6 ms·

> Try convincing a highly religious person that their religion is entirely fact-free, or that God doesn't exist using logic, and you will get nowhere Lets keep

> Try convincing a highly religious person that their religion is entirely fact-free, or that God doesn't exist using logic, and you will get nowhere Lets keep religion out of HN, shall we? A lot of us actually seems to believe in some kind of deity/ies, we just dont mention it because we value HN as a common ground for technical and business discussions. If not I could tell you some stories about stupid, stubborn evil ateists as well :-P

hueving 10y ago
>Lets keep religion out of HN, shall we? I think youre being a bit defensive. That statement might not apply to your religion, especially if it's one based on facts.
sievebrain 10y ago
I did not mean my comments as an attack on religious people. I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. Quite the opposite: I tried to argue that despite the lack of factual evidence for the existence of gods, strongly believing in them anyway can make sense if membership of organised religion is attractive enough. I don't expect anyone who is religious to see it that way though, even though I've met many devout Christians who happily admit there is no factual proof of God and that is why they place their energies in faith instead.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Ok, thanks, I see. For me it was very easy to interpret as a general attack.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > I've met many devout Christians who happily admit there is no factual proof of God There are factual cases for God, some attempting to be proofs even. For example, many consider objective morality (race based slavery is bad, say) to be a case for absolute good, which is hard to explain by pure randomness. Faith, to a Christian, is making choices in the face of this problem. A Christian knows that everyone has to decide whether to follow God or not, and in that way, everyone has faith in some set of axioms. Many people (intelligent, kind, smart ones!) have immense faith that only matter and energy exist despite basically no proof in that metaphysical axiom. Despite how hard it is to explain this, it's actually a clear thought to a reasonably educated Christian. It's just hard to communicate since words like 'rational', 'proof', and 'facts' are overloaded and cause confusion in these sorts of conversations. In this way, the balkanization of our culture is a negative feedback loop as misunderstanding promotes division which promotes more misunderstanding. > strongly believing in them anyway can make sense if membership of organised religion is attractive enough The point of Christianity isn't being part of an organization. People who go to worship services because it's their favorite social club are actually criticized pretty heavily by Jesus in the Bible. To be fair, I think most churchgoers don't understand the implications of this.
  - hueving 10y ago
    It's quite simple. Some people demand testable theories to accept a religions' god as existing. There is no evidence of the Christian god, the Hindu god's, or the Greek gods doing what their holy texts claimed, so I'm of in the camp where I assume none of them are correct. It's senseless to be sure one is because it happened to be the one you were raised with.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      > It's senseless to be sure one is because it happened to be the one you were raised with. And you wouldn't think that if you were born in other circumstances. > I'm of in the camp where I assume none of them are correct Fair enough. My point was that everyone assumes some things and that there will be more peace and understanding when we acknowledge that instead of establishing outgroups.
      - hueving 10y ago
        But my assumptions are based on the presence of evidence. I can't condone systems based on anything else because there is nothing that prevents it from escalating into 'kill the others'.
        humanrebar 10y ago
        One way to avoid 'kill the others' is to avoid creating 'others'. Understanding others' beliefs doesn't require condoning them, but it does require mutual respect. On a side note, physicalist assumptions can and do lead to harsh utilitarianism and eventually the devaluing and ending of human life. Finally, the "don't kill" part of the Bible is very clear. You don't have to be a theologian to know that people killing in the name of Christ aren't Christians. Just like you don't have to be a mathematician to know that 2+2=4.
  - sievebrain 10y ago
    I think you are all proving my point for me; as a reminder, my point was that trying to create a social network oriented around debating of facts would rapidly run into problems due to people who present things which are actually beliefs as if they were facts. The existence of God is not a fact, not even remotely close to being one. If it was then basically everyone would believe in God because any unbeliever would be seen as crazy as someone who doesn't believe in gravity. But lots of people don't believe in God. The existence of God is an article of faith, and that is simply not something you can blow off as "words like 'fact' are overloaded". Really, this whole sub-thread is strong evidence for why edraferi's proposal would be very difficult. Such a website or tool could not even handle a debating-101 discussion on religion because people would have no way to agree on what the facts were.
humanrebar 10y ago
> Lets keep religion out of HN, shall we? As a religious person, I find keeping religion out of normal discourse has been very counterproductive for both religious and non-religious people. I understand that the discussions are more prone to conflict and uncomfortable feelings, but they're nonetheless key to understanding other people and diversity of thought. Keeping religion (and agnosticism and atheism) out of things produces the same problems we see with the 'Majority Illusion'.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Point is <edit>I felt</edit> GP used his post as a platform to launch a covert attack on religion in an otherwise unrelated thread. I have nothing against discussing religion online but I think it is mostly offtopic on HN. Edit: see also my reply to GPs answer to me
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    For what it's worth, I got the same impression. But I would consider it a problem if HN, which generally welcomes broad topics including philosophy and politics, considered religion off topic. Religion is the defining trait to many minority groups in the U.S. and the rest of the English speaking world. Asking people to keep religion out of things is asking people to stay in the closet in some contexts. I understand that's surely not intended, but it's nonetheless the consequence of making religion off topic.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      I actually personally agree but I thought there was a rule, written or unwritten, to keep religion out of HN. Would it be better if I said something like "keep attacks on religion out of HN"?
      - humanrebar 10y ago
        Something along those lines, sure. I'm actually fine with people civilly criticizing religion, though. It's the stereotyping that really sticks out to me. It would be flagged or downvoted (justifiably!) if someone called women irrational or told homosexuals that their lifestyles should be kept private. I'm convinced that the double standard here just doesn't register for most of the HN community, and almost all the English speaking world besides. I said something to raise awareness of the problem.
dctoedt 10y ago
> Lets keep religion out of HN, shall we? As a semi-religious person [0], I would purely love to see religious tenets discussed dispassionately on HN, for a couple of reasons: 1. I've long thought that a corollary of the Summary of the Law [1] is "face the facts," that is, base your beliefs on evidence to the extent possible; as a group, the HN crowd is quite good at examining evidence from various perspectives. 2. Much and even most of the HN crowd is quite interested in knowing "what's going on," which ultimately extends to why is there something rather than nothing? [2]. I would greatly value the insights of others in that area. -------------- [0] I describe myself as semi-religious because I do try to base my beliefs on evidence; this is reflected in the title of my religion blog (largely inactive in recent years), "The Questioning Christian," at http://www.QuestioningChristian.org http://www.QuestioningChristian.org . The right-hand column there lists some of my favorite essays. [1] See http://www.questioningchristian.com/2004/11/facing_facts.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2004/11/facing_facts.htm... [2] For my "naïve conjecture" about what's going on (to borrow a phrase from the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne FRS, an English particle physicist turned Anglican priest), see http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/02/another_way_to_.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/02/another_way_to_....
- nsomaru 10y ago
  'Religion' is etymologically related to connotations of joining and binding. This implies some sort of separation, and a process of joining. Similarly, 'yoga' (by which I do not mean physical exercise) is etymologically related to connotations of union (from 'yuj'). Again, the implication is separation and a process of union. If you take a serious look at your own experience (the evidence), you will arrive at a similar conclusion to Descartes; roughly, that the evidence of one's senses cannot be taken at face value because they provide similar evidences in a dream which is understood to be entirely illusory upon waking up. Alas, most of 'Western' (I do apologise in advance to anyone who thinks I'm being too liberal with that word) thought takes the waking state to be absolute, and dream and deep sleep to be subsets of this state. This is an assumption but it runs so deep that it will be difficult for most to see what I'm trying to point out. First consider that the three states of consciousness experienced (waking, dream and deep sleep) are completely different modes; that is, the dreamer can neither conceive the existence of a waking world which is more 'real' than his current experience, nor will he readily admit that his experience is illusory...until he wakes up and becomes the waker. At this point the illusory nature of the dream cannot be doubted. The money in the dream cannot service debts of the waking state. Consider, then, that questions as to the origin of the world, the purpose of existence and the nature of God may arise only during dream and waking, because in these states there exists thought and thus by implication a mind -- the conclusion is then drawn that in the absence of a mind, there is also absence of a world (as in deep sleep). Thus one may conclude that the 3 states of waking, dream and deep sleep have relative and not absolute reality. It will, however, be noticed that there is a substratum integrating these varying experiences and arrogating them. These are all evidences available to any human being and perhaps could lead one to believe that there might be something to religion after all, beyond the paraphernalia of clothing, places of worship and specific texts. "The kingdom of heaven is within you; he that findeth his Self shall know it"

hueving 10y ago

>Lets keep religion out of HN, shall we? I think youre being a bit defensive. That statement might not apply to your religion, especially if it's one based on facts.

sievebrain 10y ago

I did not mean my comments as an attack on religious people. I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. Quite the opposite: I tried to argue that despite the lack of factual evidence for the existence of gods, strongly believing in them anyway can make sense if membership of organised religion is attractive enough. I don't expect anyone who is religious to see it that way though, even though I've met many devout Christians who happily admit there is no factual proof of God and that is why they place their energies in faith instead.

reitanqild 10y ago
Ok, thanks, I see. For me it was very easy to interpret as a general attack.
humanrebar 10y ago
> I've met many devout Christians who happily admit there is no factual proof of God There are factual cases for God, some attempting to be proofs even. For example, many consider objective morality (race based slavery is bad, say) to be a case for absolute good, which is hard to explain by pure randomness. Faith, to a Christian, is making choices in the face of this problem. A Christian knows that everyone has to decide whether to follow God or not, and in that way, everyone has faith in some set of axioms. Many people (intelligent, kind, smart ones!) have immense faith that only matter and energy exist despite basically no proof in that metaphysical axiom. Despite how hard it is to explain this, it's actually a clear thought to a reasonably educated Christian. It's just hard to communicate since words like 'rational', 'proof', and 'facts' are overloaded and cause confusion in these sorts of conversations. In this way, the balkanization of our culture is a negative feedback loop as misunderstanding promotes division which promotes more misunderstanding. > strongly believing in them anyway can make sense if membership of organised religion is attractive enough The point of Christianity isn't being part of an organization. People who go to worship services because it's their favorite social club are actually criticized pretty heavily by Jesus in the Bible. To be fair, I think most churchgoers don't understand the implications of this.
- hueving 10y ago
  It's quite simple. Some people demand testable theories to accept a religions' god as existing. There is no evidence of the Christian god, the Hindu god's, or the Greek gods doing what their holy texts claimed, so I'm of in the camp where I assume none of them are correct. It's senseless to be sure one is because it happened to be the one you were raised with.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > It's senseless to be sure one is because it happened to be the one you were raised with. And you wouldn't think that if you were born in other circumstances. > I'm of in the camp where I assume none of them are correct Fair enough. My point was that everyone assumes some things and that there will be more peace and understanding when we acknowledge that instead of establishing outgroups.
    - hueving 10y ago
      But my assumptions are based on the presence of evidence. I can't condone systems based on anything else because there is nothing that prevents it from escalating into 'kill the others'.
      - humanrebar 10y ago
        One way to avoid 'kill the others' is to avoid creating 'others'. Understanding others' beliefs doesn't require condoning them, but it does require mutual respect. On a side note, physicalist assumptions can and do lead to harsh utilitarianism and eventually the devaluing and ending of human life. Finally, the "don't kill" part of the Bible is very clear. You don't have to be a theologian to know that people killing in the name of Christ aren't Christians. Just like you don't have to be a mathematician to know that 2+2=4.
- sievebrain 10y ago
  I think you are all proving my point for me; as a reminder, my point was that trying to create a social network oriented around debating of facts would rapidly run into problems due to people who present things which are actually beliefs as if they were facts. The existence of God is not a fact, not even remotely close to being one. If it was then basically everyone would believe in God because any unbeliever would be seen as crazy as someone who doesn't believe in gravity. But lots of people don't believe in God. The existence of God is an article of faith, and that is simply not something you can blow off as "words like 'fact' are overloaded". Really, this whole sub-thread is strong evidence for why edraferi's proposal would be very difficult. Such a website or tool could not even handle a debating-101 discussion on religion because people would have no way to agree on what the facts were.

humanrebar 10y ago

> Lets keep religion out of HN, shall we? As a religious person, I find keeping religion out of normal discourse has been very counterproductive for both religious and non-religious people. I understand that the discussions are more prone to conflict and uncomfortable feelings, but they're nonetheless key to understanding other people and diversity of thought. Keeping religion (and agnosticism and atheism) out of things produces the same problems we see with the 'Majority Illusion'.

reitanqild 10y ago
Point is <edit>I felt</edit> GP used his post as a platform to launch a covert attack on religion in an otherwise unrelated thread. I have nothing against discussing religion online but I think it is mostly offtopic on HN. Edit: see also my reply to GPs answer to me
- humanrebar 10y ago
  For what it's worth, I got the same impression. But I would consider it a problem if HN, which generally welcomes broad topics including philosophy and politics, considered religion off topic. Religion is the defining trait to many minority groups in the U.S. and the rest of the English speaking world. Asking people to keep religion out of things is asking people to stay in the closet in some contexts. I understand that's surely not intended, but it's nonetheless the consequence of making religion off topic.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    I actually personally agree but I thought there was a rule, written or unwritten, to keep religion out of HN. Would it be better if I said something like "keep attacks on religion out of HN"?
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      Something along those lines, sure. I'm actually fine with people civilly criticizing religion, though. It's the stereotyping that really sticks out to me. It would be flagged or downvoted (justifiably!) if someone called women irrational or told homosexuals that their lifestyles should be kept private. I'm convinced that the double standard here just doesn't register for most of the HN community, and almost all the English speaking world besides. I said something to raise awareness of the problem.

dctoedt 10y ago

> Lets keep religion out of HN, shall we? As a semi-religious person [0], I would purely love to see religious tenets discussed dispassionately on HN, for a couple of reasons: 1. I've long thought that a corollary of the Summary of the Law [1] is "face the facts," that is, base your beliefs on evidence to the extent possible; as a group, the HN crowd is quite good at examining evidence from various perspectives. 2. Much and even most of the HN crowd is quite interested in knowing "what's going on," which ultimately extends to why is there something rather than nothing? [2]. I would greatly value the insights of others in that area. -------------- [0] I describe myself as semi-religious because I do try to base my beliefs on evidence; this is reflected in the title of my religion blog (largely inactive in recent years), "The Questioning Christian," at http://www.QuestioningChristian.org http://www.QuestioningChristian.org . The right-hand column there lists some of my favorite essays. [1] See http://www.questioningchristian.com/2004/11/facing_facts.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2004/11/facing_facts.htm... [2] For my "naïve conjecture" about what's going on (to borrow a phrase from the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne FRS, an English particle physicist turned Anglican priest), see http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/02/another_way_to_.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/02/another_way_to_....

nsomaru 10y ago
'Religion' is etymologically related to connotations of joining and binding. This implies some sort of separation, and a process of joining. Similarly, 'yoga' (by which I do not mean physical exercise) is etymologically related to connotations of union (from 'yuj'). Again, the implication is separation and a process of union. If you take a serious look at your own experience (the evidence), you will arrive at a similar conclusion to Descartes; roughly, that the evidence of one's senses cannot be taken at face value because they provide similar evidences in a dream which is understood to be entirely illusory upon waking up. Alas, most of 'Western' (I do apologise in advance to anyone who thinks I'm being too liberal with that word) thought takes the waking state to be absolute, and dream and deep sleep to be subsets of this state. This is an assumption but it runs so deep that it will be difficult for most to see what I'm trying to point out. First consider that the three states of consciousness experienced (waking, dream and deep sleep) are completely different modes; that is, the dreamer can neither conceive the existence of a waking world which is more 'real' than his current experience, nor will he readily admit that his experience is illusory...until he wakes up and becomes the waker. At this point the illusory nature of the dream cannot be doubted. The money in the dream cannot service debts of the waking state. Consider, then, that questions as to the origin of the world, the purpose of existence and the nature of God may arise only during dream and waking, because in these states there exists thought and thus by implication a mind -- the conclusion is then drawn that in the absence of a mind, there is also absence of a world (as in deep sleep). Thus one may conclude that the 3 states of waking, dream and deep sleep have relative and not absolute reality. It will, however, be noticed that there is a substratum integrating these varying experiences and arrogating them. These are all evidences available to any human being and perhaps could lead one to believe that there might be something to religion after all, beyond the paraphernalia of clothing, places of worship and specific texts. "The kingdom of heaven is within you; he that findeth his Self shall know it"