First, thanks zeus. I understand that it is not easy to prove that the religious beliefs are fundamentally flawed. Actually, that was not the original purpose of my thread.
Do you try to make your life not “human-centered”? You are a human, all your existence is centered around what you want as a human, and what you can do as a human. You have a natural desire to remain alive, as a human. All of your experience is human. You are locked into your own human experience, which means that you must see everything through a human lense.
You say that people who place humans first are egotistical (oops, we just accused Mr. Immanuel Kant of being an egoist, the guys who wrote the Declaration of Independence are egoistical too, oh and there goes capitalism, it’s all about how allowing people to compete for resources leads to the greatest prosperity (basically)). My response is, so what? People are by your own standards biological creatures with needs, human needs. What’s wrong with placing their needs and interest above those of say, moss and silica crystals or stars? Evolution’s all about survival of the fittest, and a big part of fitness requires striving for yourself.
Wow. You have religious beliefs. You just admitted that you have no evidence that religious beliefs are ridiculous, but you believe it anyway. That’s called belief.
No one can prove logically or scientifically that beliefs are true or false (look up my posts, I’ve argued this point A LOT). But people can still believe in them. You just admitted that you have a belief right there, but you’re defending it as an objective fact. Well, there’s no way to prove that fact, but you still treat it as a fact and not a belief. There’s a philosophical word for doing that: ASSUMPTION. There’s a non-philosophical term for that: BIAS.
When I first started studying philosophy, I thought a lot like you. But the more I read, the more I realized that religious statements are beliefs, not facts, and it’s ok to believe in something higher than yourself. I now have a philosophy that treats religious propositions as meaningless, because they can’t be verified. But because they can’t be verified, the individual can still believe in them (just they have to realize that their beliefs can’t be shown true or false, they are beliefs and not facts). I myself pray most nights, I have my own private beliefs. They are my beliefs, not facts, and I would not treat them as such. You have shown that you indeed have some beliefs, but you treat them as facts. That makes you no more “open-minded” than the televangelist preaching that all those who don’t give him money are sinners.
Francis Bacon, one of the founders of western science wrote, “A little philosophy inclines a man to atheism, but depth in philosohy brings men’s minds to religion.”
Uccisore- I’ve become quite a fan of yours recently. You’ve argued masterfully throughout this thread.
How is that you people assume things which I didn’t say, attack what I didn’t say and claim victory. That sounds little cheap and unfair to me.
Reread my sentence. I said "I think" NOT 'I believe’. To think is to have an opinion, to believe is to accept something as true. I have opinions and not beliefs.
Heh, your semantic force-field is still at 97%, captain! By the way, I have a reply to you as well, hidden as an edit.
That’s pretty damned sneaky.
No, from most of what you’ve posted, it seems that you just don’t want to face the possiblity that maybe some religious people aren’t crazy/less intelligent than you:
That last statement there is very telling.
Now, in the rabbit sentence, you made a universal proposition:
All religions are as ridiculous as the rabbit’s.
You also add a “for me” at the beginning. That indicates that you hold this proposition to be true. The “for me” shows ownership of the proposition, it idicates that you think all religions are ridiculous. It’s a statement of belief.
If you still don’t believe that you’ve made this statement of belief:
Here, you say that it isn’t easy to prove religious beliefs false. You add almost as an afterthought that you didn’t set out to try prove them false. This implies that while you didn’t start off with that intention, but that you are trying to do so now. So that quotation can be interpretted as saying:
- I believe religious statements are bogus.
- I am trying to show they are bogus.
- It is hard to show they are bogus.
- I didn’t want to show they are bogus, but that’s what I’m doing now.
Uccisore seems dead on with his analysis.
No, to think is to use your brain in some way. And first, let’s assume you’re right, and that you don’t believe all religions are ridiculous, but just “think” so. Then why are you arguing that they are? If it’s just your opinion (unsupported by facts), why are you cramming down our throats? Why not just admit it’s an opinion, rather then coming up with:
In addition, I’ve made it pretty clear that most of what you’ve wrote seems to indicate that you really DO believe all religions are ridiculous. Which is a statement of faith, just like any religious statement.
An instructive model of what not to do for beginners.
"For me, scientists are pathetic. All they do is invent new hideous ways to kill people, and come up with bogus theories like the whole Global Warming thing."
So, deconstruct that in your mind. Find all the things wrong with the above statement (which is not an authentic position of mine, just so you know). One could pick out numerous errors, tricks of language, and faults in reasoning in the above. One could pause and reflect on their own comments made about things like religion.
OK I agree that I cannot prove my opinion (not belief) why religious beliefs are ridiculous. You both seem to twist what I haven’t said. NO, you can’t assume or interpret what I haven’t said from what I said.
I’ll restate my opinion but couldn’t prove that as an argument.
Any anthropocentric religion/theory is fundamentally flawed. Christianity, for example is an anthropocentric religion. So, Christianity is fundamentally flawed.
I have given reasons in the prevous posts why anything that is anthropocentric is flawed. I haven’t given any evidence for the second premise that Christianity is an anthropocentric religion.
I stop here. Thanks for showing me both how to argue well and also how to twist what the opponent hasn’t said (obviously, I won’t follow that).
Nuke 'em
Just going to point again at the longish post I made in response to your whole ‘human centric religions are bad’ thing, up above. In case you missed it. If you didn’t miss it, and are bowing out anyways, well, I’m content.
I’m tired, its hot, and its hot. Now I think I’ll look up why you can’t disprove beliefs. I think it’ll be interesting.
I came up empty handed. This post being empty, would theonefroberg please explain why you cannot question beliefs?
When did I say this?
Read my other posts regarding religion. I explained my positions on religious beliefs there.
Some religious beliefs can be disproven (creationism, various positions on homosexuality for example).
I don’t think it’s possible to prove or disprove God’s existence, however. Look up Mr. Immanuel Kant’s positions on the matter. Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason listed “Does God exists?” as one of his “Antimonies of Reason”. What this means is any attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God is an inappropriate use of reason. Any attempt to do so either leads to a meaningless tautology or a self-contradictory position.
I’ve talked about this before. I can talk about it again, too, if you like.
Go ahead, I’d appreciate it. Why will a statement regarding God be an inappropriate use of reason?
I am going to draw some distinctions here that I am sure no one will pay any attention to, because they are not “sexy.”
There is a difference between these ideas:
Religious beliefs.
The beliefs of (various and divers) religious people.
Religious fanaticism.
Fanaticism.
I do not mean to suggest any exclusionary values here - there is a lot of overlap when you get to cases.
But some people are fanatical about whatever they are talking about, and if they are religious, then they are then religious fanatics.
Some folks are religious but not fanatical.
Some are not fanatically religious, but are political fanatics, and while their fanatical political views are colored by religion, their fanaticism rests in their politics only.
There are more permutations to be had - I’m sure that anyine who is interested can work out the important ones with no trouble. I merely wish to point out that not every creationist is a religious fanatic, for example. It is a political issue at root.
thezeus18- I’ll give you an answer in a day or two (a little busy right now)
faust:
I think you’re right.
We are humans. We’re constricted to our own selves, and thus fundamentally limited in our selfless capacity; the purpose of submission (a word I probably understand differently than you, so please don’t go headlong into it) to God, in my view, is to augment that selfishness–to direct as much of our care into the totality of existence as possible. That doesn’t change the fact that I’m looking out of my own eyes, and cannot hope to fully relate to insects, vacuum, comets, or hypothetical alien species, especially to the extent that I can value them above the human perspective. The reason religion tends to focus on our position is because every religion was created by humans, and because most religions recognize that they can’t fully connect to a person without realizing their perspective.
This is, all the same, not equivalent to valuing humans above everything else in a metaphysical sense. While Genesis puts humans above all living things, I happen to think this text isn’t God’s Word in the conventional sense–I generally don’t believe God speaks to us–and that it only has scientific accuracy to the point of the writers. Meaning the prospect of sapience or further advanced intelligence, as well as interconnected environments, weren’t on their minds during Genesis’ writing. The a literal interpretation of the Bible aside, I feel that Christianity doesn’t describe humans as God’s chosen things; I only believe Christianity is anthropocentric to the degree of how I explained it in my first paragraph.
Beliefs can be disproven or proven.
All beliefs have foundations.
Identify the foundations.
Example:
Creationist foundation:
“The world is too complex to have happened by accident. God must have caused its existence.”
Counter:
“The universe is a closed system. Elements and energy are invincible. Closed systems do not require initiation. Our universe is not an effect, because it requires no initial cause, because invincible things can exist forever.”
Uccisore, please prove your statement and also consider this.
From Genesis 1:26
Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth
From Genesis 6:5-7
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Why is that only human have a special relationship with this god (imago dei)?
Why is that if humans did some nonsense, this god had to destroy every thing on the Earth along with the humans?
EDIT: Added bold emphasis for a statement
Pagan religions which are also created by humans, do not focus on humans as Christianity does. They are cosmic rather than anthropocentric.