Good find Grover. I agree with Harris' assertion that religion should not be protected from scrutiny in any way or form; however, I disagree that religion itself is the underlying problem. IMO, the issue is human psychological needs that religions fulfill rather well. I suspect that as long as we (as a society) don't give people healthy outlets to these psychological needs, they will always turn to those who can.
For the atheists
- Thread starter grover
- Start date
Good find Grover. I agree with Harris' assertion that religion should not be protected from scrutiny in any way or form; however, I disagree that religion itself is the underlying problem. IMO, the issue is human psychological needs that religions fulfill rather well. I suspect that as long as we (as a society) don't give people healthy outlets to these psychological needs, they will always turn to those who can.
so how does your statements somehow evade the notion that you are dismissing the concept of the soul according to your own (limited) reserves of knowledge/experience/logic.
Or to put it another way, do I have a right to suppose that a book about oceanography is full of falsehoods about the size and depth of the ocean and the millions of life forms it contains, simply because my bathroom sink holds only a little water and exhibits no undersea life?
Do I have no right to assume the book is sadly ignorant because it does not say that somewhere on the bottom of the sea is a plug, which when pulled, will empty the oceans of the world of all water?
or even atheists against theists
indeed you can't
knowledge within the grasp of empiricism is quite meager
(generally you will find that persons venturing such world views are dealt with on the platform of rationalism, however - and given that the notion of killing people is not a central issue of theism, despite antagonistic atheists dressing it up in that way, its not clear how rationalism is going to serve you in your atheistic beliefs)
If we were in the assembly of intelligent persons a discussion would ensue and the outcome would depend on how surrendered they were to scripture as an authority
-------------------
Its also easier to show a person the ocean than show them an electron
What's your point?
That if an aspect of knowledge is more difficult to ascertain it somehow makes it less truthful?
-----------------------
Last edited by a moderator:
how stupid.
is their anybody other than you, that can change your mind regarding your faith, your beliefs?
grover,
I find this thread quite surprising from you (maybe I'm not understanding your intent).
Do you think these fundamentalists would blow innocents up if the U.S, and the U.K, stayed in their own regions? Do you think the palestinians would blow up innocents, if their land was their own?
Based on your logic, all muslims who have faith in Allah blow up innocents in order to get 72 virgins, hence their religion is the cause of atrocities. Do you believe this.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood your point.
A challenge to you;
Please point out any points Harris makes about "actual religion"?
Jan.
I find this thread quite surprising from you (maybe I'm not understanding your intent).
Do you think these fundamentalists would blow innocents up if the U.S, and the U.K, stayed in their own regions? Do you think the palestinians would blow up innocents, if their land was their own?
Based on your logic, all muslims who have faith in Allah blow up innocents in order to get 72 virgins, hence their religion is the cause of atrocities. Do you believe this.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood your point.
A challenge to you;
Please point out any points Harris makes about "actual religion"?
Jan.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
This is quite the dumbest observation I have read on sciforums for some time.
1. What makes you think athesim is equivalent to 'everything is meaningless'? An existence in which there is no afterlife, no possibility of redemption, makes each moment of living supercharged with meaning.
2. What makes you think that the existence of a God would imbue meaning into our lives? God could be wholly indifferent to humans in general and you in particular.
Your axioms are flawed.
I agree. You can see the psychological need in other areas that dont include a religion. Eco-terrorists are one example.
I think it boils down to the pack mentality and evolved social drives that put us at the top of the food chain to begin with. The go forth and conquer drive inherent within people doesnt need a religion to drive it, but it is aided (in a tyrannical way) when people declare a driving concept (religion) off limits to scrutiny.
Jan,
My point is this - the literal belief that you ill get 72 virgins if you die a "martyr" makes it very easy to commit atrocities. Anyone that doesn't hold the 72 virgins belief views it as incredibly deluded. How can anyoone believe such complete and utter crap? And why in society is there a taboo against questioning such equally absurd beliefs from religous traditions within our own country. 22% of Americans literally think Jesus will float down from the sky within our life time? These same people think that the apocalypse is a good thing, because it is a necessary prerequisite of the second coming. These beliefs have real world consequences and shouldn't get a "free pass" (meaning, there shouldn't be a taboo against questioning these beliefs). If some one is going to make a questionable claim like crystals have healing powers, vampires are real, or a savior is going to float down from the sky I think it should be perfectly acceptable to question these beliefs.
What do you mean by "actual religion"?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
If it is proven that God doesn't exist, will you then suddenly behave differently towards other people ? Will you kill your parents because "its the logical thing to do" ? What nonsense !
If you are right about this it cant only mean that religious people are a bunch of psychopaths repressed by religion. But why don't you see atheists running around killing people outside in the the streets right now ? It's because you are wrong.
Incorrect, your own consciousness is self-evident, so you may logically conclude that (through your own observation that you are alive and conscious) every other similar being experiences consciousness.
No, with consciousenss there is nothing that can be "seen or measured." The only reason we know about conscious is through direct first person verification. Same principle applies to a soul. Think about this for a minute: there is nothing from looking at the physical attributes of a brain that would lead one to believe that it produces consciousness. Which is to say that there is no scientific way of determing that a being has consciousness (since looking at the physical attributes of a brain doesn't tell us anything about consciousness). Therefore, when you are looking at a dead person you can't tell whether or not they are conscious based simply upon any physical measurments. So, the only way to know whether or not soul (eternal consciousness) is real is to die and see if there is still conscious experience.
grover,
Anything can make atrocities easy to commit, patriotism, jealousy, thinking that one race is superior to another because of brain size, etc..
The problem here is the individual, not the reason.
They may be correct, they may not be, the thing is we don't know for sure.
Upon what basis do hold that their belief is "utter crap"?
Do you know something we don't?
There's nothing wrong in questioning a belief, but when the questioner has absolutely no regard for their beliefs, and holds the position that the believer is deluded, and their belief is "utter crap", then taboos get created.
I don't see any problem at this moment in time with people who hold such beliefs. The world is a dangerous place, and becoming more so, and religion is not the cause. For example, near where I live there has been serious problems regarding youths, such as burglaries, muggings, loud music till all hours of the morning, drunken brawling in the streets. This has a serious effect on the surrounding society. These are real, serious problems, which are going to have a serious future impact.
Of course I agree with you, but the underlying meaning of these atheist evengelicals is to do away with religion altogether. Think just for a moment what that entails.
I mean the actual point of religion, the unified point which is in every scripture, and has been espoused by every prophet, and devotee of the one God. The method of self-realisation.
These type of atheists would easily have you believe that the scripture is nonsense, worded by men who were devoid of a university education, in an attempt to explain their surroundings. Yet when you read a scripture it is obvious that that is not the case.
My question still stands.
Jan.
Anything can make atrocities easy to commit, patriotism, jealousy, thinking that one race is superior to another because of brain size, etc..
The problem here is the individual, not the reason.
They may be correct, they may not be, the thing is we don't know for sure.
Upon what basis do hold that their belief is "utter crap"?
Do you know something we don't?
There's nothing wrong in questioning a belief, but when the questioner has absolutely no regard for their beliefs, and holds the position that the believer is deluded, and their belief is "utter crap", then taboos get created.
I don't see any problem at this moment in time with people who hold such beliefs. The world is a dangerous place, and becoming more so, and religion is not the cause. For example, near where I live there has been serious problems regarding youths, such as burglaries, muggings, loud music till all hours of the morning, drunken brawling in the streets. This has a serious effect on the surrounding society. These are real, serious problems, which are going to have a serious future impact.
Of course I agree with you, but the underlying meaning of these atheist evengelicals is to do away with religion altogether. Think just for a moment what that entails.
I mean the actual point of religion, the unified point which is in every scripture, and has been espoused by every prophet, and devotee of the one God. The method of self-realisation.
These type of atheists would easily have you believe that the scripture is nonsense, worded by men who were devoid of a university education, in an attempt to explain their surroundings. Yet when you read a scripture it is obvious that that is not the case.
My question still stands.
Jan.
Well, I do agree with you. The problem as I see it is any ideology that allows people to turn off the questioning, critical, rational approach to reality. And religous dogmatism is ideal for creating this.
-This is the exact thing: you are willing to accept the 72 virgin hypothesis simply because it falls under the umbrella of religion. You seem to be making an exception for this preposterous idea simply because it is religous. Why? If I told you that I literally thought that real live suprheroes were amongst us and marvel comics is their history would you adopt the "don't know for sure attitude" or would you say that anyone that believes it is deluded?
-If you believe that if you die a martyr you will get 72 virgins in paradise the only logical course of action is to become a martyr(murderer) as soon as posssible. So the fact that you haven't gone out and martyred yourself suggests that you find their claim as unbelievable as I do. But, for some reason you think there is somehting wrong with calling a spade a spade. Why?
Seems to me there is a taboo against questioning peoples "faith." Why? Faith is a completely destructive force. I see no evidence that people of faith behave better than other people, and tons of evidence that it leads to justification for all kinds of immoral beahvior. Faith is the opposite of actual spiritual insight. Faith is actually claiming that you already know the truth and therefore do not have to work to know it.
Except for the fact that they think killing innocent civilians is the best thing a person can do?
There is a holy war going on.
And faith-based religion can address this issue how?
Not true. Did you watch the video? Did you notice at the end when Harris talks about "spiritual experience"?
Harris' views on actual religion:
http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2004/11/interview_with_sam_harris_part_1.php
Take note of the fact that Harris is capable of rationally defending his spiritual beliefs whereas a person that is basing their beliefs on faith cannot.
Last edited:
Vital, do you believe the FSM does not exist?
Correct.
However, the whole quote includes that there is no evidence for a soul. And you said the exact same thing applies to consciousness. You conveniently have ignored that there IS evidence for consciousness...itself. Without consciousness you would not be aware of your keyboard, or my answer on your screen...A corpse's autonomic functions do cease; a pretty good indicator of a lack of consciousness.
The "soul" is not self-evident, unless you wish to call your consciousness your soul as well. We all know however that in the religious forum, the soul is assumed to be the supernatural manifestation of the self that can separate from the physical body. There is no evidence of this definition of "the soul".
Last edited:
Consciousness cannot be seen or measured which means that there is no way of scientifically verifying its existence. The only way we know it exists is thorugh self-evidence. This shows the limitations of science in studying consciousness and also the value of direct experience.
- Right. Which is to say soul is "consciousness separate from the material body." But if you die and claim to still be conscious that would be self-evidence right? And you already said that self-evidence is valid when it comes to consciousness, right? So, in other words there can be self-evidence in relation to soul: if when you die there is still consciousness there is your self-evidence.
No one ever stated that direct experience is completely useless. Indeed, we are creatures of experience - experience comes from observation and learning. Observation is key in empirical study. Observation is not limited to sight btw.
Please bear in mind that consciousness is necessarily a common experience. Or else we couldn't be conversing.
Religious experience, the supernatural, the soul even, is not a common or even repeatable experience. How then is it not ludicrous to insist on any common religious belief?
Where is it stated that the "soul" is conscious? I never defined the soul myself...I applied two different definitions to other people.
Last edited:
See above where you stated that direct experience isn't useless. If one had direct experience of any of these three things that means it isn't useless then, right?
But you are ultimately basing this on your own experince not anything scientifically demonstrable. Secondly, many animals communicate including insects like lightning bugs and ants - do they have consciousness?
That's definately part of it. There is more that feeds into our needs, but suffice to say that education of what they and outlets to meet them are probably the way to go.
Thanks again for re-confirming the typical atheistic tactic "I can't confront something, so why not dodge out and avoid the question, then make it seem like I'm right some how, even though I'm not"
If I did believe that FSM didn't exist, it would be entirely faith-based....unless I had evidence of absence, which we all do, then it isn't faith-based...
BTW, the existence or non-existence of FSM has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God, great tactic, take two completely different things with innumerably different characteristics, properties, and attributes then pretend they're the same and say "well if you don't believe one exists, then the other must not exist too...checkmate!!!!"