'm not with you on this point is that I'm not buying that the good things came as a consequence of faith. If this family you mentioned had become agnostics for some reason, would they really have concluded that it's okay to be stingy to the poor, to batter women, or ban blacks to the back of the bus? I haven't met the family, but I'd bet high odds against it. Judging by your description, they were decent people, who would have done decent things even without believing in a big surveillance camera in the sky.

0 Replies

It's impossible to say, of course. But they did these things through their church, which offered resources and avenues for them that wouldn't have been available otherwise. Are there other institutions that do these things? Yes, and maybe they would have found those other institutions. But the church offered a way for people who weren't necessarily seeking out that kind of thing -- who just wanted to go to church on Sunday and be part of a community -- to do a lot of good.

I never in a million years would say that churches or religion are the ONLY way to accomplish good in the world. But this church was very effective at doing just that, and I applaud it and its members.

0 Replies

You know, this discussion reminds me a bit of "key joke #3" in Woody Allen's Annie Hall (If memory serves, I adore Woody Allen and you don't Wink

)

A patient tells his psychiatrist: "Doctor, my brother thinks he's a chicken". Doctor replies: "That's terrible, send him over!" Patient: "I'd love to -- but I need the eggs". I guess that sums up our disagreement. I think, as a matter of principle, that it's bad for people to believe in delusions like the one that they're chicken. But you, depending on the individual case, may be fine with it -- because you like the eggs.

0 Replies

Only problem with that analogy is that while it would be impossible to get eggs from the brother, there are "eggs" produced because of faith.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Only problem with that analogy is that while it would be impossible to get eggs from the brother, there are "eggs" produced because of faith.

So you and Sozobe say, but I'm not buying it. Ideally, we should run a control experiment in we observe the same people without faith to see how many eggs they produce. I'm pretty sure they would produce about the same amount. You seem to be pretty sure they would produce fewer eggs without religion. But I don't see how we could run this control experiment, so I doubt we'll ever find out.

That said, I do believe that debunking delusions has value in itself, and is worth sacrificing the eggs.

0 Replies

Yeah, we don't agree. Just for the record, I don't use the words "faith" and "religion" interchangeably.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Yeah, we don't agree. Just for the record, I don't use the words "faith" and "religion" interchangeably.

I see. What is the distinction, in your usage of words?

(PS: I don't know if it needs saying, but I'm not trying to set you up with this question.)

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Yeah, we don't agree. Just for the record, I don't use the words "faith" and "religion" interchangeably.

Me neither. The difference to me is that faith is individual and religion is group; as in a person of faith vs the Jewish faith -- which is a religion

0 Replies

I agree with the distinction, and I like JPB's definition. I'd say also that faith is internal (what you believe) while religion is external (what you do).

0 Replies

Distinction noted. Thanks.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I must confess that I frequently find the posts of non believers to be ridiculous. I refer to the ready acceptance of the most sophomoric straw men and pathetic clinging to any excuse for moral license.

This is a typical assumption of the religionist, to the effect that absent religion, there is no basis for morality or ethical behavior. There have been far too many men and women known to history who were honorable and not religious, and men and women who were religious and not honorable. As i've so often said, religion never made a bad man good, nor has the lack of it made a good man bad. Your use of the term license assumes that without religion there is no morality. But you don't advance a plausible basis for such a contention.

Then you continue from that to a non sequitur:

Quote:

One example: the insistence of many that an all powerful god must know all things by necessity . . .

Yeah, yeah, we all know this is one of your favorite hobby horses. It has no relationship, however, to the question of whether or not a lack of "faith" insures an acceptance or promotion of moral license.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Only problem with that analogy is that while it would be impossible to get eggs from the brother, there are "eggs" produced because of faith.

Nonsense. Provide a single example in which "faith" has produced an "egg." The most you will be able to do is to suggest that "faith" was responsible for the conditions in which the "egg" was produced, in which case you will simply be retailing a belief, and one with no better foundation that faith.

This is the intellectual equivalent to the rooster who crows just before the sun rises, and assumes that the sun rises because he crows. Unless an until you can show that any particular "egg" would not have been produced without "faith," you have no case. You just have an unfounded assertion deriving from a belief not one whit different from religious faith.

0 Replies

When I read that I don't think of, like, someone praying for a raise and then getting a raise. I think of more meta aspects (not sure if meta is the right word here), like finding a sense of peace, equilibrium.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:
I must confess that I frequently find the posts of non believers to be ridiculous. I refer to the ready acceptance of the most sophomoric straw men and pathetic clinging to any excuse for moral license.

This is a typical assumption of the religionist, to the effect that absent religion, there is no basis for morality or ethical behavior. There have been far too many men and women known to history who were honorable and not religious, and men and women who were religious and not honorable. As i've so often said, religion never made a bad man good, nor has the lack of it made a good man bad. Your use of the term license assumes that without religion there is no morality. But you don't advance a plausible basis for such a contention. . .

I never said there would be no morality without religion. In fact, you and I shared a discussion of this point where I quoted Paul's statement on the conscience of unbelievers. I think you have misread my opinion of what constitutes license. To me it is simply the tendency for some to rely solely on what seems right. But if this were a reliable compass, then all we would need would be for men and women of good will to set our course. This may be true, but apparently has not happened yet.

The fact that I don't believe it will, notwithstanding.

0 Replies

Why arent they all just considered ridiculous?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

Why arent they all just considered ridiculous?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

Why arent they all just considered ridiculous?