• UK: The non-religious now outnumber the religious
    98 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397651]I think a lot of the annoyance (Kyle is clearly mad in some way, but whatever. Your line by line response is crappy and insinuates I said stuff which I clearly didn't, so I'll focus on the other responses) comes from the fact that I'm extending religion to almost all forms of spirituality. This is probably strictly incorrect, but I think most people do use religion for spirituality in practice. My main point is that most outlets for spirituality usually come in the form of religion, or take very close forms to the religion and heritage they grew up with. I think this is no accident and shows the power of religion over people. People do need spirituality, and religion as a vessel, as it forms an outlet for, (for example) grief. I also didn't really extend on atheism. HumanAbyss is both right and wrong about atheism. He is right that it is theoretically only the lack of belief in a God. However, I find in practice it is inextricably tied up with ideas of rationality. My arguments I think are fairly simple. Rationality has limited utility. Atheism has bad or quiet answers on life questions (whether or not they are true). Religion is commonly utilised as an outlet for atheists in life events, showing that to an extent a lot of people do need religion - not everyone, but a lot of people. I never tried to claim all atheists are hollow. Nor did I claim that the atheist response would always be chucking the body away. I think that using pure reason would result in that answer, but pure reason doesn't give good answers, and that is why people need spirituality, and that is where religion becomes useful (aside from the aforementioned tradition points). I will write more in the future.[/QUOTE] Nothing about pure reason would create that situation except in the specific strawman you have created to demonstrate that. There is nothing else attached to atheism. Anything else that's used in conjunction or support of atheism is separate and usually it's own field or area of philosophy. You cannot draw a logical world view from a single statement belief. You are doing so, but it's not logically consistent to do so. Most people have spirituality in one form or another involved in some aspect of their lives. Here's my thoughts on why. People still don't have the answers, and are still looking for them. We're scared, afraid of death, fragile ephemoral beings who are here for a blink of an eye, then gone. Any chance in our short lives we have to believe we have the answers, we'll typically do so. I am a rather depressed person, and losing my father was very hard, but something that I cannot rationally reconcile is falling back on something I personally know to be false for comfort. No matter how hard it was to not fall into any support group, I became a stronger person for relying on myself during that, and I can understand the need to appeal to religion or what have you in those contexts, but I can't personally advocate that as anything but lying to yourself.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397762]It's a lot to do with the tone of it. Any 'line-by-line' appears obnoxious almost by default even if it isn't your intention, because arguments are meant to be read in chunks and not like that.[/QUOTE] so does strawmanning an argument as you have done in this thread and in another today where you have jumped on the same high horse. since when did addressing an argument point by point become obnoxious?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397762]It's a lot to do with the tone of it. Any 'line-by-line' appears obnoxious almost by default even if it isn't your intention, because arguments are meant to be read in chunks and not like that.[/QUOTE] I've used in in a multitude of threads and have seen it used in a multitude of threads. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone complain about its use. Furthermore, again if its such a shit argument as you have come to conclude then I have no doubt that you wouldn't have any trouble refuting it in its entirety.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50397781]I've used in in a multitude of threads and have seen it used in a multitude of threads. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone complain about its use. Furthermore, again if its such a shit argument as you have come to conclude then I have no doubt that you would have any trouble refuting it in its entirety.[/QUOTE] This is probably personal to me. I think it comes from me working out why I found Sargon of Akkad to be so obnoxious and annoying, and it came down to the fact he interrupted the argument in his video every two seconds to make snarky comments instead of listening it out and giving his whole opinion. After that 'line-by-line' started to annoy me because it (largely unintentionally) displays many of the same characteristics and I think (in my opinion) it isn't a very good way to argue (though I've almost certainly used it myself in the past because it an easy way to structure an argument on a forum). This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, it inevitably leads to complaining about assertions. In any forum post there will be assertions by default and unless you want all my forum posts to be [URL="https://laeffyblog.wordpress.com/"]4500 words[/URL] there is no avoiding this. The other is that an argument is meant to be read and responded to in full. Of course you can and should quote extracts, but line-by-line isn't addressing an argument how it is meant be looked at. [QUOTE=Crumpet;50397779]so does strawmanning an argument as you have done in this thread and in another today where you have jumped on the same high horse.[/QUOTE] I don't believe I did any intentional strawmanning in this thread at all, I just gave my honest opinions on a topic that I'm not particularly experienced at in a very hostile environment.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397822]This is probably personal to me. I think it comes from me working out why I found Sargon of Akkad to be so obnoxious and annoying, and it came down to the fact he interrupted the argument in his video every two seconds to make snarky comments instead of listening it out and giving his whole opinion. After that 'line-by-line' started to annoy me because it (largely unintentionally) displays many of the same characteristics and I think (in my opinion) it isn't a very good way to argue (though I've almost certainly used it myself in the past because it an easy way to structure an argument on a forum).[/QUOTE] Going point by point allows you to respond to each individual point given. Furthermore I read your post in its entirety before I responded to each individual point, I may have been a bit passionate in my wording (and for that I apologize, I meant no offense) but I don't recall any snarky commentary. [quote] I don't believe I did any intentional strawmanning in this thread at all, I just gave my honest opinions on a topic that I'm not particularly experienced at in a very hostile environment.[/QUOTE] The responses here have hardly been overly hostile. Especially compared to other threads in SH.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;50397748]religion inherently hinders the advancement of society.[/QUOTE] what about the fact that some religions have had major beneficial impacts on their respective societies i mean if it wasn't for the catholic church we'd still be mucking about in the fields under the ruins of roman aqueducts. i think people are discounting the advantages of religion too much these days
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397822]This is probably personal to me. I think it comes from me working out why I found Sargon of Akkad to be so obnoxious and annoying, and it came down to the fact he interrupted the argument in his video every two seconds to make snarky comments instead of listening it out and giving his whole opinion. After that 'line-by-line' started to annoy me because it (largely unintentionally) displays many of the same characteristics and I think (in my opinion) it isn't a very good way to argue (though I've almost certainly used it myself in the past because it an easy way to structure an argument on a forum). This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, it inevitably leads to complaining about assertions. In any forum post there will be assertions by default and unless you want all my forum posts to be [URL="https://laeffyblog.wordpress.com/"]4500 words[/URL] there is no avoiding this. The other is that an argument is meant to be read and responded to in full. Of course you can and should quote extracts, but line-by-line isn't addressing an argument how it is meant be looked at. I don't believe I did any intentional strawmanning in this thread at all, I just gave my honest opinions on a topic that I'm not particularly experienced at in a very hostile environment.[/QUOTE] this is a genuinely jovial environment for a religious discussion on the internet by comparison to the typical faire.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397822]The other is that an argument is meant to be read and responded to in full. Of course you can and should quote extracts, but line-by-line isn't addressing an argument how it is meant be looked at.[/QUOTE] Line by line allows debates to be fairly streamlined, and gives the debater a useful way to break down arguments point-by-point. I don't see issue with it, In fact I usually prefer it over the "in full" format, an example of why is the Bill Nye VS Ken Ham debate. [editline]later[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;50397838]what about the fact that some religions have had major beneficial impacts on their respective societies i mean if it wasn't for the catholic church we'd still be mucking about in the fields under the ruins of roman aqueducts. i think people are discounting the advantages of religion too much these days[/QUOTE] [del]In my opinion, anything religion did bring to the table, it has already done so. If you claim it fostered scientific advancement, or the enlightenment, OK. But it's clear that science and atheistic philosophy are now mature, and at odds with Religion's mindshare.[/del] Edit: People word this argument better below.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50397851]this is a genuinely jovial environment for a religious discussion on the internet by comparison to the typical faire.[/QUOTE] Yes. But like in most discussions I am in the minority view. To justify being in a minority view you have to justify every single point you make as every point you make will be disagreed with. [url]https://laeffyblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/the-longest-post-ever-on-piketty/[/url] Here I had to write so much because otherwise no-one would believe me (in particular in the middle sections, but also in the first section as well). In my effort post about extremism, I had to do the same (although my views are a bit more common there). This means the amount of effort and words in posts are massive compared to the opposition, and I was too burned out to write another enormous post. Anyway, enough on this. I'm going to bed. I think my main point here was to try and prove that religion is still useful and people exaggerate how bad it is.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50397838]what about the fact that some religions have had major beneficial impacts on their respective societies i mean if it wasn't for the catholic church we'd still be mucking about in the fields under the ruins of roman aqueducts. i think people are discounting the advantages of religion too much these days[/QUOTE] What about the horrible things major religions have done to their respective societies? Or the horrible things carried out in the name of religion to this very day? I doubt anyone here is refuting the benefit world religions have had historically, but for every good thing there is an equal or even greater bad thing that has been brought about by religion. Furthermore I sincerely doubt that we'd have been put that far back by the absence of the Catholic Church, but I'd love to see your reasoning behind such a conclusion.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50397838]what about the fact that some religions have had major beneficial impacts on their respective societies i mean if it wasn't for the catholic church we'd still be mucking about in the fields under the ruins of roman aqueducts. i think people are discounting the advantages of religion too much these days[/QUOTE] Religion was instrumental in the development of the modern world, but it has become vestigial and anti-progress. We have moved past the point of needing to look to religion and spirituality for answers.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397871]Yes. But like in most discussions I am in the minority view. To justify being in a minority view you have to justify every single point you make as every point you make will be disagreed with. [url]https://laeffyblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/the-longest-post-ever-on-piketty/[/url] Here I had to write so much because otherwise no-one would believe me (in particular in the middle sections, but also in the first section as well). In my effort post about extremism, I had to do the same (although my views are a bit more common there). This means the amount of effort and words in posts are massive compared to the opposition, and I was too burned out to write another enormous post. Anyway, enough on this. I'm going to bed.[/QUOTE] I fail to see what any of this has to do with our supposed hostility.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50397573]What's left to contemplate about? Well, could be as simple as "I'm alive, other people are, I like being happy and so do other people so I guess happiness is a positive thing to me." I'm not necessarily talking about everybody having deep metaphysical ideas about the meaning of life or anything although if that's something you wanna do then cool, I guess that's what philosophy class is for. [I]I just mean that scientific literacy could lead to stronger unity as more people look for answers to questions based in rational thinking and therefor hold more similar views and can be more easily convinced by more progressive and humanistic ideas.[/I][/QUOTE] I know what you meant, but one if not the most progressive thing I can think of really is to recognize the fundamental nature of the absurd (a universe seemingly without meaning), learn to "embrace" it, and defiantly explore and search for meaning anyway. Many believers would find a meaningless life a silly idea. Are you a believer? The scientific method and rational thinking are obviously what the philosophy class is for too.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50397874]What about the horrible things major religions have done to their respective societies? Or the horrible things carried out in the name of religion to this very day? I doubt anyone here is refuting the benefit world religions have had historically, but for every good thing there is an equal or even greater bad thing that has been brought about by religion.[/quote] i think the good outweighs the bad tbh [quote]Furthermore I sincerely doubt that we'd have been put that far back by the absence of the Catholic Church, but I'd love to see your reasoning behind such a conclusion.[/QUOTE] from the collapse of the roman empire until the early modern period, the catholic church was virtually the only international institution, the only one that actually promoted education, and the only institution powerful enough to keep the monarchs of europe in check it also was responsible for much of the large-scale architecture, the translation of greek/arabic into latin and vernacular, the creation of a unified and large shared cultural zone, plus virtually every major scientist or philosophy from medieval europe (from aquinas to mikolaj kopernik) was a churchman literally the entire history of europe post-roman empire was shaped by the church and without it, we would have seen a much more divided europe without modern philosophy or science [editline]26th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=IrishBandit;50397882]Religion was instrumental in the development of the modern world, but it has become vestigial and anti-progress. We have moved past the point of needing to look to religion and spirituality for answers.[/QUOTE] the pope holds a diploma in chemistry and the vatican literally funds an observatory. a catholic priest discovered that the earth went around the sun, and another developed the fundamental basis of genetics (another discovered the origins of the universe). the catholic church is one of the biggest funders of education on the planet, one of the largest healthcare providers, it helps to bring interfaith dialogue and diplomacy (cuban-american thaw happened because of pope francis and his diplomacy) the vatican has its own observatory and an academy of sciences i'm not sure how this is antiprogress exactly. can you imagine where we'd be if the christian church vanished alongside the roman empire?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50397972]i think the good outweighs the bad tbh[/QUOTE] Historically, perhaps. But in today's day and age I fail to see any good the church does that can't also be done by secular organizations. Furthermore organized religion is largely becoming more and more of a barrier that has to be overcome in order for society to progress. [quote] from the collapse of the roman empire until the early modern period, the catholic church was virtually the only international institution, the only one that actually promoted education, and the only institution powerful enough to keep the monarchs of europe in check it also was responsible for much of the large-scale architecture, the translation of greek/arabic into latin and vernacular, the creation of a unified and large shared cultural zone, plus virtually every major scientist or philosophy from medieval europe (from aquinas to mikolaj kopernik) was a churchman literally the entire history of europe post-roman empire was shaped by the church and without it, we would have seen a much more divided europe without modern philosophy or science[/quote] Fair enough, although this only takes into account the catholic church.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50398011]Historically, perhaps. But in today's day and age I fail to see any good the church does that can't also be done by secular organizations. Furthermore organized religion is largely becoming more and more of a barrier that has to be overcome in order for society to progress.[/quote] todays day and age isn't forever you know. [quote]Fair enough, although this only takes into account the catholic church.[/QUOTE] buddhism has had a fairly large impact, as has islam too. organised religion (usually) stimulates a demand for literacy, international travel, monumental architecture (and in turn improved building techniques), astronomical studies, etc
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50398044]todays day and age isn't forever you know. [/QUOTE] Contrary to what you've stated elsewhere I sincerely doubt that society is heading down a path of continual collapse and rebuilding. Even if such was the case there really is no reason as to why a completely secular organization couldn't take over the "duties" of the church in such a scenario. [quote] buddhism has had a fairly large impact, as has islam too. organised religion (usually) stimulates a demand for literacy, international travel, monumental architecture (and in turn improved building techniques), astronomical studies, etc[/quote] Again fair enough, but thats is the historical impact of organized religion. The matter in question here is the current impact of organized religions.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50397519]Metaphysical naturalism holds that nothing exists outside of nature/existence, while methodological naturalism isn't really touched by it. As for contemplating about life and existence, what's there even left to contemplate about? Only faith can dominate the seemingly absurd nature of existence, be it religious, spiritual, or some other abstract belief in a reality beyond our existence, beyond the Absurd, and thus giving life a meaning, but [I]"in their weakest moments, even believers will find their faith absurd."[/I] -Kierkenigga[/QUOTE] contemplating life and existence isn't something where you just let other people do it. it is about you personally sitting down and thinking through your beliefs about life and death, the world around you, personal experiences you have had. it is about contemplating the subjective parts of nature, the beauty of the world, the sorrows of people, and what potential meaning could be gleamed from both, even if you truly believe that there is no meaning. it is absolutely good practice to examine all sorts of more spiritual ideas as 100% of the time viewing things through a rationalist materialist perspective closes you off to something that has been an aspect of humanity since its dawn for far more than just "explaining how the world works". it leads to dogmatic thinking, which can be a wall for progress. [editline]26th May 2016[/editline] think of it like this: if you're solid in your beliefs, contemplating other belief structures, spiritualistic concepts, and even your own beliefs can only broaden your worldview and understanding of how other people, including yourself, think and how that may cause them to act, both throughout history and today.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50398067]Contrary to what you've stated elsewhere I sincerely doubt that society is heading down a path of continual collapse and rebuilding.Even if such was the case there really is no reason as to why a completely secular organization couldn't take over the "duties" of the church in such a scenario.[/quote] our understanding of what a "complex society" actually is and how it operates more or less guarantees that civilizations go through periods of increasing or decreasing complexity, but i don't see what the big deal is about it if it does. we're assured to go through such cycles for the simple reason that sometimes a complex society isn't worth the resources we pay to maintain it as to why a secular organisation can't do it, well, secular organisations have a bad track record of surviving these things. [quote]Again fair enough, but thats is the historical impact of organized religion. The matter in question here is the current impact of organized religions.[/QUOTE] well i cited what the catholic church does now and i would consider it to be a positive in the grand scheme of things.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50398137]contemplating life and existence isn't something where you just let other people do it. it is about you personally sitting down and thinking through your beliefs about life and death, the world around you, personal experiences you have had. it is about contemplating the subjective parts of nature, the beauty of the world, the sorrows of people, and what potential meaning could be gleamed from both, even if you truly believe that there is no meaning. it is absolutely good practice to examine all sorts of more spiritual ideas as 100% of the time viewing things through a rationalist materialist perspective closes you off to something that has been an aspect of humanity since its dawn for far more than just "explaining how the world works". it leads to dogmatic thinking, which can be a wall for progress. [editline]26th May 2016[/editline] think of it like this: if you're solid in your beliefs, contemplating other belief structures, spiritualistic concepts, and even your own beliefs can only broaden your worldview and understanding of how other people, including yourself, think and how that may cause them to act, both throughout history and today.[/QUOTE] The only perceptions rationalism shuts me off from are ones that, once you strip away all feels and flowery language, are nothing more than wishful thinking. Thinking "this is how I want things to be" and going no further.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50398176]The only perceptions rationalism shuts me off from are ones that, once you strip away all feels and flowery language, are nothing more than wishful thinking. Thinking "this is how I want things to be" and going no further.[/QUOTE] and a fuckhuge number of people have those perceptions, don't you think it would be useful to try thinking how they think even if you have the undercurrent of "this is bullshit"? thinking about what those beliefs could mean to those people helps give insight into those people and heck you may even find something that resonates with you. you don't even have to believe what you're contemplating. i know when i do deep thinking on the nature of life and death topics of spirituality, i keep in mind the more rational explanation. that my entire existence is merely a feed of signals synthesized by my brain and influenced by bursts of chemicals, that all i do, think, and feel is just a short illusion sandwiched between nothingness, much like the entirety of existence. i know that this is probably true, but i really have nothing to lose by thinking about other shit and only greater potential knowledge to gain, though of course that knowledge ultimately has no purpose other than self-gratification.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50398295]and a fuckhuge number of people have those perceptions, don't you think it would be useful to try thinking how they think even if you have the undercurrent of "this is bullshit"? thinking about what those beliefs could mean to those people helps give insight into those people and heck you may even find something that resonates with you. you don't even have to believe what you're contemplating. i know when i do deep thinking on the nature of life and death topics of spirituality, i keep in mind the more rational explanation. that my entire existence is merely a feed of signals synthesized by my brain and influenced by bursts of chemicals, that all i do, think, and feel is just a short illusion sandwiched between nothingness, much like the entirety of existence. i know that this is probably true, but i really have nothing to lose by thinking about other shit and only greater potential knowledge to gain, though of course that knowledge ultimately has no purpose other than self-gratification.[/QUOTE] I've neither knowledge nor gratification to gain from pretending to believe something. Maybe people better at cognitive dissonance can believe something purely because they want to, even when they have to know at some level it's completely irrational, but not me.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50398384]I've neither knowledge nor gratification to gain from pretending to believe something. Maybe people better at cognitive dissonance can believe something purely because they want to, even when they have to know at some level it's completely irrational, but not me.[/QUOTE] i am not saying to pretend to believe it, i am saying you should try just thinking about what those beliefs could mean to people, contemplate how they could believe it. you don't have to believe in something or even agree with it to think about it. it seems irrational to me to believe that in order to contemplate something you have to believe in it. [editline]26th May 2016[/editline] if anything, by thinking about it and examining alternative views you could very well strengthen your own beliefs.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50398137]contemplating life and existence isn't something where you just let other people do it. it is about you personally sitting down and thinking through your beliefs about life and death, the world around you, personal experiences you have had. it is about contemplating the subjective parts of nature, the beauty of the world, the sorrows of people, and what potential meaning could be gleamed from both, even if you truly believe that there is no meaning. it is absolutely good practice to examine all sorts of more spiritual ideas as 100% of the time viewing things through a rationalist materialist perspective closes you off to something that has been an aspect of humanity since its dawn for far more than just "explaining how the world works". it leads to dogmatic thinking, which can be a wall for progress. [editline]26th May 2016[/editline] [I]think of it like this: if you're solid in your beliefs, contemplating other belief structures, spiritualistic concepts, and even your own beliefs can only broaden your worldview and understanding of how other people, including yourself, think and how that may cause them to act, both throughout history and today.[/I][/QUOTE] Good point, that would only make people, myself included, better understand other cultures and belief systems, and thus make us better prepared for new situations in life, and in general. It doesn't hurt to know. However it still doesn't give an answer to the "meaning of life" question, which frankly many religious-spiritual belief systems claim to have a specific answer to, where none can be actually found. They're all equally valuable (or without value, depending how you see it) so again it doesn't hurt to know more about various approaches to life, where we find ourselves forced to act.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50398295]and a fuckhuge number of people have those perceptions, don't you think it would be useful to try thinking how they think even if you have the undercurrent of "this is bullshit"? thinking about what those beliefs could mean to those people helps give insight into those people and heck you may even find something that resonates with you. you don't even have to believe what you're contemplating. i know when i do deep thinking on the nature of life and death topics of spirituality, i keep in mind the more rational explanation. that my entire existence is merely a feed of signals synthesized by my brain and influenced by bursts of chemicals, that all i do, think, and feel is just a short illusion sandwiched between nothingness, much like the entirety of existence. i know that this is probably true, but i really have nothing to lose by thinking about other shit and only greater potential knowledge to gain, though of course that knowledge ultimately has no purpose other than self-gratification.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's all well and good but I've spent most of my adult life confronting philosophical conundrums in my own time and it hasn't led me to thinking that religious belief is something that I like. Just because I entertain these ideas, doesn't mean at the end of the day, they hold any weight or value.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50398633]Yeah that's all well and good but I've spent most of my adult life confronting philosophical conundrums in my own time and it hasn't led me to thinking that religious belief is something that I like. Just because I entertain these ideas, doesn't mean at the end of the day, they hold any weight or value.[/QUOTE] it is good that you've entertained the ideas at all. while you may not find any value in those ideas, i am sure you have gained some knowledge along the way. i just dislike when people wholesale discount spiritual ideas as a whole as being hogwash with no use for modern society.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50396032]I don't know if you are one of these people (maybe you just don't like singing) but people who deliberately don't sing as if they think they are making a big statement are actually the worst of atheism and are so obnoxious.[/QUOTE] If you aren't a follower of a religion and you choose not to participate in that religion you aren't being obnoxious, you're expressing basic religious freedom. Of course there's always going to be an obnoxious ass on one side of the argument or another, but ass or not they shouldn't be forced to take part in your religion. Especially not in a publicly funded school system.
The oldest religion on this planet is secretive, generally unknown, controls all major religions, and is in the process of using the media and war to eliminate them. Don't think for one minute however, that they themselves don't have a replacement for the existing mainstream religions. Just ask Al Gore what that religion might be.
[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;50409458]The oldest religion on this planet is secretive, generally unknown, controls all major religions, and is in the process of using the media and war to eliminate them. Don't think for one minute however, that they themselves don't have a replacement for the existing mainstream religions. Just ask Al Gore what that religion might be.[/QUOTE] are you melting my loaf there mate?
Dont fry yo brains boys.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.