Founding Fathers read the Koran

Post Reply New Topic

i'm not saying there's not a gross misunderstanding of religions. in fact, the poll i linked is pretty much saying "there is a gross misunderstanding of religions in america." but i decided that "...people dismiss all religions as bunk when they know very little..." would be better refuted by citing a poll from a reputable source than by simply saying "atheists and agnostics, in america, generally know more about the major religions than the americans that practice them." i mean, that's kind of a big claim to make without something to back it up. you weren't in on the poll and neither was i. polls are usually ok with that. you seem like you'd score at least a bit above average for your demographics and i'm sure i would have scored higher than the average for my demographics. since both of the statements in question are broad generalizations, (people who reject religion don't know as much about religion as religious adherents vs people who reject religion know more about religion than religious adherents.) they should be taken as such. as far as the "question as to whether or not the answers the proctors considered correct were actually correct," i'm pretty sure the questions (and answers) are available through the link i originally provided as well as all over the internet.

"i'm a vegan, but i eat meat." is a contradictory statement because vegans don't eat meat. if someone who calls himself a vegan is eating meat, you can tell him he's not a vegan. what must a christian do before i can say he is not a christian? at what point do we admit that the "no true scotsman" argument is a refusal to accept reality?

how ridiculously closed minded of me to think that if the "truth" you're seeking is different from the "truth" science is seeking, you need a better dictionary. either your definition of "science" is off, or your definition of "truth" is.

how silly of me, indeed.

Most atheists I've met have had a misunderstanding of religion. There, less general statement. You're right, that what I should have said, moving on.

It is harder to determine the "point" at which someone ceases to be a true christian because of the problem of penance. Lots of Christians struggle with things that are contrary to their beliefs and beg forgiveness. generally if someone seems to think that what they're doing is perfectly in line with their beliefs when it isn't, that's where the line is drawn. but it's hard to tell when that's the case. I'll admit it's a difficult situation. We know hypocrites exist, but we are unable to point fingers.

I however prefer it that way, as I think it helps everyone to be less judgmental.

I say it's close minded because you are asserting that there is only one way to find deeper meaning: yours. Any answers anyone else comes to by means other than yours are false in your eyes. this strikes me as close-mindedness.

Replace "religions" with "Grimm's Faerie Tales" and tell me what the difference is?

so we can't differentiate between "people who are be religious with people who claim to be religious?" i agree with this sentiment. those who self identify as religious adherents should be taken at their word and, therefor, can be identified as such.


"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation" = "asserting that there is only one way to find deeper meaning: [mine]. any answers anyone else comes to by means other than yours are false in [my] eyes?" that's some fuzzy math.

maybe if i would stop being so "close minded," i could just let someone else tell me what to think without worrying about whether or not it's actually correct.

What an utterly disingenuous statement. At the very least, the anthropological significance of religion far outweighs that of Grimm. You may not LIKE the influence religion has had on the course of history, but you cannot deny the existence of that influence. To imply that it is not worth study is intellectually bankrupt thinking.

i think the point is that if you were to replace bible stories with fairy tales, your kids in sunday school wouldn't be able to tell the difference. the implication is that adding the prefix "sky" to the word "fairy" in the term "fairy tale" shouldn't move it out of the fiction section.

Maybe you are right, but I see a thinly veiled contempt in his remark. Contempt is irrational. If one insists on dismissing religious thought on grounds that it is irrational, one must remain rational when doing so or admit to being inconsistent and accept the subsequent undermining of their argument.

i fail to see the inconsistency dismissing fairy tales that you haven't read as fairy tales doesn't seem irrational at all. i have no fear of inaccuracy when i say that there was never actually a boy named jack who climbed a magic beanstock to battle a giant. inconsistency?

how's this for inconsistency?

supreme being creates all of reality.
supreme being populates reality.
supreme being gets mad at new roommates for eating the chinese food clearly labeled "god's."
supreme being curses beings he populated reality with.
cursed beings behave as if they've been cursed.
supreme being kills most of the population of reality for behaving so uncivilized.
supreme being saves only what fits in one boat. tells dinosaurs where to stick it.
supreme being picks a favorite race.
supreme being let's someone sells his favorite race into slavery. possibly because he lost a bet to anubis.
supreme being decides favorite race has been enslaved for long enough, kills large portion of them with plagues before getting keanu to play heston.
supreme being sends keanu heston to free enslaved people with the help of some more death and a magic stick.
keanu heston's magic stick more powerful than pharaoh's THREE MAGIC STICK WIELDING FRIENDS.
keanu heston frees slaves by winning them in a prehistoric game of "pencils."
supreme being forces now freed slaves to wander around a really lame desert for a while.
supreme being gives keanu heston important instructions that the world needs and needs to never forget.
keanu heston gets mad and breaks instructions.
supreme being gives more instructions. may or may not be the same. still mad at keanu and jews.
supreme being forces more walkin'around in the middle of nowhere. very important you know he's the only supreme being. forget about those three dudes keanu had to magic-battle.
supreme being finally lets "chosen" people have new home.
supreme being says "psyche!" and tells chosen people they can only have their new home after committing genocide.
supreme being eventually relents on genocide, says they can keep the virgin girls.
supreme being feels kinda bad about wtfpwning everyone for pretty much no reason all the time.
supreme being impregnates one of the beings he populated reality with (behind her husband's back).
that being gives birth to the supreme being that impregnated her.
maternal being's husband totally buys this story.
supreme being travels around as a crazy hobo spouting prophecy and gathering followers (who are also beings he created).
supreme being gets ganked by "the man." (still wants you to pay your taxes, though.)
supreme being admits he set himself up to get ganked to pay the price that the cursed people owe for being cursed (by him).
supreme being dies a tortured death.
supreme being remains dead from friday evening until sunday morning, uses magic to turn "36 hours" into "three days"
supreme being reveals that he's not really dead.
supreme being takes off, never to be seen again.
beings he populated reality with still cursed.
supreme being says he'll totally be back to wtfpwn us some more, later. then, if we're good, maybe we can have ice cream.

maybe.



hmm..... you know, that does sound a bit contemptuous.

You seem particularly fixated on the Judeo/Christian God. Is this a particular pet peeve of yours or is your contempt more universal?

this is a comment i see directed toward atheists often. perhaps if i lived in a more islamic region of the world i would have more to say about their brand of the same god. perhaps i should speak, instead, about what an ass of a false-god odin was?


is anyone in PPR honestly advocating scientology?

and what of your own beliefs?

jews, christians, and muslims all have the same ridiculous backstory. they just branch off at different points into their own increasingly ridiculous stories and then divide again and again in a manner reminiscent of evolution.

appreciate the humor of those last two sentences or don't.

when another religion sticks it's hilarious head out in front of me i'll be sure to address it's neck then. until then, i'll settle for the religions that are actually represented here.

What of them? I was talking of contempt, its irrationality and how it undermines a good argument.

ah, so you aren't here to discuss anything. glad you've cleared that up.

No, they can't. That would be a lot like pardoning everyone in court who says they're innocent.

I would like to apologize for using the phrase "close minded". As all ideologies will, in some way be harrowing, there really isn't such a thing as "close minded". It's just a buzzword. I was being lazy and not taking the time to describe what I meant.

It's getting late, and I've got things to do before midnight. explaining what I meant would take forever, so I'll put it off until after midnight.

Well, explaining what I ment would ultimately become about morality and you have posted something about science and morality in the creationism thread. I have... issues with the number in between 10 and 12 so I'm staying away from that thread for a while. could you give me the reader's digest version of whatever was on that link you posted?

that's gotta be a fun issue. an old roommate of mine had an issue with hair. she'd throw her brush out before cleaning the hair out of it.

the basic idea i'm referring to is that morality is not "magic." you don't need to carry a crystal ball or a confessional with you in your pocket to decide moral questions.
linky

the above link goes to a page with sam harris' ted talk focused on the idea that science can answer questions of morality. under the video is clarification (in text).

i reject the notion that, lacking religious instruction or fear of supernatural reprisal, i would be unable to understand that rape, murder, theft, assault, etc. aren't things i'd like to happen to me. i reject the notion that, lacking religious instruction or fear of supernatural reprisal, i would be unable to understand that other people might also prefer to avoid such things. i reject the notion that, lacking religious instruction or fear of supernatural reprisal, i would be unable to value cooperation and society. why would i need to think "daddy" is watching to know stealing my brother's candybar is "wrong?" why would i need to consult "daddy" at all? surely, my brother could inform me of my misdeed.

as much as i'd like to say "i don't see how that's so hard to understand." i do see how that's so hard to understand. most, if not all of us have grown up with the idea that there is a gap between what concepts science can explain and what questions religion can answer. i find it slightly terrifying that people can't identify that gap. on one side of the gap, "why do you believe this?" has complicated answers. on the other side, the most complicated questions can be answered with "because it's what i believe." "because it's what i believe" doesn't hurt anyone when you're telling me about your kick-ass after(life) party. "because it's what i believe" is probably pretty painful when it's the answer to "why won't you let me marry the love of my life?" i can't see it being a satisfying answer to "why, as a woman, can i not leave my house without a male relative or drive a car?" is it a satisfactory answer to "why did you let your daughter die so painfully when modern medicine could have given her a normal (and full) life?"

the perpetuation of "the golden rule" is one of the greatest and noblest practices of history, in principle. in practice, ....well, maybe if it were practiced more. maybe if we tried harder? maybe if more people read it as "as you would have them do unto you" instead of the apparent "as they have done to you." the latter leads only to further misunderstanding and escalation. you can answer the question of "why do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" by answering the simple question with the complicated answer it deserves or you can say "because god said to (and you don't want to make god grumpy)." leaving aside the question of whether or not there is a god, "because god said so" is like giving a man a fish, at best.



conversely, why would you assume that morality and religion are eternally stapled together?

As an obsessive-compulsive, I have lots of similar issues.

If you are arguing that morality is societal, that is, we are moral so that others will be moral in return, personal experience has taught me otherwise. I've pretty much come to accept that people will always treat me like slime no matter how I treat them, but that doesn't really bother me, because that's not what it's about to me. But no matter how good your are to other people, almost nobody will return the favor. "No good deed goes unpunished" as they say.

If you are arguing that you don't take your brother's candybar because hurting his feelings would be wrong, why would it be wrong? If you believe in a higher meaning to your actions, and/or that you should hold yourself to a higher standard, that is an inherently religious belief, regardless of wether or not you bring God into it.

And if you took our brother's candybar and he complained, what makes him a higher moral authority than you? candybars are bad for teeth, maybe you're doing him a favor? who's to say? We need a higher moral authority than a human in order to lend the rules any weight.

I find no small amount of humor that most moral atheists I've met base their morality on Christian beliefs, but simply refuse to acknowledge their origin

As for why I think morality and religion are inseparable, I think you can get the gist of it just by reading the above paragraphs, and if not it will probably become clearer as we continue to discuss this.