seebs

I tend to agree.

I don't think religion would die; after all, many of us are fairly skeptical, but still feel that we're getting "good enough" results from prayer. The results I'm seeking are generally untestable, but why should I care? I formed an opinion a long time ago.

I am actually in favor of reducing spurious reasons for faith; I don't think truth should stand on lies. If God exists, I don't think people should need *excuses* to believe; I think reality should speak for itself.

seebs

Hmm. I'm not convinced of this yet, but I'll let it pass for now.

Ah-hah. Now I'm going to stop letting it pass. You have made a gigantic, glaring, error: You're assuming that religion purports to answer all questions. It doesn't always. My religion does not tell me the boiling point of water, nor does it claim to have any answers about how to learn such things.

Really? Okay, can you give me an answer to "what is really important in life"? Oh, wait - that's not the *kind* of question science answers.

I'm fine with using science for things it's good at; it's my preferred tool for understanding the physical world.

That may be. It certainly helps me.

I don't know that I've ever met anyone who *doesn't* have some form of guidance in such things. Everyone has a model.

And yet, it's pretty clear to me that you have no idea what it *is*; you're just painting with a very broad brush, and you don't seem to have any real idea what many Christians believe.

You also seem really caught up in this whole "supernatural" thing. What the fuck, dude? My belief that it is good to be compassionate to others may be rooted in a supernatural explanation, but would you care to suggest a "better" ethos? Got any ideas how to show it to be "better"?

I think you're tying a bunch of things together because you've seen them all in the same person at one time or another, and you don't seem very clear on which parts of this are Christianity, and which parts are socialization, upbringing, and other such.

seebs

Why?

Seriously; I agree with you, but I *have* a reason, however silly it may seem. However, I see no reason that isn't equally arbitrary.

What makes "works best for the most", or even "works well for anyone" into "Good"? You're just asserting your own set of moral values here; all you can measure scientifically is the *quality of your results* - but quality of results is defined only in terms of goals. If you want to go North, then a southbound highway looks pretty bad, but that doesn't mean it's a bad road - just that it doesn't match *your* goals.

How, pray tell, do you *calibrate* this moral compass?

If the answer is "healthy humans are born with an empathic sense", fine - that's an answer. But it's just as arbitrary as any other answer.

All you've done is measure quality of results; you haven't shown me why we should pick a given system of values.

I believe that they make each other, and that in doing so, they poison the well for everyone else.

I agree that vocal non-believers can be a good thing - but so can vocal believers. The problem is the *attempt to harm the other side*. That's bad no matter who does it.

Agreed.

Thanks. I appreciate the vote of confidence.

I generally feel the same way; I'm fine with people who don't believe because they're scared of what would happen if God were real. <-- joke!

Seconded on this part; I'm just more concerned than you are that he's already into monster territory.

Keep in mind, just as, despite my best efforts, I will tend not to notice threats to your freedoms, you are probably a little insensitive by default to threats to mine. It's tough to be fair.

Starboy

seebs, you persist in throwing up straw man arguments. I do not proport that religion answers all questions. I only proport that supernatural religion accepts supernatural over natural expanations. That it is very clear in this day and age that such a method of explaning our surroundings in a word sucks.

I never claimed that science answers that kind of question. That is a question that humanity must answer. Once we have decided on what that is, and it may be a variety of important things, then we can certainly use science to figure out effective ways of acheiving those goals.

Good for you, but I never claimed it wasn't effecive. I only claimed that it was no better than placebo. What that means is that is contains no effective ingredients (i.e. there is no super nature at work).

Again, not my point. The guidance provided by supernatural religion is not good enough. If it were, we would not be sending our soldiers into harms way all around the world.

seebs, methinks thou doest protest too much. Have I struck a nerve? I wish I could present a better ethos. I am sure it would take a great deal from all the supernatual religions of the world. What I would hope is that it would not divide the world into religions. Into camps that have nothing better to do than war with one another. This is probably the most damning evidence of the absence of the supernatural that there is. I suspect that if the supernatural did exist, such a state of affairs that I desire would have occured long ago.

Starboy

seebs

Straw man? You wanna hear a straw man? "supernatural religion accepts supernatural over natural explanations". That's a straw man. I do not believe that objects fall because of Gravity Demons. I don't believe that Light Fairies power lamps.

I accept supernatural explanations only when natural ones *fail*.

Right. And religion is one of the many ways in which people answer that question. Humanity *is* answering that question, right now, and you're dismissing it because of straw men.

So you apparently believe. However, I reject your claims about the supernatural for about the same reasons you reject mine; they don't describe the world I think I live in.

Is there an Olympic competition in leaping to conclusions?

Oh, look. It's the Problem Of Evil. Never seen *that* before.

Christianity has a good answer to this one; we are allowed to fuck up if we want. Humans are, by default, fairly sectarian little buggers. We like to form sides. We like to throw excrement at the other side.

This is not *caused by* religion; it is, rather, a *filter* we apply to our religious experience. You're falling into the exact same thing; it's not a problem with anything *you* could do anything about, it's Those Bad People Over There Who Think Wrong.

Me? I know I can do something, and I'm out there doing it. Wanna help?

Frank Zappa once said "I got a message for all of you folks out there, you're pretty, maybe you're beautiful... There's a lot more of us ugly motherfuckers than you are, hey, so watch out."

There are a lot more moderates than extremists. If we draw the line that way, maybe we can get some peace.

If we draw the line on any other axis, all we're doing is perpetuating the same problem, over and over.

Puck

[QUOTE]Originally posted by seebs

What makes "works best for the most", or even "works well for anyone" into "Good"? You're just asserting your own set of moral values here; all you can measure scientifically is the *quality of your results* - but quality of results is defined only in terms of goals.

What method brings about the healthiest results for everyone? Morality, as you know, is not the domain of christians only. Without going into a debate of morality, I think we both have a good handle on what it is. And I think we can both agree that you don't have to be christian or atheist to excell at it.

All you've done is measure quality of results; you haven't shown me why we should pick a given system of values.

There is no given system as far as any tenents go. Quality of results, however, do prove what works best.

I generally feel the same way; I'm fine with people who don't believe because they're scared of what would happen if God were real. <-- joke!

Whew, I sure am glad you added the 'joke' part in there! Actually, if your god was real, I still wouldn't be scared.

Seconded on this part; I'm just more concerned than you are that he's already into monster territory.

Naw, just young enough to have fire in her/his belly!

Keep in mind, just as, despite my best efforts, I will tend not to notice threats to your freedoms, you are probably a little insensitive by default to threats to mine. It's tough to be fair.

Yes, it is tough at times. If I saw though that your beliefs (if they are not harmful to me or mine) were under threat, I'd be there in a heart beat. Your beliefs are important to your happiness and sense of well being, no? As long as I have breath, I will stand at your side to defend your right/freedom to hold them and cherish them. Because my personal thoughts on your beliefs are not so important as your right, and mine, to hold the beliefs that make our lives full. And as I understand that your beliefs are essential to your well being, try to understand that mine are as essential to mine.

seebs

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Puck

Quote:

What method brings about the healthiest results for everyone? Morality, as you know, is not the domain of christians only. Without going into a debate of morality, I think we both have a good handle on what it is. And I think we can both agree that you don't have to be christian or atheist to excell at it.

Sure. But I still see no logical reason for a given valuation, such as "healthiest results". And yes, I think it's clear that nearly anyone who sincerely tries can produce results that most other people will agree are moral.

Sure, but Hitler got *great* results; his program to protect us from Jews was pretty effective, although he probably ought to have played his cards a bit differently. What's the rule we use to say that his idea of "good outcomes" is wrong? That rule will always come down to "this is how I feel".

I don't think it's always the specific beliefs, so much as the freedom to approach them on your own terms. I've seen people improve dramatically when changing belief systems - but only when they were *ready* to change. So... I want everyone to be free to believe whatever they want, and I'm only worried about *actions* which harm others. This, it seems to me, is a win for everybody. I think God would be a lot happier with fewer people in church, and more believers who had thought about the issue. I may be wrong, but that's a risk we all take when we form opinions.

Starboy

seeb, as I have said before I will fight to the death to defend our right to believe as we wish as long as it harms no one. On this I hope we can agree. As to the rest, it is clear we do not see eye to eye and you appear to be stretched beyond your limits and are getting agitated. Can we agree to disagree?

Starboy

seebs

Sure. I will also disagree about whose limits we're stretching.

seebs

A bit of clarification here; I think both of us are clearly having a bit of trouble here. I can't tell how much of that is difficulty understanding, and how much is disagreement.