Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Page · 03-01-2002, 06:10 PM

Brighid:

Advocacy and interrogation are also arts.

Given the uncertain and complex nature of human mentality, society and thus human behavior in general, what do you suggest is the best way to debate causation and correlation of the success of religious systems?

Ms. Siv · 03-04-2002, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page:


Sivikami:

Splitting hairs, but from the facts available to me I agree I cannot prove correlation/causation. However, by the same token, you have no basis on which to say that I wouldn't. There seems to be a concensus we don't have enough facts for a rigorous logical proof - this didn't stop the spread of religion though.

Uh-huh. You're the one claiming patterns. The onus of proof is on you.

- Sivakami.

Ms. Siv · 03-04-2002, 12:34 AM

Thank you, PB and brighid.
Well said.

BTW, I think one can establish some correlation between scientific civilizations and progress ?

- Sivakami.

John Page · 03-04-2002, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sivakami S:


Uh-huh. You're the one claiming patterns. The onus of proof is on you.

- Sivakami.

Siv:

I don't understand what the problem is. I did a word search and couldn't find that I used the word "pattern" anywhere in this thread.

Please point to a specific instance that you're unhappy with. The topic starts with the assertion that "religion kicks buttocks." Here's part of our subsequent dialog:

I said: "Can we create a new creed to kick religion's butt? Communism was mostly about the organization of society and did not stand the test of time. Ideologies must also compete for the hearts and minds of the people."

You responded : "Actually theistic religion is just one form of religion. Communism and Nazism were other forms. "

I replied "So is logic."

You replied : "How so? What is sacrosanct and unquestionable in logic?"

I replied : "Maybe there is a miscommunications here, nothing is sacrosanct and everything is questionable."

You replied "Not so with religion. Therefore logic is not a religion."

I make mistakes and participate in these threads because I want to both contribute and learn but right now I'm

Regards

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

Ms. Siv · 03-04-2002, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page:
[QB]

Siv:

I don't understand what the problem is. I did a word search and couldn't find that I used the word "pattern" anywhere in this thread.

I'm wondering if you're as er.... as you sound or just pretending

The patterns was not a literal statement... you claimed that religion had something to do with advancement/success of societies ... that was the pattern you claimed !

- Sivakami.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]

Technos · 03-05-2002, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by VersusVS:


I agree that religion is certainly not the only way to cope with the world. I pointed out that science helps us to better cope with this world by changing the whole world (for better or for worse) to "fit the person". However my whole point was that most of our "moral ideals" comes from the fear of "What goes around comes around", a concept very widely enforced by most religions, and without this concept, it's my opinion that the world would be chaotic. This is, I admit, the point in which my inductive argument becomes weaker, since it isn't proven. Good point.

Two things. One is that many Atheist are Humanist, two what goes around often does come around if you piss too many people off.

Technos · 03-05-2002, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JL:
RyanS2 wrote:

I agree. An objective observation of the subjective. It seems almost essentitial to me that we as atheists work to institute some sort of secular moral instruction in our schools, with an emphasis on the psychological aspects of human interaction. Something theists could not help but endorse, stopping short of course of giving a deity credit. I think Christianity really gets its claws into people through its use of 'moral instruction' (a euphemism

). Maybe if we secularize the the different roles that religion fills we could perhaps erode the power of the church even as they approve of what we're doing.

Note: I am not hostile towards religion and spirituality in general, on the contrary I'm an advocate. I just have qualms about the way Christianity has gone about it.

I agree with you for the most part. You make some very good points.

John Page · 03-05-2002, 07:37 AM

Siv:

Quote:

I'm wondering if you're as er.... as you sound or just pretending

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]

I don't understand, I am really interested in this topic and I wasn't why would I spend time to participate?

Quote:

The patterns was not a literal statement... you claimed that religion had something to do with advancement/success of societies ... that was the pattern you claimed !

And I stated later in the thread, I didn't have a method for proving it. My claim was IMO.

Still IMO, as intelligent beings, humankind acts in accordance with its belief systems. For example, if I believe I can receive some special reward after life I am more likely to adhere to the system that promises it. By controlling peoples beliefs you control group behavior to produce group benefits, economic, defense-wise etc. Humans seem to look for all encompassing explanations and (IMO)will tend to believe in systems that are most coherent and consistent (to them). Thus, I reason that religions play a very deep and embedded role in individual and group human behavior - I happen to think that experiments with communism, which overlooked this "human" factor, support my analysis. I'm very interested both a) other peoples opinions and b) what evidence there is to support alternative views of cause and effect.

Cheers.

Ms. Siv · 03-05-2002, 09:02 PM

Quote:

quote:
----------------------------------------
I'm wondering if you're as er.... as you sound or just pretending
----------------------------------------

I don't understand, I am really interested in this topic and I wasn't why would I spend time to participate?

You didn't understand. I was saying that your statment asking where you had cited the word "patterns" in your posts .. was extremely naive, to put it mildly !

Quote:

quote:
----------------------------------------
The patterns was not a literal statement... you claimed that religion had something to do with advancement/success of societies ... that was the pattern you claimed !
----------------------------------------

And I stated later in the thread, I didn't have a method for proving it. My claim was IMO.

It was wrong of you to claim that I dont have proof of no pattern ... was a logical fallacy. As the person predicting a pattern, the onus of proof is on you. And this is what I've been explaining for the past few posts and IMO, you've been evading it

There is not even a correlation for you to predict a pattern .. let alone your assuming a causation. On what basis have you predicted the pattern ?

- Sivakami.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]

John Page · 03-06-2002, 09:03 AM

Siv:

I'm still confused. Your statements appear ambiguous to me - that's why I was try to find out what instance in the thread you were referring to by "pattern". You accuse me of being naive

- I'm getting the impression you're being disingenuously vague (maybe its not accurate but its certainly my impression).

You said "It was wrong of you to claim that I dont have proof of no pattern .." Where did I do this? Please give a specific reference - if I'm wrong I'm wrong, OK?

You said "There is not even a correlation for you to predict a pattern .. let alone your assuming a causation. On what basis have you predicted the pattern ?" Siv, you still haven't told me what 'pattern' we're talking about! Unless you do, this conversation isn't going to resolve itself. I put forward a hypothesis and tried to defend and clarify why I think belief systems are a key determinant of individual and group behavior - what's the big deal?

Regards

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

03-06-2002, 09:03 AM	#50
John Page Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: US Posts: 5,495	Siv: I'm still confused. Your statements appear ambiguous to me - that's why I was try to find out what instance in the thread you were referring to by "pattern". You accuse me of being naive - I'm getting the impression you're being disingenuously vague (maybe its not accurate but its certainly my impression). You said "It was wrong of you to claim that I dont have proof of no pattern .." Where did I do this? Please give a specific reference - if I'm wrong I'm wrong, OK? You said "There is not even a correlation for you to predict a pattern .. let alone your assuming a causation. On what basis have you predicted the pattern ?" Siv, you still haven't told me what 'pattern' we're talking about! Unless you do, this conversation isn't going to resolve itself. I put forward a hypothesis and tried to defend and clarify why I think belief systems are a key determinant of individual and group behavior - what's the big deal? Regards [ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2002, 06:10 PM	#41
John Page Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: US Posts: 5,495	Brighid: Advocacy and interrogation are also arts. Given the uncertain and complex nature of human mentality, society and thus human behavior in general, what do you suggest is the best way to debate causation and correlation of the success of religious systems?

03-04-2002, 12:34 AM	#43
Ms. Siv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: India Posts: 2,340	Thank you, PB and brighid. Well said. BTW, I think one can establish some correlation between scientific civilizations and progress ? - Sivakami.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.