The what ever thread...

[jfrey]

I've thought a lot about the freedom of speech/religion aspect of it. This is where I've landed: speech that creates imprisoning or threatening systems of ideology should in no way be protected. The freedom of real people is more important than the freedom to spout baseless intangibles. I see no difference between someone saying that medicine is wrong (http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=195), and someone shouting "bomb" in a crowded airport. The first causes tremendously more damage and yet we protect it. The second causes so little as to be virtually none, and yet we prosecute that. When it comes down to peoples lives, and often the lives of children no less, I think we need to just be honest about what really matters.

On the more abstract side, how free can a person be if they are trapped in a delusion? Is a horse with blinders free? Shouldn't we want to take the blinders off, so that they can be truly free?

[gunslinger_burrito]

Yeah, that's a sensible approach.

[Eivind August]

Interesting debate. Had it too many times, though. People are free to do as they see fit, but I don't believe they are free to choose what they see fit. People don't "choose" what they like or dislike, and we are likely to be heavily influenced by early role models (parents, teachers etc.). The organized religions exist because they are taught, not because they come naturally to people. Ok, you can say that they should be read metaphorically, but then what are the metaphors? What is Jesus dieing for our sins a metaphor for? What about the strict rules some religions impose on their believers, are they metaphorical?

People can believe whatever they want, but I find it interesting why they believe this stuff without proof. I don't think it's bad to believe in a God as some sort of metaphysical entity, the unmoving mover or whatever, but I find it weird when people personalize this concept into a dude in the sky that cares wheter you masturbate or not and gets mad if you don't do as he says. Can't believe that is healthy. And if "he's" a metaphor, then for what?

[D.o.S.]

I've thought a lot about the freedom of speech/religion aspect of it. This is where I've landed: speech that creates imprisoning or threatening systems of ideology should in no way be protected. The freedom of real people is more important than the freedom to spout baseless intangibles. I see no difference between someone saying that medicine is wrong (http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=195), and someone shouting "bomb" in a crowded airport. The first causes tremendously more damage and yet we protect it. The second causes so little as to be virtually none, and yet we prosecute that.

To the bolded -- I agree with you, but to continue the line of thought, that statement implies that there's an empirical standard for how people should be treated. Beyond the Golden Rule principle, there has to be a wellspring of common ethical thought from whence that came. (It's also a bit oversimplified, but we're on a fuzz forum, so, you know, liberties can be taken). I'm not so sure that the defining characteristics of 'speech that creates imprisoning or threatening systems of ideology' are quite as self evident as they appear to, you know, us, and subsequently there's enough grey area there to make a fairly convincing argument against, well, any declarative statements on how people should live their lives, whether its based in the secular or sacred.

[D.o.S.]

People can believe whatever they want, but I find it interesting why they believe this stuff without proof. I don't think it's bad to believe in a God as some sort of metaphysical entity, the unmoving mover or whatever, but I find it weird when people personalize this concept into a dude in the sky that cares wheter you masturbate or not and gets mad if you don't do as he says. Can't believe that is healthy. And if "he's" a metaphor, then for what?

It's the omnipresent authority who ensures that there are consequences for behaving badly. Big Brother with sandals and a Middle Eastern origin, if you will, in a social setting dictated largely by an obligatory code of conduct taken to avoid punishment on a cosmic scale.

[jfrey]

I've thought a lot about the freedom of speech/religion aspect of it. This is where I've landed: speech that creates imprisoning or threatening systems of ideology should in no way be protected. The freedom of real people is more important than the freedom to spout baseless intangibles. I see no difference between someone saying that medicine is wrong (http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=195), and someone shouting "bomb" in a crowded airport. The first causes tremendously more damage and yet we protect it. The second causes so little as to be virtually none, and yet we prosecute that.

To the bolded -- I agree with you, but to continue the line of thought, that statement implies that there's an empirical standard for how people should be treated. Beyond the Golden Rule principle, there has to be a wellspring of common ethical thought from whence that came. (It's also a bit oversimplified, but we're on a fuzz forum, so, you know, liberties can be taken). I'm not so sure that the defining characteristics of 'speech that creates imprisoning or threatening systems of ideology' are quite as self evident as they appear to, you know, us, and subsequently there's enough grey area there to make a fairly convincing argument against, well, any declarative statements on how people should live their lives, whether its based in the secular or sacred.

I think you're generally right about a lot of cases. I think that there are enough instances where it is just clear though. To use an example from Specter's talk:
"...in Thabo Mbeki South Africa. He killed 400,000 of his people by insisting that beetroot, garlic and lemon oil were much more effective than the antiretroviral drugs we know can slow the course of AIDS. Hundreds of thousands of needless deaths in a country that has been plagued worse than any other by this disease."

There may be a lot of issues where it really is a grey area, and we may not know now, or may never know, what the best solution would be. I think there are enough clear cut problems though for us to work on.

[D.o.S.]

Oh, yeah, particularly in cases of medicine, there's really no excuse for distrusting science at all. I don't even consider that worth discussing, really -- although I have to say some of those hippie herbal remedies do have a really nice effect, even if its just psychosomatic -- I'm much more interested in the human interaction piece of the puzzle.

[gunslinger_burrito]

Sam Harris makes a good point for how science can determine morality, and it's really very simple. Things that diminish the overall well-being of conscious creatures could be considered less moral than those that promote happiness and well-being. "Well-being" meaning things that promote physical health, safety, and so on. Obviously there are some grey areas when it comes to things like eating meat..... but that's the general gist of the idea.

Interesting debate. Had it too many times, though. People are free to do as they see fit, but I don't believe they are free to choose what they see fit. People don't "choose" what they like or dislike, and we are likely to be heavily influenced by early role models (parents, teachers etc.). The organized religions exist because they are taught, not because they come naturally to people. Ok, you can say that they should be read metaphorically, but then what are the metaphors? What is Jesus dieing for our sins a metaphor for? What about the strict rules some religions impose on their believers, are they metaphorical?

People can believe whatever they want, but I find it interesting why they believe this stuff without proof. I don't think it's bad to believe in a God as some sort of metaphysical entity, the unmoving mover or whatever, but I find it weird when people personalize this concept into a dude in the sky that cares wheter you masturbate or not and gets mad if you don't do as he says. Can't believe that is healthy. And if "he's" a metaphor, then for what?

I wish I had time to answer all of these, but I have to leave the house soon..... I will reiterate the "baby with the bathwater" statement. There are vast portions of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other religions that I would never follow or take as gospel and downright dislike. BUT, there are common grounds to be found in parts of these religions that are good lessons.

[Eivind August]

I wish I had time to answer all of these, but I have to leave the house soon..... I will reiterate the "baby with the bathwater" statement. There are vast portions of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other religions that I would never follow or take as gospel and downright dislike. BUT, there are common grounds to be found in parts of these religions that are good lessons.

Oh, for sure, I agree. Every system created by humans will have values and ethics generally regarded as positive; we're pack animals (is that the proper expression?) with the same basic "operative system", so we're bound to come to similar conclusions regarding right and wrong, though they're often seen through the lense of your local culture. That's why I prefer modern philosophy for ethics discussions, society at large has changed enough that some of the older rules of conduct no longer are valid. But yeah, at the bottom of it all you will always find the basic "be nice, be kind, do good things", since that is the way of the pack animal, i.e. interaction and cooperation equals survival.

[Twangasaurus]

That's why I prefer modern philosophy for ethics discussions, society at large has changed enough that some of the older rules of conduct no longer are valid.

I don't just prefer it when applied to ethics I also prefer it from an intellectual stand point too. Transhumanism is cooler than jesus. Straight fact yo.

Also, I feel I should point everyone towards a university ethics course standard (for good reason) "Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues" by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero. Not only does it address some of what has been discussed but it's also a fun (and fairly short) read.

EDIT: Also he shits on Carl Rogers a bit which is a pretty good time. I've never liked him.

[snipelfritz]

I'm not so sure that the defining characteristics of 'speech that creates imprisoning or threatening systems of ideology' are quite as self evident as they appear to, you know, us, and subsequently there's enough grey area there to make a fairly convincing argument against, well, any declarative statements on how people should live their lives, whether its based in the secular or sacred.

This is in part what I see.

Such sweeping statements like "religion should be eliminated from society" takes such an overwhelming stance that, in my mind, it requires a solid logical basis (in a literal logical "if A = B then..." sense as opposed to persuasion). Therefore, if one person can exist who has strong religious convictions yet also has tolerant, secular political beliefs (and many do), then the whole argument falls apart.

I feel like much of the rhetoric used by the antitheist circles really isn't much different than used by the fundamentalist religious world (with us or against us, etc.). I also (and this will draw some contention) perceive that believing in god and believing there is no god (not the same as "not believing in god") take that same indefensible leap of faith and to consider one more true than the other is just pointless from whatever side of the fence. Like it or not, people who are not convinced atheists or devout anything may view atheism as just another religious belief being pushed on them. (I'll note I probably fall in the agnostic category. I consider myself something of a philosophical absurdist so existence of god is more or less irrelevant or even possible while completely not evident, so my own beliefs don't really enter into this)

I don't understand how desires to eliminate others' religious values (i.e. "taking off the blinders") isn't speech that creates imprisoning or threatening systems of ideology. When taken to the extreme (which I'm sure no one here is advocating), antitheism can be just as destructive as any other black-and-white fundamentalism.

However, as I've said, the logic in these discussions quickly breaks down and it becomes people uttering persuasions as if they were fact. Sure, many religions have been doing it for god knows how long, but that doesn't justify coming down to their level.

If there's one thing I want to reiterate, its that not all people of faith are the blind, willfully ignorant conservatives who view everyone else as heathens and want to see America as a "city on the hill." Those people exist in large numbers, but I blame it on intolerance rather than religion. The two do not always exist together. Whatever you believe, be tolerant and accept that, no matter how strong your own convictions may be, perhaps one answer for everyone isn't a great idea.

[jfrey]

You're mixing up logical arguments.

Belief in god requires proof that that belief is valid. It holds the burden of proof. On the other side, almost no atheists say that it is impossible for there to be a god. There simply isn't any evidence that there is one, no reason to suspect there might be. If I were to tell you that I had a huge diamond in my hand behind my back, you would be under no obligation to believe me, and should not. I would hold the burden of proof. The fact that it isn't impossible that I could be holding a huge diamond behind my back doesn't make it likely, and doesn't give you a reason to think I might.

As for this:
"Therefore, if one person can exist who has strong religious convictions yet also has tolerant, secular political beliefs (and many do), then the whole argument falls apart."

While a person may have secular political beliefs, that doesn't mean that their private religious beliefs still won't in some small way influence their policies or administration. What's more worrisome to me though is the way that their mind works. To believe something requires a person to think in a way that is not scientific, is not based on reality. I find it really troubling that a person like that is making decisions that affect the world. I'd find it troubling for them to make decisions that could affect a pet hamster, let alone a planet.

The bit about blinders. If someone believes the Sun goes around the Earth, it isn't imprisoning them to tell them they can't be teaching that to children. It would be mental child abuse. And, it isn't imprisoning to tell them that they shouldn't believe that either. It's like talking to someone that has lived in a cage their whole life, and them telling you that they like it there, why should you force them to come out, and why should you want to stop them from raising their children in the cage with them?

A belief can be benign in practice, or toxic. But the system that allows a person to believe something toxic is the same thing that allows them to believe something benign. It's the same mode of thinking. And it's that mode of thinking that I see as the real enemy.

I'd recommend QualiaSoup's videos on critical thinking, the burden of proof, open-mindedness, and superstition. He explains things much better than I can.
https://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup/videos

[Pepe]

If I were to tell you that I had a huge diamond in my hand behind my back...

Ah! A Memory Lane 2?

[jfrey]

If I were to tell you that I had a huge diamond in my hand behind my back...

Ah! A Memory Lane 2?

Hunh?

[Pepe]

Well, that is a big diamond, or isn't it?



What ever!