5 ms·

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 o

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.

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.