[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

This prompted me think on how I feel about religious moderates. I think that they're practically even worse than the fundamentalists and the current trend of pushing for interfaith dialogue, I think, can't work in the long run.

Religious moderates refuse to allow their beliefs to be questioned, it's taboo to challenge them. Why is that?

Hmm. It's quite intriguing that you'd say that. I'm inclined to think that people in general, religious or not, refuse to have their beliefs violently attacked. They certainly do have reasons for having these beliefs, brought on by strong past experiences, and would understandably be extremely pissed off by some loudmouth with a completely different set of past experiences telling them that they're WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Still, it's good to be open to new experiences, and to have your system of personal beliefs challenged several times throughout your life. Believing in a religion that doesn't allow for questioning and investigation makes absolutely no sense to me, and if a religious person arrives at a personal crisis that conflicts with the system of beliefs they have chosen, they should, by all means, leave that religion.

This, I guess, is the reason I enjoy having discussions more than I enjoy having debates. Debating implies the goal of proving the other side wrong, and more often than not, it's a goal that's never achieved; all debate seems to do in most cases is just polarize people further. Discussion allows us to share our insights, take what we find meaningful, ignore what doesn't make sense to us, find common ground and build off of that.

Originally Posted by SnorkleCat

I do think that emotions, feelings, love and so on all have logical, unromantic, and often harsh sounding explanations.

They do. They're a tad incomplete, though, in my opinion. See what I said earlier about close friendships.

Originally Posted by Aj_

I guess you want meaning. There doesn't have to be a meaning, you don't have a reason to believe there, or what that meaning might be. You demand one, and perhaps try to invent one, but that's irrational.

I suppose this is where we diverge, then. Thanks for playing; it's been fun.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Squinky

I suppose this is where we diverge, then. Thanks for playing; it's been fun.

Are you saying you do have a reason for believing there is meaning in these things?

Hmm. It's quite intriguing that you'd say that. I'm inclined to think that people in general, religious or not, refuse to have their beliefs violently attacked. They certainly do have reasons for having these beliefs, brought on by strong past experiences, and would understandably be extremely pissed off by some loudmouth with a completely different set of past experiences telling them that they're WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

I hate that loudmouth who keeps telling me I'm not Napoleon.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Again, another "how". *sigh*

Actually, I think evolution explains it quite well, in the sense of the continuation of traits that promote survival and reproduction.

Honesty/Integrity: An illustrative example: try giving a computer correct data to work with (read: honesty) and another computer incorrect data to work with (read: lies), and then see which computer gives the more productive result.

Independence: The ability to survive on your own without being reliant on constant assistance from others is definitely a key survival trait.

Kindness: However, man *is* primarily a social creature; we work best cooperating in "packs" so we can share the workload. (And of course, social connections are useful for reproduction as well!) Traits like kindness and charity enable the easier formation of useful social bonds.

There's also a sort of "karmic" mentality: if people are encouraged to be good to each other and help each other out, then you are more likely to have help available if you ever need it, provided people know you are willing to repay the favor.

Ability to reason: The creature that can plan ahead and understand and adapt to (or change) its surroundings is definitely far more like to survive than a creature who leaves themselves entirely to the whims of the environment and fate.

So, to sum up: The "why" is simply that these sorts of traits are condusive to survival and betterment of life; therefore they were more likely to be perpetuated through the stages of evolution.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Hmm. It's quite intriguing that you'd say that. I'm inclined to think that people in general, religious or not, refuse to have their beliefs violently attacked. They certainly do have reasons for having these beliefs, brought on by strong past experiences, and would understandably be extremely pissed off by some loudmouth with a completely different set of past experiences telling them that they're WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

And yet I think that's the point - the reasons behind their beliefs. The strength or weakness of the belief itself is not only proportionate to, but is also precariously dependent on the nature of the reason behind such a belief. Dismantle that reason and *POOF* there goes the belief.

A parent could easily raise a child to be a faithfull God fearing Christian. That parent provides the child with the most warm, loving, and emotionally enriching experience, and when the child grows up he continues to be a God fearing Christian. Ask him why he keeps this religion and he'll tell you, "Because God loves me, He loved my mother, He took care of us and gave meaning in our lives."

Now what he is actually telling you is that he associates his warm childhood memories with this religious belief he grew up with. It's very dear to him that way. He actually has never explained how it is that God provided him with a good upbringing and ultimately why.

Contrast that with someone who had a similar experience but ended up choosing a different path. I'll pick me as an example. I grew up in a very loving family, my parents did the best they could to provide me whatever was needed for my well being, and I got on warmly and lovingly with my siblings. We were raised as Catholics.

My oldest sister eventually chose to become an atheist. I walked away from Catholicism and simply proclaimed myself spiritual/agnostic (and today I'm in the grey area between deism and atheism). Why? Not because I had a bad childhood, but because I really thought about Christianity, read several books studying its social and political history, poked at it from anthropological and cultural angles, listened constructively to others' perspectives, and finally came to my own conclusions. In other words I questioned my faith rationally, giving myself the benefit of the doubt. I dismantled my reason for that belief and *POOF* there went the belief.

My past experience was practically identical to that fictional boy with the loving family.

This, I guess, is the reason I enjoy having discussions more than I enjoy having debates. Debating implies the goal of proving the other side wrong, and more often than not, it's a goal that's never achieved; all debate seems to do in most cases is just polarize people further. Discussion allows us to share our insights, take what we find meaningful, ignore what doesn't make sense to us, find common ground and build off of that.

Discussions promise the possibility of enlightenment. Debates are simply glorified pissing matches. Which explains their popularity in politics.

I suppose this is where we diverge, then. Thanks for playing; it's been fun.

I smell a copout.

[RLacey]

Right, I've had quite enough of this.

I'm not just irritated by this thread, I'm actually insulted by it. Yet again it's turned into a completely unjustified - and completely overgeneralised - rant about how religion is the source of all the world's evils. It's not true. It never will be. And for people that are perfectly happy to lecture the religious amongst us about a lack of toleration and rationalisation, you're collectively doing an amazing job of being tactless, rude and entirely lacking in even the most basic of understandings about what you're arguing.

It never ceases to amaze me just how vicious people can be with respect to criticising those who don't share their particular dogmas. Apparently you've all chosen to ignore the "keep it civil" statement in the thread's title. At least, that's all I can assume as I read page after page of diatribe.

*leaves*

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I smell a copout.

I'm not sure what I find more irritating here: the glib, dismissive statement or the knowingly smug smiley. Grow up.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Hmm. It's quite intriguing that you'd say that. I'm inclined to think that people in general, religious or not, refuse to have their beliefs violently attacked. They certainly do have reasons for having these beliefs, brought on by strong past experiences, and would understandably be extremely pissed off by some loudmouth with a completely different set of past experiences telling them that they're WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Violently attacked? By whom? Certainly not by me, Squinky. And certainly NOT by Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. Their method involves neither violence nor attack. It involves discussion.

Loudmouth? Who is the loudmouth? Certainly not I. I've never once typed in all caps in this thread, except for emphasizing a word or two to help get a point across. And certainly not Harris or Dawkins, either. They never yell or scream during interviews and presentations.

[Jeysie]

*frowns slightly*

It is not my intention to make other people feel insulted... but, well... if one of the honest reasons I went from being a Catholic to being Agnostic is because I found Christianity to contain a large amount of things that didn't gibe with my logical nature, how I am I supposed to be "nice" about that? If other people want to believe, I respect their choice, but it doesn't change the fact that I find the rationality of it hard to fathom.

There's more reasons why I stopped being Catholic, but my logical nature is probably the foremost. If I participate in such a discussion, I'm not going to hide my feelings on that aspect of the matter just to make other people feel better.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Violently attacked? By whom? Certainly not by me, Squinky.

No! I wasn't talking about you; I was talking in generalities, and in hyperbole. I should also mention that people often don't mean to offend the other party, and I realise that, but it can sometimes be taken as such. One must be careful to take into account such sensitivities.

As for the copout, there just comes a point where there's nothing more constructive to add to a discussion. That was one such point.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

*frowns slightly*

It is not my intention to make other people feel insulted... but, well... if one of the honest reasons I went from being a Catholic to being Agnostic is because I found Christianity to contain a large amount of things that didn't gibe with my logical nature, how I am I supposed to be "nice" about that?

Oh just admit it, Jeysie. You just had to have that delicious steak on Good Friday and if it takes you becoming an infidel to do it, so be it. Wipe your mouth, there's some A1 at the corner.

Originally Posted by Squinky

No! I wasn't talking about you; I was talking in generalities, and in hyperbole. I should also mention that people often don't mean to offend the other party, and I realise that, but it can sometimes be taken as such. One must be careful to take into account such sensitivities.

Drama queen. For that I have no choice but to present you with this pendant:

[Aj_]

Some people would like us not to have a discussion. I guess it's because they'd like to keep their delusions. If that's the case, they should stay out of this thread. They think that religion requires special protection that no other type of ideology has.

It's hilarious that someone who accuses people of a lack of understanding, also accuses the non-religious non-theists here of dogma. If you don't even understand the words you're using, then it's you who lack understanding.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Oh just admit it, Jeysie. You just had to have that delicious steak on Good Friday and if it takes you becoming an infidel to do it, so be it. Wipe your mouth, there's some A1 at the corner.

*chuckles a bit* No, no, I have self-discipline for reasons other than religion. (Although I admit I disagree with the seeming Christian propensity for completely abstaining from things that aren't harmful when done in moderation.)

My RPG group did spend Saturday debating the questionably-gendered fashion preferences of some of the D&D gods... does that count towards being an infidel?

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Intrepid Homoludens]

LOL! Watching/listening currently to Harris's presentation to the Society For Ethical Culture last year and and laughed when he said this:

"[We can't just] read these books and find reasons to be moderate. I've got news for you. I've read the book. God is not a moderate."

[Aj_]

The debate format is a valuable tool. You soon learn who you can debate, and the type of person who debating with will be fruitless. Dawkins won't debate with creationists. It helps you develope your arguments, it does change minds, and you can usually find some common ground.

Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan are having an informal debate, it follows somewhat like a debate format.

Dawkins and Hitchens debate theists about the harm of religion.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Interesting.

Originally Posted by Sam Harris

As long you don't have to give reasons for your belief, you have effectively immunized yourself from the power of conversation. You hear religious people saying something like "There's nothing you can say that will change my mind". Just imagine that said in medicine. If there's nothing to be said that will change your mind, if there's no evidence or argument that can be adduced, that proves that you are not taking any state of the world into account in your beliefs. The problem with this is that when the stakes are high, we have a choice between conversation and violence. In our current state of society we have a choice between conversation, negotiations, and war.

[BoyToy]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Richard Dawkins BBC Interview | BBC News, 11 October '06 (YouTube video)

Thanks for posting this, Trep.

It seems, more often than enough, people have this misconception that atheists don't have morals or can't believe in things. (And often the misconception that atheists want to force their atheism on other people.)

On top of that, there's this habit of theists to suddenly distance themselves from things they don't like about their religion. (Which I'd basically endorse, if it wouldn't too often effectively - unwittingly - serve to propagate that very religion as whole thing.)


Now, the pivotal part of the interview, to me, is around 5:13-5:34, when Dawkins says:

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins

We * do not, none of us, take our morals from scripture. We take our morals from something else. To the extent that we take them from scripture we cherry-pick: We choose the nice verses from the bible, we reject the nasty verses. The criterion by which we cherry-pick is available to all of us - whether we're religious or not.

*) By 'we' he is referring to all people: theists, atheists, etc.

[Squinky]

Yay, a disco ball!

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by BoyToy

Thanks for posting this, Trep.

Did it have to take my starting this thread to bring you back, sweet man? And where the hell is that hot blooded woman of yours? What have you done with her?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Boysie

It seems, more often than enough, people have this misconception that atheists don't have morals or can't believe in things. (And often the misconception that atheists want to force their atheism on other people.)

These [dogmatically] religious people, whether fundamentalist or moderate, are no less susceptible to lapses in healthy morality than atheists or anyone else. The difference is that atheists and other non-religious individuals don't handle these moral lapses by cowering behind some imaginary entity or unchallenged concept: "Satan made me do it", "I was weak in the moment and I beg for God's forgivness", etc.

That people like pastor Ted Haggard and those who claimed to have been 'cured' of their homosexuality through God and prayer indicates a serious disconnection between one's faith and calling a spade a spade.

On top of that, there's this habit of theists to suddenly distance themselves from things they don't like about their religion. (Which I'd basically endorse, if it wouldn't too often effectively - unwittingly - serve to propagate that very religion as whole thing.)

That's why I pointed out the very dangerous hypocrisy of religious moderates...

Originally Posted by Trep

This prompted me think on how I feel about religious moderates. I think that they're practically even worse than the fundamentalists and the current trend of pushing for interfaith dialogue, I think, can't work in the long run.

Religious moderates refuse to allow their beliefs to be questioned, it's taboo to challenge them. Why is that? This refusal pretty much applies to all belief systems, but I'll focus on Muslim beliefs as an example. Moderate Muslims purport to follow the Koran faithfully and without any kind of public zealotry. In fact they go out of their way to distance themselves from their fundamentalist kin, condemning their terrorizing acts, violent behaviour, and murderous ways.

But look into it closer. The Koran practically brims with proclamations on jihad and martyrdom *. If you are a Muslim you are required by your god to literally follow the 'wisdom' in this book. You MUST follow it unquestioningly. Anyone and everyone not doing so is an infidel, therefore you must destroy them. For your succesful effort, for your self sacrifice, you will be forever and ever rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins and other eternal delights. Now, you tell me who are the most faithful ones. Is it the moderates, who passively worship Islam and cherry pick from the Koran? Or is it the men who followed - perfectly and precisely - the book's teachings, and magnificently wiped out the World Trade Center and 'successfully' annihilated over 3000 infidels?

In the end, in the long run, I think the most frightening of the two are the moderates, behind whom the actual fundementalists can safely hide. And they can hide in luxury precisely because the moderates refuse to let us challenge their beliefs, unflinchingly, and time and time again, claiming that God is untouchable so back off.


* Historically those passages in the Koran were written millenia ago, of course, when there were very bloody, very violent religious wars between various factions split from the original tribe. Again I emphasize that these ideas remained fundamentally unchanged and unchallenged ever since. We're talking about present day terrorism and martyrdom based on principles from thousands of years ago, never taking into account the progress that we, as civilizations and as societies, have made since.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Yes, Richard Dawkins touched on this very point. He stated that once you scratch a believer in God she could easily blurt out, "But I have to believe in something, I just have to. I need meaning in my life, I need meaning in this world. Without it I can't live."

Does Dawkins touch on this one? "There has to be a God--everything is too perfect!" This groaner has caused me to roll my eyes too many times.

If you think about it, the universe (beyond believing in a god) owes us nothing, and it certainly doesn't owe us any meaning. I'm sorry but that's just tough. It's tough. To claim that you have some kind of contractual agreement with everything out there is just silly, isn't it?

[insert many quotes from Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life].

However, that does NOT necessarily mean that life is completely and utterly pointless. It seems that one of our coping mechanisms for survival, hell, one of our sources to rely on to not only survive, but actually thrive, prosper, and eventually evolve - and when I thought about this I almost wept, it's SOOOO GODDAMN BEAUTIFUL! - is our innate ability to create meaning!!! We can then work with that meaning in whatever way we choose: our family and loved ones, our art, the natural world in which we live, the science we do and improve upon.....anything and everything!

Right. The quest for meaning doesn't have to be so demanding. Many people simply ask the question because that's the human condition, faith based or not. Even if you're totally athiest, you probably have questions. Our sentient awareness of our existance is amazing.