Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed
Comments
-
-
-
What is the "something"?
The something depends. I gave the example of the jehovah's witnesses who are gambling with their lives that their version of god exists. That's a dangerous assumption to be making in anyone's books. I'd want to be pretty damn sure of something before I risked my life for it. That's a very dramatic example but there are millions of things like it. It could be as simple as the example above, where jakkass has made the mistake of taking the least substantiated piece of evidence over more concrete evidence.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
I gave the example of the jehovah's witnesses who are gambling with their lives that their version of god exists. That's a dangerous assumption to be making in anyone's books.
I agree as are all religions and institutions. Collective mind frames are never good.The something depends.
But on what? Are you anti-religion or anti-any idea that there is something at work out there...:)0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
It's dangerous to make any decision based on an assumption that cannot be shown to be true.
Why is it dangerous?This isn't even specifically about religion.
OK so it's about "dodgy thinkining"? I totally agree by the way.Religion isn't the only area where this dodgy thinking happens.
So what constitutes dodgy thinking? Is it belief?I wouldn't buy a car off someone just because they told me there was nothing wrong with it. I'd ask him to substantiate his claim
Pretty logical and i guess if you bought it of him it would be "in good faith". As in you trust him?I'd ask him to substantiate his claim
He did. He did and you believe him, simple as that
Edit: but as for "something out there", such a being makes no claims to be relied on and has no doctrine to follow so you can't really base decisions on what you think it might want because you have no way of knowing
I guess my point is, that no one will ever know unless they experience it themselves. I mean i know the grand canyon exsists, but i don't really know. I've never been there. Sure i've seen the pictures and read the articles but i've never been. Yet it's there. In a way i trust what i'm told because someone "who knows better" told me so.
Why are the two realities so distant in your opinion on this? 0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 30611
No more dangerous than assuming that God doesn't exist.
Which god do you think would be the most dangerous to not believe in?
That's the thing Sambo. The JWs who refuse transfusions are pretty damn sure of it. We aren't but that doesn't make a difference to them. We don't see the evidence that their idea of God exists but they do see the evidence.
This is true, but is it really evidence if only a select few can see it? Wouldnt real evidence by definition be visible to anyone?
On Topic: The video is shocking, it's bloody awful whats happening in and has happened to Iran, I think religion has a huge part to blame, fair enough theres heck of a lot of bad politics invlolved too, but oppression is that little bit easier when you have a religion to wield. Has anyone read/seen Persepolis? I've only rad the book, highly recommended.0 -
Well just because it was in that book doesn't mean it's not true.You are picking something from the God Delusion.Very unbiased book that:rolleyes:
I don't understand your point for either of thoseMainstream Christians have an allegorical reading of the bible and so do those of Jewish origan.
You could equally say being a Vegetarian in an Eskimo Village in Alaska is dangerous.
Sorry you can say what about democracy? That its beliefs are based on unfounded evidence? How's that?You can say the same with politics Democracy is a recent phenomonum.
This is true. I'm taking it from a different perspective, that you can't be sure the being does existThis seems off-topic. I was trying to point out that it is useless to make an argument based on the idea that the supernatural doesn't exist, when you are trying to talk to people who think that it does, like Hare Krishnas or Christians.
and that assuming he does can be dangerous
Ah but it is. If I look at a religion from a secular point of view I can take the good lessons from them all based on their validity, where a believer accepts his own version as truth and consciously or subconsciously excludes alternative ideas and evidence. And that's fine if your god definitely does exist because you know the other ideas and evidence are wrong but your god doesn't definitely exist. Where I accept something if it has merit, you accept it because it comes from a god that may or may not actually be there. Until god's existence is proven, the whole of religion is basically the argument from authority logical fallacyNo more dangerous than assuming that God doesn't exist.
Unless you mean I'm risking my immortal soul?That's the thing Sambo. The JWs who refuse transfusions are pretty damn sure of it. We aren't but that doesn't make a difference to them. We don't see the evidence that their idea of God exists but they do see the evidence.
But this is my whole point. They are absolutely sure to the point where they're willing to die for their beliefs and, for example, if evidence is presented that appears to contradict their beliefs their first instinct will be to reject it. They hold onto their 'evidence' no matter how shaky it might be. As mickeroo says, real evidence would be visible to everyone. If they actually had enough evidence to be objectively sure then the god question would be answered and we would all be Jehovah's witnesses
They are 100% sure about something which it is currently impossible to be 100% sure about and that's where the danger comes in. What if they're wrong? At most one version of one religion in the world is right so the chances aren't good.
Dodgy belief is treating something as if it is proven when it is far from provenSo what constitutes dodgy thinking? Is it belief?I guess my point is, that no one will ever know unless they experience it themselves. I mean i know the grand canyon exsists, but i don't really know. I've never been there. Sure i've seen the pictures and read the articles but i've never been. Yet it's there. In a way i trust what i'm told because someone "who knows better" told me so.
Why are the two realities so distant in your opinion on this?
Sorry I'm a bit lost here. I think you're asking what's wrong with accepting something because someone who knows better told you it was true. That's called the argument from authority logical fallacy. Something should be accepted only if it can be shown to be true. You take no one's word for it. That was actually on a list of 'secular commandments' I saw somewhere
In reality, sometimes it's just not that important. Whether the grand canyon exists doesn't make any difference to my life but when I'm going to base an important decision on something it needs to be verified with a high degree of certainty0 -
-
-
-
In reality, sometimes it's just not that important.
I agree. But you assume the grand canyon exsists, like i do, but i couldn't be bothered going there, so for the moment i believe it exsists.needs to be verified with a high degree of certainty
With 90% certainty or 100% certainty. Complete certainty and a high degree of certainty are oceans apart. One is definite proof, and the other is not. 0 -
-
I agree. But you assume the grand canyon exsists, like i do, but i couldn't be bothered going there, so for the moment i believe it exsists.
With 90% certainty or 100% certainty. Complete certainty and a high degree of certainty are oceans apart. One is definite proof, and the other is not.
The level of certainty depends on the level of risk you're taking. If you're going to ask God for something without any expectation of getting it, it doesn't really matter whether he exists or not but if you're going to dedicate your life to the priesthood or allow yourself to die instead of getting a blood transfusion the standard of evidence rises significantly.
Maybe the grand canyon is a bad example because except in some philosophical way we know it exists, it doesn't require faith and so is not comparable to religious belief. It has already been proven. A more practical example would be a friend asking you to invest in a business. If he asks you to put in €100 you'd probably just trust him and hand it over but if he asked for €100,000 you'd verify his claims if you had any sense, no matter how much you trusted him no?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
you learned things from teachers and accepted them but the difference between that and religious beliefs is that if you so chose you could go and verify everything that your teachers told you because what they were saying was based on evidence.
My point is that what they told me is based on what they were told by someone else. And so on.
What they told me is based on evidence that someone else provided.
I see your point but there's a hole in in. Just as there is a hole in mine.With religious belief no such evidence exists.
What's the difference between what the teacher thought me at school and what a book in a church says. Both are based on the premise that what someone else says is the truth.
Unless you know for yourself then you never truly know.
Do you get what i mean? I mean everything is based on faith to some extent untill you experience it for yourself. Take being "in love". I believed it exsisted, but i never knew untill i felt it myself.Proof is when it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true.
How can something be definetly true if there is some residual doubt?but there is no way for me to verify the claims of any religion.
How do you know? Maybe it's as simple as booking a flight to the grand canyon. I mean you are going there because you think it exsists.
Faith.As I said, religion is not the only place where this dodgy reasoning exists, it's just the most prominent example of it.
Really, religion is the most prominent example of it?
Nazism, communism, western ideologies.
Actually if you look closely it is not only hardcore religions that are the proble. It is the collective mind-set in it's need for ideal and righteousness.
We are all responsible for the generation of this negative mind energy. You included with your steadfast stance in what you believe to be true.
If that's taken away from you, then what have you?
btw i mean that in the nicest way possible 0 -
-
The difference is that, while the teachers are telling you something based on evidence that someone else provided, the priests are telling you something based on no evidence whatsoever. Until I go and verify it for myself the concepts are similar but I know that I can go and verify what the teacher told me and I have quite often done so. I have asked for verification of religious claims countless times and all I get is "the smile of a baby" and similar cop outsMy point is that what they told me is based on what they were told by someone else. And so on.
What they told me is based on evidence that someone else provided.
I see your point but there's a hole in in. Just as there is a hole in mine.
You're talking about a very philosophical, fluffy concept there. In reality the only thing I can know for sure actually exists is my own consciousness but in the real world I can verify things with enough certainty to say they have been proven, or maybe just that they have been shown to be true with enough confidence that I can rely on them. Philosophically it's impossible to prove that human beings are capable of rational thought because we must first assume that before we can prove anything but you can't run a world based on such ideas. There is a massive difference between accepting something without looking at the evidence and accepting something when no evidence exists.Do you get what i mean? I mean everything is based on faith to some extent untill you experience it for yourself. Take being "in love". I believed it exsisted, but i never knew untill i felt it myself.
Yeah there are other examples of it as I keep saying. Although I'm not specifically talking about ideologies that went wrong, I'm talking about the dangers of assuming something to be true when we cannot know if it is or notReally, religion is the most prominent example of it?
Nazism, communism, western ideologies.
Actually if you look closely it is not only hardcore religions that are the proble. It is the collective mind-set in it's need for ideal and righteousness.We are all responsible for the generation of this negative mind energy. You included with your steadfast stance in what you believe to be true.
If that's taken away from you, then what have you?
btw i mean that in the nicest way possible
If my steadfast stance is shown to be wrong, I will have the truth0 -
-
The difference is that, while the teachers are telling you something based on evidence that someone else provided, the priests are telling you something based on no evidence whatsoever. Until I go and verify it for myself the concepts are similar but I know that I can go and verify what the teacher told me and I have quite often done so. I have asked for verification of religious claims countless times and all I get is "the smile of a baby" and similar cop outs
I am not defending religion here, rather the indiviuals abilitiy to know what is true for them. I am not religious, rather spiritual if we must attach labels.I can verify things with enough certainty to say they have been proven, or maybe just that they have been shown to be true with enough confidence that I can rely on them.
You trust the degree of proof. Nothing is ever certain unless it is proven so.
Again that is faith and self-belief.There is a massive difference between accepting something without looking at the evidence and accepting something when no evidence exists.
There is also a massive difference between being certain and almost certainI'm talking about the dangers of assuming something to be true when we cannot know if it is or not
Following your logic, you can know something is true when we have proof beyond reasonable doubt? But i asked you , how can something be entirely true if there is a degree of doubt?
If evidence is so important, then why isn't full evidence so important?
If the presence of proof is so important, then why isn't absence of entire proof so important.If my steadfast stance is shown to be wrong, I will have the truth
But you are not right or wrong. That is the point 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Something's either true or it's not.I am not defending religion here, rather the indiviuals abilitiy to know what is true for them. I am not religious, rather spiritual if we must attach labels.
But you are not right or wrong. That is the point
Because, as you point out, it is not possible to be 100% certain of anything other than the existence of our own consciousness. All we can have are degrees of confidence. That's why science constantly updates itself to accommodate new evidence. For example if someone wants to tell me that there was a guy called Jesus who lived 2000 years ago and had some followers and presented me a book as evidence I'd probably accept it unless I had some compelling evidence to the contrary but if they want to tell me that he performed miracles and raised from the dead and that I should accept him as my saviour they're going to need a lot more than an old book. A good start would be proving that such things are even possible.There is also a massive difference between being certain and almost certain
Following your logic, you can know something is true when we have proof beyond reasonable doubt? But i asked you , how can something be entirely true if there is a degree of doubt?
If evidence is so important, then why isn't full evidence so important?
If the presence of proof is so important, then why isn't absence of entire proof so important.0
Advertisement