Respecting religious beliefs

[atheist buddy]

Why is it that in every field of human knowledge, a belief is only respected when it has been established that it's true, but when it comes to religion, we have to respect it even when it's not true?


In the field of history, the belief that the Holocaust never happened is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

In the field of astronomy, the belief that the moon is made of cheese is NOT respected. Because that belief is false.

So why do the beliefs that Mary was a virgin, or that Jesus came back from the dead, or that Mohammed rode a flying horse, or that Balaal had a talking donkey have to be respected even if they are false?


If I said "Believing the Halocaust didn't happen is as absurd as believing in Peter Pan", nobody would chide me for being disrespectful of a holocaust denier's beliefs.

If I said "Believing the moon is made out of cheese is as absurd as believing in the Tooth Fairy" nobody would chide me for being disresepctful to a moon-made-out-of cheese person's beliefs.

So why do I get scolded for making comparisons between the Talking Donkey and the Gingerbread Man, or the Virgin Birth and the Three Little Piggies?



Is it because people are very emotionally attached to beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births, and I should be mindful of not hurting their feelings? If that's the case, then what if a holocaust denier is very emotionally attached to his beliefs? Should I refrain from expressing my sincere opinion that his beliefs are absurd, to safeguard his feelings?

Is it because beliefs in talking donkeys and virgin births are held by millions whereas holocaust deniers and people who believe the moon is made of cheese are thankfully very rare? By that token, should I have been respectful of the typical white american's belief about race relations in the 19th century, because those unjustified and inexcusable beliefs were the beliefs of the majority?


Why is there a double standard? Why is belief that Elvis is still alive cause for imediate social ostratization, but belief in the virgin birth respected even by those who don't share that belief?


It seems to me that in all aspects of human discourse, this parameter is used: If a belief is justified, it's respected. If it isn't justified, it is not respected. Why aren't religious claims subject to that same standard?


If I compare the Bible to the Three Little Piggies, the only valid rebuke is that the Bible is a more literarily interesting work of fiction than the Three Little Piggies. Of course, if I compared the Bible to, say, Shakespeare, the inverse would be true, and if anything, I could be accused of insulting Shakespeare.

IF the talking donkey and the virgin birth actually happened, then comparing them to fictional events that didn't happen, is indeed disrespectful. But if the talking donkey and the virgin birth are fictional, how is it disrespectful to compare them to other fictional stories? How is comparing fiction to fiction disrespectful?



Can we agree that there is no universal requirement for respecting somebody's mathematical, scientific, historical, geographical, beliefs if they are unjustified?

Can we agree that while I do have to be respectful to a person who believes 2+2=5, it is perfectly socially acceptable to be disrespectful of the belief itself?

So why can't the same apply to religion? Why is it not ok to say to a Muslim "I respect you as a person, but in my opinion your belief in Mohammed's flying horse is as absurd as a child's belief in Santa's flying reindeer".

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 40 by Danmark]

Great response, no I completely agree with you, I just wanted to ensure I wasn't misunderstanding your burden of proof point. Thanks for clarifying

[atheist buddy]

So, please do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder.

Wow. WOW. "Do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder".

It's remarkable how your statement perfectly describes the exact opposite of reality.

Believers are MOST DEFINITELY getting away with murder.

It's estimated by human rights groups that 5000 honor killings happen each year.

Believers are literally getting away with murder. Not figuratively. Literally.

And that's right now.

If you look back at history it's even worse. Inquisition, Stalinism, North Korea, Ireland, Crusades, you name it.


This is a thought experiment I like to propose:
Imagine there is a time/space machine which automatically teleports you to a major city at a random time in the past. Once you get there, you have to go to the center of the city square and yell out "I used to agree with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority, but not anymore. Now I find those beliefs laughable. Going forward, I will discuss by newfound skepticism with your children".

Here is the game: If you survive saying that, you win. If you get incarcerated, beaten, burned at the stake, tortured, beheaded, hanged or disemboweled, you lose.

Would you be ok with your children getting into that time machine and playing that game?


What's my point? Throughout most of the world and most of history, disagreeing with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority (Christianity, Islam, Stalinism, Kim Jung Un veneration, Holiness of Japanese Emperor, holines of Pharaoh, Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, ecc) was and still is the most dangerous social behavior a human being could engage in.

If you are a mass murderer who killed people at least once a month for the last 10 years, it's not very reassuring if you tell me "What? I didn't kill anybody in this neighborhood in the last 7 days. I'm a changed man. There's nothing to fear".

Similarly, dogmatic people throughout the world and throughout history have systematically murderered, tortured and persecuted those who didn't believe in their dogma (either because they were skeptics or because they believed a different dogma). Now, very recently and for the first time, in very isolated pockets of civilization such as America and Europe, there is an exception to the rule that has been applied for the last 6000 years throughout the globe. And you expect me relax, and enjoy the fact that I'm not being persecuted right this minute?

Now as far as you saying,

that's not how human biology works

I absolutely agree with you on that statement, without a doubt. But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe?

Sure. IF an entity that could bend the natural laws existed, then the natural laws could be bent.

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Think about it. You're saying "That which is impossible could be possible if we assume that that which isn't true, is true".

You know that an argument is bunk when it can be used to justify laughable propositions just as well as it can be used to justify your religious belief.

You can say "Virgin births are impossible, but they could happen if an entity (Yahweh) that can make the impossible possible existed".

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Allah) that can make the impossible possible existed"

In the exact same way you could say "Delivering gifts to millions of children in a single night on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Santa) that can make the impossible possible existed".

I do NOT mean to compare your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I just wish to point out within the narrow scope of my argument, that your position regarding the virgin birth is untenable, in that the very same argument you use to justify it, can also be used to justify equally succesfully the existence of Mohammed's flying horse or Santa's flying reindeer.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am in no way comparing your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I believe that I have the right to if I want to, but I am nonetheless not doing it. I am just making a very narrow point about how your argument is not valid because it can be used to justify patently false things just as well as it can be used to justify your belief.

You seem to believe that if we could rid the world of religion, the world would be a safer place. Let me assure you it would not be! There are killings, and murder occurring everyday, all day, that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion! These things occur because we as humans are naturally selfish! If you do not believe this, then I would ask you, "how many children do you have to teach to be selfish?" You do not have to teach any of them how to be selfish because we are all born selfish! This is the reason a child has to be trained in how, not to be selfish. My point is, ridding the world of religion would not in any way have an effect on how safe we would be, the only way to ensure safety would be to rid the world of selfishness! Good luck with that one!

It's not religion that is the problem, in my opinion. It's dogmatism. Beliefs based not on a pragmatic examination of the evidence, but on herd mentality and mental lazyness.

Granted, Abrahamic religions are the most notorious form of dogmatic thought, but not the only ones. Stalinism, extreme patriotism, tribalism, racism, are also manifestations of the same problem.

I don't think that it ever happened once that a person with sociopolitical influence was able to mobilize the masses to do acts of unspeakable cruelty or horror, because the people had a tendency to question leadership too much, require too much evidence in support of any statement, and applied too much reason and critical thought to the analysis of the evidence.

It is true that humans have an innate element of selfishness. But they also have an innate sense of compassion and solidarity. In a healthy person, the two are balanced.

In conclusion, I would put to you the famous question by the late Mr. Hitchens. Can you think of any morally good deed or statement that could be made by a religious person, that couldn't also be made by a non-religious one? No.

In reverse, can you think of any morally wicked deed that would be made by a religious person, that would never be made by a non-religious one? Yes.

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Well, let me assure you, this is simply your opinion! I certainly beg to differ! I am not a Christian because I want to be, rather I believe there is reason to believe that Christianity is true!

Ok, so what is that reason?

You make a mistake when you say,

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible,

NO! I have not in any way said that was impossible! My question is not at all whether it is possible or not, rather my question is, whether it is true! There is a huge, (very huge), difference! You are the one who is saying, "it is impossible!" Along with saying, "it is impossible for a donkey to talk, or a virgin to give birth." I am saying that, all of the above is possible, including, "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven." I would also include that is "possible that I am wrong!" My question to you is, "is it possible that you could be wrong?" If your answer is, "NO!" My question then would be, "which one of us is in the real world?"

Ok, let's say that the talking donkey, and the virgin birth, and the flying horse, and the flying reindeer, and the spiderman, are all potentially possible.

If you stretch your imagination enough, it's easy enough to imagine that they do. You could say that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes and part of a multiverse. The conditions in each universe are different. If there is an infinite number of universes, it's inevitable that at least one exists in which reindeer can fly and women give birth without losing their virginity.

Or maybe you could say that reality as we perceive it is just a simulation a la Matrix. Such a simulation could be the product of the imagination of a being outside of it, much like talking donkeys are the product of the imagination of.... us. If we allow that the simulation that we call our universe is real, then to be consistent we must allow that things we imagine are, in some sense, real as well.

So, sure, we can say that anything is possible.

Your claim is that the virgin birth isn't just hypothetically possible in an esoteric, new-age, trying-to-pick-up-a-hippie-girl kind of way. You're saying that as well as being possible, it actually happened in reality, in an ordinary sense. You're saying that 9 months before a baby was born in a cave in Jerusalem, a woman got pregnant without sperm cells being involved.

There is some pretty strong evidence against that, and less evidence for it than there is for Elvis being still alive. So I ask you again. For what reason do you believe that Mary was a virgin?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 8 by Realworldjack]

that's not how human biology works

I absolutely agree with you on that statement, without a doubt. But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe? In other words, could it be that the Creator intervened, and by passed the laws as we know them, and this would have been a miraculous event? A miracle is defined, "as an act of God."

Consider your proposition for a moment. How does human biology work? Well, it most definitely DOES NOT work on the principle of asexual reproduction. Truly virgin females do not become pregnant, according to all observation and experience. "But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe?" Now notice the word "if" that you have included into your statement. "If" your invisible friend actually exists, and "if" your invisible friend can do anything, then pretty much anything you can make up and declare to be true COULD be true, couldn't it? A whole new realm of possibilities, one not constrained by the observable laws and limitations of the observable world, has now been opened up. Nothing new here. We even have a ready name this realm. It's known as "the imagination," where no physical limitations on reality exist. And yet in the physical world your incursion into imaginationland has had absolutely no effect on the fact that humans cannot and do not procreate by asexual reproduction, according to all observation and experience. All you have really done is provide an excellent example of the difference between make believe and observable fact.

Well let us see then who is in fantasy land! You continue to make dogmatic statements, as if just because you make these statements dogmatically they are somehow true. You see, I understand that neither you, or I, will be able to prove our position absolutely, rather all we can do is look at the evidence we have, and come to our conclusion based on the evidence. In the end, all we are doing is giving the reasons for our position, we are not in any way proving our position!

You have looked at the evidence, and have come to the conclusion that, "you are the universe contemplating itself!" While I have no problem with you believing, you are the universe, I have come to a different conclusion. The difference seems to be, I understand the possibility of my error! You on the other hand, being the "UNIVERSE," are probably not in error!

The question now becomes, "Mr. Universe," who exactly is in the real world?!

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 8 by Realworldjack]

that's not how human biology works

I absolutely agree with you on that statement, without a doubt. But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe? In other words, could it be that the Creator intervened, and by passed the laws as we know them, and this would have been a miraculous event? A miracle is defined, "as an act of God."

Consider your proposition for a moment. How does human biology work? Well, it most definitely DOES NOT work on the principle of asexual reproduction. Truly virgin females do not become pregnant, according to all observation and experience. "But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe?" Now notice the word "if" that you have included into your statement. "If" your invisible friend actually exists, and "if" your invisible friend can do anything, then pretty much anything you can make up and declare to be true COULD be true, couldn't it? A whole new realm of possibilities, one not constrained by the observable laws and limitations of the observable world, has now been opened up. Nothing new here. We even have a ready name this realm. It's known as "the imagination," where no physical limitations on reality exist. And yet in the physical world your incursion into imaginationland has had absolutely no effect on the fact that humans cannot and do not procreate by asexual reproduction, according to all observation and experience. All you have really done is provide an excellent example of the difference between make believe and observable fact.

Well let us see then who is in fantasy land! You continue to make dogmatic statements, as if just because you make these statements dogmatically they are somehow true. You see, I understand that neither you, or I, will be able to prove our position absolutely, rather all we can do is look at the evidence we have, and come to our conclusion based on the evidence. In the end, all we are doing is giving the reasons for our position, we are not in any way proving our position!

You have looked at the evidence, and have come to the conclusion that, "you are the universe contemplating itself!" While I have no problem with you believing, you are the universe, I have come to a different conclusion. The difference seems to be, I understand the possibility of my error! You on the other hand, being the "UNIVERSE," are probably not in error!

The question now becomes, "Mr. Universe," who exactly is in the real world?!

Hi Realworldjack,
I read the entirety of your correspendence with TOTN, and for the life of me, I can't find any spot in which he declares that "he is the universe contemplating itself". Yet somehow not only do you declare mutliple times that he said that, but you base your (rather weak nonsequitur) counterargument on this statement that you claim TOTN allegedly made. I'm confused.

From your previous posts, it seems that you don't draw as sharp a distinction as some of us do, between fact-based reality and hypothetical realities based on the assumptions that invisible magical beings exist. So could you clarify whether you mean that TOTN said "he is the universe contemplating itself" in reality, or whether you mean that he might have said it in a magical metaphysical sense? Maybe you mean that TOTN's guardian angel said it? Or maybe it was revealed to you through prayer that TOTN thought it even though he didn't actually write it down? Did a demon who also is called TOTN say it, and you got mixed up between TOTN the demon, and TOTN the person?

If you mean that he wrote it down in reality, could you kindly point to specifically where he wrote it? And if you made a mistake, could you kindly set the record straight by retracting your incorrect statement?


You write something that I agree with 100%

all we can do is look at the evidence we have, and come to our conclusion based on the evidence

You are absolutely right.

I have listed all the evidence for and against the virgin birth, and based on a pragmatic analysis of the evidence, I come to the conclusion that we can never be 100% sure, but it's overwhelmingly likely that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin.

You come to the opposite conclusion. By what method?

It must be a pretty good method, since you comfortably base your entire selfhood and worldview on the results of this method.

[Realworldjack]

So, please do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder.

Wow. WOW. "Do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder".

It's remarkable how your statement perfectly describes the exact opposite of reality.

Believers are MOST DEFINITELY getting away with murder.

It's estimated by human rights groups that 5000 honor killings happen each year.

Believers are literally getting away with murder. Not figuratively. Literally.

And that's right now.

If you look back at history it's even worse. Inquisition, Stalinism, North Korea, Ireland, Crusades, you name it.


This is a thought experiment I like to propose:
Imagine there is a time/space machine which automatically teleports you to a major city at a random time in the past. Once you get there, you have to go to the center of the city square and yell out "I used to agree with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority, but not anymore. Now I find those beliefs laughable. Going forward, I will discuss by newfound skepticism with your children".

Here is the game: If you survive saying that, you win. If you get incarcerated, beaten, burned at the stake, tortured, beheaded, hanged or disemboweled, you lose.

Would you be ok with your children getting into that time machine and playing that game?


What's my point? Throughout most of the world and most of history, disagreeing with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority (Christianity, Islam, Stalinism, Kim Jung Un veneration, Holiness of Japanese Emperor, holines of Pharaoh, Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, ecc) was and still is the most dangerous social behavior a human being could engage in.

If you are a mass murderer who killed people at least once a month for the last 10 years, it's not very reassuring if you tell me "What? I didn't kill anybody in this neighborhood in the last 7 days. I'm a changed man. There's nothing to fear".

Similarly, dogmatic people throughout the world and throughout history have systematically murderered, tortured and persecuted those who didn't believe in their dogma (either because they were skeptics or because they believed a different dogma). Now, very recently and for the first time, in very isolated pockets of civilization such as America and Europe, there is an exception to the rule that has been applied for the last 6000 years throughout the globe. And you expect me relax, and enjoy the fact that I'm not being persecuted right this minute?

Now as far as you saying,

that's not how human biology works

I absolutely agree with you on that statement, without a doubt. But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe?

Sure. IF an entity that could bend the natural laws existed, then the natural laws could be bent.

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Think about it. You're saying "That which is impossible could be possible if we assume that that which isn't true, is true".

You know that an argument is bunk when it can be used to justify laughable propositions just as well as it can be used to justify your religious belief.

You can say "Virgin births are impossible, but they could happen if an entity (Yahweh) that can make the impossible possible existed".

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Allah) that can make the impossible possible existed"

In the exact same way you could say "Delivering gifts to millions of children in a single night on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Santa) that can make the impossible possible existed".

I do NOT mean to compare your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I just wish to point out within the narrow scope of my argument, that your position regarding the virgin birth is untenable, in that the very same argument you use to justify it, can also be used to justify equally succesfully the existence of Mohammed's flying horse or Santa's flying reindeer.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am in no way comparing your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I believe that I have the right to if I want to, but I am nonetheless not doing it. I am just making a very narrow point about how your argument is not valid because it can be used to justify patently false things just as well as it can be used to justify your belief.

You seem to believe that if we could rid the world of religion, the world would be a safer place. Let me assure you it would not be! There are killings, and murder occurring everyday, all day, that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion! These things occur because we as humans are naturally selfish! If you do not believe this, then I would ask you, "how many children do you have to teach to be selfish?" You do not have to teach any of them how to be selfish because we are all born selfish! This is the reason a child has to be trained in how, not to be selfish. My point is, ridding the world of religion would not in any way have an effect on how safe we would be, the only way to ensure safety would be to rid the world of selfishness! Good luck with that one!

It's not religion that is the problem, in my opinion. It's dogmatism. Beliefs based not on a pragmatic examination of the evidence, but on herd mentality and mental lazyness.

Granted, Abrahamic religions are the most notorious form of dogmatic thought, but not the only ones. Stalinism, extreme patriotism, tribalism, racism, are also manifestations of the same problem.

I don't think that it ever happened once that a person with sociopolitical influence was able to mobilize the masses to do acts of unspeakable cruelty or horror, because the people had a tendency to question leadership too much, require too much evidence in support of any statement, and applied too much reason and critical thought to the analysis of the evidence.

It is true that humans have an innate element of selfishness. But they also have an innate sense of compassion and solidarity. In a healthy person, the two are balanced.

In conclusion, I would put to you the famous question by the late Mr. Hitchens. Can you think of any morally good deed or statement that could be made by a religious person, that couldn't also be made by a non-religious one? No.

In reverse, can you think of any morally wicked deed that would be made by a religious person, that would never be made by a non-religious one? Yes.

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Well, let me assure you, this is simply your opinion! I certainly beg to differ! I am not a Christian because I want to be, rather I believe there is reason to believe that Christianity is true!

Ok, so what is that reason?

You make a mistake when you say,

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible,

NO! I have not in any way said that was impossible! My question is not at all whether it is possible or not, rather my question is, whether it is true! There is a huge, (very huge), difference! You are the one who is saying, "it is impossible!" Along with saying, "it is impossible for a donkey to talk, or a virgin to give birth." I am saying that, all of the above is possible, including, "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven." I would also include that is "possible that I am wrong!" My question to you is, "is it possible that you could be wrong?" If your answer is, "NO!" My question then would be, "which one of us is in the real world?"

Ok, let's say that the talking donkey, and the virgin birth, and the flying horse, and the flying reindeer, and the spiderman, are all potentially possible.

If you stretch your imagination enough, it's easy enough to imagine that they do. You could say that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes and part of a multiverse. The conditions in each universe are different. If there is an infinite number of universes, it's inevitable that at least one exists in which reindeer can fly and women give birth without losing their virginity.

Or maybe you could say that reality as we perceive it is just a simulation a la Matrix. Such a simulation could be the product of the imagination of a being outside of it, much like talking donkeys are the product of the imagination of.... us. If we allow that the simulation that we call our universe is real, then to be consistent we must allow that things we imagine are, in some sense, real as well.

So, sure, we can say that anything is possible.

Your claim is that the virgin birth isn't just hypothetically possible in an esoteric, new-age, trying-to-pick-up-a-hippie-girl kind of way. You're saying that as well as being possible, it actually happened in reality, in an ordinary sense. You're saying that 9 months before a baby was born in a cave in Jerusalem, a woman got pregnant without sperm cells being involved.

There is some pretty strong evidence against that, and less evidence for it than there is for Elvis being still alive. So I ask you again. For what reason do you believe that Mary was a virgin?

Okay, so you have asked me, "why it is that I believe?" Well allow me to ask you, why is that you do not believe? Do you really believe you could do it justice here in this format? Surely, you have more reasons for your unbelief than the virgin birth, talking donkey, etc. Certainly, you have put more thought into it than that! In fact, above you go into detail speaking of those who are lazy thinkers, and simply follow the herd when you say,

Granted, Abrahamic religions are the most notorious form of dogmatic thought, but not the only ones. Stalinism, extreme patriotism, tribalism, racism, are also manifestations of the same problem.

I don't think that it ever happened once that a person with sociopolitical influence was able to mobilize the masses to do acts of unspeakable cruelty or horror, because the people had a tendency to question leadership too much, require too much evidence in support of any statement, and applied too much reason and critical thought to the analysis of the evidence.

Now, I agree with what you have said here, therefore, if I am not one of those lazy thinkers, who are easily lead, and simply follow the herd, then wouldn't you think that it would be impossible for me to give you the reasons for my belief, here in this format? As I have said in the past, "it would take a book volume!" But allow me to give you an example of how I do not follow the herd in my thinking. You have cited Hitchens here,

Can you think of any morally good deed or statement that could be made by a religious person, that couldn't also be made by a non-religious one? No.

In reverse, can you think of any morally wicked deed that would be made by a religious person, that would never be made by a non-religious one? Yes.

Now, many Christians would attempt to defend the actions of religious people, and also attempt to defend the actions of the characters in the Bible as somehow being moral. The problem as I see it with these many Christians, and with Hitchens himself is that they have lumped Christianity in with religion. While religion is motivated, and concerned, by, and with morality, and teaching it's adherents how to be moral, this is not the concern at all with Christianity. Christianity, is not concerned at all with teaching us how to be moral, how to have a better life, or how to fix our problems! Rather Christianity is concerned with explaining to us we are immoral, and there are no good deeds we can do to reverse this. The Bible tells us, "our works are as filthy rags!" Just as Adam, and Eve attempted to correct their problem by sewing fig leaves together, our attempts to better ourselves, and ascend the ladder to God by our works is futile! With all of this being the case, I would not be surprised in any way to find Christians acting in an immoral way, seeing as how we are all immoral.

In short, rather than teaching us how to be moral, Christianity encourages us to let go of our own efforts of morality. The bad news, according to the Bible is, we are not and cannot be moral, however the Good News, (Gospel), is that God has made a way to save the immoral.

Now, as I said above, there are many Christians, in fact I would even say most Christians who have also lumped Christianity in with religion. They believe they have somehow obtained morality by their behavior! As I hope you can see, I am not a member of that herd, and have been able to see beyond the masses!

To answer your question about tired of the nonsense being the universe, he has made this statement else where! I'll answer the rest later!

[atheist buddy]

So, please do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder.

Wow. WOW. "Do not act as if unbelievers are being persecuted, while believers are getting away with murder".

It's remarkable how your statement perfectly describes the exact opposite of reality.

Believers are MOST DEFINITELY getting away with murder.

It's estimated by human rights groups that 5000 honor killings happen each year.

Believers are literally getting away with murder. Not figuratively. Literally.

And that's right now.

If you look back at history it's even worse. Inquisition, Stalinism, North Korea, Ireland, Crusades, you name it.


This is a thought experiment I like to propose:
Imagine there is a time/space machine which automatically teleports you to a major city at a random time in the past. Once you get there, you have to go to the center of the city square and yell out "I used to agree with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority, but not anymore. Now I find those beliefs laughable. Going forward, I will discuss by newfound skepticism with your children".

Here is the game: If you survive saying that, you win. If you get incarcerated, beaten, burned at the stake, tortured, beheaded, hanged or disemboweled, you lose.

Would you be ok with your children getting into that time machine and playing that game?


What's my point? Throughout most of the world and most of history, disagreeing with the dogmatic beliefs of the majority (Christianity, Islam, Stalinism, Kim Jung Un veneration, Holiness of Japanese Emperor, holines of Pharaoh, Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, ecc) was and still is the most dangerous social behavior a human being could engage in.

If you are a mass murderer who killed people at least once a month for the last 10 years, it's not very reassuring if you tell me "What? I didn't kill anybody in this neighborhood in the last 7 days. I'm a changed man. There's nothing to fear".

Similarly, dogmatic people throughout the world and throughout history have systematically murderered, tortured and persecuted those who didn't believe in their dogma (either because they were skeptics or because they believed a different dogma). Now, very recently and for the first time, in very isolated pockets of civilization such as America and Europe, there is an exception to the rule that has been applied for the last 6000 years throughout the globe. And you expect me relax, and enjoy the fact that I'm not being persecuted right this minute?

Now as far as you saying,

that's not how human biology works

I absolutely agree with you on that statement, without a doubt. But, if there is a God, who created us out of nothing, along with the universe, do you think it would be possible that He is not bound by the laws of the universe?

Sure. IF an entity that could bend the natural laws existed, then the natural laws could be bent.

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Think about it. You're saying "That which is impossible could be possible if we assume that that which isn't true, is true".

You know that an argument is bunk when it can be used to justify laughable propositions just as well as it can be used to justify your religious belief.

You can say "Virgin births are impossible, but they could happen if an entity (Yahweh) that can make the impossible possible existed".

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Allah) that can make the impossible possible existed"

In the exact same way you could say "Delivering gifts to millions of children in a single night on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer is impossible, but it could happen if an entity (Santa) that can make the impossible possible existed".

I do NOT mean to compare your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I just wish to point out within the narrow scope of my argument, that your position regarding the virgin birth is untenable, in that the very same argument you use to justify it, can also be used to justify equally succesfully the existence of Mohammed's flying horse or Santa's flying reindeer.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am in no way comparing your religious beliefs to Islam or to Santa. I believe that I have the right to if I want to, but I am nonetheless not doing it. I am just making a very narrow point about how your argument is not valid because it can be used to justify patently false things just as well as it can be used to justify your belief.

You seem to believe that if we could rid the world of religion, the world would be a safer place. Let me assure you it would not be! There are killings, and murder occurring everyday, all day, that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion! These things occur because we as humans are naturally selfish! If you do not believe this, then I would ask you, "how many children do you have to teach to be selfish?" You do not have to teach any of them how to be selfish because we are all born selfish! This is the reason a child has to be trained in how, not to be selfish. My point is, ridding the world of religion would not in any way have an effect on how safe we would be, the only way to ensure safety would be to rid the world of selfishness! Good luck with that one!

It's not religion that is the problem, in my opinion. It's dogmatism. Beliefs based not on a pragmatic examination of the evidence, but on herd mentality and mental lazyness.

Granted, Abrahamic religions are the most notorious form of dogmatic thought, but not the only ones. Stalinism, extreme patriotism, tribalism, racism, are also manifestations of the same problem.

I don't think that it ever happened once that a person with sociopolitical influence was able to mobilize the masses to do acts of unspeakable cruelty or horror, because the people had a tendency to question leadership too much, require too much evidence in support of any statement, and applied too much reason and critical thought to the analysis of the evidence.

It is true that humans have an innate element of selfishness. But they also have an innate sense of compassion and solidarity. In a healthy person, the two are balanced.

In conclusion, I would put to you the famous question by the late Mr. Hitchens. Can you think of any morally good deed or statement that could be made by a religious person, that couldn't also be made by a non-religious one? No.

In reverse, can you think of any morally wicked deed that would be made by a religious person, that would never be made by a non-religious one? Yes.

Is there any reason to believe that such an entity exists or that such bendings of natural law ever happen? NO.

Well, let me assure you, this is simply your opinion! I certainly beg to differ! I am not a Christian because I want to be, rather I believe there is reason to believe that Christianity is true!

Ok, so what is that reason?

You make a mistake when you say,

But in the exact same way you can say "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven is impossible,

NO! I have not in any way said that was impossible! My question is not at all whether it is possible or not, rather my question is, whether it is true! There is a huge, (very huge), difference! You are the one who is saying, "it is impossible!" Along with saying, "it is impossible for a donkey to talk, or a virgin to give birth." I am saying that, all of the above is possible, including, "Mohammed riding a flying white horse to heaven." I would also include that is "possible that I am wrong!" My question to you is, "is it possible that you could be wrong?" If your answer is, "NO!" My question then would be, "which one of us is in the real world?"

Ok, let's say that the talking donkey, and the virgin birth, and the flying horse, and the flying reindeer, and the spiderman, are all potentially possible.

If you stretch your imagination enough, it's easy enough to imagine that they do. You could say that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes and part of a multiverse. The conditions in each universe are different. If there is an infinite number of universes, it's inevitable that at least one exists in which reindeer can fly and women give birth without losing their virginity.

Or maybe you could say that reality as we perceive it is just a simulation a la Matrix. Such a simulation could be the product of the imagination of a being outside of it, much like talking donkeys are the product of the imagination of.... us. If we allow that the simulation that we call our universe is real, then to be consistent we must allow that things we imagine are, in some sense, real as well.

So, sure, we can say that anything is possible.

Your claim is that the virgin birth isn't just hypothetically possible in an esoteric, new-age, trying-to-pick-up-a-hippie-girl kind of way. You're saying that as well as being possible, it actually happened in reality, in an ordinary sense. You're saying that 9 months before a baby was born in a cave in Jerusalem, a woman got pregnant without sperm cells being involved.

There is some pretty strong evidence against that, and less evidence for it than there is for Elvis being still alive. So I ask you again. For what reason do you believe that Mary was a virgin?

Okay, so you have asked me, "why it is that I believe?" Well allow me to ask you, why is that you do not believe? Do you really believe you could do it justice here in this format?

Yes, I can. It really is quite simple.

The reason I don't believe in the talking donkey, the talking snake, the flying horse, the flying reindeer, the virgin birth, the rain of frogs, the man who was bit by a radioactive spider and got superpowers, the man standing on clouds throwing spears of lightning at the earth, the alien spaceship hiding behind a comet, etc, etc, etc, is very very simple, and is always the same:

Overwhelmingly strong empirical, verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable, discrete, reliable, convergent evidence against these claims, and no good evidence for these claims.

I told you why I don't believe in any of these stories, in 20 words.

You believe in some of those stories, and disbelieve the others. Now tell me why.

Surely, you have more reasons for your unbelief than the virgin birth, talking donkey, etc. Certainly, you have put more thought into it than that! In fact, above you go into detail speaking of those who are lazy thinkers, and simply follow the herd when you say,

Granted, Abrahamic religions are the most notorious form of dogmatic thought, but not the only ones. Stalinism, extreme patriotism, tribalism, racism, are also manifestations of the same problem.

I don't think that it ever happened once that a person with sociopolitical influence was able to mobilize the masses to do acts of unspeakable cruelty or horror, because the people had a tendency to question leadership too much, require too much evidence in support of any statement, and applied too much reason and critical thought to the analysis of the evidence.

Now, I agree with what you have said here, therefore, if I am not one of those lazy thinkers, who are easily lead, and simply follow the herd, then wouldn't you think that it would be impossible for me to give you the reasons for my belief, here in this format? As I have said in the past, "it would take a book volume!" But allow me to give you an example of how I do not follow the herd in my thinking. You have cited Hitchens here,

Can you think of any morally good deed or statement that could be made by a religious person, that couldn't also be made by a non-religious one? No.

In reverse, can you think of any morally wicked deed that would be made by a religious person, that would never be made by a non-religious one? Yes.

Now, many Christians would attempt to defend the actions of religious people, and also attempt to defend the actions of the characters in the Bible as somehow being moral. The problem as I see it with these many Christians, and with Hitchens himself is that they have lumped Christianity in with religion. While religion is motivated, and concerned, by, and with morality, and teaching it's adherents how to be moral, this is not the concern at all with Christianity. Christianity, is not concerned at all with teaching us how to be moral, how to have a better life, or how to fix our problems! Rather Christianity is concerned with explaining to us we are immoral, and there are no good deeds we can do to reverse this. The Bible tells us, "our works are as filthy rags!" Just as Adam, and Eve attempted to correct their problem by sewing fig leaves together, our attempts to better ourselves, and ascend the ladder to God by our works is futile! With all of this being the case, I would not be surprised in any way to find Christians acting in an immoral way, seeing as how we are all immoral.

In short, rather than teaching us how to be moral, Christianity encourages us to let go of our own efforts of morality. The bad news, according to the Bible is, we are not and cannot be moral, however the Good News, (Gospel), is that God has made a way to save the immoral.

Now, as I said above, there are many Christians, in fact I would even say most Christians who have also lumped Christianity in with religion. They believe they have somehow obtained morality by their behavior! As I hope you can see, I am not a member of that herd, and have been able to see beyond the masses!

To answer your question about tired of the nonsense being the universe, he has made this statement else where! I'll answer the rest later!

Ok, so you agree with Hitchen's thesis that the net effect of the existence of dogmatism is the creation of additional evil that would not otherwise exist, and no creation of additional good becuase it would exist even without religion.

Therefore at the net, dogmatism (including of course religion) is a force for evil.

So, tell me again why this force for evil is a good thing?

Do we agree that "evil" and "good" are words which mean the opposite of each other?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 53 by Realworldjack]

Well let us see then who is in fantasy land! You continue to make dogmatic statements, as if just because you make these statements dogmatically they are somehow true. You see, I understand that neither you, or I, will be able to prove our position absolutely, rather all we can do is look at the evidence we have, and come to our conclusion based on the evidence. In the end, all we are doing is giving the reasons for our position, we are not in any way proving our position!

dogma
[dawg-muh, dog-]
Examples Word Origin
noun, plural dogmas or (Rare) dogmata [dawg-muh-tuh] (Show IPA)
1. an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church.
Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption;
the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility.
Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group:
the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle:



Humans do not reproduce by asexual means, much in the same way that corpses do not return to life and then fly away. These are certain facts, known to a high degree of reliability, based on all observation and experience. To maintain that there "could" be processes by which they "could" occur is much like claiming that "if" there is a God who can do anything, then anything is possible. You can imagine conditions by which it is possible for asexual human reproduction to occur, or for corpses to become reanimated and fly. What you cannot do is establish that these things actually occur in any physical way. Weighing against your claim, the beliefs that you imagine to be true, is the experience and observation by humans throughout the course of human history that humans do not reproduce asexually, and that corpses do not come back to life and fly away. Weighing in favor of your claim that these things occurred is your solemn assurance that these things are true because you have a book that says so, and because this is what you have been taught your entire life to accept unconditionally. Fantasyland, I submit to you, is to be found in the things that can be IMAGINED to be true, and not in the physical world of cold, hard facts. It's also found in Disneyland, and I enjoy Disneyland very much.

You have looked at the evidence, and have come to the conclusion that, "you are the universe contemplating itself!" While I have no problem with you believing, you are the universe, I have come to a different conclusion. The difference seems to be, I understand the possibility of my error! You on the other hand, being the "UNIVERSE," are probably not in error!

Humans are made up of the same elements that compose the stars and the planets. We generically refer to this stuff as "matter." We have no reason to suppose that the stars and the planets have the capacity to contemplate themselves however. Human beings DO have that capacity though, and we we are made up of the very same material that comprises the matter of the universe. We are ALL OF US the universe contemplating itself. Of all the species that we know of only humans have the technological capacity to understand the principles upon which the universe operates. Some of us attempt to understand what the universe has to tell us by employing careful techniques of observation and experimentation through the use of increasingly more sophisticated technology. While others of us prefer to make up conclusions in their heads, and then to declare those conclusions to be true. And with a modicum of training, this second group of people can, sometimes, actually be trained to use some of the technological devices conceived of and developed by the first group. This despite the fact that those in the second group often vehemently deny the truth of the science that make their working devices possible.

[goodwithoutgod]

I always find it interesting when the faithful posit that you need religion ot have morals. The Catholic church has always taught faith must be the source of how its members act both in their personal lives and out in the world. (Stewart 283)

Contrary to popular belief, the correlation of religious belief and morality do not go the way you would surmise. There is a direct correlation between religious belief and bad morals/crime, not the opposite. The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted," suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. This is an ignorant, and uneducated view when you consider the facts.

Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California, in his article, "Is Faith Good For Us" states the following: "A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute."

A study by Gregory S. Paul, entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was done and the study's conclusion was that there was an inverse relationship between religion and poor societal health rates. What that means is that the higher the level of religious belief in a country, the lower the level of societal health (more violent crimes, suicides, teen pregnancies, etc.).

When we look at US prison population, the largest religiosity group are Christians at about 70%, even though they represent about 55% of US population overall. The smallest religiosity group are non-religious at about .02%, even though they represent about 25% of US population overall. There is also a direct correlation between the decline in overall crime, and the decline in religiosity in America over the last 10 years. Coincidence?

So it seems that a plethora of evidence exists to show that not only do we not need religion in our lives to be good humans, but that having it in our lives can be counter-productive and unhealthy.

So religion is an interesting thought exercise for those who wish to dabble, and can be included in philosophy where one can imagine all types of really cool things, like wouldn't it be cool if...

Religion isn't needed to have good morals. While the facts above seem to suggest that religious belief leads to bad morals, I don't truly think that applies in most cases, but certainly the perspective that atheism leads to low morals is clearly a false posit. With or without religion bad people will do bad things, good people will do good things, but for good people to do bad things usually takes religion....or at least the literal interpretation of its "holy book".

First, The data could hardly be clearer. Denmark and Sweden rank among the most well-developed, wealthiest, most democratic, most free, most entrepreneurial, least corrupt, least violent, most peaceful, healthiest, happiest, most egalitarian, best educated, most charitable, and most environmentally compassionate societies in the entire world. As of the 2008 United Nations Human Development Report, which ranks nations on a measure of human development (long and healthy life, education, and standard of living), Denmark is 14th and Sweden is 6th. (In contrast, the 50 least-developed nations are all highly religious.) Another summary measure is The Economists Quality of Life Index, which ranks Denmark and Sweden 9th and 5th in the world.

Sweden and Denmark are ranked 17th and 18th in GDP per capita, according to the International Monetary Fund. In fact, the list of the top 20 wealthiest nations in the world is dominated by non-religious nations. Denmark and Sweden rank 3rd and 10th in financial satisfaction. Also note that among the 50 poorest countries on Earth, all are extremely religious. It seems the poorer and destitute you are, I guess you need something to cling to in a belief that there has to be something better on the horizon, after death. Also, Transparency International ranks Denmark and Sweden as the 1st and 4th least corrupt nations on earth.

Denmark and Sweden both rank low in murders per capita. Both Fox & Levin (2000) and Fajnzylber et. al. (2002) found that all the nations with high homicide rates were extremely religious, and that the nations with the lowest homicide rates tended to be relatively non-religious. Clearly, religion is not required to sustain healthy, happy, and moral societies. By the way, none of this is meant to suggest that atheism causes healthy societies. The correlation between atheism and societal health merely debunks Christian claims that religion is a necessary ingredient in a healthy society. If there is a causal link between the two at all, I would suspect the reverse: that happiness, success, wealth, education, and security tend to open the door for an abandonment of superstitious crutches.

In fact, most Danes and Swedes dont even believe in the notion of sin. Almost nobody in Denmark and Sweden believes that the bible is divine in origin. ..and the rate of weekly church attendance in these Nordic nations is the lowest on earth (Zuckerman 6). Some Danes and Swedes identify themselves as Christians at birth due to old traditions, but have zero belief, and/or do not participate in the religion on any level. Some old traditions die hard, and that explains why some still identify themselves as Christians in name only.

Religion borrowed common perceived good moral standards as the magical gods moral standards. Ethics and morality came first, because religion has not always existed. However, the human conscience has. For example, secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Additional philosophies with ancient roots include those such as skepticism and virtue ethics. Greg M. Epstein states that, "much of ancient Far Eastern thought is deeply concerned with human goodness without placing much if any stock in the importance of gods or spirits. Other philosophers have proposed various ideas about how to determine right and wrong actions. An example is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: "The idea that actions can only be considered moral if they could be imitated by anyone else and produce good results. Mankind has been around hundreds of thousands of years before religion, those basic safety-centric morals developed by our ancient ancestors over time developed into societal norms and models of expected behavior. Religion came along much later, and absorbed those in its teachings.

If you could jump in a time machine and go back to an ancient secular civilization, you would find the same basic principles of appropriate, morally acceptable behavior as we find todayall without religion. The far east, as I mentioned before is an excellent example. There is no correlation between religious belief and good morals. That is the urban myth, but the reality shows different data. I would submit to you that in my opinion, perhaps a reason for that is...well in regards to christian belief, if you truly believe you can do what you want, and then just pray for forgiveness, that is kind of an endless blank check now isn't it?


Work cited:

Stewart, Cynthia., The Catholic church: a brief popular history. Winona, Mn: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2008. Print.

Zuckerman, Phil. Society without god. New York, New York University press, 2008. Print.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Now y'all, these folks are 'parently citizens of the nation of Gibber, and I'd ask that just cause they are, well that's no reason to insult 'em just for that.

But what I came to tell...


[youtube][/youtube]



Edit: Now that's a bit odd, I couldn't make the youtube tag work quite right. So I made the link a normal link as well. /Edit

Religion should not expect preferential treatment in the marketplace of ideas.

I propose the greatest fear, is the fear of insulting those whose notions are an insult to their own demand for respect.

I propose there should be no comfort for those who promote slander and division in the name of a god they are utterly incapable of showing to have an opinion.

[Zzyzx]

.

Religion should not expect preferential treatment in the marketplace of ideas.

Our resident Country Gentleman does it again -- hits the nail squarely with a country hammer.

No religion should be shown preferential treatment. None can be shown to be anything more than personal preference, opinion, conjecture, and imagination based on testimonials, ancient unverifiable tales, and emotional / psychological episodes.

Religions which are majorities or monopolies should be strongly constrained from attempting to inflict their beliefs, "morals", rituals, or preferences on others by force of law or by coercion (including undue social pressure).