Imperfectionist said
You do not need to see "Religion", the monolith, as an inherently negative force, as you seem to. You, as a rational person can look at the words of Muhammad, who said to give to the poor, and Buddha, who preached kindness to all, and Jesus, who said to treat your enemy as your friend, and say "Though I do not believe in your divinity, I highly admire these just sentiments." That doesn't make you a bad atheist, and it definitely doesn't make you a bad person.
I'm not arguing that it is an inherently negative force, it is a tool that can be used for good or evil.
It's the idea the idea that you need Religion for things such as learning, spirituality or morals I am arguing. There are other ways of obtaining it, to claim you do need Religion for them would be to suggest that atheism is an inherently negative force because it cuts people off from learning, spirituality or morals.
Imperfectionist said
You can, through rational thought, discern the just from the unjust, and attempt to explain your conclusions to others, without making them defensive or insulting their beliefs.
Which I have. The issue though is that Religion is often seen as a personal/sensitive topic, one that people are strongly encourage to avoid talking or debating about. It's a thing people choose to keep very close to them and allow themselves to get easily offended when questioned. So it is pretty difficult if not impossible to expect me to be able to explain my conclusion without seeming insulting to people's beliefs, if what I am arguing does not agree with said beliefs.
Imperfectionist said
Just because a moral code has its base in a tradition of faith, that does not mean it is inherently bad. That's what I think you aren't getting. :(
It's not.
I think it's a poor way to decide on something, and if you expect to hold up to logic and reason needs to be re-evaluated by another means. But simply being born out of faith does not make the proposed idea inherently bad or evil. But that wasn't even what I was getting at earlier.
What I was getting as is all of the good morals we do have did originally start from things other than Religion. Religion may of done a good thing in repeating them, but it did not start/create them. That is not an attack, that is not claiming anything spawned from Religion is inherently bad. It is simply stating and giving enough credit to the human species that we are able to develop our own basic morals without a Religion making them for us. Brovo basically stated this too, so I'm surprised he's now turning around and calling this an Inquisitor style attack on Religion.
Imperfectionist said
EDIT: Just to say this, the grandfather that I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, the one with the Doctorate of Theology who assists people in their lives through secular means... He does nothing question. There are thousands of religious scholars throughout history and today who do nothing but question, and have stronger faith because of it.
I was aware of this, any Christian I have ever talked to who wasn't So Boerd admits that everyone must ask questions constantly and that it's part of growing. But by extension, if God is to exist everything is God's work and plan. So to question any of it is questioning God's work. It's doesn't have to mean disbelief in a god, it doesn't have to mean being unfaithful, but it is still questioning the work of God which is what I was trying to get at. In the same sense you question your parents when you ask them something like "Why do you put the cookies so high up?". You are not disrespecting or being un-loyal to your parents, but you are questioning them.
The issue though is in Religious communities there are certain questions that is frowned upon much of the time, you may get a lot of religious scholars willing to ask those questions anyways such as "Is there no God?", "Is being Gay really wrong?". But you will get many people who for asking such questions may be banished from their church, kicked out by their overly religious parents etc. And as much questioning as may be allowed depending on the branch or individual, if certain questions get asked, or certain conclusions are made they do not adapt but divide. And the damage that can be caused from society constantly dividing itself up over certain disagreements, some who question, others who treat it as hard-coded can be ginormous.
Imperfectionist said
EDIT 3: Last one, a question: what is your goal, Gwazi? What do you truly want to change by arguing this?
This is what often throws people off when they debate with me, since most people go into a debate hoping to persuade everyone of their point and then leave.
I'm not like that, I go into a debate to learn the different sides/viewpoints of a topic and learn from it. That being said, I am not so gullible or easily swayed to simply accept and believe anything someone tells me when they disagree. I look at their argument, I evaluate it, I look for it's pro's and con's, I weigh it out and then decide if the argument stands and holds up to it's criticism. If it does, I'll reflect on it some more and then adapt it into further stances and opinions.
If I hadn't done this I'd still be a Christian Feminist, Homophobic, Pro-Life, Anti-Weed & Vaccine hater. When instead I'm a Atheist Humanist, Straight Ally, Pro-Choice, Pro-Legalization (But still don't smoke for preference of remaining sober), Vaccine supporter.
So in other words, I'm not truly trying to change anything specifically. I'm trying to get minds working, idea's following and conclusions being made that hopefully benefit all parties involved. But I still do so under the arguments of my certain standpoint or viewpoint, there's not much learning going on if I'm simply being told stuff and it's not being compared to my own viewpoints. There's barely any growth if what I'm being told never has the chance to face off against it, nor is there any growth if I keep my current standpoint absent and unquestioned/challenged.
It just so happens, Religion has been the only topic I've found where the vast majority of argument's I've seen/faced have not gone beyond "Do not question God", "Read the Bible", "Just have faith" or "You're Immoral". The first simply being not questioning something, which is not the way to learn. The second failing to prove why the Bible itself is something to be treated as a valid source, the third meaning faith as in without proof or evidence. And I'm not going to accept an argument or claim without proof or evidence to support it, and the latter simply being an insult at the individual and contributing nothing to the debate at hand.
Brovo said
Gwazi's goal is the same as that of any inquisitor: To prove his own belief by somehow disproving someone else's belief. It's one thing to occasionally banter about philosophy. It's another to try so hard to validate your own beliefs that you open with one of the most frustrating and classic double logical fallacies of all time: A loaded question that also presume's the opponent's answer.I said it once Gwazi. Gonna say it again. Stop being intellectually dishonest. It doesn't help your case. At all.
Brovo, you of all people should know better than to confuse questioning/debating Religion as an attempt to prove one's own belief.
And I don't even see what the double edged question here was.
Here I mentioned Atheism 2, which as described at the man presenting as atheism but using of the perks/benefits of Religion, and then asked for people's thoughts.
I then did proceed with my own opinion, but it was not part of the question being asked.
Imperfectionist said
I don't think he's being dishonest at all, and that's what I want to get at. I believe there is some entirely legitimate reason for him to fervently argue like this, and I don't know what it is. I feel like, if I don't understand him as a person, I cannot understand the context of his arguments... Thus, the question.I would greatly appreciate a thesis statement, if you will, that puts things into your perspective, Gwazi. And then, I will see what I think, and respond in kind.
I've already explained why I argue points and get into debates.
But to tackle why I argue this specific topic in the way I do, well like I also said above I still enter it under a certain point/viewpoint. And in the case of Religion my finding's have led to in a nutshell be largely similar to how Richard Dawkins see's it. It is something that primarily thrives on obedience to parent's and teaching people to not question the existence of God. It is also something that countless people can testify to being the kind of thing that destroy's families and relationships when religion and belief's begin to differ. This is a complex topic however, and it is impossible for me to describe it in something as short as a thesis without it being misunderstood.
But to keep it as short as possible from here on, although Religion is something that can inspire good and help people in their lives with a sense of purpose, meaning and spirituality. It also comes with a number of flaws. First that it start's with a claim "God exists, this is what he says", treat's it as fact and then sets out to prove it. Rather than going "This is the evidence, what can we make out of this?". Secondly when evidence is brought up it is constantly dismissed with claims such as "It's Gods Plan" or "It's a test" (Also, children are constantly told they suffer forever for not believing or worshiping, I think we can all agree that this isn't moral). Thirdly Religion is largely built in a way that the benefit's is provided requires the Religion, so if the former two points make you question enough either stop believing or be cast out of your church it can cause you to lose it all. Fourth, it does this when as I detailed in length in the OP Religion is not by any sense the only means of getting such things, where instead of trying to make source of say happiness or spirituality in the individual it becomes dependent on their beliefs. And on top it will constantly make the claim that Religion is the only way, which is an outright lie. 5. It is not all good and happy teachings, it also support's stuff like homophobia, banning certain foods, stoning of certain people, putting women 'in their place' etc. I once had a grandparent try to disown a grandchild because she was not conceived in marriage, basically punishing her for something that was by no means her fault.
I could try to go a bit more, but you wanted a Thesis, and that's about as close as I can try to put it without it being twisted by somebody, that with the clarification/reminder of that I agree there is some good from Religion. But it is not all good, there is a lot of bad, bad which in my mind cannot be ignored. Especially when the good can be gained from other sources, without the bad slipping in, which in a sense is what the guy stating Atheism 2 was trying to say. But he made the mistake of acting like getting these things was borrowing from Religion, and not say simply from another source as if only Religion truly could provide it, but Atheism 2 cheated a bit in taking some of it.
So Boerd said
You keep claiming this (That the law of Moses is still in effect) despite being proven wrong over and over and over again. Read Acts chapter 15 and stop parroting this nonsemse.
And whenever I did claim this with you I also showed you where I was referring to, and showed why what you reference doesn't work. This is a finished argument that your source didn't hold up in. You're free to keep disagreeing however, that's your choice.
Double logical fallacy right there. Using an extreme example then presuming your opponent's answer, answering in advance, and proclaiming victory before any discussion could even occur.
Thank you for that post, Gwazi, it is well thought-out and does exactly what I hoped it would, by giving me a bit of insight into your past and your perceptions. Based on that, what I think we have is the oldest form of logical dissonace: separate assumptions, based on alternate and entirely legitimate experience.
