Religion and Science Benefit

[liberty_student]

@Snowflake

I’ve seen something like argumentation ethics and kinsella’s name sprout up here and there in the forums. Is their discussion relevant to the one at hand? If there is an alternative to the zero sum debate I’d love to learn it.

I don’t think AE is relevant.

@Snowflake

Maybe there is nothing I can say… Its frustrating because I feel like I should say something.

There are a lot of people who want to talk to you. Why waste time talking to people who aren’t interested?

Time is short.

[filc]

@Snowflake

I just don’t know what to say to people who are mega obama supporters etc without getting into a win-lose situation… maybe this is my limitation. Maybe there is nothing I can say… Its frustrating because I feel like I should say something.

I feel like people who become highly confrontational when discussing their points of view are folks who are insecure about the knowledge of their standpoint. Rather then being able to present a case built on information they build a case using hostility. The idea is to intimidate their opponent out of the argument rather then actually argue the points.

[Snowflake]

@liberty student

There are a lot of people who want to talk to you. Why waste time talking to people who aren’t interested?

Yeah I thought some more about that organization I wanted to start up on campus… Over the past few days it has changed from debate to presentation oriented.

Basically it would resemble a conference on a particular monthly topic and different groups would be invited to attend and do a presentation with a 15 min Q&A session at the end.

Its still an idea in progress though. I guess the presentation format doesn’t completely stop people from getting into zero sum debates… That’s up to them/us.

[DarkCatalyst]

@Smiling Dave

Summing up: I stated an irrefutable fact, that most people are dead wrong about religion, no matter which religion is assumed to be true. Though you agree with this fact [implicitly], you started in with the name calling and also tried to confuse the issue. You call someone who mentions a simple mathematical statement of irrefutable fact [that you also accept as true] a statist.

How can most people be wrong about religion if billions of people of differing faiths derive value from their beliefs? What if a Christian, praying to Jesus for strength, and a Vodou practitioner praying to one of the various Loa for the same thing, both feel their prayers have been answered. How could this be if Vodou is “wrong”? I think belief matters more than the actual religion.

[EternalSanction]

@Smiling Dave

Do the math. No religion has a majority on this little planet. Therfor no matter which religion you believe in, most people have it wrong.

The only thing I wish to say in this thread: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” (Not sure who said it; if someone knows, I’d be interested.)

[liberty_student]

@Snowflake

Basically it would resemble a conference on a particular monthly topic and different groups would be invited to attend and do a presentation with a 15 min Q&A session at the end.

So like a campus Mises Circle sort of thing. Cool idea.

Build relationships. You don’t have to make your point in an hour or a week or a year. Point people in the right direction, and many will find their way to an understanding of their own while incorporating the ideas you have to share.

[Catalan]

@Smiling Dave

Do the math. No religion has a majority on this little planet. Therfor no matter which religion you believe in, most people have it wrong.

Does that mean we’re wrong on economics, since the majority of people believe in Keynes?

[laminustacitus]

@Smiling Dave

@liberty student

it casts people of faith as being irrational or incorrect,

Do the math. No religion has a majority on this little planet. Therfor no matter which religion you believe in, most people have it wrong.

Your point being?

[Juan]

That ‘people of faith’ are indeed irrational AND incorrect.

[DarkCatalyst]

@Juan

That ‘people of faith’ are indeed irrational AND incorrect.

Wrong. I know many people who benefit from their belief/faith.

[Juan]

So what. The things they assert are false - they are just lies. The issue at hand was not personal benefit.

[liberty_student]

@Juan

The issue at hand was not personal benefit.

Indeed it was. Which is why I split the thread. Please find another thread to dump on religion in thanks.

[Juan]

Thread name : religion and science. I don’t see the word benefit there. Do you ?

[liberty_student]

It is now.

[laminustacitus]

@Juan

That ‘people of faith’ are indeed irrational AND incorrect.

And you have no faith whatsoever?

@Juan

irrational

Are you irrational for not bowing to the consensus of college professors when it comes to economics.

@Juan

AND incorrect.

Would Keynes be correct if 100% of the world believe him?

[liberty_student]

lam, not in this thread. Do it somewhere else please.

[Laughing_Man]

I think what is trying to be discussed here is ‘Is rational faith in a deity possible?’ an open ended question. Should we be discussing this seriously and is there enough factual information to thoroughly discredit any premise concerning it? I think it is still open. There is no definitive argument against it. Could there ever be? Perhaps.

[Juan]

It is now.

An amazing display of your god-like powers eh ?

[DarkCatalyst]

I guess I wasn’t clear earlier but the point I was trying to make that it doesn’t matter if the religious believe a person holds is true or false. If they benefit from it then who cares? If they benefit, are they being irrational? If they benefit, how are they wrong?

[Smiling_Dave]

@DarkCatalyst

@Smiling Dave

Summing up: I stated an irrefutable fact, that most people are dead wrong about religion, no matter which religion is assumed to be true. Though you agree with this fact [implicitly], you started in with the name calling and also tried to confuse the issue. You call someone who mentions a simple mathematical statement of irrefutable fact [that you also accept as true] a statist.

How can most people be wrong about religion if billions of people of differing faiths derive value from their beliefs? What if a Christian, praying to Jesus for strength, and a Vodou practitioner praying to one of the various Loa for the same thing, both feel their prayers have been answered. How could this be if Vodou is “wrong”? I think belief matters more than the actual religion.

I suspect you and I might be in agreement, but talking about two different things.

You are saying “If belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus or The Ultimate Triumph of Communism makes you feel good, it makes you feel good.”

I agree.

I am saying “Take any person on this planet, call him Mr Ed. He believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus or Communism. Let us say for example he believes in the Spaghetti Monster and believes there is no Santa Claus and no Communist Heaven. But most people do not believe in the Spaghetti Monster, but in either Santa or Communism or nothing or are unsure. So Mr Ed sincerely things these misguided creatures are wrong. And they are most of the planet. So Mr Ed beleives most people are wrong about religion. Replace Mr Ed with anyone else you please, repeat above analysis. So we all agree most people are wrong about religion.”

Now you might also be saying “If Mr Ed believes 2+2=5, and this clearly false ridiculous absurd belief somehow makes him feel better, he cannot be wrong.” I dunno. That flies right over my head.