... Although this article is not specifically about any given religion, it is an interesting read regarding beliefs and faith.

... The fact that the article will take about 7-10 minutes to read will scare off a lot of folks. But I ask you to and comment on its content.

... Thanks

www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

And you posted this hear why?


You sound like you have an axe to grind.

Sgat1r5

Quoted: And you posted this hear why?

... I see you didn't read the article

You sound like you have an axe to grind. Sgat1r5

... No, I don't. Do I come across that way in this thread? (I didn't think so)

COC #7

Opening for discussion. Please remember the rules for posting in this forum.

Thanks for listening to some dissenting viewpoints, 'nut.

Quoted: I didn't read the whole page, but read the first few paragraphs and then the summary. IMO, it would seem that the whole purpose of the information is to discredit the idea of people having faith. This is the last sentence of the paper: "Our feeling of wonder about the universe provides us the fuel for exploration; how much more magnificent the results from useful thoughts than ones based on faith." Even if you didn't mean too, to me the whole paper is an insult to those who have faith.

You admit you DID NOT read the whole article. You read a few paragraphs and made a desision to lock the thread. Just my opinion but that is not being very responsable as a moderator.

That thread has also been locked. Oh and I'm not bitching. Just making an observation.

Quoted: That thread has also been locked. Oh and I'm not bitching. Just making an observation.

My observation is that you are bitching.

Sgatr15


PS  Yes I know VA...but I couldn't help myself.

OK, you guys wanted this unlocked, so it's unlocked.   Debate the topic
and stop complaining about the locking.  That's fixed, move on or I see
another lock in the future here........


As far as the topic, I read the whole thing.
The short version, the author of this mess is saying:

Religion is at fault for all the violence in the world.

People that have faith are less educated than those that don't.

If you do have a belief, you can't understand why, the 2 are mutually exclusive.

If you try really hard you can overcome your inborn instinct to have beliefs.

People who have beliefs think they are smarter than people that don't.

We should replace all usages of belief with thinking words.


My personal opinion of the article:

I want my 15 minutes back.

Well, if I may paraphrase the words of a famous Marine sargeant as he went over the top: "Do you S.O.B.'s want to be members forever?! Cover me!"  

The definition of faith is "belief without evidence". That's my sticking point with religion. Not just Christianity, religion in general.

Back in the days before holy water would burn me (joke, that's a joke!), I remember being shocked when people expressed doubt about anything that was "gospel".

Now I am one of those people, after having traveled enough and seen enough and met equally devout practitioners of other faiths.

I NEED evidence in order to believe things that don't jive with logic, reason, and my experiences. I would LIKE to believe that eternal life or reincarnation awaits me. But I need evidence. And I'm fascinated that intelligent people can believe those things without evidence.

That's the context in which I view the article. It's not an attack, it's just asking legitimate questions.

I disagree with the premise that beliefs are somehow inferior to knowledge.

Some things can never be known so the only thing you can have is a belief (or lack of belief) you can never have knowledge.

When beliefs conflict with knowledge is a different story, and a belief should never trump evidence staring you in the face.

Quoted: Well, if I may paraphrase the words of a famous Marine sargeant as he went over the top: "Do you S.O.B.'s want to be members forever?! Cover me!"   The definition of faith is "belief without evidence". That's my sticking point with religion. Not just Christianity, religion in general. Back in the days before holy water would burn me (joke, that's a joke!), I remember being shocked when people expressed doubt about anything that was "gospel". Now I am one of those people, after having traveled enough and seen enough and met equally devout practitioners of other faiths. I NEED evidence in order to believe things that don't jive with logic, reason, and my experiences. I would LIKE to believe that eternal life or reincarnation awaits me. But I need evidence. And I'm fascinated that intelligent people can believe those things without evidence. That's the context in which I view the article. It's not an attack, it's just asking legitimate questions.

All questions are good if from an honest desire to understand. We are just used to seeing folks prop up questions so they can just ignore our answers and continue to proselytise their anti religious views.


I used to be an unbeliever and had lots of questions. The hardest part was that many folks assumed I was tryign to start a fight or geta  conversation going where I already planne dto ignore the others. I am betting there was some smattering of truth to it because I used to hate religious folks. Christians in particular.

Anyway, ask the questions with upfront honesty and expect that not all answers will be to your liking and strive to not harp on the answers you dont like. Thats a common problem  for all. We tend tosee the answers we expect from a bias and harp on those points , limiting furthur understanding. Sometimes we need to see that the person we are discussing with is not the person who is capable of giving the answer you need (not want), so we must thank them in peace and look to another.

I cannot convince you. No one here can, and thats not what we are commanded to do. We are to give the truth unhindered, afraid of nothing, and to pray for you and leave it up to God. Some folks avoid seekers or dont see them as seekers. Again I cannot convince you of my beliefs but honestly hope that one day God reveals His Holy nature to you.

I have thought you were just here to cause trouble on some occasions. I will try to see you as an honest seeker unless you prove otherwise and in that case I am not to waste time. I dont say this to be a jerk, I am just saying wha to expect.

Another point of the article is that beliefs tend to stifle knowledge.

If facts are gathered without preconcieved notions, and then logic and reason are used to try to piece them together as a whole, that's the scientific method. If a mistake is made, it's not viewed as heresy or even a setback, because it simply eliminates a false conclusion and facilitates the process.

Faith is at odds with this, because people start with a belief, and then categorically reject any facts that do not fit the belief.

I have had almost identical discussions about this with Moslems, Jews, Mormons and several Christian sects. They all KNOW that their beliefs are the true ones.

ETA I meant this to go after Dino's post, but I'm a slow typist.

Quoted: I have thought you were just here to cause trouble

Well, I am a wise-ass by nature. (Childhood Flashback: "Rodent, did you pay extra for those smarty-pants?") And some of the more literal-minded folks here don't always appreciate my comic genius. And I have a recently-demonstrated talent for getting threads locked

But I'm also a reasonably deep thinker, and there's no one here I wish ill on despite disagreements. So be gentle with me

Quoted: Another point of the article is that beliefs tend to stifle knowledge. If facts are gathered without preconcieved notions, and then logic and reason are used to try to piece them together as a whole, that's the scientific method. If a mistake is made, it's not viewed as heresy or even a setback, because it simply eliminates a false conclusion and facilitates the process. Faith is at odds with this, because people start with a belief, and then categorically reject any facts that do not fit the belief. I have had almost identical discussions about this with Moslems, Jews, Mormons and several Christian sects. They all KNOW that their beliefs are the true ones. ETA I meant this to go after Dino's post, but I'm a slow typist.

there is a difference between a belief and dogma.  When beliefs become dogmatic, then it can be an isssue.  We see this in science as well.   Einstein resisted the evidence uncovered by quantum mechanics because it conflicted with his personal beliefs.

People become dogmatic about all sorts of stuff.  

There are scientists who claim to KNOW that God doesn't exist.    That is a belief, not knowledge.  

Quoted: I didn't read the whole page, but read the first few paragraphs and then the summary. IMO, it would seem that the whole purpose of the information is to discredit the idea of people having faith. This is the last sentence of the paper: "Our feeling of wonder about the universe provides us the fuel for exploration; how much more magnificent the results from useful thoughts than ones based on faith." Even if you didn't mean too, to me the whole paper is an insult to those who have faith.

_________________________________________________________________

I would not necessarilly agree with the argument you posit.  Faith is wonderful; for those who have found it a meaningful way to express their spirituality--I include myself in that group--faith quite literally can do wonders.

The point is though that faith relationships, irrespective of the denomination, have at their cores an ethos.  Ethical ideas, irrespective of denomination, are far more in common than the belief systems we each find ourselves gravitating towards.

I would advocate that instead of the radical approach in which you reviewed and disclaimed the narrative, that you instead attempt to step out-side the box and review the subject matter.

"...an insult to those who have faith"...or a perception outside your ken.

This isn't meant to be confrontational...it's instead toward the discussion of ideas that this forum had promise of.

Quoted: Quoted: I didn't read the whole page, but read the first few paragraphs and then the summary. IMO, it would seem that the whole purpose of the information is to discredit the idea of people having faith. This is the last sentence of the paper: "Our feeling of wonder about the universe provides us the fuel for exploration; how much more magnificent the results from useful thoughts than ones based on faith." Even if you didn't mean too, to me the whole paper is an insult to those who have faith. _________________________________________________________________ I would not necessarilly agree with the argument you posit.  Faith is wonderful; for those who have found it a meaningful way to express their spirituality--I include myself in that group--faith quite literally can do wonders. The point is though that faith relationships, irrespective of the denomination, have at their cores an ethos.  Ethical ideas, irrespective of denomination, are far more in common than the belief systems we each find ourselves gravitating towards. I would advocate that instead of the radical approach in which you reviewed and disclaimed the narrative, that you instead attempt to step out-side the box and review the subject matter. "...an insult to those who have faith"...or a perception outside your ken. This isn't meant to be confrontational...it's instead toward the discussion of ideas that this forum had promise of.

____________________________________________________

On another level...and just a gentle reminder to the Moderator, is that to criticize a lack of adherance to ethics due to a lack of religious affiliation, is too a form of unrighteous indignation towards those who may be atheists, though while also living a life that is quite ethical.

You know, of course, I'm Jewish.  Though you have to admit that to be atheist takes quite a bit of faith!

Your comment that "Even if you didn't mean too, to me the whole paper is an insult to those who have faith." is an unfair reproachment of both the poster and the subject matter that was referred to.  

Faith and religion?  Ethics and religion?  Religion without (the need for) ethics?  Respectfully, your comment is biased.  How can this be a forum if the Moderator espouses such dictum?

Further, the post that "rules" this forum states that:

The idea is not to pull apart the requests for best wishes and prayers which are shared when many are in need, but to pull out the discussions which need to take place for any and all religions and place them in one easy to find location. I ask that those who partake in those discussions keep one thing in mind. Respect each other and each others beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Threads and discussion in this forum are to be serious discussions of "things religious" and it is NOT a place to taunt Christians or their beliefs. Again, troll at your peril.

Why have you jeapordized your "rules" for this forum?  Further, why are not all ideas welcome?  The post refers to "any and all religions", though the further caveat extends to not "taunt Christians or their beliefs".  Yet, in this very example, you seemingly disregard the original posters ideas.

I had no idea as to the nature or extent that any religion or ideas were to be excluded.  Nor did I truely understand that to not be outside this circle would be problematic.  Atheists seem to get the short shrift, as do other non-Christians.  Why?

That aside, I would ask the entire forum to be open-minded to the ethics we have in common, to discuss without prejudice, and with open commentary.

I will read the whole thing. Looks like it might be fun (yes, I actually enjoy this stuff)  to respond to if I can find the time.

Thanks for sharing.

... Thank you VA-gunnut for opening the thread back up for civil discourse - I appreciate that.

... This post was certainly not "trolling" as some have suggested. I'm too old, too ambivalent and have been a regular on this site too long to piss off my "brethren" on purpose

... It is merely to illustrate a point about the extreme differences between intransigence and pure knowledge based on fact. The article is actually more critical of scientists that adhere to some belief even after their theory failed in the laboratory - not so much as it applies to fundamentalist religions.

... It "can" however apply to some fundamentalists religion or cults.

... This charts illustrates in a concise, visual summary of the article. It was a interesting read I thought. I was reminded of it during the "Is there a Devil" thread and dug it up.

Differences between thinking with beliefs and thinking without beliefs



... My position is this: Live your life how ever you desire, believe in what ever you want - Just be a good example to those you leave behind when you die.

... My position is this: Live your life how ever you desire, believe in what ever you want - Just be a good example to those you leave behind when you die.

Nicely put.

Some faiths take a person to extremes. Imagine believing that if you die while you are trying to kill essentially innocent people, you will go to heaven and receive 72 virgins. That takes some seriously blind faith.

This article was thought provoking. For that, I appreciate the posting of it, even if I don't necessarily agree with all of it.

Quoted: Some faiths take a person to extremes. Imagine believing that if you die while you are trying to kill essentially innocent people, you will go to heaven and receive 72 virgins. That takes some seriously blind faith.

We all scoff at that, right? (Mods: Notice that I didn't even make any wisecracks about what I would do for 72 virgins. )

Anyway, it's probably safe to assume that not many of us can comprehend falling for that propaganda. I know I can't.

Well, plenty of "them" believe it enough to die over it; They're just as devout as any Christian martyr ever was. And they're wondering the same thing about "us" - how anyone could possibly believe the Christian ideology. Try to discuss this with a Moslem - they'll pick apart the bible like a Christian picks apart the Book of Mormon, or a Baptist picks apart Catholicism, or the Missouri Synod church picks apart the Evangelical Lutheran church.

Arguing over really bizarre and sometimes trivial points of dogma. And they're all doing it without any evidence.

That's how it looks to an outsider trying to be objective.

Quoted: Quoted: Some faiths take a person to extremes. Imagine believing that if you die while you are trying to kill essentially innocent people, you will go to heaven and receive 72 virgins. That takes some seriously blind faith. We all scoff at that, right? (Mods: Notice that I didn't even make any wisecracks about what I would do for 72 virgins. ) Anyway, it's probably safe to assume that not many of us can comprehend falling for that propaganda. I know I can't. Well, plenty of "them" believe it enough to die over it; They're just as devout as any Christian martyr ever was. And they're wondering the same thing about "us" - how anyone could possibly believe the Christian ideology. Try to discuss this with a Moslem - they'll pick apart the bible like a Christian picks apart the Book of Mormon, or a Baptist picks apart Catholicism, or the Missouri Synod church picks apart the Evangelical Lutheran church. Arguing over really bizarre and sometimes trivial points of dogma. And they're all doing it without any evidence. That's how it looks to an outsider trying to be objective.

__________________________________________

I understand your viewpoint, and the rhetoric in this forum largely falls into such similar and circular arguments.  Rather than an honest discourse, trite hyperbole is often the only recourse most people are equipped to handle.

Rote repetition and quotation, exercised with the fury of the pulpit is tied too deeply with personal feellings of myths—be they Christian or Jewish or other, are often portrayed in an unfamiliar sense.  

Scholastically, myths are understood as a story or a group of images in which religious energy and emotion are invested; mythical stories tells members of a group or faith community who they are—it actually takes the form of a charter—the energy center by which it lives.

From a dogmatic and scriptural aspect, quite often posts tend to be “shoot-‘em-ups”.  This largely has to do with the approach to scripture from a dogmatic view, rather than a more honest and open discussion of the context of the historical and political environment during which such scripture was written.

It would be enlightening to actually discuss religion with these contexts; otherwise this forum will become lame.


Ed

Scuba_Ed, start such a post. I would love to read and perhaps contribute.   I love that kind of stuff :)