Conversion

I'm quoting myself here in response to Ghosty Kips post. First of all, I don't take any of this personally. I rarely discuss my personal truth of what is (and still haven't actually) but do enjoy a good discussion.

I did not indicate that "someone who believes in God is somehow lacking in deductive reasoning or is superstitious in some way" I said that the belief in a god is irrational. I understand that you disagree with this but I'd rather not debate the definition of irrational. Your faith in string theory is also irrational in my definition, as neither can be proved to exist.

"In what way do I not think for myself?" - I did not say you don't. I said "Religion prevents people from thinking for themselves. I've noticed that when religious people begin to question things they don't remain religious for very long." Religious people are not to be confused with people who simply believe in a god. When you are a member of a religion you are told what to believe. What I said is in regard to questioning the beliefs of religion. I have studied many of the world's religions and there is not one that I am aware of that does not have many areas that look pretty irrational in the light of day. I really don't want to get into trotting that stuff out - I have no desire to bash anyone's religion but to me anyone who accepts any religion wholly is not thinking for themselves.



This perspective is as tired to those who don't believe in a god (not to be confused with an atheist anymore than the religious are to be confused with those who do believe in a god) as mine is to those who do. I do not accept the hypothesis that there is a god. To me such a belief is irrational. Many accepted scientific facts today started as irrational hypotheses but this particular experiment has been running a pretty long time now without any evidence of a god after all this time, so it's still just a hypothesis at this point and I don't think it's very much of a stretch to say that it's irrational for someone to still have faith in this experiment at this point in the game.

If this perspective makes me arrogant than so be it but is it really unscientific? I hypothesize that there is no god. I don't see how my hypothesis makes you feel of inferior intellect. Must be the arrogance.

[derail on]

hey...that was your 2000th post, Jerboa!






[derail off]

But for very different reasons, to be fair.

I've dealt with 'converters', but in general my experience is that they are intentionally trolling you in the most serious way they can.

Most recently, someone told me that I should not have the Holy script writing of Hebrew on my breast, especially since I am not Jewish.

Also, I have had 6 (out of the 8 people who have been able to read it) Jewish people get on my case for the Hebrew script that is on my right breast. The wording seems to upset them for some reason and it is not anti-religious - or religious in anyway.

[derail resumed]
Awww... and I wanted to make 2000 something profound, earth-changing. Something that would revolutionize SL as we know it.

or at least a really funny LOLcat.

[derail re-suspended]

When I'm with friends and we've noticed we had the Big Three covered, we usually get a bit uneasy, since faeces somehow always turn up as the #4 topic..

What does it say?

You shall burn in the pit of Machine Code for eternity...unless you repent, and then maybe they'd let you get off with a few millenia in Assembler

Actually yes it is unscientific, as well as masquerading in the trappings of scientific terminology. I think I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to explain why.

You will all be sorry when you get to the afterlife, and find it running the Amiga OS.

LDP, Q+; LDA, P+; BRA, A

Oh Jeez - it was Ghosty who first mentioned science, I was just continuing in this vein. The word hypothesis is hardly restricted to scientific terminology. It is merely a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument. How is it unscientific to hypothesize that there is no god?

pixplzkthxbai

That pic is worth quoting so it shows up twice. *wink*

Wow! Urban elves RULE!

Am trying to figure out if the Hebrew text in the pic is reversed, mirror-like, or not. My brain is hurting

Aaaahhhh Assembler - gosh how I miss the good ole days............

NOT

Good. It certainly wasn't intended that way.



But this is simply untrue. I am a "member of a religion", however that gets defined, but I am not "told what to believe". I am allowed to come to my own conclusions. Perhaps you need to narrow your focus down from the very broad brush of "religion".



It doesn't make me feel any such way. I know better. And yes, it is very unscientific.

Let's consider your quote: "Religion prevents people from thinking for themselves. I've noticed that when religious people begin to question things they don't remain religious for very long."

Since I am religious, I infer you mean to say I and others like me do not think for ourselves, or that my religion prevents me from doing so. That is what you said here?

So, I'll give you the opportunity to demonstrate how I, a religious person, am prevented from thinking for myself, and further, how I either do not question things or have not remained religious.

If you cannot do this, then you cannot say "Religion prevents people from thinking for themselves." You might say, "Religion prevents SOME people from thinking for themselves", or perhaps "SOME religions prevent people from thinking for themselves", since we have ample examples of those instances. But to say "Religion prevents people from thinking for themselves", you must be able to demonstrate ALL religion does this, to ALL people involved in a religion.

Since it would be impossible to test this, it falls into the same bucket as string theory - you have FAITH that "Religion prevents people from thinking for themselves", and not much else.

OK

I said "Religion prevents people from thinking for themselves. I've noticed that when religious people begin to question things they don't remain religious for very long."

As I said earlier, I meant this in the context of questioning the religion, not everything.

In the words of the immortal Jean Luc Picard, "the biggest problem with having a god is determining what that god wants." Each religion, excepting the pagan (godless) religions, has it's own ideas on that and it is this that forms their set of beliefs.

A religion or a denomination of a religion, is defined by what it believes, it is the set of beliefs that differentiate one religion from another - although there are more similarities than most would believe.

So, as a member of a particular religion I am assuming that you adopt the set of beliefs of your religion. Otherwise I don't understand why you would consider yourself a member of that religion. Because the religion comes with a set of beliefs you have no reason to think for yourself and come up with your own. I'm not saying that religions have thought control to prevent you from thinking differently, obviously, but I have noticed that when people do start to question the beliefs of their religion they don't have much use for religion any more.

But you used it in a scientific context.



Before I give an extended answer, I have a question for you. Can you envision a possible test to verify your supposition?

Ghosty did a fine job explaining the unscientific nature of an earlier assertion of yours.

Well, i guess Santa Clause needs to be disproved as well. So does the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

It is not reversed. My Israeli friend fixed it up for me.

Re: Jerboa post.

Any scientist will tell you that science can never actually prove anything. All science does is present as much evidence as is possible and then draw conclusions based on that evidence. So far what we generally accept as fact has been based on peer-review among scientists, believe it or not. And this has so far produced such logical conclusions as the earth is flat. Because they based their decision based on the information they had at the time. That is the closest that scientists, or anyone, can come to knowing a fact.

I once knew for a fact that there was a Santa because I sat on his lap. Hey, based on the info I had at the time ... when I started to question some of the Santa belief set I figured out pretty quick that there was no such thing and my truth changed.

You challenge me to envision a possible test to verify my supposition that there is no god. I assert that it is not possible to design a test to prove the negative. Can you envision a test to prove the hypothesis that there is a god? My hypothesis is based on the underwhelming body of evidence in an experiment that has been running many thousands of years.

I can see why you need a lot of faith to believe in god. But I am not condescending those who do. Some would say my own beliefs require more faith. But I don't push them on others. I was simply responding to the OP's question about how I would respond to someone trying to push their religion on me. It's gotten pretty off topic since then but please do now give me your extended answer on why it is unscientific to hypothesize that there is no god. I am always interested in new perspectives.

Agreed, as a member of a religion - and, again, we can dispense with what that in itself might be debated to mean - you can assume that I have adopted the set of beliefs of my religion. But in that, you still lack enough knowledge to say that my holding with a religion prevents me from independent thought. You bring up the pagan religions as an exception, and that's true enough, but with that you must now dismiss your previous statement, and recant to something like "Almost every religion prevents people from thinking for themselves."

The set of beliefs I have adopted are ones I have considered carefully, and continue to consider on a regular basis. Rather than have my beliefs bent to fit the mold of a doctrine, I went looking for a set of doctrines that fit what I already believed, more or less. I found a form of a current religion that not only came very close, and allowed me the freedom to adjust its "doctrine" to suit my vision of personal truth, but encouraged me to further my quest to learn the nature of the universe as I experience it. Over the last ten years or so, I have changed my mind on a few points, but of my own free will, not because scripture said I was wrong or someone in some hierarchy deemed me unfit if I did not adapt.

So, if I take exception to the tired old argument that religion stifles independent thought, I am glad you didn't take it personally. Rather than try to change anyone's mind, I try to show that there is wiggle room in all of this for somewhat opposing viewpoints to harmonize. That, and to show that broad-stroke stereotypes of religious people are often unfair.