The Role of Persuasion Rather than Arguments With Brainwashed People
If brain studies mean anything people are persuaded into thinking differently. They aren't just reasoned into it. Persuasion. So in the interests of persuading people rather than continually following up on what seems to me to be a dead end with my opponents I simply try a different tact. People can claim what they want to about how I roll. It's just that I can better persuade my opponents by using several different ways of seeing the same truth rather than following them down the rabbit hole where we will not agree in the end anyway.
We see things differently. I know this. Others don't seem to. That's the difference with me. For me it's not always about more detailed arguments and time consuming reasoning. It's about helping those who disagree with me see things my way. It takes a conversion, a new way of seeing the evidence, much like a lawyer who becomes a prosecutor in the midst of the same trial.
That's the genius of what I do, although for this I am railed against in places. Still I know what I'm doing and I'm making a difference. The facts are the facts. Kick against these goads all you want to. I have a properly basic belief that God doesn't exist. The only thing left is to persuade. ;-)
Or, someone could tell me how to reach brainwashed people. You cannot reason with them for the most part at all. They are impervious to reasoning. They always have an escape clause much like the guy who thought he was dead, was convinced dead men don't bleed, then upon being cut with a knife concluded dead men do bleed after all! All I'm doing is treating the patient in ways appropriate to his illness.
Christians don't like this. I understand that. But then I'm not here to win friends. I've come to the conclusion that many of them cannot be reasoned out of their faith because they were never reasoned into it in the first place.
Sometimes all one can do is be that person in the crowd who yells out, "Hey he doesn't have any clothes on." This is the level at which some Christians are in my judgment. At that point I am no longer interested in arguing with them but in persuading them, challenging them, provoking them to see things differently, to see things my way.
We see things differently. I know this. Others don't seem to. That's the difference with me. For me it's not always about more detailed arguments and time consuming reasoning. It's about helping those who disagree with me see things my way. It takes a conversion, a new way of seeing the evidence, much like a lawyer who becomes a prosecutor in the midst of the same trial.
That's the genius of what I do, although for this I am railed against in places. Still I know what I'm doing and I'm making a difference. The facts are the facts. Kick against these goads all you want to. I have a properly basic belief that God doesn't exist. The only thing left is to persuade. ;-)
Or, someone could tell me how to reach brainwashed people. You cannot reason with them for the most part at all. They are impervious to reasoning. They always have an escape clause much like the guy who thought he was dead, was convinced dead men don't bleed, then upon being cut with a knife concluded dead men do bleed after all! All I'm doing is treating the patient in ways appropriate to his illness.
Christians don't like this. I understand that. But then I'm not here to win friends. I've come to the conclusion that many of them cannot be reasoned out of their faith because they were never reasoned into it in the first place.
Sometimes all one can do is be that person in the crowd who yells out, "Hey he doesn't have any clothes on." This is the level at which some Christians are in my judgment. At that point I am no longer interested in arguing with them but in persuading them, challenging them, provoking them to see things differently, to see things my way.
77 comments:
Just do what the conservative talk radio host Mike Savage say's
"You can't reason with unreasonable people. Go ad hominem"
I second that...
Oh my god, I can't believe I'm enough of an asshole pedant to point this out, but you mean "tack," not "tact." The word is derived from a sailing term, not from the same root as "tactful."
Why do I hear Professor Frink's voice in my head as I write this?
Again, sorry . . .
I third that ...
I can claim a few successes in helping believers to see how they see things. Most have never given it a thought. This is why I like you. :-) I've "gotten through" to people by getting them to admit to:
1) they believe in their deity because of their cultural background
2) they believe in their deity against all logic because in the end "it's a matter of faith"
3) they believe in their deity because they choose to, not because they have objective proof that their deity is real.
I think that goes a long way toward helping them to understand how someone could be an atheist, but for good measure since their own beliefs are also a matter of personal experiences I share mine.
1) I grew up in a family that included two psychotics, who had psychotic friends they met in the hospital. Having known people who hear voices, I can't read any of the revelatory stuff of religion as being anything but psychosis.
2) I grew up in poverty for many years due to having a deadbeat dad. All that business about the heavenly father who will never let you down means squat to me because of that.
3) I have loved and been fond of people of other religions and I can't bring myself to take sides.
It's hard to argue against personal experience when it's not a matter of "atheists are angry at god." They honor their feel-good experiences above all thought or theology, so when I share my personal experiences, if they have any conscious at all they won't try to invalidate them.
define "Brainwashed"
My Lady likes me? *blush* *Slap* get with it Loftus this is about her liking your arguments.
---------
Graffight do a search here for the word. Here's one of the hits I got: Click Click Boom!
I'm not sure that being liked by someone who's spent a lot of time in the company of psychotics should be considered a compliment!
*sigh* There's another 50 minute therapy session for me right there!
hmm...well John the way you describe it there pretty much everything we are raised to believe is brainwashing...the only difference is that you John Loftus happen to dislike one of the things children are raised to believe... What's the difference between someone who grows up and leaves the house and decides that killing people is ok, and someone who decides that they no longer believe in God. I mean, the killer has shed the belief that life is valuable. Were they brainwashed to believe that. The reasoning here seems off.
Not so at all!!! The sciences teach us things that are independent what we were led to believe, Graffight.
Lady, maybe we're all psychotic to a degree so welcome to the real world after all.
Ahh the slippery slope argument, or possibly false analogy. If someone grows up to believe that eating fried chicken isn't healthy, is that also equivalent to deciding that running around murdering people is okay? What about people who decide their parents' belief in Satan is wrong?
p.s. a prize to the first theist who mentions Hitler!
Christians, please!
There is absolutely no validity to the theistic claim that if it weren't for God and his vaunted "objective morality" that we would turn into homicidal maniacs or animals.
It's NOT an 'either/or' proposition.
I know, based on empathy (the capacity to understand how it feels to be someone else because I know how I feel) that it's wrong to kill others, because I know it would suck if someone killed ME.
No God necessary, and we still have a persistent sense of "right action".
Graf said,
"...the killer has shed the belief that life is valuable..."
Not exactly. The killer has come to the belief that his own life is the ONLY LIFE that is valuable.
This is a (pre-1980) texbook definition of psychopath: "the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal."
This is a value system completely without empathy, but again, no God required.
science won't help with the example I used. How can science teach someone that they should not kill others...it can teach what happens if you do, but that does nothing to show why one shouldn't do it. And since science is not the only method of obtaining knowledge holding a belief devoid of scientific reasoning is not irrational...you said yourself that your disbelief in God is properly basic.
gear head...take a deep breath, read my post again. I never said anything remotely close to "if it weren't for God and his vaunted "objective morality" that we would turn into homicidal maniacs or animals." I don't believe that at all...
You're right, i didn't say that correctly, "he shed his belief that other people's lives are valuable." is what i should have said
The only reason he is defined as a psychopath is because other people don't like what he's doing, and they are strong enough to stop him...this means absolutely nothing though when it comes to whether or not it's right or wrong. killing is just and action, and actions are amoral...in fact EVERYTHING is amoral without an objective system to base it on. Consensus, personal preference and might makes right are not enough to make something right or wrong.
I read Cordelia Fines book 2X. That book had nothing to do with persuasion. It was all about manipulation, and how little control we actually have over who we are.
For the record I am not a christian, and I have read a lot on brain science over the years, and I think there is very little to nothing to show how people are de-converted. It is a complex mixture of a lot of things that make us who we are and what we become.
Otherwise, I like your blog. Sometimes it is too simplistic I think.
Graffight said..."What's the difference between someone who grows up and leaves the house and decides that killing people is ok, and someone who decides that they no longer believe in God. I mean, the killer has shed the belief that life is valuable. Were they brainwashed to believe that. The reasoning here seems off."
Is this the Godless people equal bloodthirsty killer ,christian meme101 ?.
Graffight didnt anyone explain its not been proven yet, that godlessness leads to bloodthirsty killerism.You never quite mentioned Hitler like LadyAtheist had expected,but still you might just have well have done so.
However those folks were mentally unstable dictators who were tyrants,dictating tyrants tend to be dangerous whether they believe in God or not.
Graffight said.."science won't help with the example I used. How can science teach someone that they should not kill others...it can teach what happens if you do, but that does nothing to show why one shouldn't do it."
1,If we had a box of rats and killed all rats except one rat,we could soon show and observe that the outcome could be total extinction of the species.Use of this very simple scientific type method "shows" that allowing blatant murder to happen within a species, is not even really a very sustainable trait to either allow or promote.
This shows that science alone could be used to prove allowing blatant murder within the human species as not even being viable.
Graffight said.."I mean, the killer has shed the belief that life is valuable."
The above simple scientific type method could easily be used to prove the killers thoughts as being very wrong.
Graffight said..."The only reason he is defined as a psychopath is because other people don't like what he's doing, and they are strong enough to stop him...this means absolutely nothing though when it comes to whether or not it's right or wrong"
No thats rubbish.Many human brains can be used together to help give an objective method by which humans can help prove it by observing and calculating.Its not just to do with certain people not liking the action of the psychopath,many human observations and experience soon proves his action really ought not be allowed to effect others.
However humans dont just use science.GearHedEd is correct we also use other traits including empathy.And empathy is an intuition what also helps stop most animals turning into simple baby eating blood thristy machines who will even kill their own young.We dont really see much deterioration of morality happening among the "godless" animals.
You christian need to get over this silly ancient outdated idea, that supposedly God is what equals our morality.Its getting so outdated now days it only tends to look more and more like ignorance.
Graffight wrote:
>The only reason he is defined as a psychopath is because other people don't like what he's doing, and they are strong enough to stop him...this means absolutely nothing though when it comes to whether or not it's right or wrong. killing is just and action, and actions are amoral...in fact EVERYTHING is amoral without an objective system to base it on.
Really?
*Our* reasons are that we were born with an empathy for our fellow human beings (explained by evolutionary psych, among other things), that we were raised in environments and had experiences that encouraged that natural empathy, and, of course, that other people will do bad things to us if we do bad things to them.
If that is not an “objective system” on which to base morality, what conceivably could be?
Oh, I know, some bloodthirsty monster up in the sky who tells people to murder large numbers of human beings who do not have the right beliefs, or who make a golden calf, or whatever.
Yeah, that’s the ticket, yeah, that’ll sure give us an “objective basis” for morality!
Re-read Exodus 32, where the Bible praises religious fanatics who murder 3,000 innocent human beings. *That* is your “objective basis” for morality.
If you had any sense of decency, you would acknowledge the deep evil which you call “morality.”
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Chico, I never said the book talked about persuasion. It's just that if our brain is as bad as she says, then...
You see? That was easy.
"...explained by evolutionary psych, among other things..."
Nothing is "explained" by evolutionary psychology because evolutionary psychology is pure flatulence.
About all this being influenced by our surroundings, eg, cultural, national, ethnic, familial, etc.
Why do you think Jesus addresses the seven churches in Revelation according to geographical location??? It seems He already understands about all that stuff.....
I think most people claim to believe because they've been told terrible things will happen if they don't and that fabulous things happen to people who have faith.
They then confirm their biases accordingly.
I often point out that faith is not a way to know anything true. There is one reality and an infinity of beliefs and opinions about reality.
It's hard to get people to think when they imagine themselves saved for believing in a particular magic story. It's also hard if they are afraid they will be immoral or unable to cope without whatever faith they've been indoctrinated to believe they "need".
John,
I would like to see you reply to Graffight He is bring up an important problem with your brain washing theory. Is everything a child is taught and socialized in brainwashing? I would like to see you answer. You are just offering conjectures instead you need to be giving hard experimentally proven evidence by experts to prove your point. Right now you just have an opinion that amounts to nothing.
-Harold
John,
Chico, I never said the book talked about persuasion. It's just that if our brain is as bad as she says, then...
You see? That was easy.
Then what? You are being too ambiguous here. How does the brain being bad and persuasion go together? Please explain I am not sure what you are trying to imply.
-Harold
O”Brien wrote to me:
> Nothing is "explained" by evolutionary psychology because evolutionary psychology is pure flatulence.
Okay…. I have a Ph.D. in science from Stanford (1983). And your Ph.D. would be from…?
Which of us is best qualified to judge the work of other scientists?
If humans evolved, their brains evolved. The difference between the intelligence of chimps and humans is not purely cultural: it is basically genetic, and those genetic differences are due to evolution.
That is really all that is needed to show that evolutionary psych is not “pure flatulence.”
Now, which part of that reasoning are you unable to understand?
Or, don’t you understand that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor? (If that is truly the case, then our conversation is indeed over, since all I will be able to do is laugh and laugh and laugh at you! I do not debate anti-evolutionists: I might convince them, and then one of the world’s major sources of humor would be diminished.)
Dave
Beautiful Feet wrote (apparently to me):
> Why do you think Jesus addresses the seven churches in Revelation according to geographical location??? It seems He already understands about all that stuff.....
Ummm… I’m not sure how to break this to you, but Jesus did not write the book of Revelation. Some dude named John did, while sitting on the isle of Patmos, so he claims. And, the book is rather clearly metaphorical, a long rant of the sort that was rather popular back in those days using a supposed “end of the world” scenario to vent John’s own anger and frustration. If you don’t believe me, do some research on the genre of apocalypses in the ancient world. Unless you intend to take them *all* literally (which would certainly be amusing), you should be able to see what John was up to. In fact, just reading it through, you should be able to see: John’s narrative just does not work (e.g., chronologically) if you try to interpret it as a literal narrative rather than an extended metaphorical rant.
Your mistake is rather as if you interpreted Jesus’ parables as literal narratives, rather than fictional stories told to make a point.
Think of Revelation as sort of an ancient version of modern dystopian novels: “1984,” “Brave New World,” etc.; interpreting these as literal predictions of future history misses their point.
Dave
Harold wrote:
> Is everything a child is taught and socialized in brainwashing?
Harold, articulett already addressed this.
When a child is told “Don’t run out in the street or you may be killed!” that is not brainwashing because the child can easily see for himself the facts and evidence that backs this up. Indeed, we reasonably expect Muslim, Christian, atheist, etc. parents to teach their kids this precisely because it is based on truths that transcend any particular culture. There is a threat here (“You might be killed!”), but one can easily ignore the threat and still see the logic behind the teaching.
And, most of what we teach our kids does not have a threat component: I started teaching my kids about evolution in kindergarten, but I did not say “If you do not believe this, Dawkins will devolve you into a frog!” I just told them what we know and started explaining some of the evidence (e.g., the fossil record).
What makes religion brainwashing is the lack of any rational evidence combined with threats and social and emotional pressure. Among the signs that this is what is going on in religion are the facts that it differs so much among different groups and cultures, that the variations among people’s religious beliefs are not random but correlate closely with the propaganda they were fed as kids, and the testimony by countless adults that, even though they cannot see any objective reason for their religion to be true, they still feel committed to it.
These are sure signs of non-rational belief based on threats and social and emotional pressure: what might be reasonably called “brainwashing.”
I know you may resist acknowledging this for your own religion. But, do you have a problem seeing that this is what is going on with Muslim kids, Hindu kids, etc.?
Dave
"Or, someone could tell me how to reach brainwashed people. You cannot reason with them for the most part at all."
This is part and parcel of the authoritarian mindset that sees evil as an external threat. "It's not us, it's all those *other people* over there who are the real problem." If you seek out external groups to label and attack then you are a fundamentalist atheist. All you've done is to replace one authoritarian god for another.
Implicit in the complaint that all those brainwashed believers are the real problem is the assumption that "We are not brainwashed. We believe in the Truth and the Light. Those who do not believe as we do are dangerous!"
LadyAtheist said...
"p.s. a prize to the first theist who mentions Hitler!"
I'm agnostic so I won't mention Hitler but I will mention Nietzsche. His argument is pretty powerful and it is basically that without god there is no objective morality. Or, in modern terms, moral realism requires an authoritative other who denotes what is and what isn't moral.
Many atheists who are philosophically ignorant want to have their cake and eat it too. They want their moral realism but they don't want to accept any moral giver. Some, like PhysicistDave here try to invoke the God Of Evolution (evolutionary Psych) as justification for objective morals. But in so doing they inevitably commit the naturalistic fallacy of thinking that explaining how morals might have evolved is the same as providing a rational philosophical justification for any particular moral behavior.
Nietzsche was right and if you have a problem with the fact that objective morals do not exist then you'd better show me how he was wrong and I seriously doubt anyone here can do that.
"Okay…. I have a Ph.D. in science from Stanford (1983)."
That and a dime wouldn't get you a gumball from a gumball machine, especially considering that you aren't a practicing scientist.
"And your Ph.D. would be from…?"
My advanced degree is in statistics, which I obtained from the math dept at UCSD.
"Which of us is best qualified to judge the work of other scientists?"
That would be me since a) I am a practicing scientist and b) the few papers I have coauthored thus far have dealt with cognition and the brain.
"If humans evolved, their brains evolved. The difference between the intelligence of chimps and humans is not purely cultural: it is basically genetic, and those genetic differences are due to evolution.
That is really all that is needed to show that evolutionary psych is not 'pure flatulence.'"
Sorry, but no.
"Now, which part of that reasoning are you unable to understand?"
The part where you pretend to know what you are talking about but don't.
LadyAtheist said...
"I grew up in a family that included two psychotics"
Confirmation bias. You are just generalizing from your particular experiences to a universal condemnation and that is a blatant fallacy.
The fact that your father abandoned you says nothing about the validity of religious faith. The fact that you knew some who suffered from mental illness says nothing about the value of religious experiences.
It would be helpful if you were less emotive and based you beliefs on reason rather than anger at your father for having given you up and left you and not shown you that he loves you.
All you've done is what you claim that others do. You start from where you were once hurt and rationalize out from there in such a way so you won't be hurt again. Everyone does this. But instead of owning what you do you deny it and blame others for the very thing that you yourself are guilty of.
You've brainwashed yourself.
Hi Physicist Dave,
You replied to my comment, "Ummm… I’m not sure how to break this to you, but Jesus did not write the book of Revelation."
I'm a believer. As such, I reserve the right to believe independently of those who do not believe. I reserve the right to view the Bible as divinely inspired. Of course, you do not have to agree with me.
In your comment to me, I think you have presumed that I take the Bible in its entirety literally. I do not do that. I take scripture relationally. In other words, what I recognize to be true of my own human nature, I can recognize and see that in the bible (and other religious books). And what I've experienced by faith, enables me to recognize divine nature there as well.
If you are familiar with scripture, you recall a verse that says that the word must be divided -- I find that to be good advice!
bye!
Brenda said..." His argument is pretty powerful and it is basically that without god there is no objective morality. Or, in modern terms, moral realism requires an authoritative other who denotes what is and what isn't moral."
Ok now explain how God given objective moral, gets delivered from God to us.Without use of the human brain or by use of any human go-between.
Use of the human brain removes the totally objective judgement of God from the mix.
So please no pointing to holy books.Holy books were delivered via human brains.Dont point to what someone suggests in some ministry book.We are not interested in thoughts of William Lane Craig or anyone elses opinion.
I suggest you need to show some way God speaks publically and directly to us humans, that can be trusted tested and proved as Gods thoughts and words being passed directly on to us humans.That way you could claim there will be no contamination.
Or else tell us how do you claim authoritative objective moral view of God exists.
Its all very fine handwaving and saying.."requires an authoritative other who denotes what is and what isn't moral"
But very different explaining how this actually honestly happens ,when God-/s never ever actually appear on the scene themselves in person.
Simply saying some prophet says God told him some moral blah blah ,isnt any honest "authoritative other" in my view.
Can you please explain how this God "authoritative other", actually happens Brenda.
O'Brien said... "Nothing is "explained" by evolutionary psychology because evolutionary psychology is pure flatulence."
"The part where you pretend to know what you are talking about but don't."
Howdy O'Brien,im really very interested in hearing your views on why you decided evolutionary psychology is pure flatulence.Could you expand on your thoughts about the subject.
Gandolf said
"Ok now explain how God given objective moral, gets delivered from God to us"
Once again atheists cannot tell the difference between someone who doesn't agree with them and theism. Your glib and superficial Manichean beliefs tell you that anyone who you don't agree with must belong to the enemy. Because that is all that exists, friends and enemies, isn't that right?
I don't have to explain how any particular law giver comes into being. All I need to do is to note that in fact such law givers do exist in virtually all cultures. The ten commandments objectively exist and people treat them as though they are authoritative and therefore they are.
"So please no pointing to holy books."
Sacred texts objectively exist.
"
I suggest you need to show some way God speaks publically and directly to us humans"
Again, I don't need to. All that is needed is for people to believe that god spoke to humanity. Just as all that is needed for this 20$ bill to have the value it has is that people believe it has value.
Of course, since you don't believe in god i assume that you agree with Nietzsche that we are therefore free to create our own morality and that the Nietzschean superman is free to break any and all moral codes and create his own by the exercise of his Will to Power. That like Nietzsche you think it would be a wonderful thing if more people behaved as he advised and acted on their own will to power.
That would be a great society to live in... wouldn't it?
Brenda said,
"I'm agnostic so I won't mention Hitler but I will mention Nietzsche. His argument is pretty powerful and it is basically that without god there is no objective morality. Or, in modern terms, moral realism requires an authoritative other who denotes what is and what isn't moral.
Many atheists who are philosophically ignorant want to have their cake and eat it too. They want their moral realism but they don't want to accept any moral giver."
The "authoritative other" mentioned in your first quoted paragraph is represented in secular societies by the state; and the "moral giver" mentioned in the second paragraph is the body authorized to promulgate laws and statutes for the good of the state.
God is unnecessary. Case law and common law, as they began under the English through the Magna Charta (to respond to the abuses of royalty, and develop a more just system) have been improving the lot of mankind in western societies for almost 1,000 years.
Incidentally, this is why secular laws in the U.S. stioll allow the death penalty in some states, while religion (and rightly so!) has no authority to punish any more.
Beautiful Feet,
no one is arguing that you can't believe whatever magical stories you want or feel "saved" for believing. It just that Jesus is not the purported author of the bible passage you reference.
You are fighting a straw man if you imagine people are arguing that you can't believe what you want.
We all know agree that you can believe whatever magical stuff you want-- just like Scientologists and myth believers of yore. And sadly, you can threaten your kids with hell to get them to believe whatever crap you think they are supposed to believe just as someone did to you.
The question is, how do you "unbrainwash" people who imagine themselves SAVED for what they BELIEVE (and damned if they doubt)?
How can people ask questions or think when they fear ETERNAL damnation if they do so? Rational people recognize that this is manipulative. Rational people recognize that it's creepy to tell your kids that Jesus was nailed to a cross for them! We are interested in unbrainwashing such people-- or at least giving the smart ones a path out of this morass because we are thankful to have been able to think ourselves out of such manipulations ourselves! Would you encourage people to do rain dances if you knew better ways to grow crops?
The most virulent religions include threatening memes for failure to pass it on just as they promise rewards for faith. You might recognize this as the same manipulation used by the most virulent chain letters-- only the stakes for religion are claimed to be ETERNITY. Yet there is no evidence that souls exist-- that any part of a human can live after death. If there was such evidence, scientists would be honing the information for their own benefit!
You've been manipulated like other believers and so you are afraid to ask how your indoctrinators can know what they claim to know. If you and your fellow believers in magic can't see how this is manipulative or why we might care that people shove this stuff in trusting kids brains, then blame your indoctrination.
The silly arguments used to justify your faith could be used equally well by conflicting faiths or faiths you find to be damaging. You sound as brainwashed to us as such people would sound to you. And I don't think anyone here thinks believing in magical stories is an ennobling trait. (I find it childish and primitive.)
If you were as brainwashed as you think the Scientologists are, would you even want to know? And how would you know? Or would you just want to keep believing whatever it is you feel so special and saved for "believing in"? What would you do if your kid was in a cult and imagined you were evil if you tried to get them to understand that they were being manipulated? Do you just let them go on devoting their life into defending a lie just because you can't prove that it's a lie? Or do you do what the rational people here are doing-- and discuss the various ways to get them to THINK their way out of their indoctrination?
To a rationalist, believers are as irrational as they think other superstitious people are. And for the same reasons! Moreover, believers feel special and saved and moral and humble for what they BELIEVE! That's crazy... which a believer can easily see when it comes to conflicting faiths. Their indoctrination just blinds them to this when it comes to their own myths.
You believers wouldn't have to spend so much time being defensive if your beliefs were based on evidence. The truth isn't afraid of questions you know. And the truth is the same for everybody no matter what they believe. (The earth was round even through the eons humans thought otherwise and no amount of belief changed that.)
Brenda said,
"Sacred texts objectively exist."
No argument there. I have four different versions of the Bible, and a 1929 Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer on my desk right now. I also have a college Physics text, a college Chemistry text, and an college Calculus text on my desk (I didn't sell my books back for a quick buck!).
The important questions are:
Who says the Bible is sacred?
Men.
Who wrote the Bible?
Men.
How does anyone know whether John of Patmos was or wasn't tripping on ergot when he wrote the Revelation?
We DON'T.
Religion based on the Bible is NO DIFFERENT than religion based on the I Ching, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Qur'an or any other moldy tome.
You get out of it what YOU put into it.
Brenda, your straw men are tiresome, and you seem to miss the point of this discussion entirely in order to elevate your own imagined expertise and communication skills.
I don't think there is any measurable area of morality where theists score above atheists. Atheists commit less crime, divorce less, commit less child abuse, etc. Moreover, they never do anything cruel because of the what they believe some invisible being wants. Theists often do-- and imagine themselves moral for doing so.
Does your verbiage have a point other than to elevate your imagine expertise on the topic? I doubt anyone thinks you are as intelligent or diplomatic as you imagine yourself to be. You ask fake questions of the people here and you answer them with your imagined straw men.
So do you have a way of helping people become less brain washed? If so, you may wish to try the technique on yourself. Your viewpoint of atheists is a straw man. You failed to address the topic, and you imagined that people were saying and thinking things they did not say or think. I know it makes you feel super duper to knock these straw men down and this may be the only means you have of feeling good about yourself, but I doubt anyone here finds you to be someone they'd take advice from or want to be more like. You seem to be having a conversation that is taking place almost entirely in your head. I find those you are critiquing to be much more intelligible and worthy of emulation than you.
Brenda said,
"Of course, since you don't believe in god i assume that you agree with Nietzsche that we are therefore free to create our own morality and that the Nietzschean superman is free to break any and all moral codes and create his own by the exercise of his Will to Power."
In the context of a secular society, the Nietzschean superman cannot function; he must adhere to secular law or he will be hunted down and either killed or imprisoned.
The only place the Nietzschean superman could even hope to exist in reality is in total isolation, in which case morality is moot.
Unless you count thought crimes such as blasphemy and pride.
Speaking of brainwashed...
I looke dit up in the dictionary, and I saw a picture of the polygamous wives of the followers of Warren Jeffs.
Same dress...
Same hairdo...
Same husband...
And did anyone notice how the women DEFENDED that cretin?
And you say atheists are brainwashed???
Atheism is just a non belief. It requires as much "brain washing" as it does to not believe in Santa, or demons, or magic. It takes no brainwashing at all to not believe in things for which there is no evidence in the first place. There is no evidence that invisible undetectable beings exist. Period. If there were we'd be gathering and testing the information to refine it, hone it, and learn more like we have with everything else that has proven to be real. This is as true for gods and souls as it is for gremlins, thetans, and sprites. Despite eons of belief, there isn't an iota of evidence for any of them. Zero. Nada. Zilch. They are all cut from the same cloth as The Emperor's New Clothes. Nobody can know anything about beings that are indistinguishable from imaginary beings. They can only imagine they know.
As much as theists (and their apologist buddies) like to imagine that atheism takes as much faith as their delusions, it doesn't. It takes no more faith for me to disbelieve Christianity than it takes the Christians to disbelieve Scientology (and vice versa). I suspect I disbelieve in Christianity for the same reason Christians disbelieve Scientology, in fact. And no matter how moral or successful or happy Scientologists or Christians or other supernatural believers may be (or imagine themselves to be), it doesn't make me believe their magical tales any more.
I do not find Christians or theists in general to be more moral than non-believers either, though I'm sure that each sect imagines the members of their own sects to be the most moral of all. I have no problem being moral without threats of hell and promises of goodies after I die... (so does my dog, actually) I think this makes me more moral than people who refrain from hurting others because of imagined rewards and punishments from an invisible man who reads their minds.
From my observations, the only thing religion makes people better at is lying to themselves (and others.)
I don't believe in any magic-- even the magic that some people feel super duper special for "believing in". I find Christians as silly as they find believers in other myths.
Clearly it takes indoctrination for a grown up to continue to engage in magical thinking (and to imagine themselves more moral for doing so!) Without indoctrination, would any adult hang onto magical thinking? I doubt it.
I do think it's hilarious that believers are always trying to convince themselves that atheism is another faith. I probably did it too when I was trying to "keep the faith" (lest I be punished with hell). I think they do this so they can keep pretending that they have the one true "divine secret" rather than admitting that faith is NOT a way to know anything true-- that they've been duped by their parents and priests and others they have come to trust the most. Their religions taught them to hate and fear those that tried to give them a life boat to reason.
Faith is just a common way for humans to manipulate other humans. And it works spectacularly well. I want to be amongst the people who help lead humanity out of this primitive thinking.
Brenda said.." Your glib and superficial Manichean beliefs tell you that anyone who you don't agree with must belong to the enemy. Because that is all that exists, friends and enemies, isn't that right?"
No wrong.And silly.
But im not silly.And in my "opinion" something about you seems slightly suspect.
Brenda said.."I don't have to explain how any particular law giver comes into being. All I need to do is to note that in fact such law givers do exist in virtually all cultures. The ten commandments objectively exist and people treat them as though they are authoritative and therefore they are."
Translation: i read what other people write.If they say yes we do need a supernatural law giver,i simply just believe it.Im pointing to the bible and the ten commandments,because thats the best i can do.I agree with what others say about needing a supernatural law giver,but i have never thought about it much.And so neither can i explain why it might even be needed or how it might happen.In short im brainwashed.Im a faith freak.Im a follower.
Brenda did you note human brains,emotions and feeling also exist in ALL cultures too?.Human brains that can experience the same things and learn and even pass on information they learned to the future generations.
Brenda said..."Again, I don't need to. All that is needed is for people to believe that god spoke to humanity. Just as all that is needed for this 20$ bill to have the value it has is that people believe it has value."
Oh yeah.. and all thats needed for tooth fairys and Celestial Tea Pots etc to exist .Is for some crazy folks to believe it.And these Celestial Tea Pot believers should have freedoms and rights to be threatening people specially the kids with some place they call hell like they is the localized Taliban terrorist groups.
Nice morals Brenda.
1,You come here and impose need for this "authoritative other" ,yet dont feel you need give any explanation why that might be.Or how it might even happen?.
2,You are quick! to poo poo evolutionary explanations that are actually avialable.
You dont really sound so agnostic.
Brenda said.."Of course, since you don't believe in god i assume that you agree with Nietzsche that we are therefore free to create our own morality and that the Nietzschean superman is free to break any and all moral codes and create his own by the exercise of his Will to Power."
No Brenda, we human actually live in social societies.Our society is not run on rights of the indevidual all deciding what their own moral and laws might be.And its dishonet to suggest it.Humans live in social society, not solo anarchy.
Yes tyrants can take over and impose their solo rule,but we see these societies all tend to self destruct.So these type ideals dont take over,because they dont even work.
See thats the problem you have in my opinion Brenda.Seems you simply read-and-believe , when maybe you need to learn to read-think-then believe.Otherwise you might be brainwashed.
In quite happy to considder the possibility of this "other authourity" you speak about. But im not about to simply believe it ,that would be me being brainwashed.
You need to explain why its even needed ,plus how it can even actually happen.
Evolutionary morals have explaination why they are needed,plus more explanation how they happen.
GearHedEd said...
"The "authoritative other" mentioned in your first quoted paragraph is represented in secular societies by the state"
Yes it is. So I assume that since you agree that morality as such does not exist that the state is free to define the parameters of legal behavior however it pleases and according to it's needs.
Should you disagree with the state or other duly constituted social authority on what objective grounds would base your objection? It is clear that there can be no objective reason for opposing them outside of subjective needs or desires.
Sounds kind of bleak if you ask me.
"The important questions are:"
I don't think they are that important. I find questions concerning who wrote what sacred text to be boring. But you go ahead, they're obviously very important to you.
articulett said...
"Brenda, your straw men are tiresome"
Misunderstanding me is not a strawman. GearHedEd seemed to have little trouble with that.
"Does your verbiage have a point"
Yes.
"I doubt anyone thinks you are as intelligent or diplomatic as you imagine yourself to be."
I am as diplomatic as you are.
GearHedEd said...
"In the context of a secular society, the Nietzschean superman cannot function; he must adhere to secular law or he will be hunted down and either killed or imprisoned."
But Nietzsche made provisions for that and said that if one cannot be a god, an heroic figure who creates his own reality, then it's ok to be an antihero, a thug, a thief or whatever, as long as one accepts that one's fate may well be to be killed or imprisoned.
All that matters, according to Nietzsche, is that you had your time in the sun and laughed in the face of death. Live fast and leave a beautiful corpse!
I'll repeat myself. If you disagree with Nietzsche you really need to explain how objective morals can exist without a god.
Brenda said.."Should you disagree with the state or other duly constituted social authority on what objective grounds would base your objection? It is clear that there can be no objective reason for opposing them outside of subjective needs or desires."
You catch on fast.Yep thats correct ,this is why we wait and wait on the Catholic Church to finally decide when they think its time to finally expose the child molestors.
The God-/s or Jesus just dont ever arrive on the scene! and give us their veiw as an "authoritative other"
So really what other choice do we have?, but to rely on the objective view of our governments and authorities, which in turn are voted in by all the general public.And are supposed to represent our voices and opinions.
A "authoritative other" would be really great.It might help stop much faith abuse still happening .But sadly this "authoritative other" never arrives.
So we have no other choice! but to use thought and brain and emotion and experience etc ,of many humans.
Articulett, Hi!
You were replying to a comment about my beliefs and had mentioned something about my threatening my children with damnation....??? Have I said that somewhere here???????
Anyway, Jesus doesn't condemn -- that can be a problem for the ppl that do want to condemn and degrade those who have mistreated them - their enemies. So, who in reality is doing the condemning??? PPl condemn and degrade one another.
Gandolf said...
"But im not silly."
I never said you were silly, I said you were glib and superficial and you haven't disappointed me.
"Translation: i read what other people write.If they say yes we do need a supernatural law giver,i simply just believe it.Im pointing to the bible and the ten commandments,because thats the best i can do."
I also gave the sayings of Confucius as another example. Are you really unable to imagine how someone can give examples of things in order to explain a concept even though they don't necessarily agree with them?
"Oh yeah.. and all thats needed for tooth fairys and Celestial Tea Pots etc to exist .Is for some crazy folks to believe it."
So you don't agree that a 20$ bill posses the value it does because of our collective social agreement? Where, by your account, does money come from? By my account money, like morality, is epistemically subjective and yet ontologically objective.
It seems to me that all you're doing is regurgitating canned arguments that you picked up somewhere.
"You come here and impose need for this "authoritative other" ,yet dont feel you need give any explanation why that might be.Or how it might even happen?."
I already explained it to you but I'll repeat myself. People just get together and decide collectively what their authoritative texts will be.
"You are quick! to poo poo evolutionary explanations that are actually avialable."
Evolutionary explanations commit the naturalistic fallacy.
"Our society is not run on rights of the indevidual all deciding what their own moral and laws might be."
That's right. We all get together and decide what our morals will be BUT.... since there is no god there is no objective moral ground on which to place those morals. They can be anything we want them to be ANYTHING. You agree with that right?
"we see these societies all tend to self destruct.So these type ideals dont take over,because they dont even work."
So I take it you agree with those who feel that even though god does not exist people need to *believe* in god in order to have a functioning society. we call those people fascists. are you a fascist Gandolf?
Brenda said..."I'll repeat myself. If you disagree with Nietzsche you really need to explain how objective morals can exist without a god."
This is like saying.We need to try explain how an objective type view of a particular patients condition ,could ever exist without God-/s
However we do know to can get an objective view of what a patients condition might or might not most likely be .Simply by them going to see a number of Surgeons or Doctors for advice , and thus this way it helps provide us a type of "objective opinion".
We have to do it this way simply because sadly there is absolutely no supernatural "authoritative other" Jesus or God-/s we can actually ask in person for an "authoritative other" opinion.
Gandolf said
"this is why we wait and wait on the Catholic Church to finally decide when they think its time to finally expose the child molestors."
What's wrong with pedophilia? By what objective moral code would you say that it is wrong? Since you seem to agree that it is society that decides what is moral then I take it you would not have a problem if society decided that pedophilia is ok. Right?
(Prediction, you're so stupid I bet you're going to think I'm advocating something I consider a heinous crime.)
"A "authoritative other" would be really great.It might help stop much faith abuse still happening."
Hey! You're in luck, guess what? The State IS "authoritative other". Now all you have to do is pass all those laws outlawing religion you'd love to have. After all there is no god and no morality therefore you can do whatever you want as long as you can convince others to go along with you. Right?
Brenda:
"So I assume that since you agree that morality as such does not exist that the state is free to define the parameters of legal behavior however it pleases and according to it's needs."
I believe I said that.
"Should you disagree with the state or other duly constituted social authority on what objective grounds would base your objection?"
That the just powers of the government derive from the collective will of the people, and if the gov't abuses that power, then it is no longer worthy of respect and obedience to those rules and laws.
"It is clear that there can be no objective reason for opposing [secular rules and laws?] outside of subjective needs or desires."
See above. And the Declaration of Independence.
Sounds kind of bleak if you ask me."
I didn't ask, but that's the world we live in. And your objections sound like you disagree with the foundational concepts of the USA. To complain that the world isn't a better place gets us nowhere.
"But Nietzsche made provisions for that and said that if one cannot be a god, an heroic figure who creates his own reality, then it's ok to be an antihero, a thug, a thief or whatever, as long as one accepts that one's fate may well be to be killed or imprisoned."
So? I don't have a problem with that. It happens all the time. We lick our wounds as a society and move on. Remember the DC Sniper?
Me neither.
"If you disagree with Nietzsche you really need to explain how objective morals can exist without a god."
Who said I disagreed with Nietzsche? And I've said elsewhere (and others have said it in this thread) that there are no objective morals. You're trying to catch a fistful of smoke.
Gandolf said
"This is like saying.We need to try explain how an objective type view of a particular patients condition ,could ever exist without God-/s"
No honey, it isn't like that at all. That is the naturalistic fallacy. All science can do is discover facts. It can never give us values. So science can say what our evolutionary history is and why we think that doing X is right or wrong. But science can never tell us THAT doing X is right or wrong.
It is conceivable that had evolution taken a different path that we could have a society where pedophilia is the norm. In that society everyone agrees that the right and moral thing to do is to engage in that behavior. In fact, these people not only think it's right, they think it is the most wonderful thing one could ever do. They think this because like us their brains reward them whenever they what their evolutionary history tells them is the right and just thing to do.
So according to you, since these morals evolved they must BE the right kind of thing to do....
RIGHT?
Brenda said,
"It is conceivable that had evolution taken a different path that we could have a society where pedophilia is the norm. In that society everyone agrees that the right and moral thing to do is to engage in that behavior."
Ever heard of the Spartans?
articulett said,
..."Brenda, your straw men are tiresome"
Brenda said,
"Misunderstanding me is not a strawman. GearHedEd seemed to have little trouble with that."
A little clarity, please.
Are you saying that I understood what you said and responded properly (without resorting to calling what you said a strawman), or are you saying that I DID misunderstand you, and that what I replied with was itself a strawman?
Brenda said... So you don't agree that a 20$ bill posses the value it does because of our collective social agreement? Where, by your account, does money come from? By my account money, like morality, is epistemically subjective and yet ontologically objective.
It seems to me that all you're doing is regurgitating canned arguments that you picked up somewhere."
Canned arguments.L.o.L ..but a $20 bill actually exist Brenda you can actually get your lil mitts on it and spend it.Of course we agree on the value as a society,but that dont change the fact we can actually hold it in our hands and spend it.Can you do the same with a tooth fairy or a Celestial Tea Pot?.
Your arguments are the canned ones.Straight out of some Church scene id say.Seems you cant? even see any difference between a $20 bill we can actually spend,and some unproven "idea" of Celestial Tea Pot.Talk about church canned brain thought.
You learned these silly type stupid rhetoric arguments at some university for the up and coming church pastors right?
Brenda said.."I already explained it to you but I'll repeat myself. People just get together and decide collectively what their authoritative texts will be."
No Brenda i said "You come here and impose need for this "authoritative other" ,yet dont feel you need give any explanation why that might be.Or how it might even happen?."
Brenda stop stalling.That does nothing to explain why we might need this "authoritative other" you speak of.Neither doe it explain how this "authoritative other" you speak of might even communicate with us.
Please dont say through men or holy books.
Brenda said .."Evolutionary explanations commit the naturalistic fallacy."
And what might that be Brenda.
Brenda said...That's right. We all get together and decide what our morals will be BUT.... since there is no god there is no objective moral ground on which to place those morals. They can be anything we want them to be ANYTHING. You agree with that right?"
Yes they could be anything the human social "group" decides.Not what "we" might decide as in being about decision of the indevidual.The group decides.But we see groups of humans often decide many of the same things in many cultures, because we have much the same type brains and feeling and emotions.
If i have evolved with much the same brain,feeling,emotion etc as any other human no matter where he happen to live on the planet,why would you even expect me to end up having such very differnt thoughts about murder?.
Brenda said..."So I take it you agree with those who feel that even though god does not exist people need to *believe* in god in order to have a functioning society. we call those people fascists. are you a fascist Gandolf?"
No Brenda.But you are twisting matters very much like is often to be "expected" of a Christian troll posing here as agnostic.Who cant win the argument by simply being straight up and honest, so you need to revert to twisting and turning what people say.
But thats ok.I see right through it just like reading an open book.Im sure others do also.
P.S ..i only answered that what i thought was maybe worth even bothering to reply to.Because im not here to try and just please you, or bother with playing your silly word games.
Brenda said.."It is conceivable that had evolution taken a different path that we could have a society where pedophilia is the norm. In that society everyone agrees that the right and moral thing to do is to engage in that behavior. In fact, these people not only think it's right, they think it is the most wonderful thing one could ever do. They think this because like us their brains reward them whenever they what their evolutionary history tells them is the right and just thing to do.
So according to you, since these morals evolved they must BE the right kind of thing to do...."
Brenda you mean kind of like the torture of stoning people to death in early christian societies?.Or offering up your daughters for sex to save a male from being raped by men ?.
Yep those type societies evolved in our distant past.
Had this "authoritative other" opinion you spoke of, ever been honestly available.Then these type societies need not ever have evolved.
But sadly yes those societies did evolve,and people learned from it also.Thats what brains are for.
So you see quite obviously this "authoritative other" opinion you dream of ,is about as scarce as is Rocking Horse Shit.
Do you know where any Rocking Horse Shit can be found ??.I heard it grows great tomatoes! ,some faithful tomatoe growing guru prophet told me so
I'm convinced that Brenda is a lying theist... the straw men... the naturalistic fallacy... the inability to distinguish fact from opinion... the inability to grasp the topic... all the fallacies that are so common to theists.
Brenda, apparently, refrains from molesting children because of god or something... the rest of us manage to refrain because we either don't feel the urge or we don't do things we wouldn't want done to us as children-- or to our own children. Most of us have a natural revulsion to such things. Brenda believes that people need the fear of god to avoid child molestation-- and maybe SHE does-- or maybe her parents and clergymen did.
Except the "fear of god" doesn't work very well-- not for priests anyhow... it seems that even threats of hell can't keep them from molesting kiddies. God doesn't appear to be very good at helping people control sexual urges or guiding morality in this way.
Or maybe their god is all for diddling the kiddies. He didn't forbid pedophilia in his top ten commandments (though he made sure people kept the sabbath day holy) -- so maybe it's okay with him-- he actually encourages pedophilia in some passages..."So you spared the women! ... Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man, but keep the virgins for yourselves ... divide them up evenly." (Numbers 31:15) (Great moral guidance, eh?-- No wonder Benda is so confused!)
And we all know about Muhummed and his young bride...
--and the child brides of the polygamous clans whose "prophet" regularly gets messages from god telling which girl should marry which old man-- (or so he claims)
~~~~
Brenda, it's time to question those who told you about atheist morals. Atheists seem to have better morals then the gods that theists worship and better morals than you if you need threats of hell to keep you from molesting kids. You are very very confused. You have nothing to back up your garbled presumptions and the inane things you attempt to imply. Your religion has caused you to believe prejudicial and divisive things about others (atheists) which doesn't speak well for it's benefits as a moral guide.
And the topic is how to unbrainwash people, remember? You can't really add to the topic until you make sense to someone other than yourself. Your imaginations of atheist morality only serve to prop up your delusions of grandeur and to keep you from examining whether faith is something worth defending. If faith is something worth defending, how do you encourage some brands of magical thinking without being responsible for the harms that come from such thinking (such as parents whose kids die because the parent prays rather than seeking medical attention?) Nobody agrees on what the invisible guy wants, remember? And all religious people think that those in their religion are the most moral. And if faith is so good, why does it need dishonest people like you defending it? Can't the omnibenevolent omniscient one handle this himself?
For the record, nature is about getting genes spread... humans override nature all the time such as when they use birth control. This is probably more true of atheists (who don't believe that there's a god who wants people to spawn in an overcrowded planet)than it is for theists. It's science that allows us to go beyond nature, not religion. Science has a built-in error correction mechanism. Religion doesn't. When religion doesn't work it blames the believer for not having enough faith-- or believers rush to hide the role faith played in undesirable outcomes (e.g. 9-11).
Oh, and atheists get their morals the same way theists get theirs... they just don't imagine that it came from some invisible guy.
Is anyone following Brenda?
Can anyone sum up her main points?
To me, she sounds like the standard religious apologists. Her arguments could work just as well for the faiths she finds repulsive as the one she claims to be agnostic about.
(I wonder if she's "agnostic" about demons, thetans, and leprechauns too?)
She seems to think Nietzsche is an authoritative philosopher...
Brenda said... "Gandolf said
"This is like saying.We need to try explain how an objective type view of a particular patients condition ,could ever exist without God-/s"
No honey, it isn't like that at all. That is the naturalistic fallacy. All science can do is discover facts. It can never give us values. So science can say what our evolutionary history is and why we think that doing X is right or wrong. But science can never tell us THAT doing X is right or wrong.
It is conceivable that had evolution taken a different path that we could have a society where pedophilia is the norm. In that society everyone agrees that the right and moral thing to do is to engage in that behavior. In fact, these people not only think it's right, they think it is the most wonderful thing one could ever do. They think this because like us their brains reward them whenever they what their evolutionary history tells them is the right and just thing to do.
So according to you, since these morals evolved they must BE the right kind of thing to do....
RIGHT? "
Ohh dear Sweet Pea .. You are telling me a "type" of scientific method cant be used by humans to help us gain some better understanding by our observation and calculations and experience ,to see that certain actions for instance might cause more of our society lots of heartbreak and anger and even extreme nightmares and make our societies start to fall apart at the seams?.
Like say torture by stoning people to long slow painful deaths ,might give children and even some adults P.T.S.D and recurring nightmares.And create lots of anger, when peoples loved familiy members had been later found out to have been wrongfully convicted, and put to death with torture through stoning to death.
And might not the scientific type approach of using human brain power experience and calculations etc,at some stage tell us humans, that something akin to P.T.S.D was arising from children exposed to pedophilia ?. Even if we didnt understand what P.T.S.D might actually be.
We would see the effect right?.And soon enough put 1+1 together and understand that those kids over there who were exposed to pedophilia were ending up very differnt to the other kids who were not exposed to pedophilia.Yes?
Sweet Pea ..Ancient folks still had brains and emotions etc, even if they still had many things they never understood at the time and still needed to learn.
articulett said...
I'm convinced that Brenda is a lying theist... the straw men... the naturalistic fallacy... the inability to distinguish fact from opinion... the inability to grasp the topic... all the fallacies that are so common to theists.
Brenda, apparently, refrains from molesting children because of god or something... the rest of us manage to refrain because we either don't feel the urge or we don't do things we wouldn't want done to us as children-- or to our own children. Most of us have a natural revulsion to such things. Brenda believes that people need the fear of god to avoid child molestation-- and maybe SHE does-- or maybe her parents and clergymen did."
Hi articulett.Yes it is a bit of a worry.Sometimes i wonder if faith help dehumanizes human feelings so much.That i wonder if this isnt maybe? what helps cause some of the sexual abuse happening in faith groups.And lack of natural human feeling in Popes, who dont end up exposing it.
Many of these faithful folks seem to be experts at twisting the truth.Why couldnt they use this expertise to twist the truth in their heads ,to help make themselves also believe maybe sexual child abuse was ok.
I like goofing on the blowhards like Brenda, but the ditzy ones like Beautiful Feet just make me sad. They seem nice, and I end up feeling like I'm accidentally revealing to some kid that Santa isn't real, (even though I wanted no part of the lie in the first place.)
I think it's worthwhile to plant the seeds of critical thought, so this topic interests me. I love hearing the story of true believers (such as Loftus) who later became freethinkers and I'm interested in the best methods for encouraging such journeys. I look forward to a time when we humans don't have to walk on eggshells because of someone's faith.
Nobody thinks their own faith is harmful, but all faiths promote the lie that there are "divine secrets" that scientists can't access but that special people can "feel" or "know" through faith. Religions make their members afraid that bad things will happen if they lose the faith and they encourage prejudice against those that don't defer to faith.
For these reasons, I think ALL of the faithful responsible when someone "gets a message" that causes harm to others-- even if such people really, really, believe that the message came from some god (as the hijackers did). There is no way to tell a real god from a voice in the head, after all --and,to me, it's morally wrong to encourage the idea that the voice in one's head is a message from on high as Brenda does.
Don't all believers believe that god(s) magically communicate with some special people in some immeasurable ways? Don't they all encourage people to feel "chosen" if they get such a message?
We all have a vested interest in the truth that is the same for everybody no matter what they believe. And the truth is that there is no more evidence for the invisible beings people believe in than there is for the invisible beings they don't believe in. Increasing, neuroscientists are coming to the conclusion that the soul is an illusion of the brain. If this is true (and the evidence indicates that it is) then we all have a vested interest in understanding the best methods for deprogramming the indoctrinated. It's the moral thing to do, in fact. And we all have a vested interest in keeping people from indoctrinating children and making them afraid to ask questions or ennobled because of faith.
Christians may not want it for their own sect of Christianity, but they want it for those other sects that think they are damned, evil, or followers of false prophets.
Hi again, Articulett,
You wrote, "but the ditzy ones like Beautiful Feet just make me sad. They seem nice, and I end up feeling like I'm accidentally revealing to some kid that Santa isn't real, (even though I wanted no part of the lie in the first place.)"
You're obviously the superior person here that's for sure - at least by your standards. I'm glad God is God-He isn't too cowardly in loving ppl like me...
Beautiful Feet,
I think you inadvertently revealed that YOU feel superior to people who believe in Santa Claus. Don't confuse your feelings for mine. As you may be aware, presents under millions of trees along with the sincere belief of millions-- doesn't make Santa real.
This topic concerns the question of how long do you let people believe in a falsehood? Do you encourage the fantasy, or just try to stay silent and let them figure things out on their own? Or do you provoke thought that might lead them to a more reality based conclusion?
I don't feel superior to people who believe in Santa... I was once a believer myself. But I don't want to play a part of anyone's "feel good" lie either-- even if some folks feel that fantastical beliefs are good for people. I'd like to help those who are interested in the truth, to find it. I think humanity will survive just fine --just as it did when we gave up rain dances and virgin sacrifices.
Why are theists so poor at distinguishing their opinions from the opinions of others?
Why are they always claiming to know what others are thinking and feeling? Why do they imagine they know what an atheist thinks??
(I guess it's the same hubris that allows them to imagine they know what some invisible undetectable being thinks and wants and feels about them.)
Most atheists were once theists, so they probably have a good idea as to what theists think from their own memory; the last time most theists were atheists were when they were babies-- and they were too young to think. So I find it appallingly arrogant that they endlessly claim to know what an atheist thinks and feels. And yet they imagine themselves humble...
@ Brenda
You say, .. "...without god there is no objective morality. Or, in modern terms, moral realism requires an authoritative other who denotes what is and what isn't moral."
Papalinton
Absolutely correct; there is no god there os no 'objective morality'. There is universal morality as it reflects our humanism and humanity. In terms of morality, there are interpersonal, social, behavioural regularities and concerns and the biological bases for them which add up in humans to a moral sense. The ‘morality’ we feel is what the premoral tendencies and capabilities feel like to an incorrigibly social and painfully self-aware species like humanity. Equally, the sanctions for morality are also many and natural. Oneself, one’s family, one’s neighbourhood, one’s nation, one’s species, and one’s world are plenty, and any person who needs more sanction than that is probably a menace to us all. How many times has one heard christians say that without religion and their god they would run amok. Perhaps they would [would you Brenda?], but if so then they are LESS moral than those of us who control ourselves. More likely they are living a fantasy here as in so many areas of their lives: sooner or later even religionists without their gods have to settle down and go to work.
@ Articulett
Hi! You say, .."Most atheists were once theists, so they probably have a good idea as to what theists think from their own memory; the last time most theists were atheists were when they were babies."
Papalinton
Spot on. An atheist is not a person who knows too little about religion. An atheist is a person who knows too much about religion, and on the basis of reason and logic choses not to have woo-woo clog his/her brain.
The learning pattern from childhood howls enculturation and indoctrination, a process of imparting doctrine in a non-critical way, as in catechism.
Cheers
Hi Gandolf
You say, .. "Hi articulett.Yes it is a bit of a worry.Sometimes i wonder if faith help dehumanizes human feelings so much.That i wonder if this isnt maybe? what helps cause some of the sexual abuse happening in faith groups.And lack of natural human feeling in Popes, who dont end up exposing it."
Papalinton
Dehumanizes, absolutely; because they pass their personal responsibility over to a supernatural non-human and can be absolved of any blame upon confession, contrition, a few hail-marys, and absolution, then they are 'clean' and 'moral' again until the next time. Those molesting catholic priests knew only too well they would get away with it and the level of punishment that I describe above was worth the effort of buggering some poor kid. This whole theism con is rotten to the core. Any of the good stuff they claim happens not because of religion but despite religion. The good stuff that happens is when one strips away all that theism and what you find is a human being who is a humanist and a humanitarian by biology, by inclination, with inherent altruism, a social animal, that does best when co-operating with their fellow man, even with all their foibles.
Cheers
Hi Articulett,
You said you used to be a believer. You most likely have way more experience at church attendance, theology and doctrine than myself. I used to be an atheist and before that, I was into idolotry - I was told about Christmas and Easter but I had inadvertently cast a human character upon Him.
The way I see the difference between faith and unbelief is that it has to do with our relationship with power. I went through atheism and it was necessary to "detox" some notions that I held subliminally about what it means to be in relationship with an authoritative power.
Even those outside the realm of hearing about Christ, can still experience a deep desire to have a power that will not abuse when we are vulnerable and weak. Even though I live in the US where Christianity is prevalent, in some ways that was me, because I had never known about the message of grace.
You mentioned this, "I don't feel superior to people who believe in Santa... I was once a believer myself."
Well, I keep looking up my chimney every year but have finally concluded that I don't think humanity can be trusted with Santa -- we would expect him to come down our dirty chimneys, complain about the color or size of the gifts he delivers and then exploit and commercialize the poor fellow. No, we can't be trusted with Santa - he belongs in the realm of the innocent and pure hearted.
I don't believe you, Beautiful Feet. I'm pretty sure you are one of those "liars for Christ" that love to preach at atheist sites. I don't know any atheist that would claim to be "into idolatry"... "idolatry" is religious term-- it's used by believers to feel superior to other believers. Atheists tend not to believe in "divine stuff", so there is nothing to worship. Worship is an act of religious devotion usually directed to one or more deities. Theists often IMAGINE that atheists worship idols, Satan, or whatever their indoctrinators tell them atheists worship.
Your view of atheism reeks of the imaginations of theists. Say, did you "hate god" too? Lots-o-theists imagine that atheists hate god. But I don't hate god anymore than you hate Santa. I just think it's obvious that there is no more evidence for god than there is for Santa. In fact, there appears to be MORE evidence for Santa (I've seen lots of children sitting on his lap, for example. This isn't true of god(s).
Also, believers in Santa tend to behave more morally than believers in god. I've never heard of believers in Santa engaging in child molestation or the cover up such things. I've never seen them burn witches or spread hatred because someone didn't believe in their version of Santa. Believers in Santa don't go to non-believers sites and lie about once having been non-believers.
I think you are as deluded as you think believers in Santa are. I now think you are a liar as well.
Oh, and thanks Papalinton!
So, Beautiful Feet, back when you "used to be an atheist" and "worshipped idols", what idols did you worship? How did you worship them? Did anyone other than you know that you didn't believe in gods? Were you open with your atheism? Did you go to believer sites and tell them why you didn't believe in their invisible friends? What religion were you indoctrinated with before you stopped believing in gods and why did you stop believing in invisible beings? When did you start believing again and why do you believe in SOME magical undetectable beings but not others? How do you decide? Is there any amount of evidence that could get you to change your mind or are you as brainwashed regarding your beliefs as the hijackers were for theirs? Do you believe your magical beliefs with has much fervor as the hijackers or are there things you wouldn't do for the god(s) you believe in?
If your beliefs were as delusional as Santa beliefs, the hijackers' beliefs or myths of yore, would you want to know? Or would you rather continue fooling yourself? Is your faith more important to you than the truth?
Do you think the reason that Tom Cruise is more successful and popular than you is due to his faith in Scientology? Does this make you want to have his faith? Is there anything that can be said to deprogram him? Or is he as much of a lost cause as you are? Do you realize you sound as nutty as him (in his famous Scientology video) when you start spouting religious platitudes.
Oh, and I don't share your opinion that delusions belong "in the realm of the innocent and pure hearted." I don't really find it moral to manipulate the actions of others by telling them that some magical being is watching them and can tell if they are "naughty" or "nice" and will hand out presents/punishments accordingly.
Brenda seems a lot like 'noen' another militant agnostic poster who frequents non theistic blogs. If Brenda and noen are two different people, I would call them the two horsepersons of the New Agnostics. The new agnostics are a group of persons who attempt to be rhetorically affective, not read anything by contemporary non theistic philosophers, have a distaste for atheists, and who frequent blogs desperately hoping to say 'genetic fallacy', 'naturalistic fallacy', 'atheist ideology', 'Conservative atheism', 'Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao', 'atheists are priests', 'scientism'.
I think both Brenda and Noen can be correct sometimes, but rather than have a tone of assistance and patience, Brenda and Noen are rude.
A point about the naturalistic fallacy: I think it is indeed the case that one commits the fallacy if there is intent to show that moral oughts flow from descriptive facts of evolution. I think at best we should say that some moral intuitions arose from evolution, but we should not necessarily follow them. They kind of run into their own euthyphro dillema.
Theists incorrectly accuse atheists of the naturalistic fallacy when atheists name evolution as the source of morality.
Evolution cannot justify, in the theist idea of objective morality, the morals that it tends to produce, but evolution can explain *why* social creatures might develop morality.
That's all the evolution card in this debate seeks to do, yet theists keep on complaining as if evolution were supposed to justify the morality it produces; it merely explains it.
But this explanation is still an effective answer to the theist complain that there can be no morality without God. Evolution explains how morality could have evolved without justifying, in some absolute sense, that the particulars of morality are the right ones.
much like a lawyer who becomes a prosecutor in the midst of the same trial.
You mean like this one? :-)
Hi Articulett!
Okay, my bad for hoping that you wouldn't take that too seriously -- perhaps I am delusional in that hope, eh??
I'll leave it to you to make your own answers and presumptions upon my character in response to your offenses and queries, since that seems to be the pattern anyway.
take care!
Oh, one postscript to Articulett,
I was raised, like most in the US, to believe that Jesus was God and I celebrated Easter and Christmas holidays, but eventually, I quit believing and became a nonbeliever or atheist. I have learned that there was a good reason for all of it. The 'jesus' I was trained to believe in, was not Him at all, but a conglomerate of all the human authorities that I had experienced. I think I may have made it sound like I was an atheist who was an idolotor??????? That wasn't what I was saying. I just quit believing in any kind of supernatural deity.
Dave,
First off, parents who are Hindus, Muslims, Buddhist, Wiccen, Neo-Pagan or some other religion or metaphysical beliefs out there that I have not mentioned, are not brainwashing their children.
The reason why I wanted hard scientific evidence is because I know that religious parents are not brain washing their child by teaching them their religion.
Parents must teach their children many things like values, morals and social norms. Additionally just because I am a Christian does not mean you know what I am thinking.
Secondly, You talk about reasoned evidence. Well that is what I am asking from the atheist and all I get is conjectures and antidotal evidence.
No one has produced any real scientific evidence. Atheist love to talk about basing beliefs on rational or scientific evidence yet when it comes to their beliefs anything goes.
So it is time to put up or shut up. Give me good hard evidence that all religious people are brainwashing their children by teaching them their religion.
-Harold
Well Harold, what do you consider brainwashing? Do you think telling kids they will suffer forever for not believing a certain story is brainwashing? What about telling them there is an invisible guy who can tell what they are thinking and is judging them accordingly? When is a cult brainwashing and when aren't they? Or does it just matter whether you think the beliefs are true or not? Are Scientologists involved with brainwashing? How is Christianity different exactly? Aren't some sects of Christianity more involved in brainwashing than others? Are Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? Was Jonestown?
And I don't suppose you have an well reasoned evidence for belief in an invisible undetectable form of consciousness that you somehow know something about- and feel saved for "believing in". That is something that requires more evidence than an OPINION about whether someone is brainwashed or not. You do understand the difference between a factual claim (where there is a right answer) and an opinion in which the answer varies according to who is asked, right? Or did you indoctrination make it difficult for you to distinguish between the two?
If someone was telling my child that some sort of magical thinking was "The Truth", I might consider it brainwashing. If they told my kid that they would suffer forever for not believing the magical story, then that would be brainwashing to me. Stories of Noahs ark and a 6000 year old earth are silly and you have to be brainwashed to believe such things in my opinion.
I feel brainwashed by my religious upbringing; I would never inflict such a thing on a trusting child. To do so means that my child could grow up to sound like you.
Post a Comment