Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 1850 of 3694 (905349)
01-24-2023 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1834 by GDR
01-19-2023 5:50 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
GDR writes:
I would agree that in the places you have looked there is no evidence.
We haven't only looked in a few places.
We have looked in all the places we can.
For me I see a mother or father absolutely adoring their new baby and would without hesitation sacrifice anything, including their lives for that child. I see people risking their lives for someone they have never met. I see people donating vast sums of money for others in need that might even be on the other side of the world I see people dedicated to the welfare of animal life or even for the planet even though they won't be alive to see the results. That is where I find God.
Sounds to me like you found Love. And we know Love exists and that people are capable of these and more great acts of Love - all naturally.
What makes you think you found God?
With that in mind then the resurrection becomes a possibility...
That's fair enough. The resurrection is a possibility for me, too.
...and I have concluded that Jesus' resurrection makes the most sense of the rise of the Christian faith in the 1st century.
Your conclusion is not based on evidence.
This means your highest priority is not "to find the truth."
Again, your highest priority may be "to find any truth that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection."
...but this is not the same as having your highest priority be "to find the truth."
I don't just stop at the point that there is no physical evidence that can be affirmed scientifically as you have.
I don't stop there.
I stop where information cannot be verified and is known to have a high likelihood of being wrong.
You seem to include such information while also claiming to have "finding the truth" as your highest priority.
I don't see how that's reasonable. It seems counter productive to me. Or, at least, indicative that "something else" is actually your highest priority.
I frankly have trouble understanding how people can see mindless processes resulting in the complexity of life let alone sentient life with consciousness.
That's understandable as a starting position. Most people would even agree, I'm sure.
Of course... this doesn't change the knowledge we've learned.
The knowledge is there. Regardless of you not looking at it in the past, or continuing to not look at it now.
Your claim that you don't accept the knowledge doesn't make it go away for those interested in identifying the truth.
In these two cases (evolution of society and morality) what you have is speculative evidence based on your pre-existing theories.
The evidence is not speculative, and it's also at your fingertips, if you care to look into it: Google Scholar
Evolution of Society and Culture - over 6 million, evidenced papers for you to read. This evidence is not "speculative" it's peer-reviewed (duplicated and objective) and vastly, vastly studied and tested.
Evolution of Morality - over 2 million, evidenced papers for you to read. This evidence is not "speculative" it's peer-reviewed (duplicated and objective) and vastly, vastly studied and tested.
These are all papers based on evidence that can be observed by anyone.
None of these papers ignore God or religion or philosophical thought in any way. In many, philosophical thought is incorporated - if it can be evidenced/tested/verified against reality.
The only reason you won't find mentions of God or religion, is because no helpful areas of those subjects can be applied to these topics that can be evidenced/tested/verified against reality.
This is not ignoring them, this is incorporating everything and anything while holding "looking for the truth" as the highest priority.
The second anyone shows how God or religion should be incorporated and can link them through evidence connected to reality... those papers will be included in these same archives.
The information is there.
It is not "speculative."
You cannot act like it doesn't exist just because you don't know about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1834 by GDR, posted 01-19-2023 5:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1866 by GDR, posted 01-26-2023 1:41 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1853 of 3694 (905353)
01-24-2023 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1834 by GDR
01-19-2023 5:50 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Stile writes:
Your conclusion is not based on evidence.
This means your highest priority is not "to find the truth."
​
Again, your highest priority may be "to find any truth that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection."
...but this is not the same as having your highest priority be "to find the truth."
I'd just like to ramble on a bit about this point, as I think it is the crux of the issue we've been discussing.
In comparison... there is no such thing existing like this for me. At all.
Gravity exists.. there's lots of evidence for it. I think we both agree.
However, even though that is true... I do not hold a position that can be summarized by "Stile wants to find any truth that is consistent with the current theory of Gravity."
That is... no matter how much we currently know about gravity:
-I'm open to learning more
-I'm open to having the entire current knowledge over-turned and thrown out, if something "better fitting of all the evidence" comes along and replaces it.
This isn't just for Gravity, this is for all things:
-evolution
-natural explanation for morality
-my currently held position that "it's good to go to a doctor if you get sick"
-my currently held position that "God does not exist"
-my currently held position that "I live at the address printed on my Driver's License"
-my currently held position that "my wife loves me"
-my currently held position that "I love my wife"
...all of it..
I don't hold a single position that can't be overturned with evidence.
Some would take more evidence than others... like if you want to show me evidence that my relationship with my wife isn't as I currently understand it... I would have a discussion with her and begin comparing that evidence with other evidence... but there is a level of evidence that would get me starting to doubt myself.
Just as an example... if there were 2 million hits on Google Scholar that "Stile's wife doesn't actually love him"... I would begin an investigation myself, for sure.
If it's only one guy that no one knows saying some stuff in a drunken stupor on the internet... I wouldn't really care.
The point is, that all my stances on "the truth" of reality rely on evidence, and can be swayed by evidence.
I do not hold a position that "I hold to be true" that is "unchangeable."
I personally find that to be extremely arrogant. I mean, really, to actually know such a thing... you'd have to know everything, which I'm constantly reminded (every day) that I definitely do not.
Perhaps that is the difference.
If you really think that you "know something" that evidence could not possibly change your mind on... I don't understand how you think you "know everything."
There is something to be said for not considering changing a position unless an actual connected-to-reality reason comes along that shows that, perhaps, you should change it.
But, to think that you should "never" change your stance on something "regardless of any evidence, ever" is... well... nothing short of declaring that you "know everything."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1834 by GDR, posted 01-19-2023 5:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1854 by Phat, posted 01-24-2023 2:53 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1883 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 2:43 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1855 of 3694 (905364)
01-24-2023 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1854 by Phat
01-24-2023 2:53 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Phat writes:
When one thinks they have the final answer, they do not simply throw it away or set it aside in the hopes of a more favorable answer. We see it as a trap.
...
I only claim to know one thing. He knows everything.
My point isn't concerned with God knowing everything.
My point is only concerned with Phat knowing everything (...or GDR... or any other human.)
If you do not "know everything" - how do you know you're not wrong?
"Not wrong" doesn't mean "deceived" but just what it says - not wrong. You may be incorrect through some fault of your own, or some fault of "being human" or some fault of "some external entity causing you to be wrong."
How do you prevent that?
For me - I use our best-known-method for knowing the truth - validated, shown-to-match-reality evidence.
-it can be wrong, too... but the only way we know of to identify that is with more validated, shown-to-match-reality evidence.
For you - you seem to claim to use "personal impact."
But, the thing with personal impact is that we know, by ways of validated, shown-to-match-reality evidence, that "personal impact" is highly susceptible to being wrong. And, in the cases of anything-to-do-with-God... the personal impact is extremely high, and the "likelihood of being wrong" is also extremely high.
If your priority is to "have a good life" - then I understand why personal impact is so powerful, and I agree it can be a very good tool.
If your priority is to "know the truth about reality" - then I don't understand why you would use a tool that is known to be so useless in identification of the truth. It's clearly counter-productive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1854 by Phat, posted 01-24-2023 2:53 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1856 by Phat, posted 01-24-2023 6:07 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1859 by Phat, posted 01-25-2023 9:14 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1857 of 3694 (905375)
01-25-2023 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1856 by Phat
01-24-2023 6:07 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Phat writes:
...I won't set aside my belief unless the counter-evidence is quite persuasive.
And this is fine... if you're looking to have a good life.
But, if you're "looking for the truth" - this is clearly a bad position to take.
We know that "holding a belief" while looking for truth is significantly detrimental to finding truth.
If you're actually looking for truth, then there's no reason to avoid our "best method for identifying truth" which entails setting beliefs aside, and following the evidence wherever it leads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1856 by Phat, posted 01-24-2023 6:07 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1858 by Phat, posted 01-25-2023 8:48 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 1860 of 3694 (905380)
01-25-2023 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1858 by Phat
01-25-2023 8:48 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
Phat writes:
You don't understand believers. One does not simply "set beliefs aside." If we follow anything, it is going to be our belief, rather than a vague concept of evidence. Granted we are all called to pray for non-believers and attempt to understand them We are also called (strongly) to love them and not to fight against flesh (except our own!) From your perspective, beliefs can be set aside as easily as scientific theory.
I think I do understand. Or, at least, you've said nothing here that doesn't align 100% with the point you think you're replying about.
I think it's you who do not understand what I'm describing.
I'll try with an analogy:
Let's say we're going to play Monopoly (yes, the board game.)
According to the actual, original rules of the game... if you land on Free Parking... nothing happens. You just wait until your next turn (and don't have to pay anyone rent or anything else.)
But, according to most house rules (and any time I've ever played Monopoly) - if you land on Free Parking you get some money that's been set aside in the centre of the board. Sometimes it's $50... sometimes it's "whatever money has been paid to the bank by other players for various other reasons." Sometimes it's something else.
There are two different ways of playing Monopoly.
When Stile plays the original-rules-way... Stile says he plays the original-rules-way.
When Phat plays the original-rules-way... Phat says he plays the original-rules-way.
When Stile plays the house-rules-way... Stile says he plays the house-rules-way.
When Plat plays the house-rules-way... Phat insists that he's still playing the original-rules-way.
If you take a step back... there's no "right or wrong" way to play Monopoly. Just two different ways.
And lets put this into what we've been discussing:
There are two different ways to set your priorities.
When Stile says his priority is to "live my best life"... Stile doesn't always use our best-known-method for finding truth.
When Phat says his priority is to "live my best life"... Phat doesn't always use our best-known-method for finding truth.
When Stile says that "looking for truth" is his highest priority... Stile then uses our best-known-method to find truth.
When Phat says that "looking for truth" is his highest priority... Phat insists he's "looking for truth" but refuses to use our best-known-method for finding truth.
I fully understand that believers do not simply "set beliefs aside."
I don't have a problem with that at all.
What I have a problem with is believers who do not set their beliefs aside... yet still claim to "look for truth" when they are clearly and obviously not doing that and only "looking for truth that also happens to align with their beliefs."
I am unmoved by the New Atheists and emotionally passionate secularism masquerading as an alternative to my belief(s).
I am not attempting to convince you that you should be an atheist.
I'm attempting to convince you that when you're not using our best-known-method to find the truth... you should be honest and say that your highest priority is to find "a truth that aligns with your beliefs" and not "the truth - whatever that may be."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1858 by Phat, posted 01-25-2023 8:48 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1861 of 3694 (905381)
01-25-2023 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1859 by Phat
01-25-2023 9:14 AM


Re: The Future IS Important Enough
Phat writes:
Im not simply an emotional "fool" who ignores rationality completely. (at least I don't want to be)
I don't care if you're rational or not.
I'm not rational all the time. I'm not sure if anyone actually is.
I'm just looking for your to be honest.
Thus I concede that you all have good reasons for being adamant about change...even at the cost of you paying the bill. I guess I was(am) thinking only of my own personal comfort!
I'm not here to discuss world-politics that I cannot control.
It doesn't interest me, or, at least, it doesn't interest me right now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1859 by Phat, posted 01-25-2023 9:14 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1873 of 3694 (905457)
01-27-2023 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1866 by GDR
01-26-2023 1:41 PM


The Unstoppable Movement of Knowledge
GDR writes:
How about the places you can't look?
If we can't know anything about them - what makes you think God exists, and is specifically confined there? Is that even still a God?
You can't measure and examine people's consciousness for empathy or love of neighbour.
Don't need to. You can measure and examine their actions.
You can observe what people do, but you can only observe and then believe what it is that motivates people to do what they do.
What? Why?
Why can't you just ask the people what motivates them?
Most will say "because I love them..."
Some will say "because God says I should" and if you ask them if God is love... they usually say yes as well.
I contend that there is a good reason to believe that but there is nothing physical to examine or test.
I contend that this "good" reason is only good because it makes you feel better.
It is not a "good" reason if you want to identify truth - because it involves a lot of processes that we know are very, very bad at identifying truth, and usually wrong.
I can't know absolutely that what I believe to be true concerning the Christian faith to be the truth but the same holds for everyone else here.
Absolutely.
The difference is - I acknowledge this and admit that when I'm looking for truth I cannot hold onto past ideas, no matter how much I want them to be true, and must "look for truth" in a way that best helps identify that truth. I will not let any previous ideas, no matter how much I like them, get in the way of identifying truth - whatever that truth may be.
But you seem to want to cling to "Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact" no matter how much doubt is cast upon that claim and no matter what evidence is found in the future. You seem to only want to "find truth if it aligns with Jesus' resurrection as a historical fact." And, while doing this, you also want to claim that you're actually "looking for truth" even though you're putting limitations on what "truth" you will accept - regardless of how true it actually is.
What knowledge am I rejecting?
The 8 million and 2 million papers of knowledge showing you that society and morality evolved naturally.
You talk about the evolution of morality and then claim that this is evidence that there is no external deity.
Not really.
I talk about evolution of morality and then claim that this is evidence that morality evolved naturally.
I also talk about us never finding any evidence of an external deity, after searching everywhere and anywhere for one, and that this is evidence that there is no external deity.
The two also support each other... but the evidence for each one is not dependent on the other.
If God was shown to exist tomorrow - it would still be obvious that morality evolved naturally.
If morality was shown to have non-natural origins tomorrow - this wouldn't show that God exists.
What you have outlined is the same type of evidence as I use when I say that I have the Bible as written evidence and the rise of Christian belief as evidence.
Are you saying that 2 million peer-reviewed papers following our best-known-method of identifying truth are "the same type of evidence" as the Bible.. which is shown to have many internal contradictions, many embellishments of the truth, many flat-out-wrong-and-never-actually-occurred claims to history and is never corrected for it's many, many errors?
That's, well, really silly.
Isn't it reasonable to ask why it evolved at all.
Good question.
A few possible answers:
-it provides a survival advantage
-it is a side-effect or emergent-property of increased intelligence (which provides a survival advantage), and may not provide any advantage at all on it's own
It doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest.
It definitely does.
It's a simple concept - you'd rather hang out with friends than with enemies, and "hanging-out together" makes you stronger/more-likely-to-survive than being alone.
The fittest (those who group together and help each other) survive and the unfit (those who remain alone) are killed... usually by those larger groups.
It doesn't account for why or even how the first seed of thought that became morality occurred.
Like all things that evolved - mutations in DNA replication during the process of having children.
-increased intelligence occurred, and provided a significant survival advantage
-increasing intelligence is selected for as it provides more and more of a survival advantage
-at some point, intelligence increases so much that "the first seed of thought that became morality occurred" and continued to evolve
It doesn't account for the the vast range of human morality we can observe or for the ongoing individual struggles we have with our own moral behaviour.
You know we don't all have the same arms, right?
I can't lift anything near what weight-lifters can. The human frame comes in all shapes and sizes... even though we all have "arms"... some are bigger/stronger, others are faster/nimbler.
Same with intelligence and morality.
We all have brains. But not all brains function exactly the same.
Some will have a greater leaning for morality, others will not. Almost all will have slightly different "leanings" in different moral directions, regardless of how "great" that leaning is.
This is another simple concept: different strokes for different folks.
In so many ways atheism raises questions that can't be answered, and much more so than basic theism.
Atheism doesn't attempt to answer any of these questions.
However, these questions can all be answered very easily without invoking God. This is the knowledge that is contained in the 2 million papers you're not accepting, that are based on our best-known-method for identifying truth and not "a bunch of erroneous stories written down some 2000 years ago."
It won't go away, no matter how many times you re-ask the same questions over and over and over and get the same, fully-evidenced-answers repeated to you over and over and over.
I'm not sure what you think is going on here... but we're not having a discussion like "what is the source of dark matter?" where neither of us has knowledge to back up our claims. We're having a discussion like "how do airplanes fly?" where one of us knows how airplanes fly and the other has never seen a plane and doesn't believe they even exist. I'll show you explanations of airplanes over and over and over again... and you seem to just keep falling back to "but I don't get it... so it can't work!" Which is... only half right.
It hasn't been hundreds of years, but it has been "years" that we've known how things like society and morality have naturally (entirely, fully naturally) evolved and do not require the intervention of any external deity. (You'll notice that most of those linked papers are from the 2000's and even the 2010's...) Just like airplanes. You can either accept it or not - it doesn't really matter, and doesn't make it go away.
This is the problem with attempting to hide God in pockets of "unknown" knowledge. When that knowledge comes around and becomes known... you have to adjust your reasoning or become identified as someone who "fights against knowledge/facts."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1866 by GDR, posted 01-26-2023 1:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1885 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 3:12 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1901 of 3694 (905541)
01-30-2023 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1885 by GDR
01-28-2023 3:12 PM


Re: The Unstoppable Movement of Knowledge
GDR writes:
Let's say a wealthy philanthropist finances a new wing of a hospital and then names it after himself. What was his motivation. Was it care for others, or was it to build a monument to himself? Sure you could say it was both but would he have done it it anonymously? We simply don't know.
Why don't we just ask him?
So it isn't just as simple as asking about someone's motivation.
Why not?
Are you afraid he might lie to you?
Then you have an issue with people lying - not an issue with identifying motivation.
And that's why studies on such issues are done over and over again, with various people, in double-blind scenarios... a known method for successfully battling "lying."
Just ask them.
So you can't just go back and see that empathy has increased over time...
Don't need to. We can, today, see various animals with various sized brains... each with different levels of empathy development. And we can go back and see how our own brain structure developed through similar stages as it evolved.
...and then conclude that the progression over time is or isn't divinely initiated, and even possibly subliminally influenced
This conclusion comes from looking for divinely initiated anything and never ever finding it. Not even the possibility of subliminal influences. After looking everywhere for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1885 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 3:12 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1941 by GDR, posted 02-01-2023 7:20 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1902 of 3694 (905542)
01-30-2023 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1883 by GDR
01-28-2023 2:43 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
GDR writes:
The basis of my belief is simply theism. Your basic belief is atheism.
I agree with Tangle and Percy in their corrections on the "belief" of atheism.
However - for this point - it doesn't matter, and I'll just call them ideas/experiences/background.
Your ideas lead you to "look for any truth that aligns with the resurrection being an historical fact."
-because you ignore the great amounts of evidence showing it is most likely erroneous
-therefore, you do not "look for truth" above all else
My ideas lead me to "look for truth" above all else.
-I don't have an idea that I hold "so true" that I'll ignore/resist contrary evidence
Regardless of whatever processes got us to this point, the idea that we are simply the result of endless mindless processes emanating from mindless particles is simplistic and ridiculous.
I have millions of papers produced by our best-known-methods-for-identifying-truth as evidence that show this is not simplistic or ridiculous... it's complex and it's what happened.
You have 1 book, and other books based upon that one book, known to be heavily erroneous, that says we got here in another even-more-ridiculous way.
If you don't see the difference - there's no clearer way to present it.
If there was evidence, beyond the belief that it couldn't possibly happen and then going from there, I would change my beliefs and revert back to basic theism and not call myself Christian.
The evidence is that humans are not capable of being resurrected in that way.
Be able to duplicate "a resurrection" - and you have shown that it's possible.
Without duplicating it - and with all our testing and verification that it's not how human bodies work - this is "evidence that it couldn't possibly happen."
Just like we have evidence that Scientology's alien overlord story "couldn't possibly happen."
My highest priority is the truth but knowing that I could very well be wrong.
Your posts do not match this claim.
You seem to only be open to truth that aligns with the resurrection as an historical fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1883 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 2:43 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1942 by GDR, posted 02-01-2023 7:46 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1917 of 3694 (905588)
01-31-2023 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1904 by GDR
01-30-2023 4:01 PM


Not a conspiracy
GDR writes:
...but ultimately the natural explanation is in the same position as mine...
Millions of peer-reviewed papers, all evidenced using our best-known-method for identifying the truth of reality vs. 1 book that's known to be erroneous, fiercely protected from being corrected, and extremely similar to various other known-to-be-fiction myths and legends from it's time.
Um... those are not the same positions.
We agree that empathy, morality and love are things we experience. Why those things exist is a matter of belief...
Millions of peer-reviewed papers, all evidenced using our best-known-method for identifying the truth of reality vs. 1 book that's known to be erroneous, fiercely protected from being corrected, and extremely similar to various other known-to-be-fiction myths and legends from it's time...
One of those is not a matter of belief.
Just because you don't personally like the natural answer for why those things exist, or what naturally initiated those things... doesn't mean the answer isn't evidenced or doesn't exist. It just means you don't like it.
The evidence is not a "belief conspiracy." It's not just another religion dressed up with different language and idols. It really is a fundamentally different way of thinking and approaching the world around us. It really does come from our best-known-method for identifying the truth of reality.
You can continue to deny it as much as you'd like. It's not going away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1904 by GDR, posted 01-30-2023 4:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1993 by GDR, posted 02-03-2023 8:35 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(4)
Message 1925 of 3694 (905604)
01-31-2023 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1920 by Phat
01-31-2023 9:45 AM


Tick tock
Phat writes:
If a given group of people claim that their belief in and of itself should be taken seriously, it would be a good idea to find out precisely what makes these people tick and why (in ancient times and in some radical sects) they willingly give up their lives to make a point.
This has been done.
For hundreds of years people have studied churches and religions and religious people of all different cultures and areas.
The results are always the same:
-these people are just as smart/dumb/happy/sad/rich/poor/nice/mean as others
-these people put traditions and ceremonies and idols on a pedestal much higher than others
-these people do not value evidence as much as others, although this is usually isolated to only when their beliefs are involved
There is nothing special about what makes them tick other than a leaning to ignore evidence pertaining to certain ideas they hold to be true.
-this is something that ends up being detrimental to them more than beneficial
This has been known for a very, very long time.
And officially studied and verified for the last 10 years at least.
Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies
quote:
The correlation is clear and strong: The more secular tend to fare better than the more religious on a vast host of measures, including homicide and violent crime rates, poverty rates, obesity and diabetes rates, child abuse rates, educational attainment levels, income levels, unemployment rates, rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy, etc. You name it: On nearly every sociological measure of well-being, you’re most likely to find the more secular states with the lowest levels of faith in God and the lowest rates of church attendance faring the best and the most religious states with the highest levels of faith in God and rates of church attendance faring the worst.
And guess what? The correlation holds internationally, as well.
What makes people lead a life that's worse-off then it could be?
-teachings of tradition, ceremonies, and idolization that are just wrong
The idea should not be "You shall have no other gods before me."
But it should be "You shall have no gods."
Idolatry causes issues with reality.
Issues with reality cause lowered rates of "nearly every sociological measure of well-being."
This has been known for a very, very long time.
But tradition's a bitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1920 by Phat, posted 01-31-2023 9:45 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1933 by Phat, posted 02-01-2023 10:13 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 1935 of 3694 (905635)
02-01-2023 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1933 by Phat
02-01-2023 10:13 AM


Re: Tick tock
Phat writes:
The Bible itself tells us to stay away from idols.
Where the Bible is concerned... "idol" means artifacts of worship for other gods that are not the Christian God.
And it's correct to stay away from them... those idols cause the same miss-alignment with reality that causes the same lowered rates of nearly every sociological measure of well-being.
What the Bible doesn't teach you, is that the Bible's own artifacts of worship cause the exact same issue.
The problem is "any miss-alignment with reality."
It doesn't matter how many times you tell yourself "That Baal statue is an idol, but clearly the cross is not!"
It doesn't happen with everyone, but it will definitely happen with most (clearly, as the results are measurable by studies across a society.)
The problem is that people have brains, and brains do what brains do best - they process and work.
Some (a minor group) won't feel anything - they actually are not affected by the miss-alignment with reality. Maybe their brains don't catch it. Maybe they're able to supress it without any ill side-effects. Such a group is characterized by the idea that "ignorance is bliss."
But most aren't able to do this.
They won't be able to put their finger on it, and likely won't be able to identify it or explain it.
All they'll get is a small, strange feeling here and there... possibly every time they see the cross, possibly only when they think about the cross and what it symbolizes for a while, possibly any time they enter a church.
They can choose to ignore this feeling, and confirm that they do fully, 100% belief the cross is not an idol... but that feeling is there and it doesn't go away.
These tiny, ignored feelings that build up more and more in the sub-conscious of the believers.
They eventually manifest themselves...
-many will just be a bit snarky here or there without really knowing why.
-some will flip out and cause emotional or physical damage to those around them.
-some will actively cause harm to those around them just to "silence the voices."
And, of course, this isn't limited to just crosses. This is any and all aspects of the belief that cause any sort of miss-alignment with reality.
This is what causes the lowered rates of nearly every sociological measure of well-being in religious societies when compared to secular societies.
They put pressure on themselves that isn't required to be there... and they do it on purpose.
It doesn't matter if it's small or large... it adds up. And, as a society collectively doing it, it adds up even more.
And it's measurable... as the studies show.
If we follow your train of logic, however, and have no Gods, we will end up with idols by default.
This is not true.
The choice is "worship something and never question it?" or "don't worship anything and question everything?"
If you don't worship anything, and question everything - you don't make money your God, you don't make people your God, you don't make knowledge your God, you don't make anything your God.
If we elevate humans to being our collective highest purpose...
Why elevate humans? Don't make humans your God!
Reality shows us that humans just aren't that special. We're just another animal on the planet. We need to be responsible and consider ourselves equal with the other creatures that exist that we need in order to survive.
Don't get rid of one idol and create another.
Just get rid of all idols.
Why do you think that people "must worship something" just because you happen to worship God right now?
That's like a Pastor saying "well, someone has to lead the marriage, otherwise it won't go anywhere!"
No.
It doesn't have to be that way.
You can have a very happy and successful marriage where both people involved are equal and no one is "the leader."
Such a marriage is likely more successful and happier then a marriage where "someone is the leader."
You can get rid of the idea that "someone has to be on top!" and replace it with "everyone is equal."
You can get rid of the idea that "everyone has to idolize something" and replace it with "don't idolize anything."
Idolization/obsession/blindly-following... are all bad ideas that can all be tossed away.
You can love things without idolizing them. And it's a better love, because it has more meaning.
You can enjoy things without obsessing over them. And it's a better enjoyment, because it has more freedom.
You can follow things without blindly-following them. And it's a better following, because you can also help out.
Just get rid of the negative extreme position and don't replace it with another negative extreme position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1933 by Phat, posted 02-01-2023 10:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1938 by Phat, posted 02-01-2023 3:59 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(4)
Message 1936 of 3694 (905636)
02-01-2023 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1920 by Phat
01-31-2023 9:45 AM


Reflecting
Phat writes:
If a given group of people claim that their belief in and of itself should be taken seriously, it would be a good idea to find out precisely what makes these people tick and why (in ancient times and in some radical sects) they willingly give up their lives to make a point.
I'd like to go back to this statement, now that I've rambled on and on about looking into what makes believers tick for a few posts.
What do you think about reversing the statement?
If a given group of people claim that their atheism in and of itself should be taken seriously, it would be a good idea to find out precisely what makes these people tick and why studies show that secular societies do better than belief-based societies.
Perhaps, instead of being so focused on getting atheists to be interested in religious ideas... you should take a look at what makes atheists tick and why their ideas seem to result in better societies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1920 by Phat, posted 01-31-2023 9:45 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1937 by Phat, posted 02-01-2023 3:53 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1953 of 3694 (905677)
02-02-2023 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1937 by Phat
02-01-2023 3:53 PM


Re: Reflecting
Phat writes:
It causes anxiety, though.
You are the only one who can decide which anxiety is better to deal with.
Because, clearly, there's anxiety caused to you no matter what your ideas are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1937 by Phat, posted 02-01-2023 3:53 PM Phat has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1954 of 3694 (905678)
02-02-2023 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1938 by Phat
02-01-2023 3:59 PM


Re: Tick tock
Phat writes:
Perhaps my only concern would be how such an action would affect *ME*!
The studies show that your life would be better.
But the studies are for "society," not "individual people."
You are the only one who can decide for yourself which is going to be better for you, as an individual.
I only suggest that you be honest with yourself.
If you're going to believe in God, then be honest when that belief influences your ability to "look for the truth" of this reality.
That, as well, will help with your anxiety.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1938 by Phat, posted 02-01-2023 3:59 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024