3 ms·

Although there is no question that a large part of the religious dogma is straight out false, it seems to me that, knowing how many things we still have no unde

by Satam 8y ago

Although there is no question that a large part of the religious dogma is straight out false, it seems to me that, knowing how many things we still have no understanding of, it would be just as unproductive to outright dismiss all of it as false. But, again, my issue is not with the dismissal - I'm completely fine with the idea that people might come to that conclusion and I'm open to the idea myself. My issue is with the cheap jabs that are not even honest expressions of one's feelings. My criticisms might seem strange and uncalled-for if one only considers this instance in isolation, but it keeps happening, again and again, and throughout many different types of media. Just recently I was reading Sam Harris' book; it's quite small and a fun read at times, yet it quickly became a chore to get through, as it is full of those irrelevant cheap-shots. The thing is, in the right place, in the right context, those remarks could be interesting, however, when misplaced like that, they end up coming off as someone simply having a chip on their shoulder. I consider it really unfortunate that it seems that the atheist side, whose thoughts I'm most interested in hearing, fallbacks to this strategy quite too often. And thus, instead of a philosophical debate, we end up with a two-person monologue where the beliefs of the atheist are presented no more rationally the those of the religious.

boomboomsubban 8y ago
>Although there is no question that a large part of the religious dogma is straight out false, it seems to me that, knowing how many things we still have no understanding of, it would be just as unproductive to outright dismiss all of it as false. You either dismiss it all as false, accept it all as true, or you are a hypocrite. The evidence is the same for all theologies. It's unproductive to consider ideas that either have no evidence or have no logical basis, and that describes theology. > The thing is, in the right place, in the right context, those remarks could be interesting, however, when misplaced like that, they end up coming off as someone simply having a chip on their shoulder For most of the past several thousand years, politely wording these sentiments could end in your death. Even now, a failure to at least pay lip service to Christian theology leaves you largely ineligible for public office, and may limit other opportunities. So yes, there is a chip on their shoulder, many people have a negative opinion about them no matter how tactful they are. >And thus, instead of a philosophical debate, we end up with a two-person monologue where the beliefs of the atheist are presented no more rationally the those of the religious. There is no debate with "the religious," there belief is based on things that are not debatable. They often pride themselves on how their belief comes from faith. The philosophical debate is another thing altogether.
- Satam 8y ago
  Organized religion is a human endeavor and it should be taken as such. However, if we put aside the politics and consider it strictly from the view of someone who is trying to figure out the world, I don't see why it is necessary to throw out the baby with its bathwater. The fact that many different religions try to tackle the same questions makes the possibility that a particular one has THE answers seem unlikely. However, the fact they all gravitate towards the same kinds of answers is something that should not be easily dismissed if we want to move the discussion forward. To me, it seems that some sort of spiritual element is always gonna have to be in play; that is, if we want to have any chance of answering those questions in a manner that is not only true in the scientific sense but also in a way that satisfies the restlessness which had inspired the search of the answers in the first place. I must add, that the need to satisfy the restlessness, of course, should not be taken as an excuse for accepting sub-par resolutions. >For most of the past several thousand years, politely wording these sentiments could end in your death. Even now, a failure to at least pay lip service to Christian theology leaves you largely ineligible for public office, and may limit other opportunities. So yes, there is a chip on their shoulder, many people have a negative opinion about them no matter how tactful they are. This has genuinely changed my view on this matter, thank you for bringing it up. Reading or listening to eloquent people discuss the topics, it's been easy for me to get hypnotized by their elegant arguments (even the ones I don't agree with) and to forget the human that has crafted them. Growing up in a country where militant religious attitudes (or strong religious attitudes at all, really) are basically non-existent, I didn't really think about the point that those people might have actually been slighted by religion in some way.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    >However, the fact they all gravitate towards the same kinds of answers is something that should not be easily dismissed if we want to move the discussion forward. If you analyze their answers, you realize that the same questions remain after answered. Answering "why are we here" with "god made us" just changes the question to "why is god here?" Their answers are similar as they generally were not developed independently. And again, all of their answers have no logical or scientific foundation. I could not develop Christian theology without already having a bible, while the philosophical debates presumably could be reproduced independently.

by Satam 8y ago

boomboomsubban 8y ago

>Although there is no question that a large part of the religious dogma is straight out false, it seems to me that, knowing how many things we still have no understanding of, it would be just as unproductive to outright dismiss all of it as false. You either dismiss it all as false, accept it all as true, or you are a hypocrite. The evidence is the same for all theologies. It's unproductive to consider ideas that either have no evidence or have no logical basis, and that describes theology. > The thing is, in the right place, in the right context, those remarks could be interesting, however, when misplaced like that, they end up coming off as someone simply having a chip on their shoulder For most of the past several thousand years, politely wording these sentiments could end in your death. Even now, a failure to at least pay lip service to Christian theology leaves you largely ineligible for public office, and may limit other opportunities. So yes, there is a chip on their shoulder, many people have a negative opinion about them no matter how tactful they are. >And thus, instead of a philosophical debate, we end up with a two-person monologue where the beliefs of the atheist are presented no more rationally the those of the religious. There is no debate with "the religious," there belief is based on things that are not debatable. They often pride themselves on how their belief comes from faith. The philosophical debate is another thing altogether.

Satam 8y ago
Organized religion is a human endeavor and it should be taken as such. However, if we put aside the politics and consider it strictly from the view of someone who is trying to figure out the world, I don't see why it is necessary to throw out the baby with its bathwater. The fact that many different religions try to tackle the same questions makes the possibility that a particular one has THE answers seem unlikely. However, the fact they all gravitate towards the same kinds of answers is something that should not be easily dismissed if we want to move the discussion forward. To me, it seems that some sort of spiritual element is always gonna have to be in play; that is, if we want to have any chance of answering those questions in a manner that is not only true in the scientific sense but also in a way that satisfies the restlessness which had inspired the search of the answers in the first place. I must add, that the need to satisfy the restlessness, of course, should not be taken as an excuse for accepting sub-par resolutions. >For most of the past several thousand years, politely wording these sentiments could end in your death. Even now, a failure to at least pay lip service to Christian theology leaves you largely ineligible for public office, and may limit other opportunities. So yes, there is a chip on their shoulder, many people have a negative opinion about them no matter how tactful they are. This has genuinely changed my view on this matter, thank you for bringing it up. Reading or listening to eloquent people discuss the topics, it's been easy for me to get hypnotized by their elegant arguments (even the ones I don't agree with) and to forget the human that has crafted them. Growing up in a country where militant religious attitudes (or strong religious attitudes at all, really) are basically non-existent, I didn't really think about the point that those people might have actually been slighted by religion in some way.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >However, the fact they all gravitate towards the same kinds of answers is something that should not be easily dismissed if we want to move the discussion forward. If you analyze their answers, you realize that the same questions remain after answered. Answering "why are we here" with "god made us" just changes the question to "why is god here?" Their answers are similar as they generally were not developed independently. And again, all of their answers have no logical or scientific foundation. I could not develop Christian theology without already having a bible, while the philosophical debates presumably could be reproduced independently.