Yet another religion thread: what constitutes weird?
- Thread starter hyena
- Start date
Not quite, the author of that site is rather militant and more of an activist than I'd ever wish to be. I actually found the citations on that website after some probing in the forums there. I'm actually reading some of the threads going on there and they are pretty thought provoking. We have one guy suggesting that perception /= reality, therefore what we "know" is arbitrary. It's almost pointless to deal with people who aren't working with the same idea of what's real.
Hiljainen
why can't we not be sober
If anyone is curious I'd be happy to discuss it, but I otherwise won't bother if all I do is bore people
i'm curious
rahvin
keeper of the flame
I'm starting to think that ian.de is going to have a splendid career as an Internet agitator.*
*pay = zero.
MagSec4
.:..::.: :.::..:.
Raunchy? I don't know about that..ian.de said:
But I definitely find the idea of "wait, don't hurt this stranger that came to my house today; don't do horrible things to him, ...here, take my daughter instead" more than a little disturbing.
And here you can find a couple of examples of that: Genesis 19, 5-8; and Judges 19, 22-28.
I just realized, looking for these passages, that one of them is the guy whose family God exclusively saved from the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah; and whose wife turned into salt because she looked back; and whose daughters got him drunk afterwards and took turns getting pregnant with him; and who obviously didn't seem to struggle much about getting his daughters pregnant, even for a drunk guy.
..If this model family was the best these cities had to offer, I guess I can't blame God ..those cities must've been seriously fucked up.
And these are just 2 examples of the level of some of the bad morality displayed in the Bible. There are several instances when God commands and directs genocide. And I mean full-blown, kill-men-women-children-their-goats-horses-and-sheep genocide. And to top it off, something along the lines of "but keep the silver and gold for the Lord's treasury"
OkayHiljainen said:i'm curious
Confirmation Bias is the tendency of the mind to be more receptive and conscious of evidence confirming a held belief, and to suppress attention towards evidence that might challenge the belief. And when disconfirming evidence is given, people often fail to use it.
For example, you might believe that big dogs tend to be vicious. And so, whenever you're looking at dogs, or thinking about dogs, confirmation bias will lead you to notice the big dogs that really are vicious, and the little dogs that are docile. It also heavily affects remembered episodes of dogs. As a very simplified way to put it, memory recall works when thinking about one thing leads the attention "spotlight" to another related thought (or set of thoughts) that one has previously had. In this case, your mind would most easily recall examples from the past that show you that big dogs are vicious, while hundreds of other encounters you've had with dogs are not recalled at all. Confirmation bias works against you with such counter-examples because a)Your "remembering" does not bring back to mind these examples if they're there, and b)Many probably never made it to memory in the first place because there was no attention given to perceiving such a dog episode (you never even payed attention when a big friendly dog was right in front of you or playing with you). Anyways, when making the (not necessarily conscious) decision about your belief, your sample of dogs is heavily biased. If the data is biased, your judgment will be as well.
There are many other examples of things affected by this, such as sexist and racist hypotheses, and even medical/health hypotheses.
An important point is the underrated importance of disconfirming evidence. Let's say you're convinced that ian.de over here likes you. You believe this because you meet ian.de every day, and every day he smiles at you. In your mind you may become more and more convinced of this each day. But.. maybe he smiles at everybody. Or maybe he thinks you're crazy and only smiles at you to be polite. So, obviously, gathering more and more confirming evidence doesn't make it any less ambiguous.
Disconfirmations, though, can be very very informative. The rooster is said to believe that his crowing each morning brings the sun into the sky. He'd say he has plenty of evidence confirming this, since day after day he crows and the sun's risen every single time. We all know the poor rooster's mistaken, right? We can tell from this that confirming evidence, no matter how numerous, does not necessarily show a belief to be true. If he were to consider disconfirming evidence, though, and let one morning pass without crowing, the sun's arrival that day would certainly tell the rooster a great deal.
If you think about it, this can be extended to examples of people developing odd superstitions (spilling the salt, wearing a lucky shirt/thong, seeking answers on a crystal ball, etc..)
Did you understand? Was it clear? ..it's late (later than I thought, actually
)------------------------
I didn't want to mention explicitly that religion serves as a grand example to this human tendency. I thought it may be clear enough to whoever is reading objectively. But you know what? I think I'll defend Atheism tonight
Praying
Millions of people are, and remain, convinced that praying helps them and gives them what they want. I am certain that if I were to ask one of these people about a time when he prayed and got what he wanted, he would be able to give me a good list of examples. Undoubtedly. And this would be enough for the person to have his belief strongly reinforced. But if you think about it, this is a strong case of confirmation bias affecting his judgment. What about the hundreds/thousands of times you prayed and didn't quite get what you wanted? Or better yet.. Let's say I ask another person about her praying. She's very happy, and very devoutly grateful, because the Good Lord cured her of some ailment with which she had been suffering. She tells me she prayed every day for 2 years and that her prayers were finally answered ..that her faith and perseverance payed off and blessed her ..and, oh she's just so happy. Well, in this example alone she's counting 1 prayer that "was answered" and is completely inattentive to the 600+ times that her prayers weren't answered. In this case perhaps subtle shifts in her lifestyle and family and/or medical care allowed her body to get better eventually, but her judgment about the "prayer <-> getting better one day" relationship is extremely biased.
This example is not atypical of many aspects of religious followers.
I'll also add two things: 1) Prayer might in fact help someone with his or her own health and/or state of mind, because human psychology is indeed a powerful thing (People who have mastered meditation have been known to demonstrate impressive control over their physiology ..like not "feel" pain. Also, we are all aware of the negative side-effects of stress)
2) Double-blind experiments have been done to show clearly and objectively that people praying for other people show no statistical difference in results than unprayed-for people.
This is a good point. However, I wonder whether pure selfishness would also be considered as a motivator? Even if you throw yourself into an icy lake to save a drowning child, the reward will be that you'll feel remarkably good about yourself (if you live, that is), and this is the motivation for all altruistic acts. The reason why we feel good when we do good is debatable - it could be because we enjoy the sense of power (the power to decide the fate of others) it gives us, or that it makes us feel indispensable, or important in some manner. Or it's socially conditioned - through faith, among other things. Altruism is also necessary for a society to function, or we would be stuck with Hobbes' state of nature and life would be very nasty, brutish and short indeed.
Again, very vaild points and I agree, there's little morality in these particular stories. They are all from the Old Testament, however, and I will argue that they do reflect the societies from which they emerged, and thus cater to the particular needs of the aforementioned societies. Genocide and plunder will get rid of that other bunch of people that are competing with your bunch of people for the same resources. And what's great about it is that God endorses it! Religion had (and still has, of course) a social function, in that it organised society and life within it in a time when powerful, centralised rule that would keep things in order wasn't really a practical option. The doctrine could be shaped so that certain things were excused and some things forbidden, everything according to what society needed. I find it interesting that when most (level-headed) Christians want to talk about morals, they draw exclusively from the New Testament.
Islam is one interesting examle of this. The Arabian Peninsula consisted of little else than bickering tribes with quite brutal "pagan" religions before Mohammed came along with his revised edition of Judaism and Christianity. The strict nature of Islam provided a great organising mechanism for getting people to stop fighting and start working together, hence why they were shortly after able to expand their rule. Islam in the 600s also meant a vast improvement of the lives of women (and children), who had previously been seen as entirely disposable. In this modern day and age, however, the Islamic view of women and their place in society is obviously less of a happy combination.
What you say about confirmation bias and prayer is also very interesting, and I would comment, were it not for the fact that I really should be reading about structural adjustment in Africa, the "nature" of the political as well as the impenetrable and tedious prose of Samir Amin. Whenever I next feel like procrastinating, however...
marduk1507
Member
Northern Lights said:
This sounds like "I find it strange...", I hope it wasnt meant as such. In the same vein, I find it interesting that when most people try to find examples for their arguments against the Christianity, they draw exclusively from the Old Testament. The answer to that is simple - its so easy. The OT is full of awful things, and it is quite hard for most level-headed Christians to accept it as one of the corner stones of their religion. Similarly though, most of the level-headed atheists I know find it hard to dismiss the NT as utter nonsense.
Marduk: No, it wasn't. More in the vein of interesting as in worthy of closer attention. Like you said, the Old Testament is the primary fuel for those wishing to argue against Christianity, but it's not like your average priest will preach fire and brimstone and encourage sacrificing your daughters all through the Sundays. At least not where I'm from.
marduk1507
Member
Exactly (even though you get your share of other titbits). I am not a theologist, but this is what I think most atheists fail or refuse to acknowledge - that what actually founds Christianity is the New Testament. The life and words of Christ as they are captured in the gospels and epistles are or at least should form the basis of Christian religion and morality. It is therefore natural for most Christians to draw from there.
MagSec4
.:..::.: :.::..:.
And in making these observations, does it not tell you how little sense it makes with the idea of a unified religion? The Christian God is supposed to be almighty, allknowing, allseeing, and perfect. And here you have one book telling you about clearly different characters throughout. It's like Northern Lights said, these are all compiled stories and folklore from different time periods. Isn't it clear that this is all man-made and man-written. If the God you believe in were to have any hand in its writing I'm sure he'd slap himself in the face at the lack of organization, the travesties, and thousands of inconsistencies. I'm sure a God like the one you believe in would have everything figured out and clearly told. Even though you can see that these are different God characters (in the OT and the NT), you force yourself to believe that the Bible is a single unified scripture of one religion, which it clearly is not. And what you must have in the back of your mind instead, is a strange depiction of a God that's at best emotionally unstable and indecisive, and at worst dangerously insane (with evil tendencies even).marduk1507 said:
Even God did exist, what do you think is more likely? This (That he's actually not perfect and has mood swings and has to reconsider things, or just plain insane)? Or that it was all written by men like every single other book in existence? Men with great imaginations and with extremely limited knowledge back then. And that it is not at all an accurate reflection on the actual God (slapping himself in the face and shaking his head) that for the moment we assume to exist. What's more likely?
Now I'm sure, marduk, that you're a decent person. If you were around I'd invite you out for a beer and a turkey sandwich. And I know that you must believe in a God that is innately good. I would just like to extend to you the (very likely) possibility that the God you believe in is absolutely unrelated to the God-character(s) in the Bible (or at least the Old Testament) in the same way that Zeus is completely unrelated to Thor.
The New Testament, while a big improvement on the horrors of the Old, is still not exactly a fountain of good morals or the key to a happy outlook of life.
First of all, it's all drenched in the idea of original sin, which basically comes from a character from a very long time ago, that you have absolutely nothing to do with, who saw a piece of fruit and ate it. God warned them not to eat from it, but hey (maybe he just forgot, or thought it wasn't that big of a deal) Well it turns out that it was the cosmically most horrible thing in the world and they were made to suffer, work for their food, ..God even threw in "childbirth pain" there as a bonus. And not only that, but it has since been passed down along the line of men in the semen, and we all shall suffer for it. Is that not ridiculous in many different levels?
Jesus, if he existed, must've been a great person. And if he didn't exist, whoever made him up must've been a great person. Many good morals do come from Jesus. But he wasn't exactly a model citizen either. He was constantly rebellious, braking the sabbath, defying the Rabbis, defying his family.
And didn't he also say something along the lines of "He who cannot leave his family and get completely detached from them may not be my disciple"?
(I don't mean to criticize much, just playing devil's advocate to what you said about Atheist not touching the New Testament) ..but hey, is that not what cults do? Get you to leave your families and take you away so they may tell you "how it is".
Another interesting moral consideration can be found in Judas Iscariot. I could argue that he was dealt a rough deal. Unfairly. His 'betrayal' of Jesus was necessary for the cosmic plan that God/Jesus had. If God is allknowing, and it was all prearranged, then what fault is it of poor Judas. And if what the religious say is true, the poor guy is right now one of the people suffering the most in the absolute worst place of all (next to Satan* ..another interesting character)
That's another thing, such violent suffering...
If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Why go through the trouble of getting somebody tortured and killed? ..and in the process condemn people such as Judas, Romans, and Jews to be hated in the future as "Christ-killers"?
In present day morality, it's hard to defend ideas of punishments of retribution, let alone the "scapegoat" idea, torturing and executing the innocent to pay for the 'sins' of the guilty.
But wait, a lot of you do agree that the Old Testament and specific stories, like that of Adam and Eve are only symbolic!, and not literal. So God/Jesus is going to have himself tortured and executed in such an impressive and passionate manner, by the hand of other men, as punishment for a symbolic sin commited by a non-existent individual?
..these aren't good morals.
The Apocalypse. It's decent story telling, but read through it. Do you really expect things to happen this way in our future at some point? And does it not say at some point that the people who will be saved are counted. marduk, there are a lot of really pious and "good" religious people out there ..do you think you'll be included in that number? It wasn't a big number from what I remember..
Do you know why the Apocalypse is so famous? Because people like that kind of stuff. It's something you could see in an anime film. Or something from a 30-minute long power metal song.
And why should we give validity to the writings of one man who had a vision (which he of course believed was God-given. Of course..I mean, he was a very pious (biased) man. We know this because he's now known with "saint" in front of his name) ..and not give validity to the writings of hundreds of other people who have visions? And I'm sure they are just as entertaining. Someone tell me. Why should we? Because it made it to the Bible? Not many people know that a lot of what made it into the Bible or not was determined by people in power. Religious leaders and Roman Emperors (and not for religious reasons, and not so long ago).
* Evil is an abstract man-defined ideal. And I argue that it does not exist in the 3rd-person/external sense that people make it out to be. Evil only arises from people. Evil is exclusively within the minds, psychology, and actions of people. I argue that Satan is one of the characters that people created in order to personify this "evil". Satan is a childish excuse. An irresponsible concoction of people's imagination. An easy way out to take away our responsibility. I've been around people talking about how another person they knew killed his spouse and then hung himself. And they, dead-seriously, claim that Satan was there. And that it was Satan that made these good people ("they seemed so fine last time I saw them" they say) do what they did. That, once the thought crossed his mind, it was Satan that helped with the actual hanging.
Matse
Customized individuum
- Jan 17, 2007
- 928
- 1
- 18
- 35
Personally, I do not think many Christians believe in every single word that is written in the bible, although they will probably tell you they do. What they usually do is to pick out the parts they like and ignore the others which is not a bad thing in my opinion but just the natural consequence of a society that has changed a lot over the millenia. So most of the arguments brought up by those who argue against Christianity will not apply to many "modern" Christians.
Nevertheless I enjoy reading this discussion here. Keep up the good work. *thumb up*
Nevertheless I enjoy reading this discussion here. Keep up the good work. *thumb up*
DisplayofCharacter
Are You Scared Enough?
MagSec4
.:..::.: :.::..:.
Hey, hey buddy, no free shows after October. You know this. Either pay our thread cashier the 20 bucks,DisplayofCharacter said:
..or post your thoughts or opinions.
I'll take that as a promise.Northern Lights said:
Explain this.hyena said:
By the way, I must say I'm a little surprised. I expected some debate from you.
Or are you just quietly taking it all in as a preview so you can come prepared for outgunning me when we have a real chat?
@mags: it was more or less a coincidence, i have been visiting my mother in the past few days, and i also have a very bad back at the moment, resulting in more pain that would be desirable. i'm heading to america on sunday tho, and probably staying there until dec 5th, so we can have teh chat.
marduk1507
Member
Absolutely. Ive never said that it was written by God. Do you think Im crazy?
Im sorry, but are you ok? Dont you think you take this a tad too seriously? What do I know about God? And are you really so sure that the people who wrote these books were of extremely limited knowledge? What do you know? What lies at the bottom of all things? Is it a wave or a particle? Or both? Read Fritjof Capras Tao of Physics.
Oh man, you dont know how much Id love to sit with you drinking beer. As for the other part - thanks, but I already know that.
Isnt it really? What is a happy outlook of life? That youre definitely going to die and be food for wormy thought?
Absolutely. If you take it literally.
Your arguments are truly weak, cant you see that? Jesus is the core of the whole Christianity for me. And I find exactly those things about him you say are weird so cool.
Uff, no comment.
What? Did God say Jews were Christ-killers? Come on!
Heidegger said God didnt know shit about whats it like being finite, so he had to be born as a human. I dont know...
Who are you to say that?
No comment.
I dont know anything about Satan or evil.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
Rhetorical gimmick: ask enough questions whose answers are obvious and you'll eventually manage to slip a controversial one inbetween. Besides, he's sure you're a decent person, so STOP IT with all your HATING, for Funny-Named Deity's sake!
DisplayofCharacter
Are You Scared Enough?
That was an opinion.
About Judas though. I like the idea that his betrayal was unavoidable as a piece of a much bigger picture. It makes me wonder that if this God wouldn't have been more lenient on him (lots of purgatory time?) because without the betrayal, what means would Christ have to die for our sins? (Obviously an unanswerable question, but still interesting). Did Judas have any idea he was damned from the start? (I haven't read the bible, so I really don't know). How could a person live knowing that kind of fate? I generally don't believe in destiny (moments in time sometimes seem too perfect to me to not be destined, but that might be the romantic in me talking
), especially because I enjoy my free will very much. Or are there designs that create the illusion of free will? The paradox continues...
Now i will anticipate ian.de's reaction: this is not acceptable on a death metal forum.
marduk1507
Member
Oh father, you are so wrong! Its not hating, just a teasing reaction to what bigoted Christians are rightfully accused of - namely treating the opposite party like they were half-witted. I know Mags intentions were good, but thats also what the bigots say. No seriously, Im not a decent person.
hyena said:
Well, only if you like Deicide and the likes (which I do, damn!). Satan and evil are the sole propriety of the black metal flock.
