Religion
Related: About this forumObstacles to dialogue about religion:
There is a recent post that asked what is accomplished by the constant dialogue in this forum.
Some responders admitted that no conversion is likely to take place. But even if one were to admit of a possibility of conversion, it seems to me that there is one huge obstacle to any actual dialogue.
That obstacle is the tendency of some few here to treat any argument in favor of religion as a childish argument, and as evidence of rejection of knowledge in favor of superstition.
That position requires the complete rejection of the non-overlapping magisteria argument in favor of demanding proof from believers of the truth of their beliefs. Forcing believers to argue in scientific terms. And I understand the motive behind this tactic because it allows non-believers to feel that they have proven something, or won a debate.
The main obstacle to dialogue, the condescending attitude, is often phrased quite overtly, as any reading of some of the posts here will reveal, but often it is more of a sub-text when a poster chooses to write with a veneer of politeness and tolerance.
And it has been my experience that this attitude is most often demonstrated by one side of this debate.
I am a Christian who freely admits that faith is a belief in the unprovable.
And in debate here, I will not mock atheists for their own unprovable position, nor will I dismiss their arguments as childish, or uninformed, because I believe that such tactics alienate people.
BigmanPigman
(51,644 posts)What do you want to discuss? Can you be more specific?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Specifically:
Voltaire2
(13,231 posts)That condescending attitude?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and it is shared by others here.
Voltaire2
(13,231 posts)Who knows, perhaps in 300,000 years or so you might come around.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)No, that is not misbehavior.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I guess, then, you wouldn't mind me talking about what "others here" have observed about you?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)As to justified, that depends of course on the poster.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 24, 2017, 10:57 PM - Edit history (1)
Justification is something you tell to an audience. If it were solely up to each of us, we'd always find justification in our minds.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And your last line, is that a new resolution? Cause it would be a novel thing to see.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That everything is based from a religious perspective is the core.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)other than as a theist I post from a theistic perspective?
I once though that I could be an atheist, but after some soul searching, I realized that I was wrong.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)THAT is an interesting bit of explanation for non-theistic intolerance.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Years of being condescended to by the religiously privileged makes on want to just let some steam off, but those moments are pounced upon and held as the norm. Meanwhile religion enshrines intolerance and has it excused as "belief" and it's hand-waved away.
Your privilege is keeping you from seeing it from an objective angle, this whole debate didn't start last tuesday, as you like to base all your arguments from, it's centuries, millennia of oppression from the religious, and only the last hundred years that the non-religious have been free to exist openly.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And I have done so in my private life.
I never attempt to attack non-theists for their positions. While I disagree with the non-theistic perspective, it is, in my opinion, obviously a valid perspective.
Are some theists intolerant? My numerous "bad news" posts here should be evidence that I am well aware of the disgusting intolerance directed against non-theists.
But, as I have noted, intolerance is a human failing not limited to theists.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Including telling atheists what they believe, or making bullshit lies up, or insulting non-theists?
Tell me, gil. What forces them? What makes them so insecure, despite still making up a majority of the population (which those same insecure theists LOVE to point out, as if argumentum ad populum was a valid observation)? Why are they so threatened by what a few non-believers say on an anonymous Internet discussion board?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The privileged, true to form, simply deny it exists.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Interesting way to evade and avoid responsibility.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I would suggest that you not use this as a defense or a justification.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)s/he has lost any right to be treated respectfully.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Thank you for the response.
longship
(40,416 posts)which kind of puts the emphasis on the wrong foot.
Then, there's the quote about NdGT in your sig line. (By the way, his name is spelled Neil, not Neal.)
If there is one thing humans can learn is that the mixture of religion and science, or religion and government/politics, is universally a toxic mix. It has never ever worked out for the good of anybody. Never!
Believe what you want. I won't complain. But keep it to yourself. Let the rest of the world decide for themselves.
And fix your sig line, for Christ sakes! I suggest deleting it, because it is bearing false witness.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I could make it a full time occupation. But I will edit it.
As to your response, specifically:
it represents an interesting opinion, and springs from your personal premise. I understand that you probably feel that your opinion is correct, as must people do, but it is an unprovable statement.
As to usage, I would have used the word could rather than can in the statement, and add the word "it", thus it would have read:
Should learn would also work.
Again, thank you for the correction.
longship
(40,416 posts)That isn't the way science works, nor the way NdGT characterizes it.
IMHO, you bear false witness! And you dare to lecture this forum about alienating people?
My best to you, nonetheless, these holidays.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Edited to add: Thus the attribution to God.
And it is a response to another sig line here.
And my post was about obstacles to dialogue in the form of demeaning and condescending remarks framed as actual dialogue.
Seasonal greetings to you as well.
longship
(40,416 posts)Fine. Delete that sig line, for a start. I find it a complete mischaracterization of everything that Dr. Tyson has done, and has stood for. Beyond being insulting, it is a fucking lie.
Then, maybe we can have a more respectful dialogue. I would be happy to do that.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)In my view, Tyson should remember that his area of expertise is one field, and remember that his comments in other areas are his own opinions.
I find his many arguments about religion to be insulting at best.
longship
(40,416 posts)He doesn't even call himself an atheist. And as to his pronouncements about religion, they are concentrated in those areas where religion seems to tread into science.
So, the universe is less than 10,000 years old? Religious bullshit!
The theory of evolution is false? Religious rubbish!
Quantum field theory is bad science? Religious rubbish!
Etc. Etc. Etc.
When religionists cross over into the science magisteria, they are universally, and demonstrably, wrong.
And while Dr. Tyson truthfully admits that science doesn't know how everything in the universe works, that there are big problems yet to solve (hence, your blatant false witness), some theists have the unbridled hubris to claim to speak for God, like your damnable sig line.
So, either your sig line is lying about NdGT, or it is lying about God. There are no other logical alternatives. You will get no respect from me until you delete it.
If you want respect, you will earn it by not being a provocateur.
Thanks for your response.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So are we to believe that every scientist who happens to have religious faith faces an inner war? That religious belief and science cannot be reconciled?
Perhaps we should ask actual scientists who believe in God how they reconcile their supposedly contradictory beliefs.
longship
(40,416 posts)The extent to which religionists continue to tread into the scientific magisteria is the extent that his words are true.
The solution to the problem is quite simple. Religion has to have no say whatsoever about what is true about the physical universe. The gaps in our knowledge are not to be filled with sky god Iron Age claptrap. The god of the gaps is not any god anyone should worship, IMHO. You choose yourself. But that is one helluva narrow ledge to hang onto ones belief.
Here's another issue...
If theists cannot specify their gods' characteristics succinctly and without treading into domains where they are neither welcome nor wanted, I don't see how they can make claims on being good.
Theists cannot seem to stand that there are people who do not believe like them. That's why they make outrageous statements and malign good people like in your sig line. Theism seems to take on totalitarian characteristics. Not a good sign as these things go.
It's not the beliefs that I object to, it's theists' behavior which I often find reprehensible.
Please delete your sig line and be at peace with us.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)It is part of a counter-argument against the "God of the gaps" argument, and as a historical argument, it has some merit.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)Imagine that. A completely dishonest quote-mine. I would say dishonesty is a major obstacle to any dialogue.
P.S. They use to do this same shit to Sagan.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)They don't like your nomme de plume.
They don't like your sig line.
And they don't like anything in between!
And yet you persist! THAT is what keeps the dialogue going!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)My nomme de plume is actually my first name, Guillaume, followed by my middle initial.
Being a very simple believer, this makes it easy for me to remember.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,995 posts)Still think it's awesome? Because then g would be supporting the god of the gaps theory. God has receded. We used to think thunder come from Thor. It doesn't. That god recedes. It's not that hard.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Faith isn't the only thing you don't have?
The faithless are sure a dour, serious lot. I'd have thought they would be free and unrestricted in their attitude towards life!
Oh well...
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)to put Mr. deGrasse Tyson in his place. The complete quote makes it quite clear he was not insulting religion nor those who practice it. If you read what he is saying it is that if something is not understood and God is used to explain that phenomenon if the thing is subsequently understood without God the dominion which has been claimed for God has been diminished. The logic of it seems indisputable to me, but even more it would give me great pause to be on the same side of an issue as Bill O'Reilly.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)is meaningful? Sure it's humor that's easy to say since humor is subjective and so funny to one may not be funny to another. Especially in the case of this sort of humor. While you say it is to be humorous I hope I am not saying anything controversial in calling it humor based on insult. If there is any point to the humor involved than to use Neil deGrasse Tyson's own words to show him to be arrogant thus taking him down a peg or two I would appreciate having that other point to be shown to me.
The problem with this is there is a huge difference between flatly saying "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance" and the full context that surrounds that sentence. That sentence is part of a larger conversation where God is being postulated as the answer for something that may not be understood at all today, but as history has demonstrated may be understood in the future. Can you deny that if you are claiming a God exists and is the explanation for things as yet not understood that when a more complete understanding comes about the result is the area explained by "God" has receded?
Use the mantle of humor as you wish, but in this case it is dishonest mean spirited humor.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,995 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)At this point, if I told you the sky was blue, you'd argue I was wrong ( "see night" ) !
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,995 posts)I'm tempted to think you would say "god did it" to my response that it is refracted light causing it to look blue.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"I agree. The sky is blue."
Am I right?
Mariana
(14,861 posts)For all you know, he really is quoting God in his signature line. Maybe God really said that to him about Dr. Tyson, in a revelation. Gil might be a genuine prophet. Did you ever think of that, huh?
longship
(40,416 posts)However, there's still the bearing false witness, either for god, or against NdGT.
IMHO, given that it's his opinion, there are no other alternatives.
QED!
Mariana
(14,861 posts)I know Gil doesn't respect Dr. Tyson, but I would expect a Christian to respect God.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Interesting.
longship
(40,416 posts)Mariana
(14,861 posts)if the depiction therein is accurate at all. I wouldn't presume to make shit up about deities, even if they are fictitious. I prefer to go by the information in the source material.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Mariana
(14,861 posts)The alternative is to make shit up - unless you are a prophet, and the Creator tells you things about himself directly. Are you a prophet, Gil? Have you received revelations about the character of your deity of choice?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Jesus attended numerous social functions. Can we assume that He occasionally laughed, perhaps even told a joke?
And if we are created in the image and likeness, a sense of humor is included.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)Is that part of the Creation story to be taken literally?
I think it's much more likely that men created a god, in their image and likeness. That's why the stories describe it as having so many human character defects.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)MineralMan
(146,339 posts)Precisely, in fact. Putting words in God's mouth (assuming that the deity has such an orifice) is pretty much anathema to real Christians and Jews. There's even a commandment about it.
I've often wondered how doing so can be justified.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)longship's opinion is easily proven or disproven simply by looking at historical examples.
Also, in informal English, "can" may sometimes be used synonynmously with the modal "could," but rarely with the modal "should."
-signed, the Grammar Antifa
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)No.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Native speakers sometimes use them interchangeably even when strict grammar says you shouldn't or can't. English is funny like that.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I could do it indicates that I can, but not that I will.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)"I can go to the store" and "I could go to the store," are synonymous
Don't argue points of grammar with a native speaker, or base your arguments on fine points of grammar when it's not your native tongue. It doesn't work, because native speakers didn't learn grammar from a textbook.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or less subject to any rules.
And relatively simple compared to French.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)But you don't really believe me about English, do you?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And the verb forms seem to vary by speaker. In French, certain situations require certain forms. And using the incorrect form indicates lack of education or unfamiliarity. In English it seems far more flexible.
And many English speakers seem to use present and future forms interchangeably.
So no, I do not doubt.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And he wants to you non-theistic condescension as a basis of an argument. Just more ridiculous every day.
msongs
(67,465 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It is belief in the absence of proof.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,111 posts)Obviously, said from either side.
Edit: I was willing to listen to your diatribe with an open mind till I saw your sig, then I dismissed you as a know it all blowhard.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Okay.
Irish_Dem
(47,546 posts)without being attacked or shamed.
Everyone is entitled to their own journey.
I like and enjoy the religion forum.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Unfortunately, some feel that insults qualify as arguments.
Irish_Dem
(47,546 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 23, 2017, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)
Don't match their energy.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Irish_Dem
(47,546 posts)We need a smilie for "I am buying you a drink so please settle the hell down."
The icon you posted is great, I don't see it on the DU list, but there are some with drinks.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Click on that, and you see more icons.
Irish_Dem
(47,546 posts)Actually I am going to use this the next time someone just wants to fight.
Coming from a large boisterous Irish Catholic family I should have thought of that!
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Irish_Dem
(47,546 posts)cornball 24
(1,481 posts)believers and non-believers, those of us who are believers have to tiptoe through the tulips when posting lest we be taken to task for a misplaced comma. Is it the need for intellectualism that dictates the polarizing commentary that I discern from SOME who post here who do not believe? Hopefully, our better angels shall prevail and we shall respect each other despite our positions.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And I corrected it.
I think it stems from pride, and a position that humans will undoubtedly solve every mystery because some here have faith and a belief that scientists will do so. And that faith is somehow not faith, and that belief is somehow not belief because they wish it to be so.
PS:
welcome to the debate.
edhopper
(33,646 posts)It is a faulty concept.
What part of religion should science stay away from. Can science question every event in the Bible that has no evidence as occuring?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If one interprets every word in the Bible literally, and I do not, there will be contradictions.
If one does not, there will be none.
Faith is belief in the ansence of proof.
Science is concerned with proving things.
I see no overlap from my position.
edhopper
(33,646 posts)up to and including the Hebrew people coming to Judea?
What about the nativity.
What if those stories conflict with what we know from archeology and history.
If all the stories are myth and none of it literally true, where does that leave the belief.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)How much primary source material do you think exists?
As to the nativity, it is a birth story. And, to my knowledge, Jesus had no birth certificate.
If some of the stories are myth, but Christians follow the message of Jesus, that is where the belief lies.
In my view, of course.
edhopper
(33,646 posts)or conflict directly with what we know.
"Who really knows what happened"is a cop out.
Non overlapping indeed.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But the message still resonates.
Voltaire2
(13,231 posts)You really have a problem with dates.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Speaking of the Old Testament.
Voltaire2
(13,231 posts)They aren't.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We have more knowledge, we're more advanced, we use scientific methodology, we just plain know a lot more.
But that in no way impacts the unchanging truth and mystery at the core.
A common theme of religions involves a "flood" story. We can find records of floods. We can find wreckage of large boats. We can imagine the Ancients gathered around a fire telling the story.
But it's not about the damn "flood." That's what the "Biblical Literalists" try to jam down everyone's throats.
There's a much bigger story going on here, a much bigger theme, a much bigger reality! From Genesis to Revelation!
Is that what you are missing?
edhopper
(33,646 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 24, 2017, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)
would kill every person, including innocent children, except for a single family because he didn't like how some used their free will.
Nice truth in that.
How about a God that was so jealous of a few people seeking knowledge he made men incapable of understanding each other.
Or how about allowing "his" children to suffer slavery for hundreds of years before rescuing them.
But of course rescuing them included infantcide.
What are the larger truths to these pure myths?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Did you know the New Testament is the culmination of an evolution from the Old Testament God - a theme developed and promised throughout the Old Testament?
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
edhopper
(33,646 posts)Silly Jews only following the Old Books.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)That is their truth and their promise from the same source.
edhopper
(33,646 posts)even though the stories aren't litterally true and none of it really happened.
But what God said is literally true?
And the God of the Bible is the real God and the Jews are waiting for Jesus, who was exactly what the Bible says he is?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The Torah is not the Christian Bible.
And the Jewish people do not consider Jesus to be the Messiah.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)People hear Him in the rustle of leaves and what not, but do they hear quotables such the Bible has, or if they do, are they authorized representatives? If they do not, is it talking or "talking?"
Mariana
(14,861 posts)"What are the larger truths to these pure myths?"
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)But I'm not here to provide all the answers to every mind-numbing argumentative question you all can come up with.
I am not going to provide the answers to what you should be seeking - if you really want the answers.
edhopper
(33,646 posts)and I found that God does not exists.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)has led to thousands of denominations of Christianity, each of which found different answers when they sought answers to their questions, and each certain that they're right and everyone else is doing it wrong. How does one pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe? It seems like no two Christians agree 100% where to draw those lines. This sure sounds like the result of guesswork to me.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)That's a fundamental premise of Christianity, that ALL have sinned. The Flood story is a story about God doing a good and righteous thing.
Voltaire2
(13,231 posts)There really isn't any getting around that. The god described is an angry petulant god.
demosincebirth
(12,549 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Have a nice holiday.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)you eliminate a huge section of "I do not know"
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)While there may not be proofs of god that meet scientific standards, there should be proofs that meet the standards of whatever religion supports that god. They should be consistent and logical.
Gould divides the worlds into facts vs values. What values? How are those values derived? What is the commonality of those values among coreligionists? Are those values exclusive or not, if so why?
Theists have to make a workable moral argument if their realm is values. They also have to answer the Euthyphro question.
Just because you may operate in a different sphere does not relieve you of the burden of proof.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Religion has used evidence to support itself for thousands of years. It only retreated into ignoring or not needing evidence when the weight of scientific and historical evidence was no longer on its side.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)is based on ones faith in the actual existence of that god. Period. Mustard seed, anyone...I have a few, not many, anymore.
duforsure
(11,885 posts)The freedom to believe , not believe, or need for evidence will always be our choice and freedom that'll never be taken away. Now with that being said, its also clear all religions have been used to be weaponized against others using extremism and propaganda to demonize others, but again all religions have used this, as well as non religious groups. So, we have the freedom to speech, but not to do anything we want with it, and the same with being religious. Everyone has the right to choose, and be free to choose, and also not be forced to abide by others choice. Or be persecuted from others propaganda demonizing their religious beliefs as some now are doing in this country. Just because there are some extremists in religions , doesn't give anyone the right to take away ones right to believe as they choose, or doesn't give anyone the right to use forms of extremism with violence against those that don't. The same is true for using race to divide, or groups like the wealthy or poor, they are used to divide. My opinion on evidence is my choice to, and that's my choice to base my beliefs on, no matter who agree's or doesn't. Or the choice to not believe at all. Wasn't that one of the reasons why the people left their country, was escaping from a King,to have freedom of religion, and the freedom to not be persecuted. We should respect and accept all other religions and beliefs, not have someone pick and choose like a King or dictator does because THEY want to decide . That's undemocratic, and un-american. Maybe that's why they wanted church and state separate , and why some want it infused back into government, to divide us.
Pythagorean atheist
(32 posts)My wife is a Catholic, and I'm an atheist.
We can say the same thing, and it will come out sounding different on a superficial level, simply because we are expressing the thought in different languages.
(It doesn't help that her Catholic version is in Spanish and my atheist version in English, but that's just more of the same communication problem.)
Somehow we still manage to understand each other well enough to realize when we are both saying the same thing.
We are able to achieve this level of understanding because of our willingness to listen to each other without insulting the language and culture of the other.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)that can be difficult for an outsider to understand, and many religious people seem to use an awful lot of euphemism.
Response to Mariana (Reply #86)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Mariana
(14,861 posts)but if someone assigns a definition to a word that isn't one of the definitions in the dictionary, there are going to be communication problems. If people refuse to explain clearly, in plain ordinary language, what the hell they mean when they say [word] or [phrase], there isn't much to be gained by listening.
Response to Mariana (Reply #90)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Mariana
(14,861 posts)If someone claims that intolerance of harmful ideas is "bigotry", this is an incorrect use of the word "bigotry" in standard English. If he's employing some kind of jargon that defines "bigotry" differently than the dictionary does, he should say so right up front, and not make people guess what the hell he's talking about.
Response to Mariana (Reply #92)
Name removed Message auto-removed
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)is the observation that the magisteria do in fact overlap. Of course if religion is reduced to something so insubstantial as to lack a magisterium at all, then and only then do the magisteria not overlap, because something and nothing do not overlap.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)When discussing absolutes or positions that may not be provable, I usually call it out specifically, because I don't feel like shouldering the burden of proof for a position that is unprovable.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If you are a theist, it is unprovable.
If you are an atheist, that claim, or non-claim as some would have it, is also unprovable.
If you are an agnostic, there is no claim or proof offered.
But all 3 positions rest on unprovable assumptions.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You continue to do the child with his hands over his eyes saying 'you can't see me' thing, and it's gotten beyond old.
To say 'I don't believe you' when you say your god exists, doesn't require proof on my behalf. I, and pretty much everyone else in here, is an agnostic atheist. You pretend we're gnostic atheists as if we have the same burden of proof you do. We don't. None of us are saying "Your god doesn't exist". I can't know that. I don't need to know that. It's not incumbent upon me, as an atheist to actually go ahead and prove that.
To REJECT your claim as insufficiently evidenced does not require that I then proactively prove that your god, and no other gods exist or have ever existed. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
I realize that leaves you in an uncomfortable position, but such is life for people who make claims they cannot prove. When I reject your claim, I'm not making a claim of my own. I simply don't believe you, don't believe in your god, and have no faith of my own. None of that puts burden of proof on me.
But of course, you know this. You just don't like it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)A way to contrast positions that are unprovable.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Permanut
(5,666 posts)Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)There is no evidence God exists.
Got that, G? The above sentence is 100% true. No wiggle room, nothing open to misinterpretation. No one needs to say I have "faith" in that sentence. Every person on Earth knows it to be true.
So what have you got?