Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[SuperFerret]

I really have to take a step back in wonder, at just how profoundly anti-intellectual and lazy this stance is.

Rationality and the scientific method is humanity's best way of looking at the world.

If we ignored the rational in favour of emotion, if we took things on faith instead of objective and thorough analysis, where would we be?

Poor Galileo had to challenge ignorant, emotive faith based beliefs that the world was flat.

People once believed that mental illness, or even many physical kinds of illness, were forms of demonic possession. They don't have to explain it rationally, its just faith

Rationality is the problem?

No. Quite the opposite.

You REALLY don't get it.

 

[DBryan]

What do you believe and practice, as a buddhist?

 

[DBryan]

You REALLY don't get it.

Kind of proving my point when I said that your stance is lazy.

Essentially you don't HAVE to defend what you believe with any kind of argument at all.

You can just say "I believe it because I believe it". Which is circular reasoning.

But your belief then, is no more valid than any other belief. Your belief is no more valid than someone who believes that mental illness is demonic possession, or that Cthulhu exists, or that leprechauns exist.

As Bill O'Reilly once said, tide goes in tide goes out.

 

[SuperFerret]

That's a long post, and one I don't have time to make, but I do have a question for you.

Based on your post I quoted above, you seem to think that I'm talking about something more than one person's personal faith, why is that?

 

[DBryan]

I don't understand your question. Explain.

 

[SuperFerret]

Kind of proving my point when I said that your stance is lazy.

Essentially you don't HAVE to defend what you believe with any kind of argument at all.

You can just say "I believe it because I believe it". Which is circular reasoning.

But your belief then, is no more valid than any other belief. Your belief is no more valid than someone who believes that mental illness is demonic possession, or that Cthulhu exists, or that leprechauns exist.

As Bill O'Reilly once said, tide goes in tide goes out.

And you're proving more and more that you just don't get it and that ignorance isn't exclusive to the religious.

"I believe it because I believe it" is no worse than "I don't like the taste of mayonnaise because I don't like the taste of mayonnaise."


AND REALLY, who cares if someone believes that leprechauns or Cthulhu or flippin' Superman exist!?

The ONLY way that matters is if they let that one aspect of who they are reign supreme and try to push it on others, and that is NOT the fault of anything or anyone but the person themselves.

 

[DBryan]

Hey, I'm not the one who said that rationality is the problem, I'm not the ignorant one here. I'm asking you perfectly valid questions, raising perfectly valid points. There's no reason to get uppity. If you're offended by having your beliefs challenged, too bad.

Your last statement indicates that you think there should be limitations on the practices of faith. Why?

Could it be, oh gee I dunno, because that would be RATIONAL?

That a person who believes that mental illness is demonic possession putting that belief into practice would lead to very impractical results?

How we explain existence, why and how we are here, how we should live our lives, morality, what happens after death...

These philosophical questions are somewhat more complex than personal taste, than whether or not someone likes mayonnaise.

Logic, reason, the rational, can help us answer the big questions, can help us challenge previous badly thought out misconceptions (like the world being flat).

 

[SuperFerret]

I don't understand your question. Explain.

I really have to take a step back in wonder, at just how profoundly anti-intellectual and lazy this stance is.

Rationality and the scientific method is humanity's best way of looking at the world. (Also, this is making a judgement call, and they should be avoided.

If we ignored the rational in favour of emotion, if we took things on faith instead of objective and thorough analysis, where would we be? Define "we". "We" as a collective? Or "We" individually? I'm only talking about the latter.

Poor Galileo had to challenge ignorant, emotive Institutionalized faith based beliefs that the world was flat. Good for him. I just had to add that one key word you were missing.

People once believed that mental illness, or even many physical kinds of illness, were forms of demonic possession. They don't have to explain it rationally, its just faith The lack of scientific knowledge of the time hindered them. It does not hinder us now. Even the most religious person today would take a sick person to a hospital or psychologist long before calling in an exorcist. That's not a question of emotion vs. reason, it's a question of what the culture is.

Rationality is the problem?

No. Quite the opposite.

Is this explaining it? Because I really have somewhere to be right now.

 

[SuperFerret]

Hey, I'm not the one who said that rationality is the problem, I'm not the ignorant one here. I'm asking you perfectly valid questions, raising perfectly valid points. There's no reason to get uppity. If you're offended by having your beliefs challenged, too bad.

Your last statement indicates that you think there should be limitations on the practices of faith. Why?

Could it be, oh gee I dunno, because that would be RATIONAL?

That a person who believes that mental illness is demonic possession putting that belief into practice would lead to very impractical results?

How we explain existence, why and how we are here, how we should live our lives, morality, what happens after death...

These philosophical questions are somewhat more complex than personal taste, than whether or not someone likes mayonnaise.

Logic, reason, the rational, can help us answer the big questions, can help us challenge previous badly thought out misconceptions (like the world being flat).

Fine. You're right. I'm wrong. And that's cool.

Now, me? I feel the opposite. Guess what? Like the "big questions", these opposite opinions we have don't matter.

Have a nice day.



Oh, and just to clarify, because I'm kind of concerned with my reputation around these parts for some reason, I'm not against rationality, and I never said I was. I think most people who can read and understand things figured that out.

 

[DBryan]

If an individual believes that 2 + 2 = 5, then that individual is wrong.

I don't see why you place faith up on a pedestal as something that is simply down to personal preference, and on the individual basis should not be challenged.

My statement that the scientific method is the best way of looking at the world (to date its the most proven and practical way of thinking about the world) is a fact, not a 'judgement call'.

It's not just the individual though, there are wider social implications today in the 21st century of faith over the rational.

The lack of scientific knowledge of the time hindered them. It does not hinder us now. Even the most religious person today would take a sick person to a hospital or psychologist long before calling in an exorcist. That's not a question of emotion vs. reason, it's a question of what the culture is.

We ARE hindered today, by people of faith.

Abstinence only sex education? Study after study shows that it doesn't work and yet it gets millions and millions in funding?

Creationist museums?

People teaching creationism over evolution?

We are, as a wider society, hindered by faith over reason.

 

[SuperFerret]

And I really was definitely always talking about that. Gotcha.

 

[DBryan]

I think you're failing to realise the importance of challenging individual beliefs. Your argument is all over the place.

You make an argument that faith isn't about what is rational and rational arguments shouldn't be used to challenge faith.

And then you put a limitation on the practice of faith - "as long as they don't try to push it on others".

But you don't really seem to acknowledge the rational reasoning behind that. You've exposed hypocrisy within your own argument.

Whether we're talking about the individual or talking about wider society, we're talking about the same thing. Personal beliefs should be challenged.

Also, the way you talk about the past is confused. You put lack of scientific understanding in the past down to 'culture' without acknowledging that the reason science has gotten better, medical science as a particular example, is because of culture going more towards the rational over the irrational. You used the word 'institutionalized' as if that changes the argument, whether its individual irrationality or institutionalized irrationality, they're both wrong. In fact, you can make the argument that one leads to the other.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

I do love whenever I hear people try and reduce religious belief of any kind to, "now, listen. We've moved past that, but the idea of a god's comforting and that's why its still around you guys, srsly."

I don't think it's really that simple, and there are far more interesting and profound reasons why the belief in a god of any kind persists with human beings past all types of societal revolution; if you ask any person who's taken the time to educate themselves about whatever faith they've chosen - because it's as useless to ask Joe Pleb about this as it is to ask those dyed-black-hair skinny jean wearing high schoolers why they chose to be an atheist - they will give you a reasonably well thought-out philosophical and even scientific explanation for their belief in a god.

I can give you mine. Just ask.

Consider yourself asked. What deity or deities do you believe in?

You're basically checking things off a list here. Faith is irrational but emotional, then it must be meaningless to anyone who has their emotional needs filled. Check. Irrationality leads to ignorance and bigotry. Check.

You don't get it, and you probably won't get it, because you're rationalizing it here too. I believe what I believe because it feels right and it makes sense to me. Simple as that.


Also, it might open the door for ignorance and bigotry, but you've got to choose to walk through that door. Even when I was kind of Christian, I didn't let that affect my scientific beliefs, and being a bigot is more the person's fault for *****ebaggery than it is the fault of what they believe. That being said, I think the other big issue in this discussion is the over-generalization of people based on their beliefs.

Why does it make sense to you? What deity or deities do you believe in?

And you're proving more and more that you just don't get it and that ignorance isn't exclusive to the religious.

"I believe it because I believe it" is no worse than "I don't like the taste of mayonnaise because I don't like the taste of mayonnaise."


AND REALLY, who cares if someone believes that leprechauns or Cthulhu or flippin' Superman exist!?

The ONLY way that matters is if they let that one aspect of who they are reign supreme and try to push it on others, and that is NOT the fault of anything or anyone but the person themselves.

Those two statements are extremely different. First of all, I don't like the taste of mayo because I don't like the taste of mayo is OK. It's hard, if not impossible, to explain why we like or don't like a particular taste or smell. Perhaps it reminds us of another taste or smell we don't like, but then we'd have to explain why we don't like that one. I like the taste of chocolate. I don't like the taste of salmon. I can't explain these statements. I just know whenever chocolate touches my tongue I find it pleasant, and the opposite when it comes to salmon. I could say my brain secretes certain chemicals when I taste these foods, but then, why? And why those chemicals and not others?

Now, I believe it because I believe it is totally different. You're saying you believe something is true. We're not talking here about a lump of mayo. You're saying you believe there's a god. That some divine being created the universe and everyone and everything in it. Well you've gotta have a reason for that. You weren't born believing that. When you were an infant you'd never heard of god. You must have been told something, or experienced something (has to have started with the former), to make you believe that there is a god.

Fine. You're right. I'm wrong. And that's cool.

Now, me? I feel the opposite. Guess what? Like the "big questions", these opposite opinions we have don't matter.

Have a nice day.



Oh, and just to clarify, because I'm kind of concerned with my reputation around these parts for some reason, I'm not against rationality, and I never said I was. I think most people who can read and understand things figured that out.

You're not defending your beliefs. Why not? If they're important to you, and I'm assuming they are, why not defend them?

 

[redhawk23]

Even when I was kind of Christian, I didn't let that affect my scientific beliefs

Hey not criticizing you here at all, just an honest question, but doesn't that kind of represent a bit of cognitive dissonance?

 

[Jerry Siegel]

Hey not criticizing you here at all, just an honest question, but doesn't that kind of represent a bit of cognitive dissonance?

Faith is cognitive dissonance.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

You're talking about myths and legends. I never said anything about any particular myths or legends. I'm not saying that it is possible that any heard-of god exists. I'm saying that it is possible that a god exists. It is perfectly rational for you to believe that a myth or a legend is made-up ********. It is perfectly irrational of you to say that, just because none of them are true, there is no god.

I never said that at all...

I said that believing there is NO God is only as irrational as believing there are NO fairies.

I am simply tired of the hypocrasy of people who would argue till their blue in the face that of course Faires don't exist, but when someone does the same about God, it's 'You can't KNOW he doesn't exist'.

They two things are equally unknowable IMO from a certain stand point.

As are many other things, including the existence of anything but yourself if your going to get philosophical (I think, therefore I am).

But I BELIEVE there is no God, for the same logical reasons that I believe there is no heaven, no devil, no angels, no faires, no leprachauns and no never never land.

That shouldn't be considered irrational just because atheists draw most of their conclusion from proof, and those things cannot be DISPROVED.

Sometimes it's just about being realistic, logical and not emotionally influenced when looking at all the facts we do have, that seem to suggest that such fantasy creatures aren't likely to exist and are much more likely to have been a primitive human notion that has developed throughout the growth of society and culture.

 

[Dr.]

In some detail, L. Ron Hubbard described the colorfully interesting theology that fortifies Scientology.

Now, for the sake of argument (and this is totally hypothetical of course ), let’s imagine that Hubbard just made it all up – it’s fiction. Can we say nothing at all about this? Does a post-modern deference to asserted “truths” prevent us from formulating any criticism or skepticism? Alternatively, if we are allowed to make our rational arguments against Scientology, by what pretext are similar arguments not applicable to, say, Christianity, Islam or generic notions of a “higher power”?

In other words, how do we tell the difference between the real invisible gods and the fake invisible gods? A scrupulously objective agnosticism that reserves judgment on all manner of oddball claims doesn’t sound like a particularly robust system of thinking.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

I never said that at all...

I said that believing there is NO God is only as irrational as believing there are NO fairies.

I am simply tired of the hypocrasy of people who would argue till their blue in the face that of course Faires don't exist, but when someone does the same about God, it's 'You can't KNOW he doesn't exist'.

They two things are equally unknowable IMO from a certain stand point.

As are many other things, including the existence of anything but yourself if your going to get philosophical (I think, therefore I am).

But I BELIEVE there is no God, for the same logical reasons that I believe there is no heaven, no devil, no angels, no faires, no leprachauns and no never never land.

That shouldn't be considered irrational just because atheists draw most of their conclusion from proof, and those things cannot be DISPROVED.

Sometimes it's just about being realistic, logical and not emotionally influenced when looking at all the facts we do have, that seem to suggest that such fantasy creatures aren't likely to exist and are much more likely to have been a primitive human notion that has developed throughout the growth of society and culture.

You're lumping all those different myths in with each other. I don't do that. I class most of them differently. To me, believing in fairies or leprechauns is a different type of belief to believing in god.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

In some detail, L. Ron Hubbard described the colorfully interesting theology that fortifies Scientology.

Now, for the sake of argument (and this is totally hypothetical of course ), let’s imagine that Hubbard just made it all up – it’s fiction. Can we say nothing at all about this? Does a post-modern deference to asserted “truths” prevent us from formulating any criticism or skepticism? Alternatively, if we are allowed to make our rational arguments against Scientology, by what pretext are similar arguments not applicable to, say, Christianity, Islam or generic notions of a “higher power”?

In other words, how do we tell the difference between the real invisible gods and the fake invisible gods? A scrupulously objective agnosticism that reserves judgment on all manner of oddball claims doesn’t sound like a particularly robust system of thinking.

Are you addressing anyone in particular?

 

[redhawk23]

Faith is cognitive dissonance.

Perhaps, but a certain amount is necessary to even get out bed in the morning I'd argue.

 

[redhawk23]

You're lumping all those different myths in with each other. I don't do that. I class most of them differently. To me, believing in fairies or leprechauns is a different type of belief to believing in god.

The role they play in culture is certainly different as well as the personal meaning entailed. However for the purpose of examining validity of claims, or their worth as proof or support for an argument it amounts to about the same.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

Perhaps, but a certain amount is necessary to even get out bed in the morning I'd argue.

OK. Please do so.

The role they play in culture is certainly different as well as the personal meaning entailed. However for the purpose of examining validity of claims, or their worth as proof or support for an argument it amounts to about the same.

Because the beliefs about them are different, I believe that the ways you would go about proving or disproving them are different.

 

[redhawk23]

But their veracity boils down to the same argument.

They're all just Incorporeal Invisible Pink Unicorns in the end.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

But their veracity boils down to the same argument.

They're all just Incorporeal Invisible Pink Unicorns in the end.

I just view the issue as more complex than that, but maybe that's just me.

 

[redhawk23]

OK. Please do so.

Basically the line of thought goes, if you are going to only support things that you can absolutely prove to be true then the only assertion you can really support to the fullest extent of that argument is that your consciousness exists in some way, that something is thinking your thoughts, even if it isn't what you identify as "you."

The acceptance that the world exists is ultimately a leap of faith.

We take this for granted though and go on with our day.

More so is the underlying philosophic assertion of science that we live in a rational and predictable universe. That's ultimately not 100% provable. While we certainly do recognize and exploit patterns, we often assume that they are absolute. However, we humans are also very adept at finding patterns, that while they might exist aren't really significant. We often can find patterns simply because we want to and can go to far extremes to make things fit. Things like the number 23 for instance. While that's an extreme case, that sort of behavior underlies much of what we do.