by LittleToe 260 Replies latest jw friends
I have checked out many religions and have decided that ALL of them, especially the Abrahamic religions, are crap. I think that the world would be a better place if we just got rid of them. Especially the fudies. Most all religions are intolerant towards the others.
Jehovah's Witnesses think they are special and the world would be better without everyone else...All religions are crap and the world would be better without them.
Funky Derek,
For example, a belief without evidence in a giant invisible man who created the universe and spoke to Bronze Age goatherds and is very concerned about what we do with our genitals cannot be falsified but can be ridiculed because it is ridiculous.
Phrased as ridicule, almost anything can be ridiculous. Try the same trick with the act of sex producing a child 9 months later—pretending for the moment to be ignorant of development.
I acknowledge that scientific minds pre-Newtonian Physics would find our current conception of the universe absurd, however true it may actually be. Many such learned men did ridicule the thoughts of people who expressed beliefs that correseponded with currently acknowledged realities. Even as lately as Nikola Tesla and Professor Brown the scientific community has ridiculed forward thinkers into ignominy only to find themselves wishing later they had learned better from such men.
A belief without evidence is stupid and ignorant. A belief without demonstrable evidence is very common. Belief in the existence of an intelligent being that does not show itself to humans because its very nature would be destructive in a form observable by humans is not as ridiculous. Neither is it ridiculous to suggest that humans have been contacted by intelligent beings that (1) do not live on earth, (2) have comparatively advanced technology, (3) quite possibly had a hand in the early development of human civilization and religion, and (4) may very well have interacted with many humans.
To suggest that these beings care what we do with our genitals is ridiculous, I'll grant you that. However, the way you framed the belief is not the way the belief is held by myself, or any other religious person that I would consider intelligent. Therefore, it is a strawman that you invented to shower with scorn. I suspect that you heap quite a few undeserving souls into the file marked "believers in a giant invisible man who created the universe and spoke to Bronze Age goatherds and is very concerned about what we do with our genitals".
Of course, that isn't even a full-fledged belief of mine. Just a strong suspicion.
Terry,
I am very curious how lowly a peon you label with "dangerous Quack" and punish accordingly. I hope you will answer LittleToe's question. I want to know your answer, too.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
I cant help but think of the analogy of pendulum swings when I think about how vitriolic some are towards religion (of any description), the bible (and other scripture), and Christianity (generally, regardless of there being a WIDE range of denominational flavours) in particular.It seems to me, from my perspective of sitting here on a remote Scottish island, that there are a fair number of folks who may have left an intolerant and generalising religion but forgot to leave those attitudes with it.
Just my 2p, coz to be frank I'm getting sick of it.
By all means enjoy some self-expression, it's a relatively free planet, but have a heart...
You can take generalizing to an extreme, I'm sure. Generalizing can be used by anyone, whether atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, whatever. If someone has used this tactic, point out the flaws in their logic. How hard is that? I hope something didn't start out that way and lead to mob mentality here, that wouldn't be cool.
What specifically happened? ((I guess I should read the thread before I ask stupid questions, huh.))
Leaving the JW religion doesn't automatically make us complete individuals with rational minds and good people skills. That comes with time. I hope.
So when someone expresses a belief I know to be false, I will usually correct it. If they express a questionable belief, I will question it. If they express a ridiculous belief, I may even ridicule it. None of this is intolerance. If they choose to hold an untenable belief, I will still tolerate them. I will not necessarily respect them, or keep silent about their error - but why should I? And why should there be any difference between correcting someone about the origin of a word, and ;correcting someone ;about the origin of the universe?You have the right to believe whatever you wish - and I will not only tolerate it but would fight for that right. You do not have the right to have your beliefs respected or pandered to - no matter how sincerely you hold them.
I completely agree with this statement. Doing this is not intolerance. That doesn't mean every post I read I'll jump all over someone if I disagree with something. Who wants to do that? But if we are free to have opinions, but not free to express them, what good is that?
Although, I understand the intent of LT's original post was to complain about generalizations that are unfair when used in an argument or even an opinion. But how far are we going to go with that? Freedom of speech works both ways, I guess.
You have the right to believe whatever you wish - and I will not only tolerate it but would fight for that right. You do not have the right to have your beliefs respected or pandered to - no matter how sincerely you hold them.
I have to agree with this statement, also.
I'm glad you persevered in reading the thread to discover some of my true intent behind starting it
You raise a question in my mind, though. If we "believe" someone is an [idiot] for holding certain beliefs, should we not question the reasons we hold that opinion of them and how they came to such beliefs, rather than just blithely hold them in low esteem?
I'm thinking of BrownBoy in particular, here. There are days I think he's a fruitloop (sorry pal, just being candid to make a point - no offense intended), but I do still attempt to get a glimpse of the person behind the persona.
AuldSoul:
Phrased as ridicule, almost anything can be ridiculous. Try the same trick with the act of sex producing a child 9 months later—pretending for the moment to be ignorant of development.
Which is why we require evidence - and for that fact, we have evidence. I agree that it would be ridiculous to believe such a thing for no reason
I acknowledge that scientific minds pre-Newtonian Physics would find our current conception of the universe absurd, however true it may actually be. Many such learned men did ridicule the thoughts of people who expressed beliefs that correseponded with currently acknowledged realities. Even as lately as Nikola Tesla and Professor Brown the scientific community has ridiculed forward thinkers into ignominy only to find themselves wishing later they had learned better from such men.
That's why I try to keep an open mind. If someone claims to have evidence for a belief, I am willing to examine it. If they have no evidence, the belief may still have some value, but the more unlikely it is, the less worthy of consideration.
A belief without evidence is stupid and ignorant.Agreed, for the most part. Where no conclusive evidence is available however, we can still make sensible probability estimations.
A belief without demonstrable evidence is very common.What's the difference between "evidence" and "demonstrable evidence"?
Belief in the existence of an intelligent being that does not show itself to humans because its very nature would be destructive in a form observable by humans is not as ridiculous.It can at least be phrased in an internally consistent manner, so that's a start. However, a strong belief in such a being without evidence is no better than many other contradictory beliefs.
Neither is it ridiculous to suggest that humans have been contacted by intelligent beings that (1) do not live on earth, (2) have comparatively advanced technology, (3) quite possibly had a hand in the early development of human civilization and religion, and (4) may very well have interacted with many humans.No, it's quite reasonable to suggest that. But without evidence to support it, it should remain just a suggestion.
To suggest that these beings care what we do with our genitals is ridiculous, I'll grant you that.However, the way you framed the belief is not the way the belief is held by myself, or any other religious person that I would consider intelligent.Lots of people believe such a thing. Many of them are very intelligent. But their beliefs are based on something other than evidence. I'm glad you agree that it's ridiculous.
Therefore, it is a strawman that you invented to shower with scorn.No, it's a genuine (ridiculous) belief held by millions (probably hundreds of millions) of people, even if you're not one of them.
I suspect that you heap quite a few undeserving souls into the file marked "believers in a giant invisible man who created the universe and spoke to Bronze Age goatherds and is very concerned about what we do with our genitals".No, they deserve a special category of ridicule. For other unsupported beliefs, the more unlikely they are, the more ridiculous they seem, and hence, the more ridicule they deserve. For example, someone who believes without evidence that there is life outside this planet can make a very strong case based on known facts, well-accepted theories and probability. Someone who believes that orbiting the star Betelgeuse is a small yellow planet inhabited entirely by people called Fred who wear sombreros is on much shakier ground. Similarly, if someone believes that there must be some sort of godlike being out there but admits there is no solid evidence I can argue probabilities or question what evidence they claim to have; whereas someone who believes in the primitive sex-obsessed Semitic god without evidence is less likely to be open to rational argument. (Of course, many people who believe in said deity claim to have evidence. If so, the validity of the evidence can be argued. A rational person will change their mind based on the evidence - or lack thereof.)
And so taking this back to my original premise, do you see anyone around here who has so taken such a toll on the levels of suffering experienced by mankind that they deserve scorn and ridicule to be heaped upon them?
Yes.
Terry's deleterious inability to format his posts correctly is clearly a prime cause for the misery of many on this board and deserves all the scorn we can muster.
Whether the ridicule should be heaped on him personally or merely on his formatting techniques is a matter best left to the philosophers on JWD. Personally, I think he should be dressed as a chicken and fired by circus cannon into Thailand.
HS PS - .....and Terry, put your damned shirt on man. What is it about XJW men that tempts them to appear by the score in their avatars, cunningly photographed to appear more muscular than they really are? Is this an evolutionary ploy, an American thing, or is it just that many men wander around their offices half naked, hopeful and with all their talents hanging out? Ironically edited for incorrect formatting and hypocritical intolerance.
LittleToe:
You raise a question in my mind, though. If we "believe" someone is an [idiot] for holding certain beliefs, should we not question the reasons we hold that opinion of them and how they came to such beliefs, rather than just blithely hold them in low esteem?
Absolutely. If they got their beliefs by the application of reason to the available evidence, then they may only believe something nonsensical because they are working from flawed evidence, or because they made an error in their reasoning. A rational person will be glad to change their mind when their error is pointed out to them.
But of course we're not talking about rational people. People hold on to irrational beliefs for all sorts of reasons. Some people can be shown those reasons. Others cannot, because they don't possess the mental faculties to do so, or are afraid to lose their cherished beliefs, or are otherwise unwilling. I can respect such people and can even accept that they have chosen their beliefs, but I cannot consider those beliefs to be on a par with rational beliefs, or those who hold them to be on a par with those whose beliefs are rational. I've tried but I can't.
I'm thinking of BrownBoy in particular, here. ; There are days I think he's a fruitloop (sorry pal, just being candid to make a point - no offense intended), but I do still attempt to get a glimpse of the person behind the persona.
A perfect example of an irrational person with irrational beliefs. Reason doesn't work on any level with him. He has chosen to invent his own little world, and until he decides to step out of it, I'm not sure anyone can do anything to help him. I certainly don't think encouraging his delusions will help anybody, so I've got very little left but ridicule. Maybe it will eventually sink in that there is an enormous disparity between the world he's created for himself and the real world.
"A belief without evidence is stupid and ignorant. A belief without demonstrable evidence is very common. Belief in the existence of an intelligent being that does not show itself to humans because its very nature would be destructive in a form observable by humans is not as ridiculous."
Auld,
As with F.D., I am curious also to hear your distinction between "evidence" and "demonstrable evidence". Regardless, I would say the problem arises in the criteria people will accept as "evidence". For the vast majority of believers, the confusion appears to be between "feelings" being mistaken for some form of tangible evidence. Ergo, "I believe in god because I feel his presence". Obviously, this sort of experiential testimony does not even approximate tangible evidence. First, it is wholly subjective, second, "feelings" themselves are merely ephemeral states induced by neurotransmitters. Further, I am curious as to your hypothesis that if said god existed, it would "physically appear" in a form that would be destructive to human observation. Where does this idea come from and why would anyone make this presupposition about the nature of a god? Surely a transcendent being responsible for the creation of an entire universe and the reality within it would be able to assume any observable form in a mode that would be acceptable to the central nervous systems of the human animals he created?
FD and kid-A,
I attempted once before to demonstrate the distinction through a very clear thought exercise. You guys don't seem interested in anything beyond the tangible, which is the crux of my contention. There is such a thing as an experience that is evidence for me that will NEVER be demonstrable to you.
I agree with Terry, testimonials are not demonstrable evidence. But, for anyone who experienced what the person giving the testamonial experienced, it is further evidence for them.
As I said, I already tried this once and despite the obvious intellectual capacity of the learned atheists and agnostics here none seemed willing to engage in the thought exercise. I will try again. If you need to do so, pretend it is Plato asking your indulgence just after engaging you with the Allegory of the Cave. This thought exercise requires you to imagine a set of circumstances that have not occurred. There never have been a people who only stared at the back wall of a cave and theorized about what the shadows were. Such people would quickly die of starvation and dehydration, and their bodies would have never developed properly due to lack of exercise.
Assume first that no one has ever seen a bee. Assume secondly that no one has EVER been stung by a bee. This is the part where you have to dispense with reality for the thought exercise to work. Just as the Allegory of the Cave is a terrific allegory if you don't analyze it for real world likelihood, this one is a terrific allegory.
One day, you are stung by a bee. You are the only human who has ever been stung by a bee. We will assume—for the sake of argument—that you are not highly allergic and will not go into anaphylactic shock due to the experience. You have a small reddened area on your skin, and a tiny little hole that you can really only see if you know exactly where to look.
You have no demonstrable proof of your experience. But it was real, although you are the only one who knows it was real. At this point you have knowledge that is not possessed by any other human. You have learned that (1) bees exist, (2) can sting, (3) the sting hurts badly, and (4) that the sting can produce a red patch on the skin.
Now, within the parameters this thought exercise try to think through how you would explain the event to someone else.
Let's adjust the parameters. Assume that there is a large percentage of the population that has seen bees. Assume that a smaller percentage of the population has actually been stung by bees. Assume no one has ever captured or studied a bee.
According to what I read from Terry, kid-A, and Funky Derek, it seems that given these parameters you three would not believe in bees unless you had personally seen and/or been stung by a bee.
Which is my point. In this last case, there would be no demonstrable evidence but there would be personal evidence. Personal evidence sufficient to compel belief. And the only sort of explanation that could be offered in such a case would be...testimonial, which is not demonstrable evidence. It is not a valid basis for someone else's belief, but your personal experience is valid basis for your own belief. Even if your personal experience involved a pink unicorn.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
