Thoughts on Religion and the State

[Xant]

The mind is an emergent property of the brain.

[Weren]

I was talking about how it's good that I don't doubt my beliefs because who would I be if I was someone who didn't even trust the things I stand for as a person?

A more honest man for one, both to yourself and others. If you have doubts about something, you face those doubts. If you have good reason and evidence to counter your beliefs, you don't stand up for those beliefs. It takes some courage to admit your mistakes(especially when it has been such a major part of who you are), but that's the way to learn and move forward.

[_schizo321437]

Dear God, today I was very bad girl, murdered a few guys, raped a few others, robbed one church, but I've heard it doesn't matter how good I am if I have You in my heart and I do, I really do. So... Will you forgive me? I hope you will, otherwise I will stop believing in you.

There're people who don't think about religion, about its roots and genuineness, they just believe. Because that's what their parents do, that's how they were brought up, because of surrounding them culture, tradition and so on. THey neither ask questions nor have doubts. And to some extent I can understand their approach and thier belief in ridiculous fairy tales about crucified son of god. But I definitely can not understand how someone who actually thinks about religion, tries to analyze all this bullshit, doesn't get to the conlusion that's what it is: bullshit. Myths, no different than those about Zeus and the rest of gods from pantheon. Just don't get it how your mind works...

 

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Jarold]

Dear God, today I was very bad girl, murdered a few guys, raped a few others, robbed one church, but I've heard it doesn't matter how good I am if I have You in my heart and I do, I really do. So... Will you forgive me? I hope you will, otherwise I will stop believing in you.

I can't forgive you, but God can and He will. Did you not read what I wrote?   

Yes, big surprise. Jarold still hasn't provided evidence of the dinosaur DNA that was the whole basis of his DNA decay argument.

Spoiler: that's because he was making it up.

You're right huge blunder on my part. I should've been talking about dino bone cells and protein. Honestly I don't like discussing things with you because you're a rude person.

[Falka]

I can't forgive you, but God can and He will. Did you not read what I wrote?   

Dear God, today I was very bad girl, murdered a few guys, raped a few others, robbed one church, but I've heard it doesn't matter how good I am if I have You in my heart and I do, I really do. So... Will you forgive me? I hope you will, otherwise I will stop believing in you.

I was talking to the God, in hope he reads these forums

:

[Xant]

You're right huge blunder on my part. I should've been talking about dino bone cells and protein. Honestly I don't like discussing things with you because you're a rude person.

I'm rude to rude people. Like The Phantom. Old Jungle Saying: The Phantom is rough with rough-necks.

[_schizo321437]

I was talking to the God, in hope he reads these forums
 :

fixed

[Kafein]

What gives you the impression, the forming of an idear, wouldnt be random?
What does the later found legitemity of a "logical statement" has to do with the inspiration of the first acurance of it? As within this dialog, we swing around idears, concepts, believes, some may have been new to some of us, some not. Anyone who would have found those on his own, not originating from something he read or heared directly, would not have had at first also the certaintity that it is a) logical b) true or false, but would need to proove, test and fact check them.

Our brains are indeed random, or rather highly chaotic and therefore unpredictable. We are not capable of actually wiring logic in our brain, we just emulate it by learning semantic conversion rules of logic statements.

A more honest man for one, both to yourself and others. If you have doubts about something, you face those doubts. If you have good reason and evidence to counter your beliefs, you don't stand up for those beliefs. It takes some courage to admit your mistakes(especially when it has been such a major part of who you are), but that's the way to learn and move forward.

At a more basic level, there is nothing you should "stand up for" before questioning its validity. Standing up for something leads to political debate rather than scientific debate. People that stand up for whatever ideology seek to win the debate, not to find truth.

[Corsair831]

The reason he gets called an idiot is because he's behaving like one. I'm all for being nice and kind and kissing in the moonlight and happy happy fun time, but Jarold's not worth it. His debating style (and it's a stretch to call it debating) is gay, and on top of that, rude. So rudeness is what he gets in return. He stops making baseless claims and ignoring 99% of the arguments where he gets proven wrong, maybe he'll earn some politeness in return.

you have to consider it from a psychological perspective

we learn things we consider to be true from what we consider to be 'authority figures', which dictates how much truth we personally attribute to a piece of information. this is a lot more relevant in many cases (as with religions in the western world where information is freely available), than the validity of the information itself. imagine, his father, mother, uncles, aunties, brothers sisters, community leaders are all giving him a message (even though it's incorrect) that tells him one thing, it's very very hard to undo that shit.

even though you're right, it doesn't matter, because you are just 'a guy on the internet' to this guy, your credibility in his (or any religious person's) mind is very low. in order to change someone's mind about something they believe to be fact, you need a strong 'authority figure' (someone with information that the receiver deems as trustworthy).

so if his 'authority figures' suddenly started changing their message and telling him a new thing it might change his mind. but what you're doing, berating him, simply lowers your 'standing' in his mind (the religious guy), about the weight he gives to the information you're giving him. therefore by berating people you are actually alienating them from what we're trying to say.

this is why i always try to get religious people to self-educate more with a bit of gentle guidance when they're being "de-relion'd" (phrase copyright corsair 2013), because these religious people are far more likely to highly value the information of a variety of highly accredited and reknowned authors (note i said likely, not guaranteed to), than they are to regard what i am telling them, as i am just some schmuck.

Short Version: stop being an asshole, and people will listen to what you say

[kinngrimm]

you have to consider it from a psychological perspective

(click to show/hide)

we learn things we consider to be true from what we consider to be 'authority figures', which dictates how much truth we personally attribute to a piece of information. this is a lot more relevant in many cases (as with religions in the western world where information is freely available), than the validity of the information itself. imagine, his father, mother, uncles, aunties, brothers sisters, community leaders are all giving him a message (even though it's incorrect) that tells him one thing, it's very very hard to undo that shit.

one of the points i made much earlier, only because it stands in a book and is sold and read a million times, does not make it true. That but often is the tenor in casual discussions, such and such many christians cant be wrong ... or over thousands of years this is now the case and only because you come and say different ...
If you are in a point of a discussion, where the believer does not find arguments , but repeats parols, you need to give him time and not put him into the corner. Afterall we are just animals and would react devensivly, just let the information sinck in and hope that at a later point for an epiphany. This may now sound condescending for the christian folks at first, then again you can do it the other way round equaly ;)

I agree on the authority figure statement of importance and relevance to the frozen state of believes, although i disagree that that would be the only or even best solution to convince someone of a different way, not a bad way though neither. 'Stetig Tropfen höhlte den Stein', repetition is important too. As maybe experiences good or bad, where none believers would be helpfull with how and what they say and help through actions too. Live examplatory lives as none believers, then you may even become partly an authority figure you mentioned or just be a normal human being with all the inherint flaws, problems and struggles and still stand your ground in bad times as a none-believer =)

In the end, if religions don't adept, get rid of the BS put in books by some backwards minded sheperds(well 2000 years back they had been super hip ^^, but now a few of the values have a patina). If they don't adept, they will be exchanged or just cease to exist, simple as that, happened hundreds of times before, will happen again, no doubt there whatsoever.

Also when you look especially at cristianity, all the holy days in the year ... wich are different from country to country ^^ ... adaption for a broader publicum is what they do normaly, so there is hope for 'better/newer/uptodate' religions.

Trying not to be a dick, is for anyone who wants to make a point a good rule in my book.

[Xant]

you have to consider it from a psychological perspective

we learn things we consider to be true from what we consider to be 'authority figures', which dictates how much truth we personally attribute to a piece of information. this is a lot more relevant in many cases (as with religions in the western world where information is freely available), than the validity of the information itself. imagine, his father, mother, uncles, aunties, brothers sisters, community leaders are all giving him a message (even though it's incorrect) that tells him one thing, it's very very hard to undo that shit.

even though you're right, it doesn't matter, because you are just 'a guy on the internet' to this guy, your credibility in his (or any religious person's) mind is very low. in order to change someone's mind about something they believe to be fact, you need a strong 'authority figure' (someone with information that the receiver deems as trustworthy).

so if his 'authority figures' suddenly started changing their message and telling him a new thing it might change his mind. but what you're doing, berating him, simply lowers your 'standing' in his mind (the religious guy), about the weight he gives to the information you're giving him. therefore by berating people you are actually alienating them from what we're trying to say.

this is why i always try to get religious people to self-educate more with a bit of gentle guidance when they're being "de-relion'd" (phrase copyright corsair 2013), because these religious people are far more likely to highly value the information of a variety of highly accredited and reknowned authors (note i said likely, not guaranteed to), than they are to regard what i am telling them, as i am just some schmuck.

Short Version: stop being an asshole, and people will listen to what you say

I'm not trying to convert him. What he believes is his own business. So why would I care?

I'll stop being "an asshole" when he gets off his high horse and acknowledges the ten times he's been proven wrong in this thread instead of continuing to shout "no evidence!" Indeed, from a Bayesian perspective, the fact alone that he's failed so horribly so many times should be enough to substantially lower his confidence in his belief.

[Eugen]

Recently I read Sapkowski again. The speech of the druid somehow rememberde me on this discussion. The scene started with a bard telling a tale on a resting place with many travellers. After his recitation an argument of race, politic and believe started. Since the resting place was under an old an holy oak, which was tended by some druids, one of the druids emerged ans spoke as follows:

"We all are mother earths children", sounded the soft voice of the greyhaired druid. "We are children of mother nature. And still, although we disregard our mother, although we cause her pain and trouble and we break her heart, she loves us, loves us all. Let us remember this, all of us, who are assembeled here on this place of peacful gathering. Let us not argue who of us was the first to have rights on this place, becouse first the acorn seed got spilled here by a wave and from that seed this oak tree grew: Great Bleobheris, the oldest of oaks. If we stand beneath the mighty branches of Belobheris, between her timeless roots, wont we forget our own brothernly roots, which stem from the same earth as this tree."


Thats the kind of inherent religion that I mean, when I think of religion. A religion that looks for peace, truth and understanding. . Thinking, argument and dicussion must forever be free. And respect to eachother is mandatory in my set of believe.

Sorry for rough translation out of ther german translation of the polnish original and the non related post. Just thought it fits somehow.

[Corsair831]

one of the points i made much earlier, only because it stands in a book and is sold and read a million times, does not make it true. That but often is the tenor in casual discussions, such and such many christians cant be wrong ... or over thousands of years this is now the case and only because you come and say different ...
If you are in a point of a discussion, where the believer does not find arguments , but repeats parols, you need to give him time and not put him into the corner. Afterall we are just animals and would react devensivly, just let the information sinck in and hope that at a later point for an epiphany. This may now sound condescending for the christian folks at first, then again you can do it the other way round equaly ;)

I agree on the authority figure statement of importance and relevance to the frozen state of believes, although i disagree that that would be the only or even best solution to convince someone of a different way, not a bad way though neither. 'Stetig Tropfen höhlte den Stein', repetition is important too. As maybe experiences good or bad, where none believers would be helpfull with how and what they say and help through actions too. Live examplatory lives as none believers, then you may even become partly an authority figure you mentioned or just be a normal human being with all the inherint flaws, problems and struggles and still stand your ground in bad times as a none-believer =)

In the end, if religions don't adept, get rid of the BS put in books by some backwards minded sheperds(well 2000 years back they had been super hip ^^, but now a few of the values have a patina). If they don't adept, they will be exchanged or just cease to exist, simple as that, happened hundreds of times before, will happen again, no doubt there whatsoever.

Also when you look especially at cristianity, all the holy days in the year ... wich are different from country to country ^^ ... adaption for a broader publicum is what they do normaly, so there is hope for 'better/newer/uptodate' religions.

Trying not to be a dick, is for anyone who wants to make a point a good rule in my book.

oh yeah, i agree, i was just saying in a round-about way that people are more likely to be convinced by academics than idiots like myself
but yeah, repetition is very important when you're trying to persuade someone of anything you're right ^^

as for the guy saying religion will die out, to an extent (it's unlikely to ever die out completely), but like i say, so long as 'authority figures' are telling untruths to their impressionable children, it will take a very, very, very long time.

xant, i just think that what you're saying to him isn't really constructive, if you're teaching someone something it's ok to be a bit condescending, but you have to understand he's not being an asshole, people like this come from backgrounds where they hear lies every single day, it doesn't help your position if you're abrasive, you just have to show a little understanding to their situation whilst trying to change their minds. if you're not trying to convert him then why are you arguing with him. the whole point of an argument is to say you're right and he's wrong

[Xant]

xant, i just think that what you're saying to him isn't really constructive, if you're teaching someone something it's ok to be a bit condescending, but you have to understand he's not being an asshole, people like this come from backgrounds where they hear lies every single day, it doesn't help your position if you're abrasive, you just have to show a little understanding to their situation whilst trying to change their minds. if you're not trying to convert him then why are you arguing with him. the whole point of an argument is to say you're right and he's wrong

Actually, if you're teaching someone something without being asked to, being condescending is the worst thing you could do. I don't see what his "different background" has to do with him sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "CANT HEAR U CANT HEAR U NO EVIDENCE AAA DINOSAUR DNA".

Proving him wrong has nothing to do with conversion. None of us here are going to "convert" him, so why are you arguing with him?

[KingBread]

I agree with Kingrimm about hope for uptodate religions. I'm looking forward to this becouse i find most people that says "im an atheist" to say so mostly becouse of all magical fairy tales that survives from middleages to now. But when we try to talk about many of this people can admit that Jesus is a nice example of how we could behave to live better. And almost all of people here have to admit that christianity (if you live in europe or north america) is a foundation of everyday life cos its reflected in law you follow everyday. So unless you are sociopath you are christian at some point in my view cos christianity is also a model of morality.

 Of course you could say that you would never call yourself christian or even find my definition offending but in disscussions like this definition of basic therms repeated so many times should be made. Becouse for example Jarold thinks that christian is a guy who strictly follow some rules and have to fight his dubts and for me christian is somebody who follow christian morality.

One more thought about evolution of religion. Since 60s there is a movement in christianity that says "God can only work in our life throught people" this rip off all magical thinking of somebody watching you, punshing or giving you sth becouse when you for example pray you only talk to yourself (what a ridicolous idea ) and to God within you and prayer can only change yourself nothing more.

I like this idea people that take this as their religious dogma will not produce "stronghold" that prevent them from adopting in to society but in fact they can be inspiring and productive individuals that take full responsibility of their doings and not blame their failures on "satan","devil" or "homo-lobby".