Right, I’m going to improve the situation of every child who starves to death by believing in a none existent creator of everything. Why doesn’t your god solve all these problems? He/it could right?
By the way, how do you KNOW what’s best? Best for who? Apparently dying from cancer, or thirst, or leukemia are just “problems”.
Tell that to our nephew who’s 9 year old daughter has a tumor on her pituitary gland that’s already taken her eyesight and might eventually end up killing her. They’ve spent a small fortune on specialists and at different hospitals, but the tumor is growing back in spite of major brain surgery a couple of years ago.
Her future isn’t looking great.
A belief in your god isn’t going to help or change a fucking thing.
One thing is finding the best belief for each of us; another is what a society can collectively agree to believe in.
Yes, some people may be better off as atheists because the way they “believe”… well, it sometimes serves as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for their lives or to disguise their desires as “demands from God,” and so on. Of course, the same can be said for those who have no belief and use different excuses to justify similar behaviors. This type of dysfunctional behavior is like a disease—whether someone is a believer or not, anyone can catch a “mental cold,” so to speak.
But I think the need for religion goes deeper. I find North Korea’s case particularly interesting, where religion has essentially vanished, yet it has been replaced by a form of personality cult. Our society does something similar with the cult of fame and glamour—celebrities become role models for the masses, and this behavior doesn’t require belief in anything.
Few people truly take responsibility for their lives, whether they are believers or not, and even fewer strive to understand what genuinely makes them better.
Well, as long as these laws have a positive effect or no negative impact, why not?
As I mentioned, I’m not discussing the truth of religion itself. This does NOT mean I think it’s untrue. I mean that this question requires not just one, but many discussions.
It is impossible to reason against feelings. Our intellectual truths are irrelevant to our emotions. We recognize this in others but rarely in ourselves. I’m not trying to start a new debate here, but feelings won’t disappear, whether we believe or not. In my case, I seek what leads to a better outcome, not necessarily what makes the most intellectual sense.
To illustrate my point, take a look at this scene from 12 Monkeys—knowing everything rationally changes nothing…
While not to the extreme shown in this video, we all experience some dissonance between who we truly are and who we believe we should be. I focus on the former because I believe that truly knowing who you are is the way out of this—knowing the truth, not the intellectual truth, but the lived experience.
I’m not diminishing the value of intellectual knowledge; I’m simply highlighting its limits, and this video is a perfect example. We all know we can’t continue destroying the planet, right? Yet, like the man in the video, we can’t seem to stop. Isn’t that interesting?
I apologize for taking a bit of a pseudo-mystical approach…
I’m here to discuss panpsychism and the need for dogmas in societies, not to debate or interfere with your beliefs. I simply see gaps in a purely materialistic view of reality, which raises specific questions. What better place to explore these questions than in a space where they will face intense scrutiny and refutation?
Believing in God is not going to change the misfortunes or problems in our lives. But it can help us find the motivation, strength, and hope needed to overcome them, discover solutions, and ensure that, slowly but surely, we progress globally toward a better outcome.
Why are we in a place where suffering exists? I don’t know. I’m more focused on finding solutions for it, and I think the first step is motivation.
Oh, there’s more: even cannibalism in ancient societies, human sacrifices, and wars of all kinds. Human beliefs have led to all sorts of irrational actions. However, you’re assuming that religion can be separated from who we are, rather than being just an expression of it.
Well for me this is beliefs that can be supported by sufficient objective evidence, as I want to believe as many true things as possible.
Atheism isn’t a belief, though atheists of course have beliefs, as do all humans.
I have seen no evidence to support this claim, ever. On the other hand christianity is predicated on the idea that one can be saved and enjoy an eternity of heavenly bliss, no matter what they have done, as long as they are contrite and seek forgiveness, I have always found that notion morally repugnant. The evidence also demonstrates that when compared on any level playing field atheists are at least as moral as theists. There’s plenty of longstanding research to support this.
Again there is plenty of research that demonstrates atheists are at least as moral as theists. Also morality is subjective and relative, so you;d need be far more specific and offer some objective evidence to support this claim. As what you think is moral or immoral need not be the same as me, for example.
Au contraire, North Korea worship their leader as a living deity, it is an example of the worst extremes of religion, but more importantly it is a totalitarian regime, and humans rights are always negates in such regimes. Nothing in atheism requires any specific behaviour.
Nor is it required aby atheism, which is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and this seems to be something of an own goal from a country that probably has the highest rate of religiosity in the western world?
Evidence please, and relevance?
Well for a start if you’re from the US, that violates the 1st amendment. I’d also need specific examples, to demonstrate they weren’t pernicious.
Well, it’s true that the veracity of a belief has no bearing on how that belief makes one feel, but you can’t bring theistic belief here to an atheist debate forum, and claim to not be discussing whether it is true, that simply doesn’t fly. And as I explained the truth of a belief is the most important thing about it for me, the rest is secondary. Though obviously beliefs don’t all have the same significance or impact, and some may be trivial, even if they are true.
I wasn’t doing that, but No it absolutely is not, since that is entirely the purpose of logic.
No they’re not, you really need to use singular pronouns like I, my and me, more.
So you feel the same emotions about Santa Claus as when you were a small child and believed he was real? Again I can only disagree, our emotions feed our beliefs, and our beliefs influence our emotions, that’s why we created methods like science and logic, to remove as much subjectivity as possible.
Again better is subjective, so you’d need to be specific, and understanding reality better, or being better informed won’t hamper this, but blind adherence to dogma and doctrine demonstrably will.
It’s fictional, so the relevance escapes me? Though it’s a good film.
False dichotomy fallacy, I have no idea why you think the intellect is ever incompatible with truth either?
You haven’t done this at all. just made some unevidenced claims?
Again it’s fictional, so the relevance escapes me, explain what you think it is a perfect example of and why, as I am dubious.
Except we can, but the choices we make are hampered by national and business interest, and even powerful religions that try to force pernicious dogma on us. Also this solar system has a finite existence, there is no saving it, but we can possibly try to avoid destroying the environment so that it has terrible consequences for the humans still left alive.
I see dogma as fundamentally harmful, and believe critical thinking faculties are of far more value, since it better enables to remove subjective bias, and assess whether beliefs are pernicious.
All worldviews must have gaps in them, we’d have to be omniscient to avoid that. Though it is an objective fact that the material exists, I have see no objective evidence that anything supernatural exists or is even possible?
Indeed, but you have very specifically said the belief and your emotional attachment to it, are more important than it’s veracity, so why would you want to subject it to critical scrutiny, especially by people who don’t share it, and likely have what they think are very good reasons?
Though we don’t need to delude ourselves in this way to achieve that, and of course most religions come with a host of pernicious doctrine and dogma. The idea one owes absolute loyalty to a deity they imagine to be real, over our fellow human beings, is itself very dangerous and harmful idea.
Prima facie I’d say because evolution is an insentient process, that is indifferent to suffering.
Hmm, the Nazis seemed pretty motivated, Pol Pot, Stalin, the Crusades, the RCC, and all have caused terrible suffering. I think a better understanding of reality, and of the consequences of our actions is more important.
I really don’t think you mean irrational, maybe pernicious perhaps? Something is irrational if doesn’t adhere to the principles of logic.
Either religion has contributed to this nastiness, or it hasn’t.
If it has contributed to all of these horrible things, then let’s get rid of it.
If religion has not contributed to these things, then let us also get rid of religion because it distracts us from fixing these issues. If God exists, then I think God would understand if we started focusing on fixing all of the damage that has been done rather than using Him as an excuse to justify all of the horrible shit like genocide, etc…
I’m confused. Isn’t that what I’m already saying? Many people use religion as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility. The same can be seen in people without any beliefs. They just change their mask and excuses, but the mechanism is the same.
I’m confused. Isn’t that what I said right after the phrase you quoted?
Open a thread; I think that’s better.
I’m more of the view that reason simply floats on a sea of personal motivations that emerge from unconscious processes. If we are ‘rational,’ it is not because of reason, but because we have reached a stable emotional structure that promotes positive motivations within us. This is just my opinion… and of course, it deserves a separate thread of its own.
It’s meant to exemplify that sometimes knowing something rationally is insufficient to prevent certain mental disorders or dysfunctional behaviors. Sometimes it’s better to focus on what has a positive effect rather than relying solely on rational arguments.
I would say that being motivated to understand reality and the consequences of our actions is what’s important. I don’t think you can ignore the emotional dimension.
No. If you think that laws from religions should / not be enacted or maintained based on whether they have negative or positive impacts, then there must be some sort of mechanism for judging that. I want to know what the mechanism is.
So no, not really, you said religion had essentially vanished, but it hasn’t at all, they just have a new one. Also the cult of personality is obviously not mutually exclusive with religion, indeed one might legitimately claim this is precisely what christianity is based on, a cult of personality.
No, I think this one will do just fine.
Something is rational if it adheres to the principles of logic, as I said, but for some reason you clipped from the quote? Emotion has no bearing either way, and as I also said it likely just adds subjective bias to our reasoning.
For clarity here is your original claim, and my full response verbatim.
Thus it is possible to reason against feelings, as that is precisely what logic is for and can do. Logic is of course counterintuitive, if it were not then there would be no reason to create a complex method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, obviously.
[/quote]
Your original claim is emboldened, and no I don’t agree, logic helps us identify and discard weak and poorly reasoned beliefs and arguments. Your new claim is baffling, why would anyone think logic alone can cure mental disorders? The last sentence is a false dichotomy fallacy, ironically.
You seem to be repeating my assertion back to me?
You didn’t address a great deal in my post? For example:
Ay? You were the one who claimed intellectual truths are irrelevant to emotions, not me?
Well, then I think you must take a look at this → Damásio, A.R., 2006. Descartes’ Error. Random House.
It seems that emotions are integrated into the rational thinking process; you can’t separate them. To be rational, you don’t need moral motivations—this is obvious. The use of rationality does not change the fundamental motivations of a criminal who uses reason to commit crimes. This is why I say that, in the end, the first step is to control motivations. People should be motivated to do good, not bad, and then use reason.
The question is whether reason alone can change people’s fundamental motivations, or if it is merely a tool in the hands of our motivations…
Ok, then let’s go. Bohr’s model of the atom is not true in an absolute sense; it’s just a representation we use to understand a reality that is too complex to fully grasp from the start. If you try to understand what an atom is using quantum mechanics from scratch, you’ll struggle to gain proper knowledge. A simplified representation is necessary for us to comprehend it.
For example, particles don’t really exist as discrete points. The fields that form particles extend to infinity, but we assume they are point-like because it is conceptually easier than imagining them as infinite entities with a center. Similarly, we tend to simplify reality to understand it, and then move to deeper levels of understanding.
Religion is a simplified expression of an aspect of reality that surpasses what reason alone can comprehend, and must be expressed in a simplified form to allow humans to relate to it. Depending on the time, place, or culture, it takes different forms, but in the end, religion always converges on the same point: relating to our environment as if it were an intelligent entity. Analyzing religion logically is like trying to analyze the inconsistencies in a children’s book—it doesn’t make sense because it’s a caricature designed to help people understand certain principles.
If religion and mythology were unnecessary, they would have been eliminated long ago by natural selection. However, it seems that natural selection not only preserved religion but also elevated it to a sacred element in all cultures. There is evidence that religion plays an important role in mental health. In fact, the mental health of Western civilization is deteriorating as religion fades. This isn’t a claim made by a single study but is supported by many, and this decline in mental health is accelerating. Here’s an example.
CITE - How Western mental health is deteriorating.
Here is a paper showing the relationship between religion, spirituality, and mental health.
CITE - A strong relationship between religion, spirituality, and mental health.
This is why communist countries that tried to remove religion ended up creating their own forms of it, because you can’t eliminate religion entirely. It’s a part of our “software,” and once you remove it, the entire structure starts to degrade. I’m afraid the worst is yet to come.
This is why, in my opinion, this topic is so complex.
Let me be blunt… it’s not the material itself, but the experience of the material that we know exists.
Well, what I’m slowly but surely approaching is the idea that reality is anything but a simple materialistic, mechanical phenomenon. That’s just a simplification that works for our specific environment, but it’s not true reality. Our perception of reality is no more accurate than the one ants have about their own reality (whatever simplification they use based on their communication system).
We are extremely primitive. Just think about it: we use an internal representation of the sounds we make to think. We can’t process reality without mentally simulating our own voice. It’s comical when you stop to consider it.
I believe religion is necessary; it’s part of the “software,” and any attempt to remove it will just result in the creation of a new religion, possibly a worse one. However, we shouldn’t interfere with freedom of choice—so it’s up to each person to understand what Heisenberg meant when he said, “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you.”
We can look at reality on a different scale to see how the same reality could appear entirely different. If you try to understand our universe at the quantum scale, the first thing you’ll discover is that matter is literally just a wave of probabilities. Things exist in multiple places at the same time, until a measurement forces them to define where they are.
The interesting part is that this interaction doesn’t require direct contact. For example, in the famous double-slit experiment, placing a detector at one of the slits changes the behavior of particles, even if the particle passes through the other slit. Imagine a giant double-slit experiment where the slits are 20 km apart—placing a detector at one slit immediately changes the behavior of particles passing through the other. If you turn off the detector, the particles immediately revert to their wave-like behavior.
This happens because obtaining information causes the collapse of the wave function, regardless of space and possibly even time. In short, information changes the behavior of matter independently of distance. Strange, right? Well, this is science too.
Come on, music is good for studying, but you’re not going to solve a math problem by imagining the sound of violins… I mean, in the end, to fully understand a problem and engage your mind, you need language. More precisely, you need to mentally simulate speaking to yourself, explaining things to yourself in order to grasp them.
We’re constantly talking to ourselves to make sense of what we see, almost as if we were two people—one is mute, and the other is constantly talking. I think this is very primitive, but it’s how we are, and it’s kind of funny.
