Can't we just get along?

[ddombrowsky]

I'm watching the FDR channels, listening to the podcasts, and so much of what is said resonates well with me.  The ideas of liberty, freedom, self-determination, all fit nicely into my worldview, doctrine, and faith (a fact which might shock some people).  But then, in many of Stefan's videos, and certainly in most posts in this forum, the conclusion ends up being something like, "and that's why anyone with faith in the unseen is a bane to society and should be drug out into the street and shot."  Huh?

 

I'm an evangelical Christian of the Calvinist tradition.  I'm a member of a church in the Presbyterian Church in America denomination.  I won't go into detail about what I believe regarding theology, since that would be largely pointless, but I will say that I and my church believe that salvation and even faith in God is not something that I can import onto anyone else.  That is an act only God can do (i.e. the blind cannot will themselves to see).  With that said, I have 2 questions:

 

1) It seems that most of these discussions presuppose that is atheism very much a requirement in a free society and it must  be enforced with an (ironic) religious-like fervor.  Is this true?

 

and 2) If it were true that the moral foundation supplied by a religion were in complete accord with one suggested by reason, logic, universally preferred behavior, non-aggression, etc., then wouldn't that religion be just as good a foundation for members in a free society?

[J. D. Stembal]

Yes.
No.

[Koroviev]

1. religion goes hand in hand with the state. one says there is a divine ruler (god) who created us and tells us how to live and what to do and how and what to think. the other says there is a divine ruler (the state) who controls how we live tells us what to think and what to do, etc. etc.

 

2. religion (in the normal sense with god/gods, etc.) is incorrect. this has been shown many times in Stef's podcasts and on this board (there are several shows and posts showing the irrationality of religious people)

 

3. religion (in the normal sense with god/gods, etc.) is the use of force. this is shown in several ways. If I don't believe I am eternally damned, the bible says if I don't believe you (as a believer) are required to stone me to death, several times throughout the bible god murders people and required people to murder other people (not so moral)

 

4. a belief is something that is claimed to be true without evidence or rationality. Both things that are encouraged here, and required for philosophy (and science, and math, and the free market, etc. etc.)

 

And to answer your second question, there is something like that it's called philosophy, but it's not a religion.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

But then, in many of Stefan's videos, and certainly in most posts in this forum, the conclusion ends up being something like, "and that's why anyone with faith in the unseen is a bane to society and should be drug out into the street and shot."  Huh?

 

Woah.

 

Can you please quote where this has been said? I have never seen or heard anything like this on the boards, certainly not by well-established members, and certainly not by Stefan. But maybe I missed something, so can you provide an example where this has been said?

[dsayers]

Can you please quote where this has been said? I have never seen or heard anything like this said on the boards (certainly not well-established members), and especially not by Stefan. But maybe I missed something, so can you provide an example where this has been said?

This was my reaction as well. I wouldn't hold your breath though. If you check his brief post history, you will find that this level of manipulation is consistent. Just look at the title of the thread itself. It proposes a standard that he isn't willing to adhere to himself.

 

2) If it were true that the moral foundation supplied by a religion were in complete accord with one suggested by reason, logic, universally preferred behavior, non-aggression, etc., then wouldn't that religion be just as good a foundation for members in a free society?

You hold up a sign that says 2+2=? and then a monkey tosses a dart and it hits the number 4. Does the monkey know math? No. Because the methodology is more important than the conclusion. Behold:

 

I won't go into detail about what I believe regarding theology, since that would be largely pointless, but I will say that I and my church believe that

In the context of determining what is true, what we "believe" has no bearing. I've argued that a belief is only beneficial when it serves as motivation to test the theory so that it can either be upgraded to fact or discarded for not accurately describing the real world. When you experience this belief, are you motivated to test your theory? Or are you instead motivated to misrepresent people as saying you ought to be murdered?

[Will Torbald]

(the blind cannot will themselves to see).

 

 

This is why I can't get along with you. I am not blind, and I am not going to hell because god didn't make me see him. This is bigotry.

[ddombrowsky]

Okay okay, maybe we need to step back for a moment here.  All I did was ask: if some theistic religion created a foundation out of which flowed the same ideas advocated by Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio, would not that religion be tolerated?  I then stated that I am a Christian.

 

From that, I was called non-human, a bigot, and a other non-constructive hostilities.

 

Perhaps it was the somewhat facetious way I opened my questions.  For that I apologize.  I don't actually think anyone here wants to murder me and my family.  Though it is fact that Stefan thinks I want to murder him (said in "Talking with Christians without losing your will to live"), and thus might think himself justified to cause harm in some preemptive strike, but that's a stretch.  It still seems to me that my voice is not welcome in this board's collective definition of a "free society" simply because I have faith in the unseen, even though we can agree on the conclusions of the vast majority of arguments.  I'm asking if that is true.

 

Second, my example of "the blind cannot will themselves to see" was simply a statement of fact, not an accusation that anyone here is "blind."  My point is I am not going sit here and try and to convince anyone of the existence of god, because I believe such an act to be impossible.

 

Lastly, I've heard it said here that it is impossible for religion and philosophy to be compatible (https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43260-am-i-still-welcome/#entry396132).  I don't think this is true.  I am perfectly capable of justifying almost all of my beliefs without relying on any rule of faith.  Also, I have so far found no incongruence between rational philosophy and the tenants of my faith (a statement many here might scoff at, which is perhaps the conversation I'm seeking).  Yes, there are some which are incompatible by definition (e.g. what is the chief end of man?), but the importance of those usually presuppose belief in deity and an afterlife.  Remove those, and it seems a pointless disagreement to care much about.

 

Why can't we focus on convincing the masses of the importance of freedom, self-determination, intellectualism, critical thought, challenging the status quo, free markets, competition, and societal evolution?  Why can't I simply be tolerated as a minority opinion, where the small amount of divergence that exists is almost completely irrelevant to the construction of a free society?

[dsayers]

Okay okay, maybe we need to step back for a moment here.

And by we, you mean everybody else.

 

All I did was ask

That's not all you did. By telling yourself this, you get to marginalize the feedback you've received as feedback from irrational lunatics who, in response to the asking of one innocent little question, reacted as if you had just accused them of being murderers.

 

Perhaps it was the somewhat facetious way I opened my questions.  For that I apologize.

Define your terms. The healthy, constructive form of apologizing is accepting responsibility for a mistake that was made, acknowledging the damage it did to others, and correcting for it. Words like "perhaps" and "somewhat" are not the language of somebody who is apologetic. Neither is trying to cover up accusations by claiming you just asked a question.

 

I do feel sorry for you. I too was raised with the anti-rationality of Christianity inflicted upon me by those who were obligated to nurture and protect me. It is very clear that you aren't even aware of how much you communicate beyond what you want for others to receive from you. The second most valuable aspect of self-knowledge is the ability to spot manipulators and their contradictions and lies. You speak as if you're either very accomplished at fooling those you speak with or very resistant to the fact that you don't actually pull it off.

 

It still seems to me that my voice is not welcome in this board's collective definition of a "free society" simply because I have faith in the unseen, even though we can agree on the conclusions of the vast majority of arguments.  I'm asking if that is true.

"my voice is not welcome" is taking the incompatibility of rationality and anti-rationality and personalizing it for the purpose of portraying yourself as a victim. In other words, even more manipulation. How would you react if in the middle of a sermon, somebody barged in, yelled "Hail, Satan"?

 

You were challenged in your faith. How do you know? What value does a belief have in the process of determining the truth? You were so busy trying to manipulate everybody that you've failed to address it. If you truly wanted to fit in with rational thinkers, you'll probably have to demonstrate some rationality.

 

Why can't we focus on convincing the masses of the importance of freedom, self-determination, intellectualism, critical thought, challenging the status quo, free markets, competition, and societal evolution?  Why can't I simply be tolerated as a minority opinion, where the small amount of divergence that exists is almost completely irrelevant to the construction of a free society?

Healthy people don't tolerate toxic people. The extent to which you're willing to manipulate among rational thinkers--many of whom are manipulation survivors--lie, inflict conclusions, and scoff at methodology makes you a VERY toxic person. I emphasize very because you have done very little to address the feedback you've been offered, other than to demonstrate the extent to which you've rejected it out of hand.

 

Also, in what way is the belief in a deity "intellectualism, critical thought, challenging the status quo, or societal evolution"? It seems to be the exact opposite. Finally, people who cannot differentiate between fact and fiction are very dangerous indeed.

[Will Torbald]

and a other non-constructive hostilities.

 

 

Awesome victimization. They were very constructive, and not even hostile. If the forum administrators wished for it, you'd be gone from here. No one is silencing your voice, nor attacking you. But a spade has to be called a spade.

[AccuTron]

"... I have so far found no incongruence between rational philosophy and the tenants of my faith"

 

Okay, I'll bite.  Let's start with that clunker called Noah's Ark.  Believe in it?  I notice the Old Testament didn't mention the +1,000,000 land insects needed to keep breeding pairs, plus extras because the elephants step on some.  And where did that surplus water drain to?

 

 

"Why can't I simply be tolerated as a minority opinion,"

 

Because it's a deceptive use of the word "opinion."  "I believe in Santa Claus" may be an opinion, but that doesn't give it any footing whatsoever in fact.  Start with Noah's Ark, go down the line with beliefs.  "Opinion" becomes "convenient dismissal of coherent physical logic."  That will get you flak. Yet flak is a great way to learn.  Stick around, catch some flak.  I think I have a few wing and rudder holes.

[Koroviev]

 

Okay okay, maybe we need to step back for a moment here.  All I did was ask: if some theistic religion created a foundation out of which flowed the same ideas advocated by Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio, would not that religion be tolerated?  I then stated that I am a Christian.

 

From that, I was called non-human, a bigot, and a other non-constructive hostilities.

 

Perhaps it was the somewhat facetious way I opened my questions.  For that I apologize.  I don't actually think anyone here wants to murder me and my family.  Though it is fact that Stefan thinks I want to murder him (said in "Talking with Christians without losing your will to live"), and thus might think himself justified to cause harm in some preemptive strike, but that's a stretch.  It still seems to me that my voice is not welcome in this board's collective definition of a "free society" simply because I have faith in the unseen, even though we can agree on the conclusions of the vast majority of arguments.  I'm asking if that is true.

 

Second, my example of "the blind cannot will themselves to see" was simply a statement of fact, not an accusation that anyone here is "blind."  My point is I am not going sit here and try and to convince anyone of the existence of god, because I believe such an act to be impossible.

 

Lastly, I've heard it said here that it is impossible for religion and philosophy to be compatible (https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43260-am-i-still-welcome/#entry396132).  I don't think this is true.  I am perfectly capable of justifying almost all of my beliefs without relying on any rule of faith.  Also, I have so far found no incongruence between rational philosophy and the tenants of my faith (a statement many here might scoff at, which is perhaps the conversation I'm seeking).  Yes, there are some which are incompatible by definition (e.g. what is the chief end of man?), but the importance of those usually presuppose belief in deity and an afterlife.  Remove those, and it seems a pointless disagreement to care much about.

 

Why can't we focus on convincing the masses of the importance of freedom, self-determination, intellectualism, critical thought, challenging the status quo, free markets, competition, and societal evolution?  Why can't I simply be tolerated as a minority opinion, where the small amount of divergence that exists is almost completely irrelevant to the construction of a free society?

 

 

part of the problem is you completely blew past any of the rational and evidence based arguments by trying to turn yourself into a victim and instead attempted to make us believe that you are different from anyone else (just like pretty much every other christian or religious person who comes on here does). Philosophy is based on reason an evidence. Therefore you cannot have philosophy with the caveat of: There's this one thing that we believe in that we have no reason or evidence for. Also, anarchy + all powerful ruler....kind of a contradiction. 

[ddombrowsky]

Yes.

No.

And there is my answer.  As Stefan has said, A Jew cannot have a reasonable conversation with a Nazi who thinks the Jew should not exist.  You view me as participating in poisonous thought, therefore I must be reeducated.  Obviously there is no discussion to be had.

 

For the record, I too had an epiphany many years ago regarding Noah and the ark, also regarding the sheer biomass of the number of insects on the earth.  It was then that I realized that "all" doesn't always mean "all things in the universe" and that "the earth" doesn't always mean "the entire face of the planet."  It expanded my faith from blind belief in fantastic stories to real events that happened to real people.

 

Finally, to answer your questions: yes, I am probably different from other religious persons who have dared post here.  And yes, anarchy + sovereign god does seem to be a contradiction.  If anyone wishes to explore these ideas further, there is contact info in my profile.

 

It was worth a shot, I guess.

[Koroviev]

Not an argument

[dsayers]

A Jew cannot have a reasonable conversation with a Nazi who thinks the Jew should not exist.

We've gone from a lynch mob, to partakers of an innocent question, back to being a lynch mob. The fact that you are either oblivious to this or aren't is frightening.

[WorBlux]

1. religion goes hand in hand with the state. one says there is a divine ruler (god) who created us and tells us how to live and what to do and how and what to think. the other says there is a divine ruler (the state) who controls how we live tells us what to think and what to do, etc. etc.

 

2. religion (in the normal sense with god/gods, etc.) is incorrect. this has been shown many times in Stef's podcasts and on this board (there are several shows and posts showing the irrationality of religious people)

 

3. religion (in the normal sense with god/gods, etc.) is the use of force. this is shown in several ways. If I don't believe I am eternally damned, the bible says if I don't believe you (as a believer) are required to stone me to death, several times throughout the bible god murders people and required people to murder other people (not so moral)

 

4. a belief is something that is claimed to be true without evidence or rationality. Both things that are encouraged here, and required for philosophy (and science, and math, and the free market, etc. etc.)

 

And to answer your second question, there is something like that it's called philosophy, but it's not a religion.

1. Counterexamples are Toaism and some sects of Buddhism. Quakers have long been non-violent and non-authoritarian. Some early Baptist advocated freedom of conscious in religious and political matters.  Additionally most or the command of religions are either negative in nature steering people away from the most profound fuck-ups a person can make or about observance and ritual.

 

2. Even rejecting the idea of an external personal God, I find there is also something fundamentally odd about you and me, rational beings, existing in a blind mechanical universe.

 

3. Religion is a combination of a traditions, doctrines, myths and practices. It is not simply a scripture and it's not set in stone.  Back in the day belonging to the group, the culture was life and death. A few people got carried away sure.

 

4. No there is a rationality behind it. One of the key roles of Religion is/was to give the REASONS as the why things are as they are and how they came to be that way. A belief is simply anything you give assent to. Knowledge consists in a true, justified belief.  It seems that your issue is that while some of the beliefs you may agree with and they may be true, but you criticize the method of justification. I, not so much. Tradition and culture whatever you may say of it has stood the test of time and I think for the most part can be sufficient justification for a belief absent strong evidence to the contrary.

 

5, I don't think everyone is cut out for, or has time to become a philosopher. A free society is going to need traditions, doctrines, myths, and practices that reinforce, guide, and explain it's culture.  This may or may not be overtly deistic. 

...

Finally, to answer your questions: yes, I am probably different from other religious persons who have dared post here.  And yes, anarchy + sovereign god does seem to be a contradiction.  If anyone wishes to explore these ideas further, there is contact info in my profile.

 

It was worth a shot, I guess.

 

 

Sovereign just means not subject to some other's law.  "Love your neighbour" if consistently held  does point to anarchy, and there have historically been Christian groups that were either overtly anarchic or seriously leaned that way.

[MagnumPI]

No, we can't. Nor should we. Truth has to be universal... Or it's not truth. If one 'side' presents reason, data and the other comes with some fantasy, someone's gotta give. Guess who it needs to be? Frodo can't debate Tom Woods or Peter Schiff. You cannot bring God to non-fiction conversation.

[dsayers]

5, A free society is going to need traditions, doctrines, myths, and practices that reinforce, guide, and explain it's culture.

How do you know?

 

Humans have reason, making them responsible for their actions, which means we own ourselves. We can universalize this to understand that generally speaking, all humans own themselves. Thus theft, assault, rape, and murder cannot be universalized as it requires property to be valid and invalid simultaneously.

 

That's it. Everything else is a matter of preference. Of the list you or words you provided, only "practices" has the capacity for being beneficial, and even that should be regarded with scrutiny.

 

I'll give you an example. The suburb I live in recently tore down a library that was maybe 20 years old. Then they rebuilt it. Can you imagine? It's 2015 and the average income of this community is such that it's reasonable to expect that every home has internet access, a computer/laptop/tablet, and smartphoneS. I do not condone or advocate institutionalized theft, but even in the statist paradigm, a program for subsidized tablets/internet access for children of low-income houses would've been FAR less expensive. I'll bet you not one person involved in that project at any stage stopped to ask "Are libraries even relevant anymore?" A willingness to re-examine that which we just accept without a 2nd thought would've saved a lot of people a lot of money.

[J. D. Stembal]

 

And there is my answer.  As Stefan has said, A Jew cannot have a reasonable conversation with a Nazi who thinks the Jew should not exist.  You view me as participating in poisonous thought, therefore I must be reeducated.  Obviously there is no discussion to be had.

 

 

The questions were loaded. All I did was answer them. I'm not tossing you in the back of a train car at gunpoint. In a voluntarist society, there will be no need for the state or religion because people are moral and intelligent enough to govern and manage themselves without a dictator, bureaucrat, or priest overseeing their lives.

 

Self-government is the only peaceful and rational way to live. If anything, thecurrent media fixation on Islamic terror proves that religion can never be a means towards peace.

[J. D. Stembal]

I'll give you an example. The suburb I live in recently tore down a library that was maybe 20 years old. Then they rebuilt it. Can you imagine? It's 2015 and the average income of this community is such that it's reasonable to expect that every home has internet access, a computer/laptop/tablet, and smartphoneS. I do not condone or advocate institutionalized theft, but even in the statist paradigm, a program for subsidized tablets/internet access for children of low-income houses would've been FAR less expensive. I'll bet you not one person involved in that project at any stage stopped to ask "Are libraries even relevant anymore?" A willingness to re-examine that which we just accept without a 2nd thought would've saved a lot of people a lot of money.

 

Having worked for some years in the public library system, I have to agree with you, but the employees there, mostly women, will not see it that way. They will argue that removing the public library will disenfranchise children. Libraries run weekend and after-school programs for students in addition to lending books and other media, and providing internet access. Since the library system is closely tied with the school district, removing one would cripple the other. I used to piss off the librarians by saying that in the future we wouldn't need libraries because we would read books at home on the personal computer. Fast forward to today and I still prefer holding a dusty book in my hands, but I don't think the public library is the answer.

 

Check out this bookstore in Denver. http://www.yelp.com/biz/park-hill-community-book-store-denver

 

Tara B., the librarian, explains how the store works. This is what a free market library looks like at the moment. It's pitiful looking compared to almost any public version, but the business model works, more or less.

 

I especially like her last comment, "In these tough economic times, this is the BEST deal for readers in town (after the library, of course!!) and I can't recommend it highly enough!"

 

This store is great, but the public library is better because it's free!

[Koroviev]

1. Counterexamples are Toaism and some sects of Buddhism. Quakers have long been non-violent and non-authoritarian. Some early Baptist advocated freedom of conscious in religious and political matters.  Additionally most or the command of religions are either negative in nature steering people away from the most profound fuck-ups a person can make or about observance and ritual.

 

2. Even rejecting the idea of an external personal God, I find there is also something fundamentally odd about you and me, rational beings, existing in a blind mechanical universe.

 

3. Religion is a combination of a traditions, doctrines, myths and practices. It is not simply a scripture and it's not set in stone.  Back in the day belonging to the group, the culture was life and death. A few people got carried away sure.

 

4. No there is a rationality behind it. One of the key roles of Religion is/was to give the REASONS as the why things are as they are and how they came to be that way. A belief is simply anything you give assent to. Knowledge consists in a true, justified belief.  It seems that your issue is that while some of the beliefs you may agree with and they may be true, but you criticize the method of justification. I, not so much. Tradition and culture whatever you may say of it has stood the test of time and I think for the most part can be sufficient justification for a belief absent strong evidence to the contrary.

 

5, I don't think everyone is cut out for, or has time to become a philosopher. A free society is going to need traditions, doctrines, myths, and practices that reinforce, guide, and explain it's culture.  This may or may not be overtly deistic. 

 

1. Taoism I don't know enough to disagree with, although a quick look at the wiki finds that some sects do worship Laozi which would fall under the argument I was making, however there are some people who say some of the earliest atheists were taoists, but I don't think we can say this was due to reason and evidence. Buddhists have the Tibetan government in exile which I believe can be considered a state itself, also the worship of buddha and the dalai lama again fall into the following of a divine being. Quakers are christians so....divine being there. My argument here was not that religions are evil and teach evil things simply that most, if not all, religions are structured in the same way as the state. One "being" (or group of beings) with power, knowledge, etc. and the rest of us can only hope to grovel at their feet.

 

2. ok?

 

3. ok? so what parts of the bible am I not supposed to believe in? or maybe it's the muslims who are continuously murdering people who are correct? the buddhists who rape children and get other people to fight their battles for them? No, what you, OP, and probably every other religious person who comes here are saying is that we should ignore all of the really really bad parts of religion and just pick and choose the good parts. If I claim to follow the scientific method, but only choose to use the parts where I get to come up with a hypothesis and say that hypothesis is correct am I really following the scientific method? Unfortunately it's a package deal and if you're picking and choosing you're making something entirely new up.

 

4. belief:  : a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

                     : a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable

                     : a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone

If you want to make a new definition of belief that's great but if I'm making the argument you can't really change the definition of the words I'm using and say I'm wrong.

Also, the Nazis had a tradition and culture of killing Jews if your argument is correct then they would have been in the right as well. 

 

5. I don't think anyone here has ever said everyone must become a philosopher that would be ridiculous. Do you need myths and stories to make you believe that a stove is hot, or that if you jump off a building you will hurt yourself? No, because those things are based off of reason and evidence. You need myths and traditions to make people believe in things that aren't actually true such as george washington and the government, and the bible and god. Things where all reason and evidence are counter to what you are supposed to believe.

[WasatchMan]

and 2) If it were true that the moral foundation supplied by a religion were in complete accord with one suggested by reason, logic, universally preferred behavior, non-aggression, etc., then wouldn't that religion be just as good a foundation for members in a free society?

 

 

What if circles were square? 

 

That is the same question as asking what if superstition was logic.

[dsayers]

@JD: Great post. I too had thought about all the government employees that would be out of a job if we did away with libraries. I hadn't considered children's programs, but you could manage that with less overhead as well as I'm sure you're aware. As luck would have it, you and I are opposite. Though I had considered before how books will likely never be completely outmoded because some people like being able to hold a book, or read where there's no electricity/signal. With me, it's the holding of the book that I dislike. I used to think I hated reading, but this was born out of my exposure to government schooling, where I was forced to read and read things I had no interest in.

 

Though I have noticed I'm more of an auditory absorber. Anecdote time: I took AP Calculus in high school. Never had intentions of going to college, but loved math. We used a text book that offered half the answers to the problems since the method was what was being evaluated, not the conclusions. I had a problem I could not figure out where I went wrong with my method despite repeated review. The next day, in study hall, a friend of mine looked over my work. She DID get the right answer when she did her homework, but reviewed my methodology and couldn't find the error. We spent 45 minutes together on it. Bell rings, I walk across the hall, and mention this to the teacher. She begins to write it on the board, and SAYS WHAT SHE'S DOING AS SHE DOES. It only took a few seconds before I realized what I had done wrong, and all because I was hearing it instead of looking at it. I was amazed as I've always been fascinated with how the mind works.

[Absit]

In order to be free; life needs to lack universal purpose. If there's a universal purpose to life, something your supposed to do, there is no longer free will. Especially if you go to hell if you do the wrong thing. So if you believe that God created life as a gag, and that it's pointless and you can do whatever you want, you can still be free. 

[Mister Mister]

 

1) It seems that most of these discussions presuppose that is atheism very much a requirement in a free society and it must  be enforced with an (ironic) religious-like fervor.  Is this true?

 Can you point to a specific instance of someone who fits this description arguing this?  When you say "enforced" it seems to imply that libertarian atheists support using force against religious people.  This is obviously absurd, so I have to ask what you mean by "enforced".  In this statement you are making pretty strong allegations against people, so it seems to me just a little manipulative to act all defensive when those people get upset.

 

  I think the reasonable position here, is that of course, religion should be tolerated, as believing something is not the initiation of force.  At the same time, we are free to rigorously question and criticize religious beliefs, the same as any other claim.  The real problem has to do with how religion is taught to children, and the conclusions it leads them to, particularly about epistemology and ethics.  Most religions teach that it is "good" to believe things which come down to you from authority, that you cannot verify yourself on the basis of reason and evidence, and that it is "bad" not to believe these things.  This often leads to an irrational dependence on authority, to know what is true and what is right and wrong, which I think will ultimately lead to problems.

 

  So in other words, if your religion teaches that the Non-Aggression Principle is a Universal moral obligation, that's great, and certainly better than head-chopping Muslims, paranoid Zionists, or bloodthirsty warhawk Christian evangelists.  But the question is WHY - children will ask you this and your answer is important.  If you teach that the NAP is valid because God says so, I think it's fundamentally confusing to a child, and I don't know if this is the basis for a free, rational, peaceful society.  Hope that makes some sense.  Good topic.

[WorBlux]

How do you know?

 

Humans have reason, making them responsible for their actions, which means we own ourselves. We can universalize this to understand that generally speaking, all humans own themselves. Thus theft, assault, rape, and murder cannot be universalized as it requires property to be valid and invalid simultaneously.

 

That's it. Everything else is a matter of preference. Of the list you or words you provided, only "practices" has the capacity for being beneficial, and even that should be regarded with scrutiny.

 

I'll give you an example. The suburb I live in recently tore down a library that was maybe 20 years old. Then they rebuilt it. Can you imagine? It's 2015 and the average income of this community is such that it's reasonable to expect that every home has internet access, a computer/laptop/tablet, and smartphoneS. I do not condone or advocate institutionalized theft, but even in the statist paradigm, a program for subsidized tablets/internet access for children of low-income houses would've been FAR less expensive. I'll bet you not one person involved in that project at any stage stopped to ask "Are libraries even relevant anymore?" A willingness to re-examine that which we just accept without a 2nd thought would've saved a lot of people a lot of money.

 

People are lazy, and the division of labor can bring a wealth of benefits.  We should expect everyone will know the basics and rules of thumb simply by growing up within a particular society.  You don't need most people to be able prove a theory of morality from the ground up. 

 

There are things that are mostly arbitrary, but provide the most value when everyone or most everyone agrees on them: left or right side of the road?,  pounds or kilos?, scientific names. What exactly counts as a university? Who is really married, and what does than mean exactly? How do you collect a debt or seek recompense for  a tort? How is common property establish and who is it common to thereafter? Do particular neighbouring property claims require separation to allow general access,  and minimize direct conflict. How do you register or lookup titles to real property? How do we get our address on this computer network?

 

Of course some of these issues and answers are going to become the core of the cultural identity and local custom. These are the sort of things a religion tends to latch onto.

 

There's nothing wrong with a library. The issue is this case there is no incentive to really ask those types of questions. But I think you mistake the purpose of that library, which was not education and access to information (as you pointed out there are easier ways to do that). Rather I guess it's simply a status symbol, thinking more like "Every nice suburb has a nice  library, so since we're still a really nice suburb, we ought to have a really nice library.  It's really rather odd and funny, so let's just laugh at it. A good religion though could provide deeper insight and encourage people to get the joke.

[WorBlux]

1. Taoism I don't know enough to disagree with, although a quick look at the wiki finds that some sects do worship Laozi which would fall under the argument I was making, however there are some people who say some of the earliest atheists were taoists, but I don't think we can say this was due to reason and evidence. Buddhists have the Tibetan government in exile which I believe can be considered a state itself, also the worship of buddha and the dalai lama again fall into the following of a divine being. Quakers are christians so....divine being there. My argument here was not that religions are evil and teach evil things simply that most, if not all, religions are structured in the same way as the state. One "being" (or group of beings) with power, knowledge, etc. and the rest of us can only hope to grovel at their feet.

 

2. ok?

 

3. ok? so what parts of the bible am I not supposed to believe in? or maybe it's the muslims who are continuously murdering people who are correct? the buddhists who rape children and get other people to fight their battles for them? No, what you, OP, and probably every other religious person who comes here are saying is that we should ignore all of the really really bad parts of religion and just pick and choose the good parts. If I claim to follow the scientific method, but only choose to use the parts where I get to come up with a hypothesis and say that hypothesis is correct am I really following the scientific method? Unfortunately it's a package deal and if you're picking and choosing you're making something entirely new up.

 

4. belief:  : a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true[/size]

                     : a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable

                     : a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone

If you want to make a new definition of belief that's great but if I'm making the argument you can't really change the definition of the words I'm using and say I'm wrong.

Also, the Nazis had a tradition and culture of killing Jews if your argument is correct then they would have been in the right as well. 

 

5. I don't think anyone here has ever said everyone must become a philosopher that would be ridiculous. Do you need myths and stories to make you believe that a stove is hot, or that if you jump off a building you will hurt yourself? No, because those things are based off of reason and evidence. You need myths and traditions to make people believe in things that aren't actually true such as george washington and the government, and the bible and god. Things where all reason and evidence are counter to what you are supposed to believe.

1. You admittedly don't have a great grasp on the religious traditions of the world. I've never seen Laozi put forth as a divine being, anything other than fundamentally human.  That some places treat him as particularly holy is not that surprising though if he is responsible for first communicating some of their dearest values and thought. Christianity, particularly the catholic tradition has practices for adoration and devotional rituals of the saints, those men considered exceptionally holy, yet still only men.

 

Buddhism from the most part does not consider Buddha divine but rather simply enlightened, a state that any might achieve. (there are a few salvation sects) Some sects flat out tell you you are a Buddha. It is in general and atheistic religion that advocates a secular ethics.  Even the Dalai Lama for those in that sect is simply a bodhisattva, one who has been enlightened, yet chooses to return to help others. (by tradition venerated, but still not considered a god.)

 

Quakers stressed a direct relationship with God and his light in all people. Ya they came from the framework of the bible, but they are far from the only ones within Christianity that emphasised an inner tradition. (the Christ within, the radical compatibility between the human and the divine...)

 

The Hindu's speak of Atman, the soul which is a part the Brahman or ultimate realtiy.

 

The overtly monotheistic religious born out of Zorastoricism (Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam), which was born of a culture of the first empires are on the surface about a divine ruler of the universe,  yet they do contain their own brands of asceticism here and there.  These are the one that tend to stand structured as you accuse, yet not entirely.

 

2. Ok!

 

3. Ok! I am not religious, and I am not saying you ought believe any of them. If you are the sort looking to believe I advise to stay far away from fundamentalism, and look to a sect with a significant history of philosophical inquiry and asceticism.

 

What I'm saying people are going to believe, and what they believe tends to be the core values of a culture, that they can and do change. Pick and choose, and make a few things up is generally how new religions come about.  Neo-paganism is almost entirely made-up. Every now and then a religion has to stop and ask "Is this working or not",  however a religion can't do that directly, it would just spoil the game so you get they slow evolution and selection and deep memory hole. It can't be quite so overtly self-correcting as science, but it tends to work anyways. (in building wider societies).

 

Nonetheless there is something  of value in religions, for which no amount or words and abstraction can get you to. That is direct experience of who you really are and the realization of your "self" as a hallucination. 

 

4. Belief,  a mental attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition without the full intellectual knowledge required to guarantee its truth. Believing is either an intellectual judgment or, as the 18th-century Scottish Skeptic David Hume maintained, a special sort of feeling with overtones that differ from those of disbelief. (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online) Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion: (Oxford dictionary) Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. (Wikipeadia.org)

 

I've been doing this philosophy thing a long time, so believe me, I'm not just pulling stuff out of my ass.  One of your big issues is with the question of how religions can justify their beliefs, even the ones that you would otherwise agree with, correct?

 

National Socialism in Germany lasted two decades, hardly a successful tradition. National Socialism was at the time a very large break from the established traditions and religions of the time.  Even if it were, see the caveat that you can't be justified by tradition in face of strong evidence to the contrary. . Murder and War and economic ruin, not really the results of a good system.

 

5. Of course it would be ridiculous, but that is one of the few alternatives to having a religion or quasi-religion that exhibits and expounds upon what philosophy and culture has shown to be important.  The examples you give, the dangers of hot stoves and long falls do not require and great quantity of courage, intellect or honesty to comprehend. Dis George Washington all you like, but he was a real-life action Hero. A society needs role models, Heroes, characters to aspire for, to dream about. Parables and examples of those that were damned.  If you will, a subconscious that acts as a well of vitality and creativity.  Mythologies don't have to be false, but they do need to set apart from the mundane.  

 

I'm not sure what's going to show up in more rational and free society, but I'm sure its not going to be pure dry empiricism.

[Koroviev]

1. You admittedly don't have a great grasp on the religious traditions of the world. I've never seen Laozi put forth as a divine being, anything other than fundamentally human.  That some places treat him as particularly holy is not that surprising though if he is responsible for first communicating some of their dearest values and thought. Christianity, particularly the catholic tradition has practices for adoration and devotional rituals of the saints, those men considered exceptionally holy, yet still only men.

 

Buddhism from the most part does not consider Buddha divine but rather simply enlightened, a state that any might achieve. (there are a few salvation sects) Some sects flat out tell you you are a Buddha. It is in general and atheistic religion that advocates a secular ethics.  Even the Dalai Lama for those in that sect is simply a bodhisattva, one who has been enlightened, yet chooses to return to help others. (by tradition venerated, but still not considered a god.)

 

Quakers stressed a direct relationship with God and his light in all people. Ya they came from the framework of the bible, but they are far from the only ones within Christianity that emphasised an inner tradition. (the Christ within, the radical compatibility between the human and the divine...)

 

The Hindu's speak of Atman, the soul which is a part the Brahman or ultimate realtiy.

 

The overtly monotheistic religious born out of Zorastoricism (Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam), which was born of a culture of the first empires are on the surface about a divine ruler of the universe,  yet they do contain their own brands of asceticism here and there.  These are the one that tend to stand structured as you accuse, yet not entirely.

 

2. Ok!

 

3. Ok! I am not religious, and I am not saying you ought believe any of them. If you are the sort looking to believe I advise to stay far away from fundamentalism, and look to a sect with a significant history of philosophical inquiry and asceticism.

 

What I'm saying people are going to believe, and what they believe tends to be the core values of a culture, that they can and do change. Pick and choose, and make a few things up is generally how new religions come about.  Neo-paganism is almost entirely made-up. Every now and then a religion has to stop and ask "Is this working or not",  however a religion can't do that directly, it would just spoil the game so you get they slow evolution and selection and deep memory hole. It can't be quite so overtly self-correcting as science, but it tends to work anyways. (in building wider societies).

 

Nonetheless there is something  of value in religions, for which no amount or words and abstraction can get you to. That is direct experience of who you really are and the realization of your "self" as a hallucination. 

 

4. Belief,  a mental attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition without the full intellectual knowledge required to guarantee its truth. Believing is either an intellectual judgment or, as the 18th-century Scottish Skeptic David Hume maintained, a special sort of feeling with overtones that differ from those of disbelief. (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online) Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion: (Oxford dictionary) Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. (Wikipeadia.org)

 

I've been doing this philosophy thing a long time, so believe me, I'm not just pulling stuff out of my ass.  One of your big issues is with the question of how religions can justify their beliefs, even the ones that you would otherwise agree with, correct?

 

National Socialism in Germany lasted two decades, hardly a successful tradition. National Socialism was at the time a very large break from the established traditions and religions of the time.  Even if it were, see the caveat that you can't be justified by tradition in face of strong evidence to the contrary. . Murder and War and economic ruin, not really the results of a good system.

 

5. Of course it would be ridiculous, but that is one of the few alternatives to having a religion or quasi-religion that exhibits and expounds upon what philosophy and culture has shown to be important.  The examples you give, the dangers of hot stoves and long falls do not require and great quantity of courage, intellect or honesty to comprehend. Dis George Washington all you like, but he was a real-life action Hero. A society needs role models, Heroes, characters to aspire for, to dream about. Parables and examples of those that were damned.  If you will, a subconscious that acts as a well of vitality and creativity.  Mythologies don't have to be false, but they do need to set apart from the mundane.  

 

I'm not sure what's going to show up in more rational and free society, but I'm sure its not going to be pure dry empiricism.

1. Are you saying that the structure of these religions is not similar if not the same as that of the state? That these religions advocate freedom and free markets and using reason and evidence rather than simply following what someone says because they said it? Thats the point i was arguing. In these ways and more I'm sure the state and religion is similar if not exactly the same. None of ehat you have presented has countered that.

 

3. I never said there was no value in religion simply that religion is wrong. We know this because that which is not wrong (true) is that which is supported by reason and evidence. Religious beliefs are not supported by reason and evidence therefore they cannot be true. It does not take years of philosophy to figure that out just a logic 101 course. I'm not entirely certain but i think your last sentence said that we are holograms. Unless you have some light source that I appear to be missing I dont think this is supported by much reason or evidence either. Also, if you think you are a hologram I would absolutely love to watch you and 2pac debate after his next concert.

 

4. None of those definitions say a belief is supported by reason and evidence and most say the opposite so I'm not sure how this supports your argument. How long does a tradition or culture have to be around until it becomes correct?

 

5. Are you saying that either people must become full time philosophers or they need religion to know how to live their lives? That seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. I'm not a full time philosopher or religious and I'm not killing people or stealing things.

[dsayers]

For what it's worth, FDR just released a call that does a very good job of answering why we can NOT just get along:

 

[Des]

In order to be free; life needs to lack universal purpose. If there's a universal purpose to life, something your supposed to do, there is no longer free will. Especially if you go to hell if you do the wrong thing. So if you believe that God created life as a gag, and that it's pointless and you can do whatever you want, you can still be free. 

Your logic steps are correct.

Oh, wait for it...

However, if your desire (e.g. for freedom) adjusts reality, then you need to ask yourself if I exist outside your mind.

 

Can we jump over that (unless something in that interests you) and can I ask how you would reach a conclusion about whether or not a deity exists (in order to also believe that the deity created life as a gag, say) ?

[Troubador]

To the op I'm religious like you and I haven't once felt anyone here advocating taking me out into the street and shooting me. I think that's a tad hyperbolic.

 

If you want to live among people and get along with them, well just do that. If someone doesn't particularly want to associate with you (or me for that matter) that's up to them. Nobody comes to any harm, it's also a fact of life whatever system we live under not everyone will like you.

 

You want an obvious way around it? Provide such a collosal value to those around you and a lot of people will overlook as eccentricity that which would be a deal breaker in lesser people.

 

One of my closest friends is an atheist, and we've had each other's backs through significant shared and individual crisis, that what we both personally believe is an irrelevance. Your best bet is put a pin in your religious beliefs, by all means admit to having them as doing otherwise would be dishonest, but if I have a friend that hates 60's Classic Rock music I'm not going to be constantly espousing my love of Jimi Hendrix. They aren't going to be interested and it would actually be pretty rude.

[WorBlux]

1. Are you saying that the structure of these religions is not similar if not the same as that of the state? That these religions advocate freedom and free markets and using reason and evidence rather than simply following what someone says because they said it? Thats the point i was arguing. In these ways and more I'm sure the state and religion is similar if not exactly the same. None of ehat you have presented has countered that.

 

3. I never said there was no value in religion simply that religion is wrong. We know this because that which is not wrong (true) is that which is supported by reason and evidence. Religious beliefs are not supported by reason and evidence therefore they cannot be true. It does not take years of philosophy to figure that out just a logic 101 course. I'm not entirely certain but i think your last sentence said that we are holograms. Unless you have some light source that I appear to be missing I dont think this is supported by much reason or evidence either. Also, if you think you are a hologram I would absolutely love to watch you and 2pac debate after his next concert.

 

4. None of those definitions say a belief is supported by reason and evidence and most say the opposite so I'm not sure how this supports your argument. How long does a tradition or culture have to be around until it becomes correct?

 

5. Are you saying that either people must become full time philosophers or they need religion to know how to live their lives? That seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. I'm not a full time philosopher or religious and I'm not killing people or stealing things.

1. Human testimony is by and large how we learn of things. Al religions are going to have structure and instruction, yet many do not rely on a special claim of authority.

 

3. An experience can't be wrong, it simply is. Is laughter right or wrong? My last sentence was not about the your self as in your body, but your self as in your concept of self.  (A good http://terebess.hu/english/AlanWatts-On%20The%20Taboo%20Against%20Knowing%20Who%20You%20Are.pdf of the topic)

 

4. A belief may or may not be so supported. Again the question is of sufficient justification.

 

If you keep placing grains of sand on a table when does it stop being grains and start being a pile? Yet common sense knows a pile when it sees one. And it's not that depth of tradition makes something correct, but that it is a good prima facia evidence to that fact.  The common man is most usually justified in trusting to the common sense.

 

5. No, what I'm saying is that people are going to seek depths of spirits, a look for a meaningful and flourishing life. Not assaulting or stealing is just some of the prime basics.  Do you have some great beauty, meaning, joy, or purpose in your life?

[Thomasio]

Let's see .....

 

1) Before the Islam became what it is today, up to maybe 1000 years ago, people in the Arabian countries where the greatest inventors and discoverers in the world.

Countless planets and stars have Arabic names, because the right to give something new a name is on the one who discovers it.

After the Islam became what it is today, this stopped almost completely.

Today 1.5 billion Muslims invent and discover per year less new things than 80 million Germans per day.

The reason is simple: If you believe you know the answer already, even if the answer is as senseless as "god did it", you have next to no reason searching for a scientific answer.

If for a brief moment you try to imagine what kind of revolutionary great new inventions the 1.5 billion people in Arabic world would have come up with during the last 1000 years, if only they had NOT taken their holy book for the universal answer to everything, you might get the idea, things like cancer, HIV, pollution and tons of other things might not exist today anymore.

We can't be sure what all they could have invented, meaning we can't be sure whether or not they would have found a cure for HIV or something else, but we can be absolutely sure, there would have been some amazing discoveries in between.

Other religions, which take their beliefs less serious, are less affected by this, the Islam is just the most extreme example we have so far, but we can be absolutely certain that ANY religion slows down scientific progress.

 

2) A religious organization will always put aside money for building their temples, churches, mosques, etc. and to pay their priests.

All people working for a religious organization will always spend part of their time preaching their religion.

Therefore no matter how much charity work any given religion does, we can be absolutely sure, without the religious part we would have more charity reaching those in need.

Best example is maybe the MSF (Medicins Sans Frontiers or Doctors without Borders) http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/who use only 0.9% of their money for their management and 10.4 for fundraising, while 88.7% reach those in need.

Not sure about the same numbers for the Christian churches, but I would be surprised if it were over 10%.

 

3) Believing in an afterlife makes people want to die.

Not really hard to understand, if you believe there is an eternal life in happiness waiting for you right after death, if only you qualify, as soon as you expect to qualify, you will always be tempted to go for it.

In Islam a martyr who dies for his religion instantly qualifies for heaven, that's why so many young Muslims can be persuaded to commit suicide attacks.

If they would believe there is no afterlife, most of them wouldn't do it and on top of that almost all humans on earth would work on making this world a better place, rather than expecting to find a better place after death.

 

So if you ask me, whether or not atheists and believers could get along ....... NOPE, NO WAY, NEVER EVER.

The misery caused by religions all over the world, the delayed improvements in our lives, the money and resources wasted and the utter nonsense one would have to believe in addition with the fact that even an atheists life is for a good part distracted by believers and their attempts to spread out "the word of god", from way more important things makes me say: There isn't the slightest chance I will EVER go along with the existence of ANY form of religion.

Even if god himself would show up and prove his existence for all humanity to see, I would still insist, making this world a better place and free ourselves from the bonds of religious backwardness, is BY FAR more important than the opinion of one single over natural being who commands us to kill one another.

[Torero]

Thomasio, interesting post.

 

I miss the point however to jump from historical religious mayhem to people today?

 

Do you believe in collective guilt? Are religious people of today in any way, shape or form

responsible for the atrocities committed by a small (!) Elite (and that's where the real problem lies in my eyes) group of psychos who used religion for their power play?

 

I get along with religious people fine. They may believe in afterlives, praying for good causes and bless me using (their) gods. I've never been harmed by anyone who used their religion as a stick.

 

Other people may have different experiences, but strawmanning organized crime (in the name of religion) to normal, ordinary honest people does not seem fair to me at all.

[Thomasio]

Let me give you an example from the real world.

After the 2nd World War, Germany was forced to (and even volunteered as well) make ANY form of "national socialism" illegal.

The experience from the war has shown the whole world what danger Nazis pose, IFFFF they get to power.

Today there are a few Nazis in almost all countries all over the world, but they pose no thread, because they are a tiny minority, held under control by a vast majority of peaceful people and not at last by a law that makes their core ideas illegal, so whenever one of those Nazi groups becomes too big, whenever they try the very first attempts of violence, they get arrested.

 

The very same thing holds true for religion.

As long as religion isn't in power, it will behave well.

Without the power to change things, most religious people will accept non believers, everyone gets along with everyone else just fine and even gays are accepted, although that's already at the borderline where most strong believers find it very hard to see them as equal humans.

This changes drastically in a society where believers of one specific religion gain the majority.

How much that changes you can see in Saudi Arabia, where the state under Sharia Law beheads more people per year than ISIS has behaded throughout its existence.

 

In short: Maybe you feel safe, as long as no religion becomes a majority, but beware if they do.

Edit, just to make that clear: Of course I mean a majority of people taking the literal words of their holy book serious, not the vast majority of Christians who see the teachings of their religion more or less optional.

 

...... and if you are now tempted to believe no religion will gain the majority in your country, I got bad news for you.

Due to the strength of their belief and their religions teachings about contraception, or better the condemnation of it, Muslims have a 5 times higher birthrate than ANY other group of people on earth.

Today there are less than 1% Muslims in the US, by estimates of statista.com in 2070 that will be more than 50% of all Americans.

Even worse, by 2070 more than 50% of the worlds population will be Muslims.

I guess I should consider myself lucky, my statistical life expectancy doesn't reach that far, because I for one don't want to find out, what will happen then.

 

The only difference between Nazis and Religions is the fact, Religions aren't illegal and that's why they can and have done pretty similar things to what the Nazis did, only on a smaller scale so far, as soon as they get to power anywhere.

[shirgall]

So if you ask me, whether or not atheists and believers could get along ....... NOPE, NO WAY, NEVER EVER.

 

I might settle with retiring the Abrahamic ones... as a first step. They seem pretty bloodthirsty.