Little Sunshine

Wow- @Night just wow… this is a from a movie, and the shirt fits the character… thats what movies do you know, have characters, and wardrobe, etc. In all cases, this picture has nothing to do with homosexuality. I don’t know how you inferred that, although seeing as you are trying to defend religion, I can see that indeed your judgment is suspect.

In all cases, it’s fair game to bash religion at any and all times. If you choose to act irrationally, then expect to be treated as such (insane). While I fully respect your _right_ to believe what you want (tolerance), I cannot respect any belief that is founded on such a flawed methodology as all religions (that I have examined).

I agree with Bill Maher that I believe the time for decorum is over. We must become more vigilant in making people realize the insanity that they preach. I have faith that most people are actually more intelligent than this, but they do not allow themselves to think outside of their childhood environmental conditioning (and or flawed emotional heuristics and primitive, animal needs) to accept logic and rationality.

But who can blame them– its hard to accept that we are just animals that are no more special than any other living and evolved creature, and that when we die- its just that–the ceasing or neurological activity resulting in loss of consciousness, cognition, etc. Our hubris and arrogance is a powerful incentive…

Skepticism and humility are both very useful attributes.

Steve

Michael, I see that you have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t care about what Bill Maher mentioned in an anecdote, nor does it have anything to do with my point. Faith is a useful, necessary thing, and people must use it in their daily lives, otherwise we would not be able to accomplish anything–we would instead waste away trying to each prove everything true for ourselves.

My argument is not against faith, nor is it against acting ethically. Religious people seem to believe that “morality” (I will use the world ethics) is something that is exclusively owned by religion. The complete morals and teachings of the western religions are ridiculous: examine the mosaic law, the story or the levite, or the other myriad of terrible teachings in the bible, and we can talk morals. That’s not to say that there aren’t good things: not killing each other; treating each as you wish to be treated. However, these teachings are the not exclusive to religion. I can say with certainty that using simple logic and observation, we can deduce that the overall utility of adopting a “lets not kill each other” policy is greater than without.

No my problem is that religion claims to be a description of reality, facts, truth. However, it requires its followers to place their _faith_ in a flawed methodology (look up that word, you obviously do not know its meaning). I place my _faith_ in a methodology which I believe to be sound and consistent with regards to axioms and logic that emerge from the universe. I believe that the scientific method is an appropriate way in which to describe the universe and reality. Since these are obviously “of god”, then one would expect that a methodology which is consistent with observation would garner authority.

I am not disillusioned with the reality of religion’s place in civilization, history, or its role in culture and socialization. I do not deny the positive aspects of religion, but argue that we can keep these without the horrible charade that it has anything to do with reality of the world; because for the first time in history we do not need religion to answer these questions for us. We have a superior methodology now– we can evolve past the need for witch doctors and exorcisms. I want people to think critically about the way in which religion claims to describe reality and think “does this seem like it came from a god? or instead the creation of man?” When you examine the properties of things man _discovers_– like math and physics– there is consistency and elegance. When you examine the religions of the world, there is little consistency and little elegance; you see that it reflects the trite emotions and fear of the men that created it. It is a reflection of the society of the time period… it is obviously “of man” and not “of god”.

How can you not “choose” a “big bang theory”— you clearly have no authority or education whatsoever to even make a claim one way or the other. This arrogance that your religion instills in you, makes you insane: it is _insane_ to believe something in the face of contrary evidence. No one is asking you to _believe_ in a big bang theory– you just believe in the methodology: you can go back to euclid, prove all of the the math that is necessary to examine the observations from telescopes to draw the conclusions that leads to the model of the “big bang theory”. You can do this yourself (well with a little education)… but thats exactly the point: you don’t have to have faith in anything– except that the process (logic, etc.) that they practice. If you believe in that process, you can put _faith_ in their findings without any doubt! Note also that science is “self-healing” no one claims to know anything– they only create models that try to match and predict observation. If they fail, then you must refine the model. This point is often muddled by _people_, but that is irrelevant to the overall methodology (this is exactly opposite of all religions I have examined, in which there are embarrassing inconsistencies that force the believers to either make excuses for their religion or make an _insane_ assertion that they choose the religion over logic [see your previous post for an example of such insanity]).

I am always interested in having _intelligent_ conversations about religion, science, etc. but they must be that: intelligent. Do not respond to me saying “assuredly suspect” without making a single argument. You obviously know nothing about science (physics and math). These are the things we KNOW are of god… so I would think a religious person, like yourself, would be interested! (One thing is you may not want to use “big bang theory” anymore; that model was found to be inadequate when observation showed an accelerating, expanding universe). Lastly, do a bit of soul searching yourself– really think about what religion is asking you to have faith in, and what clues it leaves as to its authenticity— you may find that even an uneducated person, like yourself, can find hints that religion is “of man” instead of “of god”.

Steve

Michael-

Thank you for replying. I won’t drag this out, but I would be remiss if I missed an opportunity to write about this subject. You are correct, my tone is often times harsh and certainly I made some personal slights that were probably inappropriate. I should not try and hurt other’s feelings, because obviously that gets us nowhere. Also, in no way am I trying to make a claim that one shouldn’t have the freedom to choose in whatever beliefs they want; this is tolerance. I only ask that people critically think about where they place their faith. You should make a conscious and informed choice to place your faith in something. You should _rationalize_ this choice and ensure that it agrees with your observation of the world (what we know to be of god). Therefore, I cannot respect beliefs that are inconsistent and irrational (by the definition of irrational). I don’t mean this to sound harsh or mean–it doesn’t change the fact that I respect one’s right to choose such beliefs, regardless of their reasoning.

Secondly, I too was raised catholic (confirmed and everything), and attended catholic middle and high school. I am not an atheist. I believe atheism to be as spurious as christianity. I believe that I nor anyone else knows anything about that which created our universe (or multiverse, or whatever causal event is at the beginning of that chain), and I see no compelling reason to speculate. I am perfectly content saying “I don’t know”… many cannot do this, because it is very unsatisfying.

Michael, I apologize for my inappropriate slights against your character. My primitive emotions got the better of me, and I stated things that did not help my cause–to try and help my fellow mankind. I am not trying to convert anyone to anything–I am just asking that they think critically and openly about where they place their faith. Note that my emotions getting the better of me is a perfect example of a ‘human’ flaw: when I responded to your post, I was angry, vengeful, and wished to hurt you because you made me upset. This is irrational behavior due to a neurological response to my cognition of reading your post. Thus, these emotions caused me to act irrationally. Note that these emotions and feelings (anger, etc.) are attributed to god (“jealous god”) all throughout the bible, and yet they are completely absent from that which we KNOW is of god (physics, etc.). This is no coincidence, but instead a hint of the true origin and (in)authenticity of the bible. Just think about it…

You too have a good day and a good year,
Steve