|
Series DD Funding posted:49% of Americans have had a religious experience: http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/mystical-experiences/ Is that collective enough? Considering that very few line up with any significant regularity, no, not at all. Find me 49% of Americans that have had the same religious experience and can accurately describe what, exactly, it entails then you'll be on to something. Until then a warm and fuzzy feeling doesn't mean poo poo.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Barlow posted:It can be source of moral views but it's also important as way to ground existing teaching in something beyond a personal commitment or a political community. When applied well trying to "love your neighbor" as Jesus commanded can be an inspiring and demanding ethic, even if the phrase sounds banal. Discipleship is a tough business if taken seriously. In any case though the problem I see is that you're pretty much putting any views reached via religious interpretation beyond criticism. Like let's say someone decides that the Bible is telling them to hate gays, how do you challenge that when you're not willing to attack the basis of their belief in the Bible or their interpretation of it? Series DD Funding posted:What is truth?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're like the idiot suburban parent who's convinced the black people are about to come out to Whitesburg at any moment to steal things. You lack any ability to comprehend actual risks.  Man, you and the ad hominems. Nintendo Kid posted:It affected you and the people around you a lot more 10 years ago, a lot more than that 10 years prior to that, and so on. You really don't seem to understand how weakened the churches are these days. I am not denying that they are weakened, but if you think that has somehow weakened their push in legislation and education, it has not. And if you can't argue without making poor comparisons and personal insults, I'm not likely to be swayed.  
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Considering that very few line up with any significant regularity, no, not at all. Find me 49% of Americans that have had the same religious experience and can accurately describe what, exactly, it entails then you'll be on to something. Until then a warm and fuzzy feeling doesn't mean poo poo. If I did that the claim would shift to "they're just copying what they heard from others" (see also: alien abductions). Anyway, even discounting the fact that collective reality can only be interpreted through the lens of the individual, "truth" could refer to either one's individual reality or a collective one. Why is the latter better?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:If I did that the claim would shift to "they're just copying what they heard from others" (see also: alien abductions). Anyway, even discounting the fact that collective reality can only be interpreted through the lens of the individual, "truth" could refer to either one's individual reality or a collective one. Why is the latter better? The latter is better because we don't live in isolation. You have to live and interact with other people and it's in everyone's best interest to operate with the knowledge that most accurately represents all individual perceptions of reality. If in your reality you believe that Jesus will literally take the wheel and allow your car to speed through intersections without you driving it then you're going to end up killing yourself and people around you. Or do you really think God is going to safely guide your car through traffic for you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
That's not an ad hominem, it's a description of your sort of outlook. Those people also barely pay attention to what they fear except when they read something alarmist. Again, child, the organizations didn't need to exist when Christian control was an accepted and unchallenged aspect of everyday life. You don't need to lobby to pull back abortion when abortion is massively illegal. You don't need to lobby to put church back in schools when church is in schools. You don't need to lobby to crush the gays when crush the gays is law in all 50 states. You don't need to lobby to put the 10 commandments back on courthouses when pretty much all courthouses openly reference god. But no, you're a 21st century idiot who thinks that hearing about whiny Christians means they have more influence than when churches literally controlled major aspects of education and civic life directly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
I'm in that 49% that felt they had religious revelations. I'm an atheist now though. Depending on how exactly you define it I still might have some religious revelations. Any kind of principle shift feels pretty analogous. I would, however, define my eventual final conversion away from Christianity as one such religious revelation. Another thing to consider for that statistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The latter is better because we don't live in isolation. You have to live and interact with other people and it's in everyone's best interest to operate with the knowledge that most accurately represents all individual perceptions of reality. If in your reality you believe that Jesus will literally take the wheel and allow your car to speed through intersections without you driving it then you're going to end up killing yourself and people around you. Or do you really think God is going to safely guide your car through traffic for you? I'm talking about morals. If someone claims to have had a religious experience and that everyone has a moral obligation to speed through intersections (or do anything else), that's an unfalsifiable claim. Most other people won't be happy with our lawbreaker, and they would be right to be angry in their own moral framework. But that doesn't make the would-be prophet objectively wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But no, you're a 21st century idiot who thinks that hearing about whiny Christians means they have more influence than when churches literally controlled major aspects of education and civic life directly. Its almost as if you can't put two and two together and realize that with Citizens United, an increased presence of theocratic lobbying groups is not a good thing. And considering the DECREASE in availability of abortion, how do you explain the increased stigma against Roe Vs Wade? You act like an increased presence of religious lobby groups is a GOOD thing, regardless of the declination of the presence of the Church in daily life. Frankly, I have no reason to agree with you considering your common stances on nearly everything you talk about and your laughable pedantic put downs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its almost as if you can't put two and two together and realize that with Citizens United, an increased presence of theocratic lobbying groups is not a good thing. Citizens United did about jackshit. The lobbying groups exist precisely because they're no longer the default power structure. Abortion has been in practice heavily restricted in most of those areas ever since roe v wade happened, which is no surprise since those areas were actively banning it in total prior to the ruling. It is a GOOD THING because it means THEY'VE LOST CONTROL. You don't need a dedicated lobby group when you're in control, like they were for hundreds of years. Wake the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Considering that very few line up with any significant regularity, no, not at all. Find me 49% of Americans that have had the same religious experience and can accurately describe what, exactly, it entails then you'll be on to something. Until then a warm and fuzzy feeling doesn't mean poo poo. Thank you, mr. pedo anime avatar, for telling us what means poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Actually, I kind of like this new relatively recent atmosphere of not being guaranteed to be immediately informed I will burn in hell for eternity for sleeping with a woman or w/e. Also, I am about 100% sure that Nintendo Kid doesn't actually think the lobbying groups are a good thing in themselves. Just that they're a sign of the underlying progressive shift in (at least) western cultures. There wouldn't be a reactionary movement if they didn't have something to react to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I'm talking about morals. If someone claims to have had a religious experience and that everyone has a moral obligation to speed through intersections (or do anything else), that's an unfalsifiable claim. Most other people won't be happy with our lawbreaker, and they would be right to be angry in their own moral framework. But that doesn't make the would-be prophet objectively wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I'm talking about morals. If someone claims to have had a religious experience and that everyone has a moral obligation to speed through intersections (or do anything else), that's an unfalsifiable claim. Most other people won't be happy with our lawbreaker, and they would be right to be angry in their own moral framework. But that doesn't make the would-be prophet objectively wrong. There's no such thing as objective morality, so that's a complete red herring. But if we go by some very simple a priori criteria (that life is preferable to death, not pain preferable to pain, health preferable to sickness; with exceptions for almost all of them) that almost everyone already agrees with then we can gauge which kinds of morality are better than others. And, shockingly, morality that basis itself on shared reality tends to do better than morality based on unsubstantiated beliefs. Not so shockingly religions co-opted these morals and tried to claim they came up with them first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Thank you, mr. pedo anime avatar, for telling us what means poo poo. I got this by mocking people with pedo anime avatars. Unfortunately I haven't had an extra  to drop on a new one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Kylra posted:Also, I am about 100% sure that Nintendo Kid doesn't actually think the lobbying groups are a good thing in themselves. Just that they're a sign of the underlying progressive shift in (at least) western cultures. There wouldn't be a reactionary movement if they didn't have something to react to Frankly, I don't care. He seems to think that Church's are going quietly into the night when the complete opposite is happening and they are making people's lives hell while they slowly fall. But I'm done talking to someone who thinks that no matter what talking down to others will get you taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Kylra posted:Actually, I kind of like this new relatively recent atmosphere of not being guaranteed to be immediately informed I will burn in hell for eternity for sleeping with a woman or w/e. Precisely. No one opened 500 creationist lobbying groups in say 1960 because in 1960 several states still mandated that evolution was banned from being taught in public schools, and it'd be legal for a school district to do if their state didn't explicitly mandate it. No one needed 500 lobbying groups against the gays in 1980 because they had no rights and it was still legally ok to send people to jail for being gay until 2003. And the fact that there are so many for each topic tends to flow to the fact that they have toruble working together to implement anything, much like how you have 6000 splitter remnants of the original american Communist party. CommieGIR posted:Frankly, I don't care. He seems to think that Church's are going quietly into the night when the complete opposite is happening and they are making people's lives hell while they slowly fall. Haha so you're literally incapable of reading? I explicitly said they're going kicking and screaming, not quietly. Also lo loving l at you for claiming they're making people's lives hell now as if they weren't doing it in the past when they were comfortable King poo poo of politics. You are being talked down to because you believe the opposite of objective truth and have the sociopolitical understanding of a 12 year old child. Deal with it potsie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:So in other words your "individual realities" that aren't based on any kind of external evidence can directly endanger other people and we must be able to challenge them? Being religious doesn't directly endanger other people. Who What Now posted:There's no such thing as objective morality, so that's a complete red herring. But if we go by some very simple a priori criteria (that life is preferable to death, not pain preferable to pain, health preferable to sickness; with exceptions for almost all of them) that almost everyone already agrees with then we can gauge which kinds of morality are better than others. And, shockingly, morality that basis itself on shared reality tends to do better than morality based on unsubstantiated beliefs. Not so shockingly religions co-opted these morals and tried to claim they came up with them first. If someone is led to a morality based on shared reality because of religion, and said religion makes them feel better about their life, who gives a poo poo? Secular humanism and religion with equivalent morals lead to the same result, so what does it matter if it's caused by a love of humanity or the love of a deity?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:If someone is led to a morality based on shared reality because of religion, and said religion makes them feel better about their life, who gives a poo poo? Secular humanism and religion with equivalent morals lead to the same result, so what does it matter if it's caused by a love of humanity or the love of a deity? Partially because people who dont have a moral system based on shared reality use other people in the same religion as a shield from criticism, especially when they are actively harming people. Just look to all the kids who die every year because their parents try to pray away the diabetes, or evangelical home schooling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Being religious doesn't directly endanger other people. Christian Science. And all those whackadoodle groups that rejected vaccines and helped spur a measles breakout. Series DD Funding posted:If someone is led to a morality based on shared reality because of religion, and said religion makes them feel better about their life, who gives a poo poo? Secular humanism and religion with equivalent morals lead to the same result, so what does it matter if it's caused by a love of humanity or the love of a deity? Its not that anyone objects to religion in general, we object to religion being used to guide scientific ideals and legislation that directly impacts those not connected to said religion. Its not their morals we find difficulty with, its how the excuse needing their morals when they want to impede upon the rights of others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Christian Science. And all those whackadoodle groups that rejected vaccines and helped spur a measles breakout. A quite literally dying group (300,000 people in this country in 1936, well under 100,000 now), and a bunch of groups that have tangential at best relation to religion. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:A quite literally dying group (300,000 people in this country in 1936, well under 100,000 now), and a bunch of groups that have tangential at best relation to religion. Nice. I'm sorry, I didn't know 'harm' had to be quantifiable in large numbers to count.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm sorry, I didn't know 'harm' had to be quantifiable in large numbers to count. It's kind of important to note that the Christian Science church has been slowly collapsing for a long time and at this point is down to mostly older folks when you're struggling to claim it as a point. And you literally just pulled a claim out of your rear end that the anti-vax fad is due to religion, buddyboy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm sorry, I didn't know 'harm' had to be quantifiable in large numbers to count. The point is that they are dying out as people leave them. Also, please keep in mind that the anti-vaccine movement is more rooted in secular reasons (vaccines cause autism) than religious ones (using medicine is equivalent to playing God) .
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Partially because people who dont have a moral system based on shared reality use other people in the same religion as a shield from criticism, especially when they are actively harming people. Just look to all the kids who die every year because their parents try to pray away the diabetes, or evangelical home schooling. And? Look at all the kids each year who die because people think vaccines are a plot to impurify our bodily fluids. The common factor between vaccine conspiracies and prayer healing, and not religion, is that they're falsifiable. You can make moral arguments based off of shared reality evidence, but the axioms that underlie the morals are arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:The point is that they are dying out as people leave them. I'm not claiming the entire anti-vax movement is due to religion, however we had specific cases that were tied to religious groups who refused vaccinations. I'm well aware of the pseudoscience side to the anti-vax movement. Nintendo Kid posted:And you literally just pulled a claim out of your rear end that the anti-vax fad is due to religion, buddyboy. You are putting words in my mouth to justify your point. Well done Fishmech. Please help me understand how every state but two has exemptions for religious reasons against vaccines. Series DD Funding posted:And? Look at all the kids each year who die because people think vaccines are a plot to impurify our bodily fluids. The common factor between vaccine conspiracies and prayer healing, and not religion, is that they're falsifiable. You can make moral arguments based off of shared reality evidence, but the axioms that underlie the morals are arbitrary. Please identify how prayer is falsifiable. Thanks in advance. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm not claiming the entire anti-vax movement is due to religion, however we had specific cases that were tied to religious groups who refused vaccinations. Your wording made it seem as if you were assigning blame specifically to religious groups. CommieGIR posted:Christian Science. And all those whackadoodle groups that rejected vaccines and helped spur a measles breakout. Once again, the majority of the anti-vaccine movement is not predicated on religious beliefs. To blame religion in this case is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:Your wording made it seem as if you were assigning blame specifically to religious groups. Again, not what I intended to imply. Sinnlos posted:Once again, the majority of the anti-vaccine movement is not predicated on religious beliefs. To blame religion in this case is absurd. I am NOT blame the entire anti-vaccine movement on religion. However, considering every state but two has religious exemptions for vaccines, please help me understand how its not part of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Please identify how prayer is falsifiable. Thanks in advance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Just because someone conducted a study does not make prayer falsifiable, and the results were either no effect or inconclusive. quote:The review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies had failed to produce significant findings. I mean, unless you are suggesting prayer is just a placebo, but even then placebos have PROVEN effects that are not inconclusive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You are putting words in my mouth to justify your point. Well done Fishmech. Please help me understand how every state but two has exemptions for religious reasons against vaccines. Series DD Funding posted:Being religious doesn't directly endanger other people. CommieGIR posted:And all those whackadoodle groups that rejected vaccines and helped spur a measles breakout. Most of the people using religious exemptions are not doing it because it's actually their religion, it's simply the easiest way to do it where they live. The exemptions existed because many many years ago when most of the laws were written vaccination was opposed by much more of the population. CommieGIR posted:Again, not what I intended to imply. Then learn to write better before trying to argue. Because it is quite exactly what you did imply. CommieGIR posted:placebos have PROVEN effects This is a misunderstanding caused by popular media coverage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Most of the people using religious exemptions are not doing it because it's actually their religion, it's simply the easiest way to do it where they live. The exemptions existed because many many years ago when most of the laws were written vaccination was opposed by much more of the population. One could argue that you read more into it than what was there, the only thing I implied was religious groups CAN do harm, there is nothing in that sentence that in any way implies that they are solely responsible for the anti-vaccine movement. Learn to read and interpret better, fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Just because someone conducted a study does not make prayer falsifiable, and the results were either no effect or inconclusive. I'm suggesting that you can do RCTs on "praying for other people will help them beyond the placebo effect", and that the studies that have done so have mostly found no effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:One could argue that you read more into it than what was there, the only thing I implied was religious groups CAN do harm, there is nothing in that sentence that in any way implies that they are solely responsible for the anti-vaccine movement. One could argue that, and they'd be wrong. It's you, you're the only one arguing that to excuse your sloppy writing. You still won't even admit you were wrong about Christianity having more control of America than ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I'm suggesting that you can do RCTs on "praying for other people will help them beyond the placebo effect", and that the studies that have done so have mostly found no effect. That doesn't make prayer falsifiable. Nintendo Kid posted:You still won't even admit you were wrong about Christianity having more control of America than ever. Hmmmmmm, its almost as if a vocal minority just took sweeping control of the Senate and Congress. Surely not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That doesn't make prayer falsifiable. You obviously can't falsify the efficacy of praying for yourself. But I was responding to "their parents try to pray away the diabetes," which has been falsified.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hmmmmmm, its almost as if a vocal minority just took sweeping control of the Senate and Congress. Surely not. They didn't, child. Also, again, they had undisputed control up til the 60s-80s depending on how you count things. Way to confirm you're wrong for the 50th time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Being religious doesn't directly endanger other people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:You obviously can't falsify the efficacy of praying for yourself. But I was responding to "their parents try to pray away the diabetes," which has been falsified. Its has to be empirically verifiable to even be considered falsifiable. Prayer is not quantifiable. The relaxation found in prayer can lead to affects that directly influence stress, but that does not mean prayer was effective as a health treatment. This doesn't mean prayer is effective, it means being a relaxed state is effective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:In the majority of cases, yeah. But if you put up a barrier and say "you can't question someone's unfalsifiable beliefs, it's true to them!" then you're helping to protect people with harmful unfalsifiable beliefs, be they religious or otherwise. To use a more real-world example, how about those who think their children should not receive blood transfusions because they think it goes against god's will? We make a moral decision that the child's physical health is more important than the parent's impression of their spiritual health. CommieGIR posted:Its has to be empirically verifiable to even be considered falsifiable. Prayer is not quantifiable. The relaxation found in prayer can lead to affects that directly influence stress, but that does not mean prayer was effective as a health treatment. Okay? I've been saying prayer, to the extent it can be falsified, has been.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:11
|
|