Why arent they all just considered ridiculous?

What we have here is essentially something which has been argued again and again at this site, and no matter how the argument is couched, it's core statement is that religious belief ought to enjoy a particular respect which is not granted to any other form of belief. Snood has said this outright in the past, although he may have learned to be canny enough not to attempt to argue that any longer. It also seems to be what Soz is arguing.

If it is unacceptable to question religious belief, than it equally ought to be unacceptable to challenge political belief, or to challenge a belief that the earth is flat. Not all theses are equal when they are subject to testing. So the phlogiston theory of combustion ceased to be a plausible thesis when Lavoisier demonstrated that combustion was a process or rapid oxidation. But what we have here is a contention that religion ought to get a credulity pass that we don't give to those who believe in a flat earth or phlogiston. The only difference between religious belief and the belief in a flat earth or phlogiston is that the claim that there is a god cannot be tested by naturalistic means, because it is posited as a supernatural being. This is a bald attempt to remove religious credulity from the realm of testing and make it sacrosanct.

I don't accept that, not only because it is an intellectual dodge worthy of the elementary school playground, but because people who adhere to religion set themselves up as abitrators of morality and social convention--such as when Neo claims inferentially that there can be no morality without religion. Religion always holds that any particular credo is the repository of ultimate truth, and that all others are false--at best, misguided, and at worst, inspired by evil. Far from being exempt from criticism, religious belief ought to be subject to greater scrutiny and criticism than any other form of belief because it will always eventually seek to impose on others.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What we have here is essentially something which has been argued again and again at this site, and no matter how the argument is couched, it's core statement is that religious belief ought to enjoy a particular respect which is not granted to any other form of belief. Snood has said this outright in the past, although he may have learned to be canny enough not to attempt to argue that any longer. It also seems to be what Soz is arguing.

If it is unacceptable to question religious belief, than it equally ought to be unacceptable to challenge political belief, or to challenge a belief that the earth is flat. Not all theses are equal when they are subject to testing. So the phlogiston theory of combustion ceased to be a plausible thesis when Lavoisier demonstrated that combustion was a process or rapid oxidation. But what we have here is a contention that religion ought to get a credulity pass that we don't give to those who believe in a flat earth or phlogiston. The only difference between religious belief and the belief in a flat earth or phlogiston is that the claim that there is a god cannot be tested by naturalistic means, because it is posited as a supernatural being. This is a bald attempt to remove religious credulity from the realm of testing and make it sacrosanct.

I don't accept that, not only because it is an intellectual dodge worthy of the elementary school playground, but because people who adhere to religion set themselves up as abitrators of morality and social convention--such as when [B]Neo claims inferentially that there can be no morality without religion.[/B] Religion always holds that any particular credo is the repository of ultimate truth, and that all others are false--at best, misguided, and at worst, inspired by evil. Far from being exempt from criticism, religious belief ought to be subject to greater scrutiny and criticism than any other form of belief because it will always eventually seek to impose on others.

(Red stuff mine)

Don't put words in my mouth, you .. .you

Fluffy canine, you!

0 Replies

That's not what I'm arguing, no. I think claims can and should be challenged, and have certainly done so often enough myself. If someone says that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, I'll protest loud and long.

I object to something rather simple, here -- the claim that all religious people are ridiculous. I don't think that's true. I'd also object if there was a claim that all red-haired people are ridiculous, or all gay people are ridiculous, or all Republicans are ridiculous. (Yes, even Republicans!) I'm not granting some special status to religious people, there.

0 Replies

In answer to the launch post, I'm saying not all religious people are ridiculous.
In answer to some later points in the thread, I'm saying that both religious and non-religious people can be overbearing (rude, pushy, insulting, in-your-face). I reject the assertion that I am now saying or have ever said that religious people should be afforded any better or special respect than is due anyone.

0 Replies

Amen to that, Snood!

I'm not religous, but know a whole lot of awesome people who are.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Quote:
Neo claims inferentially that there can be no morality without religion.
(Red stuff mine)

Don't put words in my mouth, you .. .you

Fluffy canine, you!

In that case, perhaps you can explain what this was supposed to mean:

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.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I reject the assertion that I am now saying or have ever said that religious people should be afforded any better or special respect than is due anyone.

Reject it to your heart's content--you and i argued about this a few years ago. I acknowledge that you have since gotten wise enough not to engage in that kind of special pleading--but you once did. Specifically, you stated that you think a person's religious belief ought not to be challenged, and that all religious beliefs should be respected.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:
Quote:
Neo claims inferentially that there can be no morality without religion.
(Red stuff mine)

Don't put words in my mouth, you .. .you

Fluffy canine, you!

In that case, perhaps you can explain what this was supposed to mean:

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.

Just what I said. It doesn't mean there aren't plenty of good folks out there. Heck , I invited you for coffee, didn't I? What I am saying is that many will find any reason they can muster in order to not accept any authority save their own. Present company excepted, of course.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I object to something rather simple, here -- the claim that all religious people are ridiculous.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly: A claim you would not reject is, "the religions that 90% of religious Americans say they believe in are ridiculous." Specifically you would not reject the claim that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are ridiculous, especially in the content of their holy scriptures. As long as I don't denigrate the believers as individuals, you're fine with my attacking the beliefs. Is this a fair statement of what you're not rejecting?

0 Replies

Three hundred sixty-four days ago, on 30 May, 2006, in post #2067461:

snood wrote:

Hey kev - just to let you know...

A lot of people just post on the religion threads to criticize and ridicule. Be aware, they don't have good intentions toward you.

If they were acting on good motives, they would leave the religious threads to those with religion, or at least make an effort to treat the religions with some respect. But as you can see, their intentions are not positive.

I just wanted to let you know, so that you don't expect anyone here to try to discuss your posts seriously.

******************************************

I haven't found it yet, but if you want to make an issue of Snood, i'll go find the post in which you specifically stated that a peson's religious belief ought not to be criticized. I'd rather not waste my time, though.

The fact remains, you have in the past expressed the opinion that religion ought to be a belief accorded respect--i've not seen you make that claim for any other character of belief.

This is a discussion board, no topic is or ought to be off limits.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

sozobe wrote:
I object to something rather simple, here -- the claim that all religious people are ridiculous.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly: A claim you would not reject is, "the religions that 90% of religious Americans say they believe in are ridiculous." Specifically you would not reject the claim that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are ridiculous, especially in the content of their holy scriptures. As long as I don't denigrate the believers as individuals, you're fine with my attacking the beliefs. Is this a fair statement of what you're not rejecting?

Eh?

That seems like obfuscation of, again, a simple point. I entered this discussion because I did not agree with the claim that all religious people are ridiculous. <shrug>

I don't think religions are ridiculous, as a whole. I think many claims made by religions are perfectly valid. It's a good thing to help your neighbor. Check. It's a bad thing to kill your neighbor. Check. I don't think all claims made by religions are valid, and I'll object to the ones I don't agree with.

One of the central things here is that most religious people I know don't claim that there is any empirical truth to the fact that there is a God -- it's just a completely different paradigm from what you're talking about. And I don't think that paradigm -- just plain having faith in something, whether or not there is any evidence for it -- is inherently bad.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

snood wrote:
I reject the assertion that I am now saying or have ever said that religious people should be afforded any better or special respect than is due anyone.

Reject it to your heart's content--you and i argued about this a few years ago. I acknowledge that you have since gotten wise enough not to engage in that kind of special pleading--but you once did. Specifically, you stated that you think a person's religious belief ought not to be challenged, and that all religious beliefs should be respected.

I never said somone's religious beliefs shouldn't be challenged. That is a blatant untruth. In fact I find nothing wrong with "challenging" someone's beliefs. some people can simply do it with a hell of a lot more graciousness than others. Our differences arose from the manner one particular poster was "challenged" - calling her out of her name and ridiculing her - I was simply defending a friend from being abused, and you twisted that into saying I wanted "special pleading" for all religions.

I may have said I think all religious beliefs should be respected (I later was shown to be a bit hypocritical there, because I myself do not respect Satanists or Satanism).

In general, I don't think anyone's religious belief's or lack of them has anything to the do with the common courtesy to which they are entitled. And I think that to be sure, religious people can be a pain, but that it's not just the religious who can be overbearing, rude and pushy.

0 Replies

Apparently, you haven't read my last post.

0 Replies

Religions: "Why aren't they all just considered ridiculous?"

There's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Religion is important. Generally, we are talking about literalistic religion, and that is totally based on faith, which is a hard sell nowadays with widespread education and the advancement of science. Accepting religious images and myths literally is as difficult as regarding poetry only from a literal point of view and ignoring the metaphor.

God and Santa Claus are very similar. And if we insist on taking them literally we are either children, incredulous, or have been exposed to the religion since early childhood. Just because we don't take these images literally doesn't mean that they aren't important in all our lives. Santa Claus is the personification of wanting to give to our children. From this viewpoint if we reject Santa totally then we must, by definition, be very selfish with our children.

Likewise, just because we reject god as a supernatural being with an objective reality doesn't mean that we can't have a subjective experience that transcendends the ego. People that believe that are just as naive and superficial as the most ardent literalist.

The best annecdote I've heard regarding this subject is the one about one of our earliest astronauts. Floating in orbit the spaceman has one of these transcendent subjective experiences. For want of perhaps a better word, he calls it god.

Back on the Earth he goes on a world tour stopping first in Russia and meeting with Premier Kruschchev. The premier takes him aside and asks, him, By the way, when you were in orbit did you happen to see god?"

"Yes," the astronaut replies.

"I was afraid of that," says Kruschchev.

The astronaut then goes to Vatican City and sees the Pope who asks the same question. "Did you happen to see god while you were in space?"

"No," replies the astronaut thinking of the Pope's idea of god.

"I was afraid of that," replies the Pope.

0 Replies

Understand here that religion is a tool. Like a hammer you can use it to build something or kill people.

Bad people like Falwell will use it to promote hate and intolerance. But that doesn't make the religion bad.

Granted religion is illogical, irrational and nonsensical in its beliefs but that to doesn't make it bad. Funny maybe, but not bad.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I don't think religions are ridiculous, as a whole. I think many claims made by religions are perfectly valid. It's a good thing to help your neighbor. Check. It's a bad thing to kill your neighbor. Check. I don't think all claims made by religions are valid, and I'll object to the ones I don't agree with.

How about: "It's a bad thing to kill your neigbor, because God once emerged from a burning bush on Mount Sinai and told Moses not to do that." Or: "It's a good thing to help your neighbor, because Jesus died on that cross for your sins, and you don't want to stain yourself with sin all over again." From what little I know about theology, both seem to be fairly standard theological arguments. Do you have any problem with the shoddy reasoning in those arguments? Or are you fine with any reasoning, shoddy or not, as long as you like the conclusions reached?

sozobe wrote:

One of the central things here is that most religious people I know don't claim that there is any empirical truth to the fact that there is a God -- it's just a completely different paradigm from what you're talking about. And I don't think that paradigm -- just plain having faith in something, whether or not there is any evidence for it -- is inherently bad.

I'm not sure I understand what that means. It is true that there either is a god -- or not. We haven't figured it out yet, but in the fullness of time, we may. Meanwhile, we can guess (but, as Frank Apisa would add, we don't have to). In which sense can you believe in god and not guess that his existence will turn out to be confirmed?

0 Replies

I'm definitely having a hard time articulating exactly what I mean here, partly because I didn't join the thread to articulate where I have been led -- the discussion has gone well beyond the point I joined to make, which was "not all religious people are ridiculous."

Have I said that before? Oh.

;-)

It's just that when I think of religious people I know and respect they aren't all dogmatic about whether there is or isn't a God. They just personally and privately choose to believe, and that choice is in a different compartment than the more rational sides of their brain. They're not saying it's rational, but they're also saying that not everything needs to be rational. (Is falling in love rational?) And a private belief or faith in some higher power -- in and of itself -- is one thing that doesn't need to be rational.

0 Replies

Gee -- now I'm almost getting a sense that you don't consider all religious people ridiculous....