Should we fight religion? If so, why? (response to BionicDance)

[scottie0904]

I agree completely.

The fact that many religious beliefs are embraced by one group of people, while another group disregards them, yet both groups label themselves as "Christian" or "Muslim" makes it even more difficult to pin down the most harmful elements of one particular religion, and adds to the convolution in public discourse.

It would not matter if they simply kept those thoughts to themselves. Or at least shared only with those closest to them.

Awareness is the key, I think.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@scottie0904

Well said.

[OcarinaKirby995]

I personally don't think we shouldn't fight religion, but I think that lines should be drawn about it. Nobody (including atheists) should be allowed to shove their religion down anyone's throats. I think that many Christians contradict the bible and continue to do that when the bible actually says that if someone doesn't want to hear the gospel, then don't teach it to them. I'm also sick and tired of them saying that gay marriage is evil. They are always saying that god should smite them, beca

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@OcarinaKirby995

Well, the problem is that some parts of the bible are outright evil. It demands gay people and those who work on the sabbath to be stoned to death, it advocates violent conversion or killing "infidels", it condones rape and slavery, and so on and so forth. Most believers do cherry picking but that doesn't change what's written in their "holy book".

[ScientificBob]

@OcarinaKirby995 "Nobody (including atheists) should be allowed to shove their religion down anyone's throats"

Atheists don't have a religion. All I really want is simply a true secular society. Where religion simply is a non-factor. I don't care if it exists, I don't care if anyone believes it... I just don't want any of it influencing any part of public life. And I want the freedom to laugh at their beliefs just like we laugh at flat-earthers.

[xiorawr]

@ScientificBob you know that atheism really is it's OWN religion.You believe in no God, but it IS a belief.It's its own religion that millions of people follow.It just isn't associated with being a religion because there is no God associated with it.

[OcarinaKirby995]

Even though I don't believe in religion, it still annoys me when people say that religion causes wars. Religion doesn't cause wars...crazy tyrants and disputes in general do.

[DogsneedpIeasuretoo]

@OcarinaKirby995

And often times, those crazy tyrants had religions believes that cause them to fight.

If religions did not existed, it would be one reason less that would be causing fights and as we all know, you can live a healthy happy life without being part of a religion.

[ScientificBob]

@OcarinaKirby995 "Religion doesn't cause wars...crazy tyrants and disputes in general do."

The problem is the that many of those tyrants found their motivation and, in their eyes, justification in religious dogma. And in practically all cases, did these tyrants use the religious dogma's to get all their people to take up arms and go to war.

Even in atheistic russia, it was communist dogma and blind obedience that made it possible.

[Smexanator]

So, If my god was the god of hugs and all I had to do is live life the way I want to and in the after life I got hugs when I wanted them would this be bad? I would say no, but if I said my god is the god of hugs and he said if I did not live life how I want to he would slap me for every second I was live.......well ya that is a bad way of saying you don't like being controlled and maybe you say it to get people to leave you alone so you can live how you want, but I don't think it would help. :/

[realnameunknown2011]

if anything on the point of view about, kids being Brainwashed into religious beliefs, there be a agelimit, as they do on, alkehol they but a age limit on it before u can Drink,

or smoke, and by the time they hit, age like 16 or 17 or 18 or 21, they would not want to be part of religion.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@realnameunknown2011

Yes, I agree, an age limit for exposure to religion would be a good thing. At a young age children are too suggestible and cannot decide for themselves what makes sense and what doesn't.

[realnameunknown2011]

@SkallagrimNilsson

Thx 4 the Reply

[DogsneedpIeasuretoo]

Atheists, agnostics, free thinkers, are they good extremists?

IF 99% of the population think that is good to add poison to drink water, I think is good that 1% of "extremists" try to put some sense into them and make them think differently.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@DogsneedpIeasuretoo

That's a good point. "Extremism" is not a simple matter, it depends on the definition and the context. There is no guarantee that the majority / the general population is right, and often it's not, or not entirely.

That's why I said that we need a verifiable basis for making decisions that is as objective as possible. Many people seem to grossly underestimate the importance of scientific research.

[moonlightavenger]

So, the problem, in short is extremism. That right?

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@moonlightavenger

In one word, yes. It's not that simple though... how do we define extremism? Where do we draw the line?

[moonlightavenger]

@SkallagrimNilsson When it tramples on people's rights?

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@moonlightavenger

Rights to what? Right to practice their religion freely? Right to speak their mind even if it's hate speech against minority groups? Right to demand that religious doctrines are taught in school?

I'm pretty we both agree on what we mean by extremism and people's rights but it's worth considering the challenges behind those terms. Different people may understand them quite differently.

[moonlightavenger]

@SkallagrimNilsson Then the problem is that people don´t really know what they are allowed to do. Isn´t that why there are laws?

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@moonlightavenger

I agree, but I guess you should tell that to the nut jobs who demand creationism to be taught in school...

[moonlightavenger]

@SkallagrimNilsson

Nah... I like it better to talk with people that make sense. : )

I´m trying to understand the problem correctly because in my country, it´s worse. In the constitution says a lot of nice things about rights and duty and progress, then... "under the protection of God"...

This fight about teaching creationism in schools is kind of sparking around here.

[Tr1pMind]

i don't think it needs to be fought, I think we just need to maintain a proper education standard so people can form whatever worldview makes the most sense to them individually.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@Tr1pMind

My thoughts exactly. Education is crucial.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@Tr1pMind

My thoughts exactly. Education is crucial.

[VicariousReality7]

Religious deception tells you to believe and submit

The scientific method tells you why you should believe and submit

The burden of proof is yours.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@VicariousReality7

That's correct, although there are non-dogmatic belief systems that encourage personal development and exploration rather than unthinking acceptance of whatever claim. They are in the minority however.

Like Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Everything else is just speculation and personal opinion.

[SupremeAmerican]

There's a courthouse in texas that has a nativity scene up. The atheist ''freedom from religion foundation'' based out of wisconsin, demanded it be taken down. The courthouse responded "any and all religions, including atheists, are allowed to put up decorations, we are not singling anyone out''. The reason the atheists refused to put up decorations? When they asked, they were told their anti-jesus banner could not cover up the nativity, it had to be stand alone. So they awoled.

[Tr1pMind]

@SupremeAmerican that sounds likei quite a fabricated story, care to share a source?

[SupremeAmerican]

@Tr1pMind @Tr1pMind Completely legit. Sorry you feel that way. Please reference freedom from religion foundation's website, at ffrf (period here) org/news/ajax-releases Also please reference the Henderson County Courthouse in Texas, and their press releases, all available at any major news outlet.

[SupremeAmerican]

@Tr1pMind They're actually quite wrong on their winter solstice statement. The roman government in fact stole the holliday, and forced christians to follow it or be punished by death, while doing so, they censored the biblical texts and killed people caught with them. Which is fitting, seeing as the biblical texts say christ was born in the early autumn. And this was one of the first major moves by our beloved Vatican, who claims to have changed 4 better since middle 1500's.

[Tr1pMind]

@SupremeAmerican the roman empire was the one responsible for imposing christianity on the germanic heathens of europe. and winter solstice celebrations were and are observed by many cultures around the world that hadn't had contact with each other late into the iron age. There was no need for winter solstice to be forced upon the europeans, they had likely already been celebrating it.

[SupremeAmerican]

@Tr1pMind Correct. The roman empire forced the winter solstice on the Christians in all logical historical accounts. They censored biblical texts, enforced pagan rituals, and murdered those who spoke against it, which is where we get the "Protestant" sect. Really, What better way to quell those pesky bastards? They were only causing turmoil and creating a rebellious society for Rome to deal with.

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

"The roman empire forced the winter solstice on the Christians in all logical historical accounts"

- they legalized Christianity in a culture that already celebrated the winter solstice, they did not however force the religion itself to adopt it and build a savoir-deity birth myth around it's timing.

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

"They censored biblical texts..."

- their censorship was only against texts that went against the empire which is no different than how the christians themselves censored texts that contradicted those they favored.

- once again, the Romans legalized christianity in a culture where these practises were already present, they didnt force Christianity to adopt them and build myths around them.

- also who the hell died for not practising these established celebrations???

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

Christianity and (catholicism in particular) has a long history of being imposed on cultures and then 'adopting elements of these cultures to try and ease the transition' (essentially stealing celebrations and holidays to make it's imposition easier on the party being taken over)

hell, they even tried to adopt the pentagram at one point.

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 You should actually read the history. You'd be suprised. It's a lot worse than that. When Rome found it's territories containing large amounts of people following the perceived Jewish Messiah, and rejecting the standard paganism rule of law Rome used, they instituted the Roman Church in 353 AD, later to become the Catholic church. They burned all bibles, killed all christians caught with them, and forced pagan rituals, such as xmas. So your transition is quite reversed.

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

" You should actually read the history. You'd be suprised"

- VCE Religion and society units 1-4 with a focus on the historicity of christ says i wouldnt be :)

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

"Jewish Messiah, and rejecting the standard paganism rule of law Rome used, they instituted the Roman Church in 353 AD, later to become the Catholic church"

- The roman's actually forced the early christians to get their shit together (and decide what verses should be included in the bible .etc) shortly after christianity was legalized in 313CE and before/during the council of nicea in 325CE

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

"They burned all bibles, killed all christians caught with them..."

incorrect, there is no historical basis for the above statement:

- the bible wasnt produced until after Christianity was legalized

- after Christianity was legalized there was no basis for persecution.

and in any event nothing of what you've said here says anything about christmas or address my arguments regarding christianity being legalized into a culture where the concept was already present

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 The biblical texts, Gospels in particular, were outlawed. The Bible was a collection of several books. Constantine ''Legalized'' Christianity by making it the official Church of Rome. And that's when the worst persecution started. It was persecution against the people who thought Jesus was their messiah, or as they liked to call them, Christians, ''Little Christus's". Their attempt to quell it, meant officiating it, banning it's texts, infiltrating with paganism.

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

"The biblical texts, Gospels in particular..."

- Which Gospels? because the early christians did a whole lot of outlawing of their own as soon as christianity become legal (removing contradictions .etc)

- also your statement only applies PRIOR TO 315CE (because after that it became the official religion of Rome)

"And that's when the worst persecution started"

- incorrect, after that there was no basis for persecution and challenge you to provide any evidence there was

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 As for Christmas, yes, it's a pagan holliday. 99.99 percent of christians know this. All churches teach it. You simply asked me about sources for an incident in which i was speaking about, where the freedom from religion foundation had a conflict with a texas court house. I provided you the sources, after you said it sounded like a made up story. Can i help you with anything further?

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

"As for Christmas, yes, it's a pagan holliday. 99.99 percent..."

i call bullshit on both your claims:

-the ignorance demonstrated by American's when they claim a war on christmas as an affront to specifically christianity is consistent with someone who doesnt acknowledge any pagan meaning

-furthermore i was raised as a catholic and you can be damn straight that neither the church nor my faith primary/secondary school mentioned anything about the pagan origins of christmas

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

" i was speaking about, where the freedom from religion foundation had a conflict with a texas court house"

incorrect, my comments were with regard to your faulty interpretation of history (especially with regard to ancient Rome around the time christianity was legalized)

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 More food for thought, The Roman Church, Constantine in particular, changed the sabbath, from the gospel saying Saturday, to his claim that it should be Sunday, to worship the Sun. That was another installment of paganism. And the book of revelations predicted that would happen over 150 years prior to it happening.

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

"The Roman Church, Constantine in particular, changed the sabbath, from the gospel saying Saturday, to his claim..."

- which has absolutly nothing to do with YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION that the Romans forced Christians to adopt the Christmas celebration.

ie. they simply legalized Christianity into a culture where the concept already existed and was celebrated; they didnt force christianity to ingrain it into it's religion nor build a birth-myth around it

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 I think you simply don't appreciate when someone disagrees with you. Pre-RomanChurch, the Jews who thought Jesus was their Messiah, celebrated his birth in the early Fall/Autumn. And as such, even our present day Bible, and all Gospels insinuate he was born in the early Autumn. Far from the winter solstice. Your temper tantrums do not change this.

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

" I think you simply don't appreciate when someone disagrees with you"

- it's not a matter of disagreement either your historical account is objectively correct or it is not objectively correct.

- So far your statements havnt made sense (eg. increased christian persecution after christianity was legalized) and you've failed to provide evidence of them

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

Additionally you've failed to address my statements regarding christianity being introduced into an environment where the concept of christmas (or atleast celebration of the season) was already present nor provided any evidence for your unsubstanciated assertion that the romans forced them to adopt it and make it a part of their religion.

EVIDENCE, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 basic research on constantine will reveal he was extremely outspoken about not only adding a pagan holliday to the birth regimen of Jesus, but changing the date. He was also very adamant and outspoken about changing the date of the so called sabbath, to be the pagan day of the sun, which it originally was not. If you want sources, quit throwing temper tantrums and open a history book..

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

"basic research on constantine will reveal he was extremely outspoken about not only adding a pagan holliday to the birth regimen of Jesus, but changing the date."

- the historical evidence does not support this.

"He was also very adamant and outspoken about changing the date of the so called sabbath"

- incorrect yet again, whilst Constantine did decree Sunday as the official day of rest (of the roman empire) he did not change the Sabbath or make any reference thereof

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

1).

"basic research on constantine... quit throwing temper tantrums and open a history book.."

- the only one here who needs to pickup a history book is you!

Your claim that Constantine forced a change on the Sabbath day is utter CRAP and i can prove it:

The actual decree:

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed"

NO MENTION OF THE SABBATH AT ALL!

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 That quote is in direct reference to the sabbath you idiot. Up untill then, all jews and jews that believed jesus was the jewish messiah (christians) called Saturday the Sabbath. To this day the Jews still do it.

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

furthermore constantine's actions were most likely done in support of christianity:

ref:

- Acts 20:7.

- 1 Corinthians 16:2

(Both of which speak of how christians should meet on Sundays - but neither of which change the sabbath)

In anycase there is no link between Constantine decree and the your assertion of him changing the date of the Sabbath

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 none of those support constantines actions -ACTS 20: 6And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. 7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. 8And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

"none of those support constantines actions"

- incorrect, both of them establish the fact that christians were already meeting on Sundays, hence given the fact that Constantine was a recent convert it would make sense for him to make this the official day of rest.

"ACTS 20: 6And we sailed away from"

- the key part in here is this:

"And upon the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK when the disciples came together to break bread"

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 Wrong. Corinthians is in reference to Paul talking about preperation for a journey. He is going to travel great distance, and wants people to prepare the first day of the week, many are going with him. You dont even have Acts right. 6 But we sailed from Philippi after the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and five days later joined the others at Troas, where we stayed seven days.

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 So you have not countered both or any of my arguments. You have only proved yourself wrong, and failed in every other aspect.

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

"So you have not countered both or any of my..."

INCORRECT:

a). i addressed both of your responses to my evidences regarding Constantine's PRO-CHRISTIAN motivation for making Sunday the official day of rest of the Roman empire

b). even if both of these points had been completely wrong, i would have still demonstrated your assertion regarding Constantine CHANGING THE SABBATH to be a completely unevidenced load of crap.

*fluuush that's the sound of your argument* :)

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 you just gave a quote from him declaring he changed it. you lost. deal with it.

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 1 Corinthians 16 1Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. 3And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

Whilst i've countered both of your arguments regarding the versus cited they are both insubstantial to my argument which rests on your failure to draw a link between Constantine's decree that changed the official day of FOR THE ROMAN EMPIRE to Sunday and your unevidneced assertion that he also changed the Sabbath to this day.

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 The corinthians is in reference to paul speaking to a foreign church

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 Merry Christmas :)

[SupremeAmerican]

@types10000 lol he's famous for doing these. And you ask me for ''evidence, put up or shut up''. LOL!

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

You asserted that the Romans forced the early christians to adopt christmas into their religion.

Where is the evidence of this? The Roman's legalized Christianity in a culture in which the concept of Christmas already existed and you havnt provided any evidence to suggest that they forced Christians to adopt it into their religion nor make a birth myth surrounding it.

[types10000]

@SupremeAmerican

You asserted that Christian persecution increased after Christianity was legalized.

Where is the evidence of this? it doesnt make sense and you've failed to provide any facts to back it up.

[SupremeAmerican]

@Tr1pMind So i guess you can see why one with an education in history would find it funny for someone to claim the christians forced christmas on the atheists. (that's what the freedom from religion foundation claims).

[SupremeAmerican]

i like ur video btw, Sounds like you hit the nail on the head, great points. but dont forget, some things, such as over half the universities and hospitals in the US, were founded by organized religion, so it's not all bad. Merry Christmas asshole.

[SupremeAmerican]

I think when it gets to the point that the atheists are going town to town demanding christmas decorations in particular get taken down, then it's gone too far. Sounds more like anti-theism than atheism if you ask me.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@SupremeAmerican

Yep, that definitely sounds like anti-theism. And it's even totally pointless... we all know that Christmas has been conquered by mighty King Commerce a long time ago.

[SupremeAmerican]

@SkallagrimNilsson Hell yes. Thank mighty king commerce for my new monitor and new CPU

[Alphalug]

I don't mean to sound like an ass between the fight from hell between you and Bionic. But Moderation, middle road, umm fuck IDK what other terms you want. when you are too much one way or the other you are just as bad as the supper bible thumper's folks. Now I am biased on this so I will leave it at that. Oh merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah. Don't know what the Muslim do this time of year so happy whatever for you guys as well.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@Alphalug

Fight from hell? That was not what I'd call a fight, it was merely an exchange of ideas. That's what I was going for at least.

I'm not sure I got your point... Of course moderation is good, that's what I'm all for. When has extremism ever been productive? Well okay, I'm sure you could name historical events but there are always exceptions.

Sounded like you had an objection, so I'm a little confused.

Muslims? What do the boot-lickers of Allah have do with this?

[Alphalug]

@SkallagrimNilsson

That is why I said it. lol to get your goat.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@Alphalug

You, you... MEANIE!!! XD

I'm notoriously bad at detecting non-serious mode on the internet.

[Alphalug]

@SkallagrimNilsson lol

[Inueyes6667]

I'm a live and let live kinda person.

[BionicDance]

You wanna know what I think about that? I think no. NO. There is no, "You might as well believe that." Believing something without evidence is ALWAYS a bad idea. If you have no evidence, suspend judgement. ALWAYS.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

Why not if it has only positive effects on you? I understand that you are defending the principle of rationality and skepticism, and I'm with you on that. I'm not saying you should accept any sort of belief without substantial evidence as a fact. However, if you have had personal experiences as a subjective(!) basis to form your opinion, and if the belief seems to make sense to you and is not harmful... where is the problem?

Objective knowledge is not always possible.

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson Why not? Because later, if you're shown to be wrong, you might be unwilling to accept it, that's why. Humans are fucking twits who get their panties in a wad over potential humiliation, and being shown wrong tends to be a barrel-full of humiliation.

Believing something without justification is always, always, ALWAYS bad, even if it seems benign at the time.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

A good point. In the case of personal spiritual beliefs, which I'm referring to, that is not necessarily relevant though. For instance, I usually keep my beliefs to myself and rarely tell anyone, if ever. I also tend to emphasize that they might not apply in the same way to others (a sort of spiritual relativism).

Maybe it's just because I think that if I'm wrong, the atheist view is most likely right, which means that everything after death is irrelevant anyway.

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson Well, look...I would need the specifics to give a good example, but the fact is that if someone believes something without justification, it could cause them to act in a way they wouldn't if they knew the truth. And that action can have far-reaching effects beyond the immediate situation. If you believe in an afterlife, you may take risks you wouldn't otherwise, for example.

If you don't see how that could potentially be a problem for yourself and others, look again.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

Ah, sometimes I really hate the character limit of these comments. Although discussion is quite constrained by text anyway.

You are probably a positivist, aren't you? I'm leaning more towards solipsism, so we have a different basis for these considerations.

"act in a way they wouldn't if they knew the truth"... Truth cannot always be verified and every day we make plenty of fundamental attribution errors, misinterpretations and the like, without even noticing.

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson Yes, but you see, even when we act without full information, that doesn't mean we're holding our decisions as fundamental beliefs, and especially not in the face of contradictory reality.

Religious people ARE. They're holding their unjustified, unverifiable, unsupportable, unsupported beliefs as if they were ROCK-SOLID FACT-BASED TRUTHS (RAAAAAR!).

Do you REALLY not see why I might have a problem with that?

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

Now that you put it like that I think we might have been talking past each other. I don't think that spiritual beliefs have to be fundamental or unchangeable. For example, if someone has an out-of-body experience and they can explore their surroundings or even space with little restraint, they might approach their experience with an open mind, almost scientifically. Trying to find out more, maybe see if they can find a way to test whether their experience is genuine.

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson If someone is doing THAT, they're not holding a BELIEF, they're investigating a suspicion. That's QUITE different from what I'm objecting to. Indeed, checking to make sure, investigating...that's what I ADVOCATE in my videos; surely you've watched my vids, I've seen your name around...you should know by now that investigation is something I support.

I'm against being dogmatic about unsupported beliefs; what'd you THINK I was talking about?

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

Sure, I know that. You just came across as a little more extreme now, especially since I'm obviously against dogmatic thinking. I'm not quite certain if I have understood how you would classify the kind of spiritual "suspicion" I was talking about. Let's say if I told you I'm about as certain in my view of the non-physical existence of consciousness as you are that the Christian god does not exist... Is that belief?

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson But I'm NOT certain the christian god does not exist; I'm ONLY certain that christianity has failed the burden of proof.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

I know, and I didn't mean entirely certain, as in "I know". I should have said 'confident' or something like that.

You have said before that you are pretty sure that he does not exist, and as far as I could tell you meant that on a subjective level. That's what I was talking about, a sort of subjective conviction, suspicion, whatever.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

To clarify: To me spirituality is NOT about finding the ultimate truth set in stone, once and for all. It's more a matter of discovery and of development. Broadening the horizon, if you will. Obviously our physical senses are limited and cannot grasp everything. Technology might reveal MUCH more over time, we'll see.

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson Not to me, it's not. Spirituality is about mystical mumbo-jumbo and woo-woo as far as I'm concerned.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

In that case we have to agree that our terminology is different. I will definitely not engage you in a debate about etymology... you seem much more fond of a strict and regulated terminology than I am. =)

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson I think you HAVE to be fond of strict and regulated terminology if you're to have a reasonable discussion on these kinds of matters. Otherwise you end up talking about radically different things from the people you're discussing with and communication becomes an insane jumble of misunderstandings.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

Technically you're right, but it's somewhat impractical because strictly speaking both sides would have to agree on a particular definition of every crucial term beforehand. Depending on the dictionary used and how you interpret its definition, even two people who (think they) are rigidly following the regulated terminology might run into misunderstandings. Not necessarily, but still a possibility.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

But I would assume you agree that it's pointless to attack someone for having spiritual beliefs when they don't bother others with them? Or would you say it's desirable to eradicate all subjective beliefs, no matter what?

I'm just asking because I'm curious. Unlike religious fundies I have no agenda to push and no imaginary friend to protect. =)

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson Yes, it IS desirable to eradicate such beliefs no matter what. Belief without justification is ALWAYS bad...even if the harm is only potential, it's still there, it's still a possibility. Who know which beliefs--which may seem benign at the time--could be real problems later, or have far-reaching effects that aren't immediately apparent?

You should ALWAYS suspend belief if you cannot justify it. If you treat positions as tentative instead of BELIEVING, that's better.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

Hm... so where do you draw the line between tentative theories / assumptions / suspicions and belief?

For example, if you are informed of the results of a scientific study and you don't have the time, patience or resources to thoroughly check if the study has been conducted with flawless methodology... what do you make of it? You cannot say it's objective evidence because the source might be inaccurate. If it seems reasonable to you, is that enough? Or is it belief?

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson The line is drawn based on how much you let your position affect your behavior and how willing unwilling you might be to change your position based on new data. More than that, I cannot say because it really does come down to context.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

I agree, although in my opinion you overestimate the objectivity of human beings. To be as perfectly unbiased, flexible and analytical as you imply is EXTREMELY hard for the human mind, if not impossible.

I guess it's 'aim for the stars, settle for the moon', eh?

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson Actually, no...if anything, I despair of the objectivity--or lack thereof--of human beings. I just DEMAND more objectivity than I'm getting.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

Well, you just cannot demand that level of objectivity from regular people. I'm not even sure if you could demand it from geniuses. And I don't mean this as a personal attack or anything, but I don't think you meet your own demands yourself. At least as far as I understand your requirements, it's almost impossible to fulfill them.

It's a noble ideal though, and definitely worth pursuing.

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson Doesn't mean it isn't something worth striving for.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@BionicDance

Yep, just like I said.

By the way, I think you can even have two (or more?) parallel processes running in your mind, a subjective and an objective mode, if you will. Personally I'm highly convinced that non-physical dimensions exist in which consciousness can move and act. So you might say I'm biased. At the same time I try to be open for new information, even if it's contradictory and strive to be as rational and objective as possible. Contradictions, that's life.

[BionicDance]

@SkallagrimNilsson Frankly, I don't think that's true. I don't think any living being can ever truly achieve objectivity; we are ALL ruled by our perspective, by the limits of our senses and our knowledge.

But, as I say, we can strive for it.

[Gnomefro]

If you then wait a generation, the problem will essentially solve itself as you produce more competent citizens who are capable of taking part in a public debate about what's true and take being wrong as adults and modify their opinions to a greater degree than what's possible for the religious fundamentalists of today.

Not that this process would produce agreement about everything, obviously many conflicts have nothing to do with what's true, but rather with personal interests.

[Gnomefro]

I don't think anyone actually objects to that kind of society. It's just that many people have adopted epistemic foundations that don't allow them to be wrong themselves, so they object to the consequences. Christianity and Islam are two such systems. The medicine here is simply to get in early and teach kids to be more intellectually honest. Very few people would be able to object to teaching kids to value the evidence and seeking to know true things about reality.

[Gnomefro]

One manifestation of this is how Creationists have lost the debate in the scientific arena. They are simply irrelevant there and have been for a very long time. So debate no longer gets them anywhere. So instead they attempt legislation to prevent the winners of the debate from propagating their views. BD would simply insist on public opinion being guided by evidence I think, and that the only situation that justifies paving over people is when you can demonstrate that they are in fact wrong.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@Gnomefro

Exactly, that's what I meant by an objective common ground in my previous comment.

Thanks for your insightful response by the way.

[Gnomefro]

I think it's a mistake to object to the fact that people want to change society according to what they think is right. That's what any person who cares about anything would do. The problem comes when your opinion is founded in really poor reasoning, such as blind faith, and you honestly have no hope in hell of ever convincing anyone by rational means. At that point you have to choose between oppressive mechanisms or not getting your way.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@Gnomefro

Yes, and I definitely don't blame people for wanting to change things for what they perceive as the better, I just point out the conflict that arises from the clashing of different world views. The main issue should not be "how do we make them like us" but rather "how can we coexist in a productive way?".

As I see it, that's what we need well conducted scientific research for, to provide an objective common ground. At least as far as that is possible.

[raindog951]

Well thought out and comprehensive video!

[xXSoulsXx]

I love how in depth you go in your topic. You don't leave out much of anything when you talk about a topic and try to go down both sides to give your opinion on how both atheists and christians react to a topic. I only feel intervening should occur when people are trying to force what they believe on others or when it comes to children as you said. Who tells a small child that they burn for eternity if they don't praise something and then force them to blindly follow the religion.

[SkallagrimNilsson]

@xXSoulsXx

Yep, I generally try to view things from different angles, hopefully in a manner that doesn't imply that I think I know the absolute truth, which I don't. On the downside it tends to make my videos MUCH longer than the average Youtube viewer's attention span can take. =)