Why would a lack of respect affect the intrinsic truth?
It doesn't, but what I think SaxonRider is saying is that discussion, debate and challenging questions can be done in a respectful way. Use of phrases like "sky fairies" crosses the line of respectful challenge into rudeness, and so reduces the overall quality of the discussion.
I agree, but being a bit sarky and unpleasant is how many humans behave, especially when challenged with unprovable and irrational beliefs.
🙂
Yes, it would be a better world if everyone was nice to each other all the time, but that's not an option right now. Much work, many lifetimes, etc.
You can't discount or marginalise the views of others just because they're rude to you.
And I can't believe you haven't gone tubeless
3.0s too. Buffalo hide.
You can't discount the views of others just because they're rude to you.
No, but you can refuse to debate them. The point about nastiness isn't to do with the argument about God, it's basic manners.
Plus, on the subject of rationality, we all have the potential to be irrational. We are not Vulcans. So the ruder you are to someone the less likely you are to get a rational response, and the closer you get to a fight. That goes for any discussion, religious or secular, believers or atheists.
Thank you, andyrm. I would add, though, that when we set respect aside and descend into unfortunate rhetorical flourish, we often (both sides) end up undermining our own arguments, as we succumb to the temptations of [i]ad hominem[/i] and letting emotion get in the way of logic and agreed terminology.
I agree, but being a bit sarky and unpleasant is how many humans behave, especially when challenged with unprovable and irrational beliefs.Yes, it would be a much more pleasant world if everyone was nice to each other all the time, but that's not an option right now. Much work, many lifetimes, etc.
You can't discount the views of others just because they're rude to you.
Here's the thing though, if we made the effort to challenge respectfully, we'd probably all learn something and get better conversations.
I have to challenge clients on their thinking, methodologies and strategies on a daily basis - ask these questions respectfully and I cut through, get a good flow of conversation that leads to business. Do it rudely saying "you're irrational/wrong/stupid" etc (basically introducing emotional language into the conversation) and I get **** all other than "don't come back".
As someone much wider than me once said "never write anything online you wouldn't say in the pub to the person's face for fear of getting a thump".
There's ways of challenging and debating positively, sadly the way on STW is frequently to take the approach of being rude and trying to shout down rather than engage in interesting and challenging discussion.
Churches are great places to visit for quiet contemplation; I don't see any point commenting about religious beliefs or the absence of them - each to their own.
I think the complexity and architectural magnificence of cathedrals is truly awe-inspiring.
I think we can all agree on that Andy.
🙂
Personally, I've too many favourite churches to list, but I've a soft spot for Downham and Bewick.
Very well put andyrm, fully agree.
Good, we all agree.
🙂
Do you agree with my opinion re rational/irrational beliefs, Mol?
What, that irrationality engenders violence? No.
Is violence irrational? Usually but not always.
Does 'irrational' encompass a specific range of behaviours? No.
I would say that irrationality and tendency to violence are orthogonal characteristics.
I don't see any point commenting about religious beliefs or the absence of them - each to their own.
That sir is one of the smartest things I've read on here in a long time.
Live and let live and all that 🙂
I don't agree with your assertion that faith propositions are inherently irrational, Rusty Spanner, so we don't all agree on everything.
I accept that proving the existence of the object of faith cannot be necessarily definitive, but I - along with most of the philosophical academy - do not think that to have faith is an irrational position.
But this:
I don't see any point commenting about religious beliefs or the absence of them - each to their own.
times a million.
Hmm.
What, that irrationality engenders violence? No.
I didn't say that.
Is violence irrational? Usually but not always.
Or that.
🙂
Does 'irrational' encompass a specific range of behaviours? No.
Nope, didn't claim it did.
Evidence wins arguments.
Show people that things work, answer their questions and they will believe you.
When two irrational belief systems clash, there can be no rational evidence, only faith.
but I - along with most of the philosophical academy - do not think that to have faith is an irrational position.
It's part of the human condition to hold both rational and irrational views.
No one disputes that.
Whether those views are compatable has always been and will always be open to debate.
I can see no reason why religious belief should be treated or discussed in a different manner to any other irrational opinion.
But this:
I don't see any point commenting about religious beliefs or the absence of them - each to their own.
times a million.
Why?
Sitting down and having a friendly discussion about others faith and beliefs is usually a very enlightening experience.
I find the more pleasant religious discussions on here very interesting.
Barnsley Mitch, hope all going well.
I can see no reason why religious belief should be treated or discussed in a different manner to any other irrational opinion.
Fair enough, but what I said is that neither I, nor the majority of the academic philosophical world, regard religious faith as irrational.
I accept that the object of faith is not 'prove-able', but faith as a category is not irrational.
Oh, and I agree with you that discussing faith can be an edifying thing, and that we have had some good discussions on here. What I was referring to when I said 'times a million' was any discussion in which one side or the other is demeaned in some way.
No side should be demeaned. I believe that we sit around the table as equals.
I don't regard the need for or existence of faith irrational, as I have said.
I do find many of the specifics of belief to be so.
No side should be demeaned. I believe that we sit around the table as equals.
😀
Amen to that!
We have always taken the kids to church, but we have also encouraged rigorous questioning.
Seems reasonable to me.
being a bit sarky and unpleasant is how many humans behave,
I have an overactive sarcasm gland, I'd like to think that it doesn't spill over into unpleasantness but would welcome being pulled up if it does.
As I've said numerous times before, if something I say could be taken two ways and one of them makes you upset or cross, I probably meant the other one. Usually. (-:
I believe that we sit around the table as equals.
I'd like to believe that but there's evidence on this forum proving that simply isn't the case.
You might treat others as equal but a lot of folk don't.
I have an overactive sarcasm gland, I'd like to think that it doesn't spill over into unpleasantness but would welcome being pulled up if it does.
It doesn't.
🙂
I worry about it too.
I've taken the funnies with a couple of people on here over the years and others with me.
Turns out we just have a different sense of humour.
I am an idiot sometimes.
🙄
I can relate. (And thank you)
A pleasure, you always come across as a very decent bloke.
If you're still working around Burnley pop in for a brew, be good to meet you.
Gosh. I thought I mostly came across as an argumentative knob. So that's good to know. (-:
And yes, in BB11 most weekdays. Pick a day/time/location, I'm easy. (Quiet at the back.)
Would you like me to bring a kite?
🙂
In Wales at the mo, will check my rota when I get home and let you know when we're in.
Churches are great places to visit for quiet contemplation; I don't see any point commenting about religious beliefs or the absence of them - each to their own.I think the complexity and architectural magnificence of cathedrals is truly awe-inspiring.
Oh, absolutely!
I’ve mentioned before, I have no actual religious belief as such, Pantheism is probably the nearest thing I’ve found that matches my own view of how the universe operates, (my own position in bold)
There are a variety of definitions of pantheism. Some consider it a theological and philosophical position concerning God.[5]:p.8As a religious position, some describe pantheism as the polar opposite of atheism.[10]:pp. 7 From this standpoint, pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God.[11] All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it.[12] [b]Some hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe (in the sense of the totality of all existence) and God are identical (implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God).[/b][13]
Irrespective of that, I love churches, and cathedrals, Wells Cathedral probably my favourite of those I’ve visited, the interior is breathtaking.
There is a tiny little church in the equally tiny village, or rather hamlet of Slaughterford, a few miles from where I live.
It was destroyed by Cromwell as a little extra entertainment on the side while traveling to Bristol and on to Ireland to mess things up for the generations that followed, then restored by the Victorians, and very tastefully too.
My great-grandparents are buried there, as is another relative who was killed at Arras a century ago last April,
and it’s such a quiet, peaceful place, sat in the middle of a farmers field, I like to just sit on a big wooden seat round the back and soak up the peace of it.
I’ve not looked into details, but rather than cremation, I’d actually like to be buried there, it’s such a lovely spot, and I have the family connection with the village.
Again, religion doesn’t really enter into it, if one is going to be laid to rest somewhere, why not a place with a direct emotional and family connection.
Evidence wins arguments.
Show people that things work, answer their questions and they will believe you.
At the risk of deploying too much sarcasm - did you just step off a spaceship? Welcome to Earth, how was hyperspace? 😉
Trump
Brexit
Conspiracy theories
It is well known that people will cling to pre-existing beliefs that they like and disregard evidence to the co teary all day long.
Note I am not passing comment on religion with that comment, just people's general irrationality.
^^ This. The other question of course is why the desperate need to "win" an internet argument?
It's quite possible to discuss topics with multiple viewpoints respectfully and agree that there's not always a definitive answer, while at the same time accepting the other party's right to their beliefs. People skills 101.
Maybe the net has eroded those people skills, maybe it gives a platform for those with less skills, maybe people carry themselves differently online, I don't know.
So, what is it again that we're all "respectfully" trying to decide with this polite, boring dialectic? Remind me? Have we got there yet?
It was about non believers going to church, enjoying the whole experience from architecture, interesting sermons, nice people etc without either a: the religious people trying to convert them or b: trying to shout down the religious people's beliefs.
It was a really good article in the OP all about dispelling some misconceptions and just getting along.
Hmm.
I'd be interested why an atheist would find a sermon predicated on what, presumably, the atheist finds to be without any foundation, "interesting". Unless it's to pick the inevitable holes in it I suppose. If, unlike the execrable BBC Radio 4 "thought for the day", the sermon isn't just a convenient hook to hang the central message of superstition on, but is simply a philosophical or ethical message, why take the trouble to go to the church in the first place when a wealth of this kind of subject material is available elsewhere without all the ceremonial folderol accreted around it?
Nice people can be found anywhere. If you need to be in an enclosed space with nice people, again - many groups are available that are not predicated on an empty superstition that is used to justify the gathering.
The study of the architecture of course, doesn't need the attendance at a ceremony any more than attending PMQ's is needed to understand the structure of the houses of parliament.
Are articles from "The Metro" really worth getting worked up about? I mean, Michael Jackson is alive too.. 😕
The study of the architecture of course, doesn't need the attendance at a ceremony any more than attending PMQ's is needed to understand the structure of the houses of parliament.
Good analogy, generally. BUT...
If an archaeologist or anthropologist were to uncover the Houses of Parliament in a few thousand years' time, s/he would have a much, much easier job deciphering what it was all for, and what all the physical symbols actually represented, if s/he was living in a similar parliamentary democracy, and had some 'language' by which to understand and interpret the physical remains.
I once delivered a paper at a medieval studies conference of the nature of ____ in Anglo-Saxon life. Of all the scholars present, I was the only one to have a theological background. Consequently, it was like watching fish floundering in a boat, as non-theological scholars tried to wrestle with the subject, while I was able to offer the context that they had spent many papers trying to construct.
Really trying to get one's head around the meaning of church buildings without a deeper understanding of what actually goes on in them, is never going to give one as full an understanding as if one actually had experience of the life that unfolded inside.
Hmm. As an occasional atheist churchgoer, it's not so much the sermon itself, it's the whole bundle- you can go just to see the building and that's good too but it's not the same. It's like the difference between exploring a theatre and seeing a show.
Or, put it a different way, go to my local church for the watchnight service at christmas and it's almost completely unlike going for a look around when nothing's happening.
I was just thinking about the atheist church-goers singing hymns and making baptism promises and the like. I wonder if they keep their fingers crossed behind their backs or have some other coping mechanism for uttering things in which they don't believe.
In the fantastic book by the amazing writer Hillary Mantel, "Bring Up The Bodies", Thomas Cromwell is in conversation with the soon to be executed Thomas More.
More claims that his words define him and to say what he didn't believe would render him effectively non-existent. They are the rock on which he stands.
Cromwell reminds him of when they met as children.
"You were reading a book and I asked you what it was and you said - words. Just words. .."
Are they a rock that defines one, or "just words", I wonder.
If, unlike the execrable BBC Radio 4 "thought for the day", the sermon isn't just a convenient hook to hang the central message of superstition on, but is simply a philosophical or ethical message, why take the trouble to go to the church in the first place when a wealth of this kind of subject material is available elsewhere without all the ceremonial folderol accreted around it?
I'm not sure I'd know where else to go for a nice uplifting chat about bettering yourself and being nice to each other with a bunch of other people?
Of course not all sermons are like that. I've said before I've been to good ones and awful ones.
Oh and I usually like Thought for the Day. I like hearing other people's points of view.
Mr Woppit - MemberI wonder if they keep their fingers crossed behind their backs or have some other coping mechanism for uttering things in which they don't believe.
No worries, there's a well established process for going to church but not believing much or any of what's said and never acting on it outside of the church...
(I can sing along to Husker Du's "Diane" without being a rapist, too)
I interrupted myself before I finished and had to edit.
The full text is:
I was just thinking about the atheist church-goers singing hymns and making baptism promises and the like. I wonder if they keep their fingers crossed behind their backs or have some other coping mechanism for uttering things in which they don't believe.In the fantastic book by the amazing writer Hillary Mantel, "Bring Up The Bodies", Thomas Cromwell is in conversation with the soon to be executed Thomas More.
More claims that his words define him and to say what he didn't believe would render him effectively non-existent. They are the rock on which he stands.
Cromwell reminds him of when they met as children.
"You were reading a book and I asked you what it was and you said - words. Just words. .."
Are they a rock that defines one, or "just words", I wonder.
" I wonder if they keep their fingers crossed behind their backs or have some other coping mechanism for uttering things in which they don't believe."
Sing the songs hum the bits that contain promises or vows. Silent thoughts with heads bowed for the prayers avoid amens. Stay in my seat for the ritual cannibalism, shake hands and say peace or shalom as the mood takes me for the peace .
But basically I only go for christenings weddings funerals , and when my mum needs support.
Hey up Rusty, thanks for asking. I'm a bit of a Spazzy McGee these days, but lucky to have support from family and friends, so, you know, mustn't grumble. I've been lurking on here for a while, and it's no surprise that religion threads are still attracting such fervour from the usual suspects. Personally speaking, I realise that I used to invest far too much time arguing and trying to defend my position with some of the professional irritants on here, but here's an update. Around a year or so ago, a relative, who happened to be a vicar, turned out (surprise surprise) to be a bit too fond of kids, and is now enjoying a lovely holiday at her majesty's expense. Now I'm not saying all members of the clergy are paid up members of the Jimmy Saville fan club, but it made me seriously consider my attitude toward organised religion. I fully understand the social aspects of the church, and yes, they do often provide support and help for the more vulnerable members of society. I'm obviously fine with that, it's the hypocrisy and 'thou shalt not' bollocks that trouble me. I realise that not all vicars, etc, are like this, but at its core, organised religion is all too often misogynistic and homophobic. As far as 'faith' is concerned, well, that's a whole other issue that means different things to different people. I used to firmly believe that my own faith, whilst not 'proveable' in a scientific sense, was important to me and caused no harm to others. However, something happened more recently that made me question this. My sister in law was diagnosed with MND, and basically, there isn't going to be a happy ending. Her husband has had to accept this, but her sister and mother are going absolutely batshit mental with alternative therapies and (to my mind) crazy theories involving, amongst other things, crystal healing and earth energies. Now, if I'm allowed the opinion that their faith in this sort of stuff is harmful and misguided, then surely I have to question my own faith. Ultimately, it all comes down to "just be kind to one another and stop blowing shit up, thank you. Oh, and leave them kids alone, you dirty bugger". Other than that, I'm fresh out of answers.
Oh hello mitch.
Now that is what I would [i]not[/i] describe as "Words, just words."
It's an interesting mirror image of the claim that "there are no atheists in foxholes".
Theoretical dialectic is all very well but nothing produces change like personal experience, hey?
Very interesting process. Please keep us updated. 8)
It is well known that people will cling to pre-existing beliefs that they like and disregard evidence to the co teary all day long.[b]Note I am not passing comment on religion with that comment, just people's general irrationality.[/b]
Phew, you need some long legs to step over that elephant 😉
Homeopathy? Irrational, no evidence to support
Witchcraft? Irrational, no evidence to support
Astrology? Irrational, no evidence to support
Fortune-telling? Irrational, no evidence to support
Aliens...
Bigfoot...
Mothman...
(Non-scriptural) ghosts
Vampires
Pixies
Fairies
[s]Angels[/s]
Unicorns
Dragons
Gnomes
Reptoids
Werewolves
The transformative power of woo-woo
Brexit = better healthcare/save the NHS
Feel free to comment on all of the above. Just don't dare question/mention belief in deities, demons, exorcism, miracles and prophecies in the same vein because it [s]may[/s] will upset someone religious? And if they subsequently punch you/cut your head off/banish you from the village then you really did step over the mark, you [s]naughty rationalist[/s] evil God-less enemy of God!
But (even though we are told that Evolution is like a religion for atheism) feel free free to question the rationality of evolution and abiogenesis all day long. Not many (if any) atheists will punch you/cry into their chips for questioning their beliefs/calling them crazy. Unless you call them 'evil', then they might take it to the level of calling out hypocrisy.
... as trollgrips has just reminded me in the other thread...
.
Ok first of all, I rarely troll and when I do it's lighthearted. I am not trolling on this thread. I do not like arguments. I wish I didn't feel it necessary.
MalvernRider - not sure your point. I'm saying people ARE generally irrational. You seem to be agreeing with me?
Feel free to comment on all of the above. Just don't dare question/mention belief in deities, demons, exorcism, miracles and prophecies in the in same vein
I will question them if I feel the need. What I won't do is be a dick about it. That's been my underlying point this whole time.
And if they subsequently punch you/cut your head off/banish you from the village then you really did step over the mark, you naughty rationalist evil God-less enemy of God!
Do you really think I'm condoning that behaviour? In case you need it clearing up:
1) I do not condone being-a-dick in any situation. Dickish behaviour includes, to different levels:
- ISIS beheadings
- The Spanish Inquisition
- Islamophobia
- Being unnecessarily unpleasant to religious people whilst pretending to be intellectually challenging their beliefs
2) I am not arguing in favour of the existence of God. I do not believe in it.
3) All humans are irrational in some way or other, some more than others.
Yeah, I realise that I should probably have posted in the other thread, but I responded to rusty spanner's comment on this one. (In response to a comment that now has disappeared for some reason).
I always suspected trollgrips' air of rational calm was a construct.
