An open letter to religious people

[Bob]

Quoting Haunted from 13:34, 5th Aug 2008
This really takes the biscuit for being the best false analogy I may ever have read on the sinner. How the bloody hell is wearing a bracelet like being unable to walk? 'Not doing gym class because you are incapable' is not breaking a rule. When a pupil is off ill they aren't breaking the rules by not attending school.

I was saying that being religious is analygous to being disabled, not the wearing of the bracelet. Think of it as a mental disability. There are certain allowances that you have to make for them in the same way that certain allowances are made for mentally disabled people. Mentally disabled people dont always make sense and neither do religious people.

[Bob]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 02:45, 7th Aug 2008
I have no idea how this little box works. However I know it doesn't rely solely on logic. Using logical concepts and even logical formulae does not make computer science into logic.

You fool! the man said logic is a part of maths and logic is a part of computer science (indirectly). He did not say anything relied solely on logic and he did not say computer science is entirely logic.

...the scientist also learns a part of logic, as a tool, but as a pure subject logic remains a philosophy and not a science...

Are you telling me philosophy is entirely logic and nothing else? Surely logic is a part of philosophy and logic is a part of computer science. Maybe in different forms and different amounts but you cannot say it belongs entirely to philosophy.

I don't know why you're so insistent on creating boundaries between subjects when its obvious every subject is a mix of others.

[Haunted]

Quoting Mr Comedy from 09:06, 7th Aug 2008
Just because some people who are religious are murdering, picketing funerals etc., doesn't mean all of them are. This is an argument on the same plane of deductive reasoning as "Mugabe is terrible, therefore all politicians are" and "Joey Barton is an asshat, therefore all footballers are". Extending it out logically doesn't work either. Politics isn't wrong because certain politicians are wrong, and football isn't wrong because certain footballers are.
For those of you recycling arguments from Dawkins, this is his singularly worst argument as it makes no sense at all.

No one has been making this arguement. Not even Dick Dawkins.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Bob from 14:58, 6th Aug 2008
I was saying that being religious is analygous to being disabled, not the wearing of the bracelet. Think of it as a mental disability. There are certain allowances that you have to make for them in the same way that certain allowances are made for mentally disabled people. Mentally disabled people dont always make sense and neither do religious people.

Fair enough then. Mildy offensive of course. Even if we start treating religious belief as mental disability, you don't indulge the patient in his or her delusion, you try to help. And if they are at the point where they need to be indulged in order to function then they need to be in a hospital.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Anon.]

Quoting Haunted from 13:34, 5th Aug 2008
Secular =/= atheist. Also, I'm not trying to get people to deconvert, I just want mysticism out of the system. What consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is no business of mine.

Are you really saying your only problem with religion is the Bench of Bishops?

[Delts]

That is a problem imo, but so is anything religious that influences decisions that affect me. The talk of incorporating aspects of sharia law into the English judicial system is absurd.

But not to be too specific, there should be no religious influences in our government or law. I personally was shocked that Tony Blair had made decisions after "consulting" God.

Quoting Anon. from 16:33, 7th Aug 2008

Quoting Haunted from 13:34, 5th Aug 2008
Secular =/= atheist. Also, I'm not trying to get people to deconvert, I just want mysticism out of the system. What consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is no business of mine.

Are you really saying your only problem with religion is the Bench of Bishops?

[hr]

Quotes: For when you can think of nothing to say yourself.

[novium]

You could have fooled me. In fact, you did.

Quoting Haunted from 12:51, 7th Aug 2008

Quoting Mr Comedy from 09:06, 7th Aug 2008
Just because some people who are religious are murdering, picketing funerals etc., doesn't mean all of them are. This is an argument on the same plane of deductive reasoning as "Mugabe is terrible, therefore all politicians are" and "Joey Barton is an asshat, therefore all footballers are". Extending it out logically doesn't work either. Politics isn't wrong because certain politicians are wrong, and football isn't wrong because certain footballers are.
For those of you recycling arguments from Dawkins, this is his singularly worst argument as it makes no sense at all.

No one has been making this arguement. Not even Dick Dawkins.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[Deaf]

http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/full/185830/Religion_Humour_Funny_Pictures

Religion + Humour = Funny Pictures

[Haunted]

Unless you make fun of Islam in which case = death(s).

Oh why not.
IMAGE:twaenty8.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/lego-mohammed.jpg

Come get me.


Also, welcome back to this thread I suppose.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Tigger]

Ok. Lets break this down. Ill be "devils" Advocate.
Firstly, the Original Poster is an unregistered user, therefore his opinion means nothing. (I know, I know, but I'm just making the same statement as many many others on many other threads)
Secondly, Religion holds fast as a belief system, for want of a better world, and brings people together, albeit many times in the act of war, but together nonetheless.
Thirdly, If i was taking a scientific viewpoint, as I'm sure all the physicists will argue against, then the Big Bang, where, oh wait, the universe was created from nothing???surely proves that there is more to creation than the original evolution theory.
and finally, Everyone is a sheep, blindly following the shepherd of the moment. Yes, things like lightning etc have been proved to be natural occurences, but then again, science has been proved wrong on many occasions, with further research. Events that happen in this world that cant be explained scientifically are seen as freaks of nature. Cop out much? Explain or be damned is what say. Prove God doesnt exist with something more substantial, because lets face it, faith in ones own ability, against illness, disease, and poverty, has shown amazing results. (I point to the Man that cured himself of HIV, through the power of positive thinking. Before someone comes back and says the tests were wrong that originally diagnosed them, well surprise surprise, science failed. Or you could say that a miracle occurred. Or you could say he was a freak of nature!)
Man is God is Man. It is the belief in something higher, something to strive towards, that lends people a reason to go on. Lets face it, without belief, whether justified or not, in an "Omnipetent" or not, would mean that we have the cycle of pointlessness. ie. We are born and then we die. Making a difference in the world, even for one person, surely makes everyting worthwhile. If that be helping a lady across the street, or sponsoring a child, or giving the big issue seller your last change, that one positive step shows compassion in mankind. Without this compassion, this faith, this belief in other Man, the world would be a desperate place.

[hr]

My Wings Are Like A Shield of Steel...
(Claire Raynor)

[Frank]

Man, this is very difficult to remember it's the devil's advocate arguments and not some eejit proposing their own views!

Quoting Tigger from 18:19, 17th Aug 2008
Firstly, the Original Poster is an unregistered user, therefore his opinion means nothing. (I know, I know, but I'm just making the same statement as many many others on many other threads)

I'd say 'carries less weight'. The idea is that folks seriously involved in debates tend to register. If not, oh well.

Quoting Tigger from 18:19, 17th Aug 2008Secondly, Religion holds fast as a belief system, for want of a better world, and brings people together, albeit many times in the act of war, but together nonetheless.

Religion does this, btu so do a great many other things. Music is a perfect example. Ever get into an argument with people about a band? Extremely divisive stuff, but extremely helpful at gluing within the divisions themselves. (Note: Can also be used to undo glue too)

Other stuff applies here. Football fandom, computer games (clans, anyone?), art, humour...the list goes on.

I think that religion has some beneficial factors is not enough to advoid a deeper analysis of its merits. (By the same token this also applies to most things; football fandom, music etc)

Quoting Tigger from 18:19, 17th Aug 2008Thirdly, If i was taking a scientific viewpoint, as I'm sure all the physicists will argue against, then the Big Bang, where, oh wait, the universe was created from nothing???surely proves that there is more to creation than the original evolution theory.

This is a non sequitor(sp?), but still is an important issue. That is: there's a logical leap being made that
1- Science hasn't explained it (and it might not be able to)
2- Religion makes claims to explain it
3- Therefore religion has credibility

(Though evolution is hardly the be-all creation answer/counter... continental drift, plate tectonics, star formation, the-bulk-of-chemistry are address neither by the Big Bang-related theories nor evolutionary theories (natural selection etc). The trick with evolution is that it's one weapon in the arsenal of science, it happens to be good at explaining that life's creation was a lot more complicated than a vague deity wishing us into existence over the course of a few days)

Now, addressing the association here of 'science can't explain it' and 'religion has merit' is insufficient, IMO. If we're trying to understand things then, I'd say, if science can't help explain it then it's not really important [this is has a lot of unstated major premisses, but it's a different topic really so I'll dodge it here...])

Quoting Tigger from 18:19, 17th Aug 2008and finally, Everyone is a sheep, blindly following the shepherd of the moment. Yes, things like lightning etc have been proved to be natural occurences, but then again, science has been proved wrong on many occasions, with further research. Events that happen in this world that cant be explained scientifically are seen as freaks of nature. Cop out much?

Not really. I think folks still understand they can be studied, they just don't happen often enough to be studied rigorously. One day we'll figure them out. (It's better putting things in a 'do later' box than an 'it was Thor' box, no?).

Not only that, but the structure of our scientific search is such that even things we understand to be true are still checked, double checked and reverified (and, of course, cracks appear and we know to look deeper!).

Quoting Tigger from 18:19, 17th Aug 2008Explain or be damned is what say. Prove God doesnt exist with something more substantial, because lets face it, faith in ones own ability, against illness, disease, and poverty, has shown amazing results. (I point to the Man that cured himself of HIV, through the power of positive thinking. Before someone comes back and says the tests were wrong that originally diagnosed them, well surprise surprise, science failed. Or you could say that a miracle occurred. Or you could say he was a freak of nature!)

This is the set of arguments about knowledge itself. Can anything but your own experience be trusted? What about anecdotal evidence? We've empirical evidence which talks about the unreliability of human memory...

Science isn't perfect, I'd say, but I don't see how anything could be...better than it. (That is just picking something, believing it and going with it unquestioning).

Cue: Funny Picture.

[img]http://web.mac.com/rico.fusco/meme/flow.jpg[/img]

Quoting Tigger from 18:19, 17th Aug 2008Man is God is Man. It is the belief in something higher, something to strive towards, that lends people a reason to go on. Lets face it, without belief, whether justified or not, in an "Omnipetent" or not, would mean that we have the cycle of pointlessness. ie. We are born and then we die.

Morality doesn't derive from religion by necessity. The feeling good and being happy with purpose in life needn't be purely due to religion. I'm quite happy with my purpose in life without religion. The "Well, I like it so that's enough for me!" argument isn't one I'm terribly happy using, but I find it difficult to counter when other folks invoke it.

Quoting Tigger from 18:19, 17th Aug 2008Making a difference in the world, even for one person, surely makes everyting worthwhile. If that be helping a lady across the street, or sponsoring a child, or giving the big issue seller your last change, that one positive step shows compassion in mankind.

This is charity and compassion. This is not religion. They might overlap in activites, but that doesn't mean they're the same, obviously.

Quoting Tigger from 18:19, 17th Aug 2008 Without this compassion, this faith, this belief in other Man, the world would be a desperate place.

It's not really religion though. Science hasn't quite mastered society yet, but if it did? If there was a better way to do things without this faith?

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[creepy old man]

People who are not religious can still be compassionate, and often are. Yes, sometimes religion inspires people to do good deeds. It also inspires some people to murder each other and do very horrible deeds.

Also, the Big Bang and evolution are entirely different theories. What makes the Big Bang argument a bit easier to accept than Creation is that the people who came up with it acknowledge that they do not [yet] understand it completely, whereas the people who came up with and argue in favour of Creation have complete, unsubstantiated confidence in something they cannot fully understand or prove.

And I think this statement is ridiculous: 'Religion holds fast as a belief system, for want of a better world, and brings people together, albeit many times in the act of war, but together nonetheless.' When people are brought together in the act of war, that is not a positive thing. Personally I think that people would be better off alienated from one another than joined together in slaughter and devastation.

As for 'freaks of nature' being a desperate cop-out, there has been a lot of research done on genetic mutation and other 'freak occurances.' It's not the fault of scientists that they can't explain every single thing in the universe - there aren't quite enough scientists for that. Perhaps things would be a lot less foggy if science hadn't been censored and stunted by religious beliefs and authorities for so many centuries.

Lastly, why should non-religious people have to prove God doesn't exist? There's no proof that he does exist, just like there's no proof that unicorns or flying elephants exist.

[Anon.]

Quoting Haunted from 18:01, 17th Aug 2008

Come get me.

According to wikipedia Mohammed's marriage to Ayesha wasn't consummated until she was nine, though they had been engaged since she was six. Not sick after all!

[Haunted]

Fuck catholicism,
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews?articleid=4398680

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[macgamer]

Quoting Haunted from 18:44, 18th Aug 2008
Fuck catholicism,
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews?articleid=4398680

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

As sex education and contraceptive provision have increased, so there has also been a dramatic rise in the incidence of STIs.

The Church predicted this would happen 40 years ago. See Humanae Vitae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_ ... ae_en.html

However it was not well received by society or indeed many Catholics.

The Catholic Church has not changed its position on this issue and I believe that the statistics in Britain alone, attest to the truth of its moral teaching.

[Delts]

I'd just like to see what would happen then if you had todays relaxed attitudes towards sex with no sex education whatsoever. Teen pregnancies would be through the roof and everyone just about would have some form of STI.

Teaching good practices is not to blame, relaxed attitudes towards relationships are.

[hr]

Quotes: For when you can think of nothing to say yourself.

[macgamer]

Quoting Delts from 20:29, 18th Aug 2008
I'd just like to see what would happen then if you had todays relaxed attitudes towards sex with no sex education whatsoever. Teen pregnancies would be through the roof and everyone just about would have some form of STI.

Perhaps, however I don't think people are quite that self obliterating. Most people do realise that sexual promiscuity increases the risk of contracting an STI. However they have been taught that they can have their cake and eat it. This is not true.

Teaching good practices is not to blame, relaxed attitudes towards relationships are.

I agree relaxed attitudes are to blame.

However the contraception and sex education inculcates an attitude towards sex and relationships devoid of acknowledgment of consequences and responsibility.

This is the terrible paradox of today's society. The teaching of those 'good practices' has caused the very situation in which society finds itself.

Millions of condoms have been distributed worldwide and the message of 'safe sex' continues to be zealously preached like the Gospel was by missionaries a century before them, yet still the STI incidence increases.

If you do not give people something to aspire to, they seldom aspire it themselves, but instead remain where they are or get worse.

[Senethro]

Why should there be consequences when the advice is followed correctly, instead of its distribution being obstructed by busybodies "thinking of the children". I submit Holland as an example where a liberal attitude towards sex education has had good results.

So why is it not true that they can have their cake and eat it?

Also, while I'm sure attitudes have relaxed relative to the Victorian era, how do they compare with previous centuries? Or does that not count, because the individuals that would be legally children today were married then?


Why do Catholics make it look like their main driving motive is to see people suffer for their perceived immorality?

[Grant]

The STI arguement/increase in condoms to me sounds moot. Classic case of trying to fit a correlation to an effect where it is not really the full picture. Increasing sex education and condom availability does not directly correlate with an increase in STI's neccessarily.

How great do you think STI monitoring or even diagnosis was pre-1900? How great was it pre-1950?

The trouble with statistics is that with better recording of said statistics comes an obvious increase in the number of cases recorded. The simple point is that in history much of the paedophilia, drug use, STI levels, rape and murder were simply NOT documented.

I'm always cautious about supposed increases in anything - are they true increases in rate, or simply the bias of better record keeping/diagnosis/crime enforcement? Or correlated with the ever increasing population and average lifespan?

[Frank]

Rationally speaking, I can't see the calls being made by the Catholic Church holding much weight. Thus I'm shocked (read: dismayed) they held weight in the negotiations.

As others have said: Lesser sex-ed would be hypothesised to make a bigger increase. We don't have a control case to test against ergo the Catholic Church's stance is without evidence except that STI recordings have increased (and, presumably, so have STI incidence in the real, non-statistical world).

Where's some healthy scepticism and reason for stuff like this? Oh, there it is (points to picture up the page)

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."