Religulous

[Kaylia]

I like how you mentioned evolution, scientific methods, belief in the same breath. I don't think belief means what you think it means.

Because scientific methods doesn't need any postulate to work? If the method is enough to explain everything, than you could explain the method with the method.
A->A
Scientific method -> scientific method
well...duh..it's circular a bit tho.

I'm not denying its result, I'm simply saying you need an additional belief to accept it as "correct". The postulate needed is that we exist, and that the universe exist and is observable.

It's easy to accept, harder to prove.

[Kaylia]

I understand that bad things would still happen but you can't say that the same amount of bad things would happen regardless of what you did. There is no quota for how many bad things must happen in 1 day/year. Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but good people do bad things when they believe in certain dogma. If you eliminate the dogma those good people will largely stop doing those bad things because they can no longer justify them. It won't be perfect at reducing those kinds of bad things but it should surely help.

Could you address the second part of the post you quoted, instead of the first. I think this point was better.

I'm not sure I want to jump in this discusion. We would need to define what "good" is, what "bad" is, and how the "good/bad" add up in a society.


I've no clue what's the current distribution of world religion is right now, but take a look at it and tell me if you see a moral guideline that you consider harmful to other people around you. There might be a few, but I doubt it's anywhere near a majority.

The "need" to dominate other could be pointed as the biggest culprit when there is inequality. This is something you see a lot in the nature, and something we have to deal with as human.

[Tristam]

It was used as a method for healing in the past when medicine was not as advanced as it is now (i'd wager that we abuse our drugs, but that's a different issue all together), and since some of these tribes do generally live in a very primitive setting and not some industrial country, the existence of modern medicine is moot to them, and as for this case within an industrial nation, then it is really up to them whether they want to supplement modern medicines with their practices, there isn't some basic rule within all spiritual beliefs that say they can't do this, this is pretty much up to them individually. It should be noted that, many Native American tribes were accepting of medicine from the invaders, they weren't really against the idea of using them, and using their spiritual methods. You are trying to characterize people who belief in much simpler spiritual beliefs as over zealous fundementalists, when these qualities usually purpose some sense of superiority that usually is not present in a belief with no deity, because it lacks hierarchies

I think you severely misjudged this part of my post, there are in fact people in western industrialized nations who choose, voluntarily, to forgo evidence based medicine and travel to other countries to practice scientifically dubious treatments and faith healing. I'm sure you've read a couple of the stories on this board about parents trying to heal childeren with faith-based methods that of course failed miserably. Another example is Steve Jobs, apparrently he was skeptical of western medecine and surgery (he's a practicing buddhist, don't know if that mattered or not) when he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and delayed surgery while he tried to treat his cancer with some sort of special diet. Eventually he elected to have surgery but if he had waited too long, of course, the cancer would have spread and killed him. I'm not commenting on people who do not have the resources to treat diseases properly, that's a whole nother ballgame, and way outside the scope of this thread.

As for the whole moral relativity etc. stuff, I can't comment too much on that other than to try and simplify my argument, most of what you were talking about was prolly outside anything I know in detail. I guess my problem more simply boils down to the fact that it seems wrong to accept by decree something that is only based on a supernatural interpretation of something and this opens the door to any sort of decree. I think you were comparing this argument to someone using logic to dictate morality in a similar sort of way? I see what you mean, and sure even in a world without religion there would be people taking advantage of others, but that dosen't make it right, and it certainly dosen't make religion a satisfactory explanation for the natural world. But let's see if we can do this without complicated logic and moral reasoning because I got pretty swamped by your language.

Do we at least agree that using warped "logic" to impose "moral" views is as unfavorable as invoking a supernatural argument? By analogy, should a "moral" or "logical" argument for abstinence based education be admitted when all *empirical evidence* suggests the policy fails? For such a decision, why should morality based on supernatural decree take precedence?

[Kaylia]

Do we at least agree that using warped "logic" to impose "moral" views is as unfavorable as invoking a supernatural argument? By analogy, should a "moral" or "logical" argument for abstinence based education be admitted when all *empirical evidence* suggests the policy fails? For such a decision, why should morality based on supernatural decree take precedence?

I don't think anyone will disagree with this. However, I don't think religion can be defined as someone trying to abuse another person...there is a bit more than this.

[Blarg]

Could you address the second part of the post you quoted, instead of the first. I think this point was better.

I'm not sure I want to jump in this discusion. We would need to define what "good" is, what "bad" is, and how the "good/bad" add up in a society.


I've no clue what's the current distribution of world religion is right now, but take a look at it and tell me if you see a moral guideline that you consider harmful to other people around you. There might be a few, but I doubt it's anywhere near a majority.

The "need" to dominate other could be pointed as the biggest culprit when there is inequality. This is something you see a lot in the nature, and something we have to deal with as human.

The second part of the post I quoted is on a different topic so I just deleted it from the quote since it didn't have to do with my reply.

Defining good and bad isn't necessary because although some finer points may have a gray area that could make them either bad or good we can all agree that certain things are in fact bad or good, the gray area would be 'just how bad/good is it' but it would still be one or the other.

If people start believing their bible more than do they do now then a lot of harm will come of it. Look at the terrible things the bible says about women and then try to say that if these things were taken as fact, as they are in places like Saudi Arabia, that that would be good for the world.

[Neosutra]

Understandable, but now you're going to have to explain why you put all religions (you also said you were attacking all spiritual belief) on the same plate, as someone gets the feeling that you're saying that all religions and spiritual belief systems are the same, you're going to, as i've mentioned quite a few times, have to outline why religions and spiritual beliefs that don't share these qualities, should share the same blame. For example, Buddhism is a non theist religion, Animism is often neither theist or a religion, and Wicca(sp?) is another example.
Funny, logic didn't seem to help many Greeks think that women were equals, nor was their motivation religious, and science has many times been guided under the same hand to try and portray women as not quite as capable as men. It is evident that misogyny is not attached to religion or any spiritual belief of the sort, or you'd have to explain why largely "atheist" cultures are just as misogynist as the theism based cultures.

Education is a much better mechanism of relinquishing certain beliefs which are quite obviously very detrimental, naturally, of course, you won't gain what you desire of eliminating all spiritual belief, but you'll certainly get rid of the troublemakers, but that proposes that the method of getting rid of what you seem to most despise is efficient mass education, yet your methods seem more equipped to belittle people. Perhaps you should get your priorities straight and instead support education reform in the US rather than get in insult tossing contests. Either way, you can't efficiently make reason the top quality of every human being, unlike the Enlightenment might have you believe, humans don't exactly have the propensity to dive into using logic at every waking moment, so they'll always be liable to some form of persuasion that is not the most logical, especially when they get emotional which is exactly where a spiritual belief will come in, and since you're not supporting making every human being emotionless, i for-see spiritualism staying for quite a long time. Anyway, i agree education is the way of getting rid of the detrimental beliefs, especially a more liberal education, you just won't get rid of spirituality in general, though you could argue this point against me.

I conclude that one of your main issues is that by being attached to something unquestionable, certainly beliefs that may not always benefit any given social system gain a plateau of imperviousness, in this case i absolutely agree and this can be averted via contact with various other beliefs and of course, education, however this does not explain why you'd oppose belief systems or simple beliefs that neither profess any opposition or violence for any group or seek to add members to their group (a quality i most detest about judeo-christian systems, minus the jewish one), because it seems to me, the only qualities these other beliefs have is that you don't like that they're not based completely on reason or empiricism. At the very least you should discern between beliefs that you oppose because they're not empiricist and beliefs that you oppose because they're not empiricist and highly detrimental.

What religions are you talking about? Or are you focusing in on what you would call "spiritual". I wouldnt call budhism spiritual, but more philisophical. My definition for spiritual would be the need for supernatural explainations. Perhaps we are just disagreeing with terminology. I have no problem with philisophical commitments, as long as they dont move into the realm of the supernatural.

And to Kaylia, yes you are correct, god is the cause of entropy, for some reason I didnt catch that the first time I derived those equations. Also, I emailed my friends at los alamos lab and told them to stop working on the grand unified theorem, as there was no way to quantify infinite causality (because obviously if you dont understand it, its not possible). Ill stop working on my research asap as apparently im trying to solve the impossible. Thanx for all the help here on these universal problems Kaylia, we've finally put the nail in the coffin.

Also, "if religion was a burden on society it would have dissapeared on its own" is the most retarded thing you have ever said. Rape/murder is a burden on society and we have been doing it since the dawn of civilization. How did you even get into college?

[Tristam]

Do you understand the concept of "fitness" (efficiency) behind genetic algorithm? Why do you think mankind believe in religion for the last 30 000-150 000 year. If religion was really a burden to the society, it would have dissapeared on its own.

Meh, I think I do have a bit of a bone to pick with this argument. It supposes that evolution works towards some sort of goal, which is not the case. I do agree with the notion that evolution has not equipped humanity to naturally comprehend things like geological timescales, plate tectonics, or the universe as a whole, as it does not directly benefit a population with a generational timespan of a few decades. Religion may be a consequence of our ability to begin to comprehend these gigantic issues, yet that does not make it a satisfactory answer by itself. Either way, the transition to a society that is able to pass knowledge intergenerationally obviously adds another element to evolution.

[Tristam]

I don't think anyone will disagree with this. However, I don't think religion can be defined as someone trying to abuse another person...there is a bit more than this.

No, that's not what I meant, I'm just trying to understand why people are saying that supernatural decree is an acceptable answer or justification for anything, when it obviously is NOT an acceptable answer or justification for certain other things.

[Denchi]

Science is quantitative, not qualitative

[Kaylia]

Defining good and bad isn't necessary because although some finer points may have a gray area that could make them either bad or good we can all agree that certain things are in fact bad or good, the gray area would be 'just how bad/good is it' but it would still be one or the other.

If people start believing their bible more than do they do now then a lot of harm will come of it. Look at the terrible things the bible says about women and then try to say that if these things were taken as fact, as they are in places like Saudi Arabia, that that would be good for the world.

I don't think the part about evolution and religion are different topic. Evolution tell us it should have disappeared if it was useless, but it's still here. If evolution is considered good for you, then religion can't be as bad as some people make it sound.

Anyway, "good" can be understood in many way. Personal satisfaction, optimized evolution, ratio of healthy individual...etc. You will need a ton of arbitrary parameter to determine if something is good or not.


And what happen to woman in saudi arabia isn't really different from what happen with many animal species. Is it a behavior specific to religion? I'm sure many men would give anything to have their own harem if they had the possibility to do it.

And to Kaylia, yes you are correct, god is the cause of entropy, for some reason I didnt catch that the first time I derived those equations. Also, I emailed my friends at los alamos lab and told them to stop working on the grand unified theorem, as there was no way to quantify infinite causality (because obviously if you dont understand it, its not possible). Ill stop working on my research asap as apparently im trying to solve the impossible. Thanx for all the help here on these universal problems Kaylia, we've finally put the nail in the coffin.

Every time you talk, I hear a continual "whoooosh". It goes above your head every damn time.

It doesnt solve universal problems, it's the acceptance there will always be an infinity of problem ahead.

[Neosutra]

No, that acceptance is only by you Kaylia. You have NO fucking clue what you are talking about when you make such broad sweeping statements about the limitations of causel time/space models that yet to exist. Your ignorance of science and specifically physics is insulting and is amplified by your continued insistance to tell everyone here what we just cant know as a species.

And im sure everytime anyone talks all you hear is a wooshing sound, as our words dont seem to sink into your thick skull. I find it hard to believe you can operate a computer and still be this stupid.

[Kuya]

I think you severely misjudged this part of my post, there are in fact people in western industrialized nations who choose, voluntarily, to forgo evidence based medicine and travel to other countries to practice scientifically dubious treatments and faith healing. I'm sure you've read a couple of the stories on this board about parents trying to heal childeren with faith-based methods that of course failed miserably. Another example is Steve Jobs, apparrently he was skeptical of western medecine and surgery (he's a practicing buddhist, don't know if that mattered or not) when he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and delayed surgery while he tried to treat his cancer with some sort of special diet. Eventually he elected to have surgery but if he had waited too long, of course, the cancer would have spread and killed him. I'm not commenting on people who do not have the resources to treat diseases properly, that's a whole nother ballgame, and way outside the scope of this thread.

I am aware of that, but there is nothing structural within Buddhism that mandates that you not take medicine from the modern world, that would be a personal decision, and for the most part there is nothing within the basic structure of spiritualism that would imply this either, most everything else that may be added is going to be subjective to the given culture's accepted values which tend to merge into their spiritual beliefs for sake of coherency and homogeneity.

As for the whole moral relativity etc. stuff, I can't comment too much on that other than to try and simplify my argument, most of what you were talking about was prolly outside anything I know in detail. I guess my problem more simply boils down to the fact that it seems wrong to accept by decree something that is only based on a supernatural interpretation of something and this opens the door to any sort of decree. I think you were comparing this argument to someone using logic to dictate morality in a similar sort of way? I see what you mean, and sure even in a world without religion there would be people taking advantage of others, but that dosen't make it right, and it certainly dosen't make religion a satisfactory explanation for the natural world. But let's see if we can do this without complicated logic and moral reasoning because I got pretty swamped by your language.

Do we at least agree that using warped "logic" to impose "moral" views is as unfavorable as invoking a supernatural argument? By analogy, should a "moral" or "logical" argument for abstinence based education be admitted when all *empirical evidence* suggests the policy fails? For such a decision, why should morality based on supernatural decree take precedence?

Let me try to simplify your argument and i'll respond to that and you see if you agree with it.

Your contention is that by tying certain ideas to spiritual beliefs they become absolute and unquestionable, even if they are detrimental? Well the problem with this is that is isn't very specific, non theism and theism are qualitatively different in many aspects. This absolutism that you are referring to, which i briefly mentioned, is hardly relevant to a belief of reverence toward nature and or one's ancestors. The quality you are referring to generally manifests itself in theist beliefs because they possess hierarchies, in fact, a belief in a deity will generally only manifest as a justification of a hierarchal reality in any given culture, and because this hierarchy generally requires obedience, this absolutism will probably only come to pass when a spiritual belief turns what was once a simple anima into a god, for institutional purposes. Though while i understand the troublesome aspect of a religion that professes absolute truth, this is generally a quality of a theist belief, and not quite a rule of thumb for the non theist spiritual ones, and even so, as can be observed from reality, even a theist religion can't hold their members if they are sufficiently convinced and not in a state of emotional distress.

Adding this: You may also already know, that other religions seek metaphysical truth, such as Buddhism, so absolute truth and loyalty, aren't exactly a quality that they make the norm.

What religions are you talking about? Or are you focusing in on what you would call "spiritual". I wouldnt call budhism spiritual, but more philisophical. My definition for spiritual would be the need for supernatural explainations. Perhaps we are just disagreeing with terminology. I have no problem with philisophical commitments, as long as they dont move into the realm of the supernatural.

Among the methods various schools of Buddhism apply towards this goal are: devotional practices, ritual, ethical conduct, the invocation of holy beings that help them achieve Nirvana, altruistic behaviour, renunciation of worldly matters, study, meditation, and cultivation of wisdom.

Rebirth
Main article: Rebirth (Buddhism)
Rebirth means beings go through a succession of lives, each running from conception[23] to death, as one of many possible forms of sentient life. It is important to note though, that Buddhism rejects the idea of a permanent self or the concept of an unchanging, eternal soul as it is known e.g. in Christianity or even Hinduism. As there ultimately is no such thing as a self (anatta), rebirth in subsequent existences must rather be understood as the continuation of a dynamic, ever changing process of "Dependent Arising" (Pratītyasamutpāda) determined by the laws of cause and effect (karma) rather than that of one being, "jumping" from one existence to the next.
Each rebirth takes place within one of five realms, according to Theravadins, or six according to other schools.[24][25] These are further subdivided into 31 planes of existence:[26]
Naraka beings: those who live in one of many Narakas (Hells).
Animals: sharing some space with humans, but considered another type of life.
Preta: Sometimes sharing some space with humans, but invisible to most people; an important variety is the hungry ghost.[27]
Human beings: one of the realms of rebirth in which attaining Nirvana is possible.
Asuras: variously translated as lowly deities, demons, titans, antigods; not recognized by Theravada (Mahavihara) tradition as a separate realm.[28]
Devas including Brahmas: variously translated as gods, deities, spirits, angels, or left untranslated.
Rebirths in some of the higher heavens, known as the Śuddhāvāsa Worlds (Pure Abodes), can be attained only by anāgāmis (non-returners). Rebirths in the arupa-dhatu (formless realms) can be attained only by those who can meditate on the arupa-jhānas.
According to East Asian and Tibetan Buddhism, there is an intermediate state between one life and the next, but Theravada rejects this,[2

You'd have to contend why that is not spiritual, and when i refer to a non theist religion i generally mention Buddhism, and when i say spiritual i generally speak of the basic belief systems (not religions) of Animism and Totetism, these two generally compose solely or primarily of reverence towards one's ancestors or reverence towards all nature; they are highly positive and peaceful belief systems and they certainly don't profess absolutism, because these aren't about knowledge, but simply respect.

While deities may exist for certain sects of Buddhism, they aren't exactly the main concern or very important to the religion's goals.

[Kaylia]

Meh, I think I do have a bit of a bone to pick with this argument. It supposes that evolution works towards some sort of goal, which is not the case. I do agree with the notion that evolution has not equipped humanity to naturally comprehend things like geological timescales, plate tectonics, or the universe as a whole, as it does not directly benefit a population with a generational timespan of a few decades. Religion may be a consequence of our ability to begin to comprehend these gigantic issues, yet that does not make it a satisfactory answer by itself. Either way, the transition to a society that is able to pass knowledge intergenerationally obviously adds another element to evolution.

Evolution theory and physics laws imply that this goal is "efficiency". Personally, it's a big part of my definition of "good", but for someone who define "good" differently, he could draw another conclusion.


I'm not sure you can compare something finite to something else that is infinite. A finite brain can only understand what is finite (from its perspective). An infinite brain would see another infinity as something finite, but there is always a higher infinite from its perspective

[0ni0n]

My personal beliefs, as a pessimist, is that there is no sentient supreme being out there (not that I would mind if there is one). I don't know what's up there...hell, I can barely justify my own existence ("I think therefor I am" is just circular logic).



Do you believe in evolution?


Do you understand the concept of "fitness" (efficiency) behind genetic algorithm? Why do you think mankind believe in religion for the last 30 000-150 000 year. If religion was really a burden to the society, it would have dissapeared on its own.

I believe in evolution wholeheartedly. Are you advocating that religion is the result of natural selection? You do realize religion belief is not a biological feature.

[Dimmauk]

The big religions that are still around ate the little religions that are extinct now.

If only God would stop creating new religions would be better off.

[Kaylia]

Originally Posted by Neosutra
No, that acceptance is only by you Kaylia. You have NO fucking clue what you are talking about when you make such broad sweeping statements about the limitations of causel time/space models that yet to exist. Your ignorance of science and specifically physics is insulting and is amplified by your continued insistance to tell everyone here what we just cant know as a species.

And im sure everytime anyone talks all you hear is a wooshing sound, as our words dont seem to sink into your thick skull. I find it hard to believe you can operate a computer and still be this stupid.

That's weird...I get the opposite feeling. Everyone but you is putting decent argument and don't reject mathematical concept with "ur stupid"

You don't want to define anything, you refuse to see paradox, but don't attempt any explanation, you reject mathematical concept knowing perfectly well that every model you build are mathematical concept.

What can I do? If mathematics are too wrong for you, if you don't want to define, there isn't much of an argument I can have with you.

[Kuya]

"Believe" in evolution? Don't we have enough evidence for that to at the very least say we have an educated opinion about it, if not knowledge?

[Kaylia]

I believe in evolution wholeheartedly. Are you advocating that religion is the result of natural selection? You do realize religion belief is not a biological feature.

Yet, you see it in literally every society under a certain form (sometime very simple). It's probably more biological than you can think to postulate the existance of a religion the "rainmaker god"

[0ni0n]

Yet, you see it in literally every society under a certain form (sometime very simple). It's probably more biological than you can think to postulate the existance of a religion the "rainmaker god"

Do you know anything about evolution? Kids aren't born with a belief. A belief is taught or imposed later in life. To say religion is an evolutionary feature is to say that the color blue is a hereditary trait because every culture uses it.

[Kaylia]

Do you know anything about evolution? Kids aren't born with a belief. A belief is taught or imposed later in life. To say religion is an evolutionary feature is to say that the color blue is a hereditary trait because every culture uses it.

The brain is such a simple tool, DNA and evolution obviously had no impact on it works.

If your brain wasnt inclined to postulate thing, you wouldn't be able to rationalize at all. You need to be able to assume that something is true if you want to make a logical reasoning. The postulate that there is something greater is needed if you want to start defining everything else.