Sethbag wrote:I think the Four Horsemen are essentially spot on. I agree that religion is a virus of the mind, and the mindset that it's desirable and admirable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and in fact to believe things for which there is lots of contrary evidence, is not doing humankind any good.
Ironically, you appear to have adopted a mindset that sees as desirable the belief that religion does humankind no good, and this in spite of "lots of contrary evidence". Could this be due to a non-religious "virus of the mind"? ;-)
There's no evidence that the beliefs held by these religions are in fact true. There's no evidence that the gods worshiped in fact exist. I'm not as interested in discussing whether they have any comfort value. If you want to argue that they are a net positive based on comfort value, I gather than you would agree with Karl Marx, who said that religion was the opium of the people. Am I close?
I simply don't agree that it's overall a net positive in our society to undermine rational and critical thinking by teaching people to believe in feelings and emotions as indicators of universal truth, that there's a diety out there who has a "special people" to whom they belong, that they have land that ought to be theres because God said so, and all the rest. It's just pure and utter shyte.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
The biggest problem with religion, morality, and philosophy is that people spend much more time debating their value and almost none in applying any of them.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Sethbag wrote: I simply don't agree that it's overall a net positive in our society to undermine rational and critical thinking by teaching people to believe in feelings and emotions as indicators of universal truth, that there's a diety out there who has a "special people" to whom they belong, that they have land that ought to be theres because God said so, and all the rest. It's just pure and utter shyte.
And, yet, there are some, perhaps many, very smart people who believe exactly that. Some even smarter than you. That is odd isn't it?
Sethbag wrote: I simply don't agree that it's overall a net positive in our society to undermine rational and critical thinking by teaching people to believe in feelings and emotions as indicators of universal truth, that there's a diety out there who has a "special people" to whom they belong, that they have land that ought to be theres because God said so, and all the rest. It's just pure and utter shyte.
And, yet, there are some, perhaps many, very smart people who believe exactly that. Some even smarter than you. That is odd isn't it?
And there are some human beings who are the absolute peak of physical health who contract a virus and die young. Isn't that odd too? Religious ideas (and probably some other kinds of ideas, too, but certainly the religious ones) are viruses of the mind. They infect people and undermine that person's defense against bad thought, until a person, however smart they might otherwise be, simply cannot think straight about the religion.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
I'm tired of being a faithless unbeliever to religious folks and an optimistic who won't look at all the "unevidence" to the atheists........can't they just leave me alone. I prefer to call myself areligious......or post-religious (did I just invent words?).
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
I am often persuaded by the "four horsemen," but I think I understand Tal's point. We need to be cautious that we don't jump from the cult of faith to the cult of evidence, particularly in regards to questions of the nature of mind and consciousness. It is interesting to me how the apologists ironically jump to an appeal to evidence, trying to walk the tightrope between faith and facts when it is practical to do so.
I personally maintain that faith has its place and that by definition faith is its own evidence, just as consciousness is its own evidence--I think therefore I am. I do believe that certain kinds of evidence Trump faith. I don't want to start walking off of cliffs because I believe I can fly. But I don't want to stop believing, just yet, that my consciousness may somehow be more than an epiphenomenon of my brain. I am not ready to make that leap, the evidence is not convincing enough, just as the evidence of the Book of Mormon is not convincing enough. And yet I am open to being wrong.
I think the drive for certainty causes "faithists" and "factists" to sometimes draw lines prematurely.
Nope, I can't seem to get enough of it. I enjoy listening to all four of them. They are among the most intellectually stimulating people around these days.
Certainly, religion does some good things, but is it worth it? I don't think so either. A car may get you from A to B, but if you're spending hundreds of dollars every month to maintain the old beast, it's better just to get rid of it and go for something more efficient.
I agree with Seth; religion is a virus of the mind. Anything that causes a person to value faith for faith's sake needs to be obliterated.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.