Religion is helpful? [Archive]

Kwisatz Haderach

11th April 2007, 06:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:45 pm
Is it morally defensible to help someone with religious dogma even though this dogma is incorrect? Should we lie in order to help people rather than trying to help them without introducing falsehoods like religion?
For the sake of the argument, let's assume you are right and religion is false.

Now, the moral question here, stated in more general terms, is as follows: When you know that lying to someone will make them happy and telling them the truth will get them depressed, what should you do?

It's not just applicable to false religions - it's also applicable to medical conditions (telling a loved one that everything will be fine when you know they're about to die), and many forms of really bad news (do you tell a mother that her daughter got raped before being brutally murdered, or do you tell her she died in a car accident?).

I do not think it is reasonable or even sane to argue that you should always tell the truth, no matter what, and damn the consequences.

Kwisatz Haderach

11th April 2007, 07:02

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11, 2007 12:20 am
Yeah religion is really helpful... in letting oppressed people cope with whatever shit situation they are in, as rising up against authority is rising up against God, right? Damn, if it wasn't for religion, what might those crazy workers do... they might go and do something really stupid... like a revolution :o Thank fuck religion keeps those oppressed workers down, ey?
Or you can convince oppressed people that they have God on their side, and that they should rise up in revolution in the name of divine justice.

razboz

11th April 2007, 08:07

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 11, 2007 06:02 am
Or you can convince oppressed people that they have God on their side, and that they should rise up in revolution in the name of divine justice.
That is very Machiavellian. It is wrong to lie to people in order to get them to do the stuff you want. Why should you tell them god exists and he is on their side, when he neither exists nor would eb on their side if he did? You have a fucked up mind if you think its okay to force people to do things by lying to them.

For the sake of the argument, let's assume you are right and religion is false.

Now, the moral question here, stated in more general terms, is as follows: When you know that lying to someone will make them happy and telling them the truth will get them depressed, what should you do?

It's not just applicable to false religions - it's also applicable to medical conditions (telling a loved one that everything will be fine when you know they're about to die), and many forms of really bad news (do you tell a mother that her daughter got raped before being brutally murdered, or do you tell her she died in a car accident?).

It is morally unsustainable to lie to people just because it makes them feel better, without actually raising their material level of well being.

Your examples are flawed because there is nothing the protagonists can do to change the situation. A more appropriate example would be : Do you tell a starving man he can be better off tomorrow or do you tell him god will reward him in the afterlife? (knowing god will not of course).

It is unimaginable that somone would be so cruel and cold as to convince people of falsehood just to make them forget their daily lives.

more to the point, if a religious person is happy and well-adjusted, and seems to derive comfort from their belief, on what grounds is it morally acceptable to attack that belief? what if it would destroy their life? make them depressed? turn him from an anarcho-christian to a fundamentalist christian?

It is morally justifiable to destroy beleif when it is wrong. When people are delusional one must convince them of what reality really is. This is because when people adhere to such things as religion they must fall into fatalism. Indeed what use is there on changing stuff now to make the earth a paradise when you'll just get it all in the after-life anyway, provided you don't stir shit up?

It is immoral to manipulate people in such ways as you are suggesting we should.

i outright challenge you to find one single falsehood in my belief system. you could at least try for neutral language.

Falsehood One

God exists.

God does not exist. There is no evidence for the existence of god. There for until such evidence is produced god does not exist. This is how rational people operate. someone comes to them with a hypothesis. In this case "God exists" Then they try to find evidence to support this hypothesis. If no evidence can be found then god cannot exist. If there is evidence then that evidence must be examined. If there is simpler explanation than an all-powerful all-knowing sky fairy then the rational mind will immediately assume this the correct one. This explanation will hold until evidence can be found against it. Then again the rational mind will follow the same process and select the simplest solution that explains the phenomena observed.

Not knowing exactly which belief system you adhere to i cannot exactly find more falsehoods. But if god does not exist then no other part of any religion can be true.

Kwisatz Haderach

11th April 2007, 08:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:07 am
That is very Machiavellian. It is wrong to lie to people in order to get them to do the stuff you want. Why should you tell them god exists and he is on their side, when he neither exists nor would eb on their side if he did? You have a fucked up mind if you think its okay to force people to do things by lying to them.
You forget that I believe God does exist and is on their side.

I agree that it is wrong to lie to people in order to manipulate them for your own ends, but I would not say that it is necessarily wrong to lie to people in order to make them happy.

After all, making people happy is the ultimate purpose of communism, politics, and society itself.

It is morally unsustainable to lie to people just because it makes them feel better, without actually raising their material level of well being.
True, but what about raising their material well being and telling them things that make them feel better? Why does it have to be one or the other?

Your examples are flawed because there is nothing the protagonists can do to change the situation. A more appropriate example would be : Do you tell a starving man he can be better off tomorrow or do you tell him god will reward him in the afterlife? (knowing god will not of course).
I tell him both. I tell him God will reward him in the afterlife, but God also wants him to improve his life (and the lives of everyone else) tomorrow. I tell him that working to improve the lives of everyone (including himself) here on Earth is a good way to get into heaven.

(all of which are things that I truly believe, so I'm not lying to the man)

It is morally justifiable to destroy beleif when it is wrong. When people are delusional one must convince them of what reality really is.
Not a priori, no. It is morally justifiable to destroy belief when it harms people. I am a strict utilitarian. Happiness is the goal of society. Truth is only valuable in so far as it promotes happiness. (which it does most of the time, but not always)

This is because when people adhere to such things as religion they must fall into fatalism. Indeed what use is there on changing stuff now to make the earth a paradise when you'll just get it all in the after-life anyway, provided you don't stir shit up?
"provided you don't stir shit up"

That's a very big assumption right there - you are assuming a religion that endorses the status quo. How about a religion that says the status quo is evil and the best way to get a good afterlife is to strive to make Earth a paradise? That is the kind of religion I have.

razboz

11th April 2007, 11:09

I agree that it is wrong to lie to people in order to manipulate them for your own ends, but I would not say that it is necessarily wrong to lie to people in order to make them happy.

It is wrong to lie to people to make them happy, because lying is only justifiable if it has no adverse effect. However if you lie about stuff like the underlying and fundamental structure of reality it will arise fairly rapidly that there is a break between what is real and the fantasy you have built up to make poeple happy.

After all, making people happy is the ultimate purpose of communism, politics, and society itself.

By this definition handing out psychoactive drugs like LSD, Marijuana, Alcohol or Heroin should be a major part of Communism, politics and society itself.

no the main goal of Communism is build up conditions in which happiness can exist for a long period of time (forever i imagine). This can only be achieved through material, not spiritual or psychological, means, as material things are the only things that last after death.

True, but what about raising their material well being and telling them things that make them feel better? Why does it have to be one or the other?

because all revolutionary ideologies rely on anger and discontent. Indeed without this discontent and anger the revolutionary finds there is no drive to carry out revolution. For example most Communists feel discontent towards a system that exploits workers. If we convince people to be happy now, they will not see the need to be happy later.

I tell him both. I tell him God will reward him in the afterlife, but God also wants him to improve his life (and the lives of everyone else) tomorrow. I tell him that working to improve the lives of everyone (including himself) here on Earth is a good way to get into heaven.

(all of which are things that I truly believe, so I'm not lying to the man)

Without arguing the specifics of why your beliefs are unfounded i cannot truly refute this point.

Not a priori, no. It is morally justifiable to destroy belief when it harms people. I am a strict utilitarian. Happiness is the goal of society. Truth is only valuable in so far as it promotes happiness. (which it does most of the time, but not always)

Durable happiness is the end goal of any society. with out truth such a goal is a mere fantasy. Indeed every lie is exposed sooner or later (though the liar can go unknown forever). The bigger the lie the harsher the effect on the people affected. Especially if their entire happiness is based on this lie.

"provided you don't stir shit up"

That's a very big assumption right there - you are assuming a religion that endorses the status quo. How about a religion that says the status quo is evil and the best way to get a good afterlife is to strive to make Earth a paradise? That is the kind of religion I have.

Im assuming you are a Christian by your member title.

Christianity has a very very long track record of supporting and even being the staus quo. Insurgency has only ever featured in the 70s-80s, as i am sure you a re aware by the quote in your signature, in the form of liberations Theology a short lived and over all ineffective ideology of Latin America. The only other times when Christianity has challenged the established order is when the Church has not had the upper hand in the State, and there its only goal was to seize power for itself and create a new order in its advantage.

So excuse me for assuming Christianity supports the status quo.

But allow me to ask you a question
: how do you support your belief system? Could it not exist (and indeed does it not) without God or an after life? If there is no evidence for god is it not better just assume he does not exist and continue believing in Justice and equality independently of god?

Tommy-K

11th April 2007, 11:27

Originally posted by Edric O+April 11, 2007 05:58 am--> (Edric O @ April 11, 2007 05:58 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 10:45 pm
Is it morally defensible to help someone with religious dogma even though this dogma is incorrect? Should we lie in order to help people rather than trying to help them without introducing falsehoods like religion?
For the sake of the argument, let's assume you are right and religion is false.

Now, the moral question here, stated in more general terms, is as follows: When you know that lying to someone will make them happy and telling them the truth will get them depressed, what should you do?

It's not just applicable to false religions - it's also applicable to medical conditions (telling a loved one that everything will be fine when you know they're about to die), and many forms of really bad news (do you tell a mother that her daughter got raped before being brutally murdered, or do you tell her she died in a car accident?).

I do not think it is reasonable or even sane to argue that you should always tell the truth, no matter what, and damn the consequences. [/b]
But think of the consequences of lying.

Apart from unethically decieving someone, there is a possibility they will find out the truth, and then they would be a hell of a lot more depressed and angry than if you'd told them the truth from the start.

If I was a mother and my daughter had been brutally raped and murdered, I would want to be told that, not be fobbed off with some story about a car crash.

Tommy-K

11th April 2007, 11:30

Originally posted by Edric O+April 11, 2007 07:53 am--> (Edric O @ April 11, 2007 07:53 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 09:07 am
That is very Machiavellian. It is wrong to lie to people in order to get them to do the stuff you want. Why should you tell them god exists and he is on their side, when he neither exists nor would eb on their side if he did? You have a fucked up mind if you think its okay to force people to do things by lying to them.
You forget that I believe God does exist and is on their side.

I agree that it is wrong to lie to people in order to manipulate them for your own ends, but I would not say that it is necessarily wrong to lie to people in order to make them happy. [/b]
Again, I wouldn't be happy being lied to. If someone was lying to me to make me happy and I found out, I would be more angry and depressed than if they had just come out with the truth at the start. You can't justify lying to someone to make them happy. The risks and the consequences are too great, and aside from that its's just downright unethical. People deserve to know the truth. It's a basic human right.

Jazzratt

11th April 2007, 12:03

Originally posted by Edric O+April 11, 2007 05:58 am--> (Edric O @ April 11, 2007 05:58 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 10:45 pm
Is it morally defensible to help someone with religious dogma even though this dogma is incorrect? Should we lie in order to help people rather than trying to help them without introducing falsehoods like religion?
For the sake of the argument, let's assume you are right and religion is false.

Now, the moral question here, stated in more general terms, is as follows: When you know that lying to someone will make them happy and telling them the truth will get them depressed, what should you do? [/b]
Tell the fucking truth.

It's not just applicable to false religions - it's also applicable to medical conditions (telling a loved one that everything will be fine when you know they're about to die), and many forms of really bad news (do you tell a mother that her daughter got raped before being brutally murdered, or do you tell her she died in a car accident?).
I would rather know I'm a terminal case then labour under the delusion it's all fine. I wouldn't lie to the mother about how her daughter died (wtf?) because it's likely she'll find out anyway and I'd feel like shit for lying to her.

I do not think it is reasonable or even sane to argue that you should always tell the truth, no matter what, and damn the consequences.
Why not? I thought it was part of your Christian morality. You can't pick and choose the fucking truth and lies just complicate matters. I can't believe I have to tell you that lying is wrong, and you fucks have the fucking ovaries to tell us atheists we're immoral. <_<

Comrade J

11th April 2007, 15:16

Ooo Edric O, looks like you're going to Hell! Have you not read Proverbs 6:16-19? No?
Well here's what it says...

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

Then again, perhaps Proverbs isn't as important? Ok, let's go for one of the skyfairy's 'Ten Commandments' and see what the ole' man had to say about that -

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Exodus 20:16

Oh, I've just remembered, in all your wise picking and choosing, you Christians have a tendency to ignore the Old Testament... maybe Revelations is more relevant?

"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." - Revelation 21:7-8

Oh dear oh dear... again, he says we can't lie :(

So not only does it piss God off, it's actually an abomination to lie! Looks like that plan to tell those oppressed workers that Romans 13 means something else has gone down the drain!

ichneumon

11th April 2007, 15:59

Originally posted by razboz+April 11, 2007 07:07 am--> (razboz @ April 11, 2007 07:07 am)
Edric [email protected] 11, 2007 06:02 am

i outright challenge you to find one single falsehood in my belief system. you could at least try for neutral language.

Falsehood One

God exists.

God does not exist. There is no evidence for the existence of god. There for until such evidence is produced god does not exist. This is how rational people operate. someone comes to them with a hypothesis. In this case "God exists" Then they try to find evidence to support this hypothesis. If no evidence can be found then god cannot exist. If there is evidence then that evidence must be examined. If there is simpler explanation than an all-powerful all-knowing sky fairy then the rational mind will immediately assume this the correct one. This explanation will hold until evidence can be found against it. Then again the rational mind will follow the same process and select the simplest solution that explains the phenomena observed.

Not knowing exactly which belief system you adhere to i cannot exactly find more falsehoods. But if god does not exist then no other part of any religion can be true.[/b]

i don't believe in god. in general, i know things that are true or false, i believe or don't believe in things that are unknown or unknowable. buddhist has no concept of the personal god. 500 million of us.

That is very Machiavellian. It is wrong to lie to people in order to get them to do the stuff you want. Why should you tell them god exists and he is on their side, when he neither exists nor would eb on their side if he did? You have a fucked up mind if you think its okay to force people to do things by lying to them.

communists do this all the time. it's perfectly acceptable to lie to the proletariat to get the revolution. you know what's best. they will be better off afterwards, etc.

because all revolutionary ideologies rely on anger and discontent. Indeed without this discontent and anger the revolutionary finds there is no drive to carry out revolution. For example most Communists feel discontent towards a system that exploits workers. If we convince people to be happy now, they will not see the need to be happy later.

word, Machiavellian.

Tommy-K

11th April 2007, 16:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:59 pm

That is very Machiavellian. It is wrong to lie to people in order to get them to do the stuff you want. Why should you tell them god exists and he is on their side, when he neither exists nor would eb on their side if he did? You have a fucked up mind if you think its okay to force people to do things by lying to them.

communists do this all the time. it's perfectly acceptable to lie to the proletariat to get the revolution. you know what's best. they will be better off afterwards, etc.
Why do we need to lie to people to initiate revolution? That's ridiculous. Anyone can see the injustices out there. Revolution occurs because people want to fight for an end to these injustices, not because someone who was lying through their teeth told them to.

pusher robot

11th April 2007, 16:22

i believe or don't believe in things that are unknown or unknowable.

This is the essence of logical positivism. It offers a way of avoiding this question.

The problem arises by applying the concepts of a observable (natural) world - that of truth of falsity - to a concept that is by definition not a part of that world. The concept of "God" is, by most accounts, one of an entity that is super-natural, not confined by what is possible or impossible in the world.

Therefore, the concept of "true or false" or even "exists or doesn't exist" is logically inapplicable and essentially meaningless when applied to "God." This is somewhat frustrating to those spoiling for a debate on either side, of course, because all attempts at logical justification and evidentiary analysis are rendered pointless. It simply remains one of those propositions that is by definition unprovable in either direction.

I am content to let that remain. So, to answer the question, I would deny supernatural explanations for real-world phenomena, but readily concede the possibility of something supernatural.

Eleutherios

11th April 2007, 16:35

ichneumon

11th April 2007, 16:49

No, I think you're wrong. God, if we define it as an entity outside of the natural world, does not exist. Entities do not exist outside the natural world by definition; the verb "exist" means to be inside the natural world. If an entity has no influence whatsoever on any of the information in our natural world, we have a word for that: non-existent. Everything that can be said to exist has some kind of influence on the information content of the universe that is in principle measurable. Otherwise, what do you mean when you say "exist"?

Something which "exists" outside the natural world and is not observable is identical to and indistinguishable from something which does not exist, so it is only logical to apply the label "non-existent" to it. In the same vein, a mountain that is zero meters high is identical to and indistinguishable from a non-existent mountain. It does not make sense to say there is an existent mountain there that is zero meters high, completely invisible and completely undetectable forever. We have to assert that that mountain does not exist, if we want the word "exist" to mean anything at all.

this is a perfect example of the completely mindless semantic attack on the supernatural. besides, does democracy exist? does love exist? peace? how do you define the "natural world"? by what exists. what are the limits to this? state them, concretely, now. if anything every happens outside, you're wrong. what was the "natural world" like 2000 years ago?

the contention is that there might be other realms of reality, which are not immediately perceptible to humans, in which powerful beings exist. are they angels, aliens or ultra-terrestrials?

logical positivism just focus on testable hypotheses.

pusher robot

11th April 2007, 16:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:35 pm
No, I think you're wrong. God, if we define it as an entity outside of the natural world, does not exist. Entities do not exist outside the natural world by definition; the verb "exist" means to be inside the natural world. If an entity has no influence whatsoever on any of the information in our natural world, we have a word for that: non-existent. Everything that can be said to exist has some kind of influence on the information content of the universe that is in principle measurable. Otherwise, what do you mean when you say "exist"?

Something which "exists" outside the natural world and is not observable is identical to and indistinguishable from something which does not exist, so it is only logical to apply the label "non-existent" to it. In the same vein, a mountain that is zero meters high is identical to and indistinguishable from a non-existent mountain. It does not make sense to say there is an existent mountain there that is zero meters high, completely invisible and completely undetectable forever. We have to assert that that mountain does not exist, if we want the word "exist" to mean anything at all.
Entities do not exist outside the natural world by definition

True, to the extent that something can only have "existence" if it is in the natural world. The response I'm positing, though, is that existence is itself a property that only applies in the natural world. The very concept of existence, or non-existence, is inapplicable ouside the natural world. It's like trying to apply the concept of "depth" to a two-dimensional object that has only length and height. You don't properly say that the depth of a two-dimensional object equals zero, you say that the property of depth is simply inapplicable; it's an logically impossible value, like the result of dividing by zero. Therefore, it is just as logically insensible to claim "x does not exist" as "x does exist" where x is some concept outside the natural world. So the "correct" response to someone asserting that God does exist should not be that God does not exist, it should be that the existence of God is unknowable or beyond logic (technically "illogical" but phrased more gently).

Eleutherios

11th April 2007, 17:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:49 pm
this is a perfect example of the completely mindless semantic attack on the supernatural.
Semantics are important. As is logic. If there is no way it could ever possibly be observed, it is indistinguishable from something that is non-existent, and there is no basis for making any kind of distinction between the two. Period.

besides, does democracy exist? does love exist? peace?
Yes. These things do exist inside the natural world. I have reasonable evidence to conclude that forms of social organization exist that could be called democratic. I have seen people vote on things and carry out the majority decision. Democracy exists.

I have reasonable evidence to conclude that people love each other, and that I love other people. I just told my best friend that I love her, and I gave her a hug, and it triggered a chemical reaction in my brain that gave me positive emotions. Love exists.

I have reasonable evidence to conclude that people interact with each other non-violently and that peace does exist in many situations. I witness such situations all the time. I have also seen people fighting, the absence of peace, so I know what that looks like too. But most people act pretty peacefully most of the time. Peace exists.

These are all events in the natural world. They are complex phenomena, but nevertheless existent phenomena whose effects can be observed. If we make our definitions clear, we can talk scientifically about democracy and love and peace.

how do you define the "natural world"? by what exists. what are the limits to this? state them, concretely, now.
The natural world consists of everything which has an effect on the information content of the universe that is in principle observable.

if anything every happens outside, you're wrong.
I don't think it means anything to say that something can "happen" outside of the natural world. How could it? What would be doing the happening and what would be going on? How could you even describe such an event? What does it even mean to say that such an event took place?

what was the "natural world" like 2000 years ago?
Kind of like today, but without the past 2000 years of history...

the contention is that there might be other realms of reality, which are not immediately perceptible to humans, in which powerful beings exist.
There are things which are not immediately perceptible to humans, like magnetic fields, dark matter, and the solid inner core of the Earth. However, we can say that these things exist because they have some kind of effect on what we can observe. It may be difficult to perceive them, but it is not impossible.

If something is forever imperceptible, like unicorns, leprechauns, perpetual motion machines, and the "hidden God" of popular theology, then we call it non-existent.

are they angels, aliens or ultra-terrestrials?
I don't deny that extraterrestrials probably exist. The same principles of Darwinian evolution could have easily applied somewhere else in the universe, and even given rise to some kind of superintelligent beings. However, they would not be supernatural beings that somehow transcend the natural world of observable existence.

logical positivism just focus on testable hypotheses.
So do I. The God hypothesis has two forms. There is one form, which says that God does not interact with the observable universe at all. It is incorrect because anything which does not interact with the observable universe is non-existent. This God is in the realm of things which are in principle untestable because they do not exist. Science rejects this God.

The other form of the God hypothesis says that God does interact with the observable universe (people who believe in "intelligent design" or the efficacy of prayer for example), and this is a testable hypothesis. Once they start claiming that God does interact with the universe and they have evidence for it, then their hypothesis enters the world of testable ones. Science rejects this God too.

ichneumon

11th April 2007, 17:57

So do I. The God hypothesis has two forms. There is one form, which says that God does not interact with the observable universe at all. It is incorrect because anything which does not interact with the observable universe is non-existent. This God is in the realm of things which are in principle untestable because they do not exist. Science rejects this God.

untrue. science does not reject the existence of this god. this god is scientifically unimportant, trivial, uninteresting. besides, you are making wild assumptions about things you inherently cannot know. ultimately it is a human being who is doing the detecting and knowing here - do you posit that it is possible for a human being to be omniscient?

thus it is possible that there exists a tremendously powerful being, who is omniscient or very nearly so, concerned with humanity, but that such a being is otiose and does not interfere (at this time) in human affairs. there is no reason to expect this being to be detectable - there are many things that exist that we cannot detect, such as planet around other stars, until recently.

a buddhist would call this being a god or deva or demon, advise against worshipping it, and go on with life.

btw, this thread is not about the existence of god.

Kwisatz Haderach

11th April 2007, 20:08

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11, 2007 04:16 pm
Ooo Edric O, looks like you're going to Hell! Have you not read Proverbs 6:16-19? No?
Well here's what it says...

[Bible quotes here]

Oh dear oh dear... again, he says we can't lie :(

So not only does it piss God off, it's actually an abomination to lie! Looks like that plan to tell those oppressed workers that Romans 13 means something else has gone down the drain!
You forget: My entire argument about lying was based on the assumption that religion was a lie and that telling people to believe in God means lying to them.

Now, obviously I don't believe that. I believe I'm telling the truth.

The Bible clearly states that you should tell the truth. I agree. But if Christianity is a lie, then the Bible doesn't matter. And if Christianity is true, then you're not actually lying. Either way, you're fine.

To put it differently: The "lie" that we're talking about here is telling people that God exists. You pointed out that God dislikes lying. True enough. But if God actually does exist, then telling people about it is not a lie, so there is nothing for him to dislike.

As I said in my first post on this topic, I am arguing here on your premises. And your premises do not include a belief in following the Bible. Therefore, what the Bible says is irrelevant to the question of what you should do in any given circumstance. My argument is that you should probably support certain forms of religion despite the fact that you believe them to be false.

No one has yet offered a single good atheist reason why telling the truth has any value.

wtfm8lol

11th April 2007, 20:15

Now, obviously I don't believe that. I believe I'm telling the truth.

why do you believe that?

Eleutherios

11th April 2007, 21:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:57 pm
untrue. science does not reject the existence of this god. this god is scientifically unimportant, trivial, uninteresting. besides, you are making wild assumptions about things you inherently cannot know. ultimately it is a human being who is doing the detecting and knowing here - do you posit that it is possible for a human being to be omniscient?
I never said human beings can be omniscient. I'm saying a God that does not interact with the natural world is non-existent, because that's what non-existent means. Please give me a definition of "non-existent" that would not include such an entity.

Besides, if something could somehow "exist" outside of the natural world, and it had no effect on anything in our universe, what is the point in even speculating about such a being? What's the point of a useless God like that?

And what the hell do you mean when you say that something exists outside the natural world? What is this thing? What are its attributes, and how did you come to know of them? If you can't find out any of its attributes (since it is completely unobservable), how can you even give it a name?

thus it is possible that there exists a tremendously powerful being, who is omniscient or very nearly so, concerned with humanity, but that such a being is otiose and does not interfere (at this time) in human affairs. there is no reason to expect this being to be detectable
Umm, okay, explain that one to me. It is tremendously powerful, and it is concerned with humanity, but it is not using its tremendous powers to help humanity? I'd say there's pretty solid evidence against a tremendously powerful magical sky fairy who's concerned with our species. This magical being failed to prevent the Indian Ocean tsunami, 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and the Holocaust, so how concerned with us can it be? I'd say we have damn good reason to expect that being to be detectable.

- there are many things that exist that we cannot detect, such as planet around other stars, until recently.
Right, but they are still in principle detectable. Planets around other stars change the information content of the universe around it, albeit only a very small amount of the information available to us here on Earth. This is very different from a deity who is by definition undetectable because it does not interact with anything in the natural world at all (i.e. is non-exstent).

a buddhist would call this being a god or deva or demon, advise against worshipping it, and go on with life.

btw, this thread is not about the existence of god.
True. I still maintain that religions are not helpful. They do not provide anything that cannot be found in a non-superstitious philosophy or social network. And they are inferior to secular philosophies and social networks because they are resistant to change, they encourage dogmatism and uncritical non-evidence-based thinking, and in many cases they promote immoral behavior in the name of superstition and tradition (e.g. amputating babies' foreskins, persecuting women and homosexuals, maintaining a caste system, discouraging condom use in AIDS-ridden Africa, etc.)

ichneumon

11th April 2007, 21:37

I never said human beings can be omniscient. I'm saying a God that does not interact with the natural world is non-existent, because that's what non-existent means. Please give me a definition of "non-existent" that would not include such an entity.

Besides, if something could somehow "exist" outside of the natural world, and it had no effect on anything in our universe, what is the point in even speculating about such a being? What's the point of a useless God like that?

And what the hell do you mean when you say that something exists outside the natural world? What is this thing? What are its attributes, and how did you come to know of them? If you can't find out any of its attributes (since it is completely unobservable), how can you even give it a name?

you are not aware of every facet of the natural world. that is not possible. i'm NOT arguing for non-existence! you are not omniscient - no one is. no one knows the extent of the natural world, nor is it possible to. you cannot make valid all-encompassing statements about the natural world because you cannot know all of it. and, if you did, you'd be god. i'm saying, horatio, that there are things that exist about which you have no idea, which are in fact perfectly natural. now, try to tell me "nothing can happen outside the Laws of Physics".

Umm, okay, explain that one to me. It is tremendously powerful, and it is concerned with humanity, but it is not using its tremendous powers to help humanity? I'd say there's pretty solid evidence against a tremendously powerful magical sky fairy who's concerned with our species. This magical being failed to prevent the Indian Ocean tsunami, 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and the Holocaust, so how concerned with us can it be? I'd say we have damn good reason to expect that being to be detectable.

maybe it wants us to grow up. i've always contended that the last words in the bible should have been "GROW UP OR DIE. TAKE CARE OF YOURSELVES OR DROWN IN YOUR OWN SHIT". why are you making assumptions about the nature of gods? maybe it's like TV for them.

True. I still maintain that religions are not helpful. They do not provide anything that cannot be found in a non-superstitious philosophy or social network. And they are inferior to secular philosophies and social networks because they are resistant to change, they encourage dogmatism and uncritical non-evidence-based thinking, and in many cases they promote immoral behavior in the name of superstition and tradition (e.g. amputating babies' foreskins, persecuting women and homosexuals, maintaining a caste system, discouraging condom use in AIDS-ridden Africa, etc.)

there is now a huge campaign to ampute all foreskins of all males in africa, to reduce the spread of HIV. if the bible tells you to do something that keeps you from getting AIDS, is that useful? foreskins also increase risk of STD's and cancer. besides, Engaged Buddhism does none of those things. neither do neo-pagans, for that matter, or any number of other modern religions.

ichneumon

12th April 2007, 17:53

A growing body of research has linked religious involvement with positive mental and physical health outcomes. We have contributed to this literature by outlining several mechanisms by which aspects of religiosity may enhance mental health, distilling several distinct hypotheses based on this discussion, exploring multiple dimensions of religious involvement, examining both positive and negative mental health outcomes, and testing our hypotheses using data from a well-respected community sample, the 1995 Detroit Area Study. At the most general level, our findings are broadly congruent with those of several previous studies in this area. We find nontrivial and generally salutary effects of religious involvement, especially the frequency of attendance at religious services, on both distress and well-being. Overall, however, the religious effects appear stronger for well-being than for distress, with the belief dimension (specifically, belief in eternal life) emerging as a significant predictor of well-being only.

Religious Involvement, Stress, and Mental Health: (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_forces/v080/80.1ellison.html)

so, does secular belief in eternal life provide the same benefits? can you find a study that links atheism to the same benefits? the existence of god is irrelevant to this thread, insults will be considered as proof of no contrary evidence.

ichneumon

12th April 2007, 19:04

one has to assume that most science if funded by atheists - does that make it meaningless? this is peer-reviewed journal, not some hackneyed newspaper article.

hint: use Google Scholar.

ichneumon

12th April 2007, 19:12

MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH ON RELIGION

In 1971, sociologist Rodney Stark put the hypothesis that religion was antithetical
to mental health on empirical trial. His conclusion was that religious
commitment did significantly correlate with psychopathology. The correlation,
however, was inverse. Thirty-five years later, Stark is a preeminent American
sociologist of religion and has made a career of producing rigorous studies that
have helped displace dogma of both the pro- and anti-religion variety with high
quality data. Although he is an atheist who finds himself “incapable of faith,”
Stark’s work in 1971 and thereafter provided a key transition by promoting a
sense of empirically-based fair play; an ethic he still urges through exemplary
research and with his quips such as “unabashed village atheism no longer passes
for scholarship” (Stark & Finke, 2000, p. 14).

Mental Health, Religious Belief, and “The Terrifying Question” (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n66m64712k283x8h/fulltext.pdf)

Eleutherios

12th April 2007, 22:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:37 pm
you are not aware of every facet of the natural world. that is not possible. i'm NOT arguing for non-existence! you are not omniscient - no one is. no one knows the extent of the natural world, nor is it possible to. you cannot make valid all-encompassing statements about the natural world because you cannot know all of it. and, if you did, you'd be god. i'm saying, horatio, that there are things that exist about which you have no idea, which are in fact perfectly natural. now, try to tell me "nothing can happen outside the Laws of Physics".
I never said I was omniscient. You don't have to be omniscient to know that infantile superstitions like the tooth fairy, God, and Santa Claus aren't real.

maybe it wants us to grow up. i've always contended that the last words in the bible should have been "GROW UP OR DIE. TAKE CARE OF YOURSELVES OR DROWN IN YOUR OWN SHIT". why are you making assumptions about the nature of gods? maybe it's like TV for them.
I'm not making assumptions. I'm making logical conclusions. It cares about humanity, but it isn't willing to intervene, and isn't even willing to show its own damn self to us already. Where is this sky God? I don't see it. Why is he hiding from me if he is so damn concerned about me? Because I'm just a reality TV show for God, his little puppet to entertain him. Well fuck that, I'm no slave to your imaginary cosmic puppet master.

there is now a huge campaign to ampute all foreskins of all males in africa, to reduce the spread of HIV. if the bible tells you to do something that keeps you from getting AIDS, is that useful? foreskins also increase risk of STD's and cancer.
Umm, condoms decrease risk of STDs and washing your damn foreskin gets rid of most of those other health problems. No need to mutilate babies' fucking penises without their permission. If your God is so intelligent, how did he fuck up by giving every baby boy a foreskin that needs to be fucking amputated?

besides, Engaged Buddhism does none of those things. neither do neo-pagans, for that matter, or any number of other modern religions.
I never said all religions are harmful. Look at Jains; their whole lives are centered around non-violence to everyone and everything. But the monotheistic religions especially have vicious bouts of dogmatic violence in their histories. There's no doubting that historically, religious dogmatism has occasionally given rise to strands of violent fanaticism that could have been avoided had the followers known that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

Sentinel

14th April 2007, 23:15

No matter one's personal beliefs -- as long as there is no proof of something teaching it as truth is lying. At the best it can be teaching what one wishes to be true as truth, and that's still lying -- dangerous stuff. Because we must strive to know the actual rules of the game which is life on earth if we are to master it. We must therefore stick to scientific facts in all education.

Lying to people to 'make them happy' in a society there is nothing to be happy about is obviously a disgusting act of patronising, and counterproductive to class struggle which is precisely why true communists can't stand religion. We are the heralds of material truth and enlightenment, we must be, as it is only through these the working class, the only truly progressive and revolutionary class, can realise it's true potential and power -- and naturally as a result develop a desire to direct and develop their real, actual lives in an optimal direction.

People who live in ignorance towards material truth can never be truly in control of their own lives nor society. A true communist society, ie one operated by actual worker's power and without any authorities, must be at least predominantly atheist by definition in order to function properly and to avoid a situation where an atheist minority has the de facto power over a superstitious majority -- a power that comes from the privileges of knowledge and rationality.

Communism isn't about working class 'happiness', it's about working class power.

ichneumon

15th April 2007, 00:05

Lying to people to 'make them happy' in a society there is nothing to be happy about is obviously a disgusting act of patronising, and counterproductive to class struggle which is precisely why true communists can't stand religion. We are the heralds of material truth and enlightenment, we must be, as it is only through these the working class, the only truly progressive and revolutionary class, can realise it's true potential and power -- and naturally as a result develop a desire to direct and develop their real, actual lives in an optimal direction.

it's not about making them happy, it's about making them *functional*.

METHOD: Depressed inpatients (N=371) who reported belonging to one specific religion or described themselves as having no religious affiliation were compared in terms of their demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.

religion makes depressed people less likely to commit suicide.

furthermore, this debate is wildly prejudiced: why do you assume that religion=lie? once more: you are so eurocentric as to be incapacitated. religion =/= the worship of the god of Abraham!!! there are religions that fully accept the evidence of science and the european enlightenment.

did enforcing atheism in the USSR help the russian people? how so? did they rise up and throw off the chains of totalitarianism, or did the oppressed believers do that? suicide, alcoholism, crime, corruption, etc, skyrocketed during soviet rule. russia is a *wreck*, despite being industrialized.

if being a scientific atheist has some real benefit, you should be able to show that with scientific studies. i've posted two articles that point out the exact opposite.

Sentinel

15th April 2007, 01:12

religion makes depressed people less likely to commit suicide.

As does therapy and medication, without depriving the patients their objectivity, rationality and sanity. :rolleyes:

why do you assume that religion=lie?

Because it hasn't been scientifically proven I have to consider it unreliable information. Only something we know as a fact because it's been proven as a fact, can be seriously considered fact. Everything else is either assumptions or outright lies -- very dangerous to rely on.

once more: you are so eurocentric as to be incapacitated. religion =/= the worship of the god of Abraham!!! there are religions that fully accept the evidence of science and the european enlightenment.

No, I am not 'eurocentric', but thanks for taking the debate to a personal level immediately upon my entrance. I don't mind though. :) I count out all religions as unproven bullshit mythology not worthy for our species to ponder on. They're all remnants from the dark ages, and your apologism for them here is a fucking disgrace.

The fact that you actually see advocacy of enlightenment and atheism as something negative and attempt to fight it by yelling 'eurocentric!!' (implying racist) in order to discredit me is very telling of your tendencies and dishonesty. But wasn't it you who once said that 'Religion is a powerful tool that should be used rather than opposed'?

Link (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49317&hl=)

Again, I'm for worker's self-government and a mindset such as yours is totally strange for me because I am of the opinion that the people are not to be led but to lead themselves!

did enforcing atheism in the USSR help the russian people? how so? did they rise up and throw off the chains of totalitarianism, or did the oppressed believers do that? suicide, alcoholism, crime, corruption, etc, skyrocketed during soviet rule. russia is a *wreck*, despite being industrialized.

All that because of the 'oppression' of religion? The loss of good virtuous morals maybe? :lol:

I'm no supporter of the way bolshevik USSR was structured so I don't know why you are bringing it's conditions and the actions of it's leadership up here, but certainly you must realise those conditions were/are due to other reasons? When I talk about communism I talk about actual worker's federative power, not the fucking USSR. But if you ask me their line on religion was a failure, because the workers never got to excercise the power they got from a rational mindset -- the country was centrally governed! Less could make one depressed and disillusioned.

When it comes to that line's failure to actually conquer superstition, it was because it was kind of an half hearted project to begin with. If you're going to strangle superstition it must be done thoroughly (and I can tell all amateur anti-communists reading this right away, that I'm not talking about mass repressions/executions or gulags or witch hunts or anything else you propably thought I do, so don't even start), otherwise it'll raise it's ugly head at first chance, as has happened in Russia. :(

if being a scientific atheist has some real benefit, you should be able to show that with scientific studies. i've posted two articles that point out the exact opposite.

Could you then kindly post some defining quote from one of those, or maybe summarise here how it's beneficial to believe in fairytales rather than what has been proven? Not beneficial to ones 'happiness' but to class struggle that is. Cause it sounds fucking absurd if you ask me.

ichneumon

15th April 2007, 17:20

As does therapy and medication, without depriving the patients their objectivity, rationality and sanity.

having religious belief is the norm, like it or not, not insanity. medicine makes one dependent on the state-licensed drug dealer.

No, I am not 'eurocentric', but thanks for taking the debate to a personal level immediately upon my entrance. I don't mind though. smile.gif I count out all religions as unproven bullshit mythology not worthy for our species to ponder on. They're all remnants from the dark ages, and your apologism for them here is a fucking disgrace.

The fact that you actually see advocacy of enlightenment and atheism as something negative and attempt to fight it by yelling 'eurocentric!!' (implying racist) in order to discredit me is very telling of your tendencies and dishonesty. But wasn't it you who once said that 'Religion is a powerful tool that should be used rather than opposed'?

that was not directed at one person - i should have said "y'all are eurocentric", but that sounds a little odd. there are religions that were created in the last century, religions that will be born in this century. most atheism is eurocentric in that most atheist believe that, for example, if they can prove moses didn't part the red sea, that all religion is nonsense. yes, religion is powerful. dig:

EDSA Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_EDSA_Revolution)

although i'm not a big fan of the dalai lama, he did speak for most buddhists when he said that buddhism accepts science, 100%. how is taoism a lie? you define religion as the belief in things that do not exists, then reject it as untrue. this is not valid. my religion is POSTMODERN. i pick and choose what to believe from all that is offered, and i require it to be at least rational, if not fully proven. from the postmodern point of view (sure to rouse hatred here), radical atheism is just another crackpot religion. it doesn't make it's follower's happy, there's no community and worst of all - the adherents are just as nutso and intolerant as radical islam or christianity. it's antiquated, and the de facto association with communism is rapidly sending that otherwise useful idea into the dustbin of history, so to speak. modern rationality inquires into religion and what used to be "supernatural" - radical atheism rails against it, futilely, even.

buddha:

believe nothing, no matter who has said it, no matter where it is written, even if i have said it, unless it stands to reasons and fits with your own sense of rationality.

be each of you a light unto your selves

and, fyi, i'm not dishonest - it's against my religion.

the above EDSA is one example. it is easy to see how hard core atheism disempowers the revolution by cutting out a huge section of people.

consider this: Chondogyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondogyo)

wiki even describes it as "humanistic socialism". what does that make *your* socialism?