< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

If God made us, why did he make us so stupid?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
24 April 2019 15:17
 
proximacentauri - 24 April 2019 02:34 PM
TwoSeven1 - 24 April 2019 09:11 AM

I can’t speak to the varying beliefs of other Christians.

Or perhaps you just don’t want to open that box of worms because you know it would highlight how variable Christian ‘truth’ is.

TwoSeven1 - 24 April 2019 09:11 AM

Would you claim that all the things you know are the truth?  Where would you draw the line?

I think it’s in our best interest not to succumb to stories of ‘miracles’ that have no basis in fact. Lies and mythical beliefs cause needless suffering and death in the world. Your god is invisible and cannot be distinguished from those you think to be nonexistent, even though in your mind it can. Truths require objective evidence. But like the truth claims of our current resident in the White House, the truth claims of Christianity do not hold up to scrutiny.

TwoSeven1 - 24 April 2019 09:11 AM

Assuming that you are an atheist, what does it matter if humanity’s existence continues or doesn’t continue?  I’ve heard many atheists say that we have to ensure the continuity of humanity.  Why?  If death is final, what reason would an atheist have to care about the continuity of humanity?  Reducing even further, if the Bible isn’t the truth, what would anything matter at all?

Actually, the reverse is more the case. Many Christians and Muslims are looking for the ‘end times’. And many have said they welcome it. So essentially, they long for the destruction of mankind. The non-believers I know tend to be more concerned with the preservation and prosperity of mankind because we think of ourselves as a member of the human race and as has already been said, we would like to be good stewards of the earth during our time here and make whatever difference we can to leave it a better place for the next generation of humanity.

TwoSeven1 - 24 April 2019 09:11 AM

You need to have a concrete foundation for morality and the meaning of life if you are going to say that anything can be dangerous or unfounded.  Staying in the reductive line of reasoning for another moment, the only part of the truth that I can see an atheist adhering to is mathematics.  Doesn’t seem like there are any answers to morality or the meaning of life in it, though.

Many Christians don’t have a problem with bringing death to the world in elective wars. The Catholic Church contributed to millions of AIDS deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa by restricting birth control. White Supremacy and Christianity combine in a toxic mix in the South. I could go on but I’ll stop there. Most Atheists I know are morally superior to the average Christian I knew in the 40 plus years I practiced Christianity.

I suggest you might take a look at this as the only moral code you’ll need - Help other people, and if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.

“Or perhaps you just don’t want to open that box of worms because you know it would highlight how variable Christian ‘truth’ is.”  I can’t speak to their beliefs because I don’t know what the variations in their beliefs are.  If you are pointing to variations such as Catholics or Jehovah’s Witnesses, then I can speak to those, but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about.

“Lies and mythical beliefs cause needless suffering and death in the world. Your god is invisible and cannot be distinguished from those you think to be nonexistent, even though in your mind it can. Truths require objective evidence. Your ‘truth’ has none.”  Just because you say something is so, doesn’t mean it is so.  The Bible is not a lie or basis for mythical belief.  The evidence for the truth of the Bible is overwhelming, actually.

“Actually, the reverse more the case. In other words, many Christians and Muslims are looking for the ‘end times’. And many have said they welcome it. So in other words, they long for the destruction of mankind. The non-believers I know tend to be more concerned with the preservation and prosperity of mankind because we think of ourselves as a member of the human race and as has already been said, we would like to be good stewards of the earth during our time here and make whatever difference we can to leave it a better place for the next generation of humanity.”  Perhaps you don’t understand what many Christians are hopeful for.  Your response here doesn’t answer my questions:  From your perspective, what does anything matter in light of the inevitability of death?

“Many Christians don’t have a problem with bringing death to the world in elective wars. The Catholic Church contributed to millions of AIDS deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa by restricting birth control. White Supremacy and Christianity combine in a toxic mix in the South. I could go on but I’ll stop there. Most Atheists I know are morally superior to the average Christian I knew for the 40 plus years I practiced Christianity.”  You seem to be explaining Christians as wanting humanity to suffer and be destroyed.  This isn’t what Jesus taught.  Like I said earlier, I can’t speak to the varying beliefs of other Christians.  If they are living amoral lifestyles, then they are living against what Jesus taught and shouldn’t be considered Christians.  However, if their morality doesn’t line up with yours, this is not a grounds to say they are immoral or have lesser morals than you do.  The measure of a Christian should be their adherence to Jesus’ teaching, since “Christian” means “follower of Christ.”

“I suggest you might take a look at this as the only moral code you’ll need - Help other people, and if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.”  And what are we to do about the people who murder, rape, steal, traffic human beings or drugs, form dictatorships, commit treason, perform ethnic cleansing or genocide, etc.?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
24 April 2019 22:25
 

We created the gods as explanatory agents of past unexplained phenomena.  As our knowledge grows, the space and utility of these stories diminishes.

Also, we’re clever, but not too smart.  There are significant noteworthy gaps in our cognition.

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
25 April 2019 08:36
 
Jefe - 24 April 2019 10:25 PM

We created the gods as explanatory agents of past unexplained phenomena.  As our knowledge grows, the space and utility of these stories diminishes.

Also, we’re clever, but not too smart.  There are significant noteworthy gaps in our cognition.

You’re using your intelligence to say that we have limited intelligence.  What I would say is this:  We aren’t designed to know all that there is to know.  In Genesis, God commissioned man to subdue the Earth.  Seems like that’s what humanity it doing.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
25 April 2019 09:11
 
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 08:36 AM
Jefe - 24 April 2019 10:25 PM

We created the gods as explanatory agents of past unexplained phenomena.  As our knowledge grows, the space and utility of these stories diminishes.

Also, we’re clever, but not too smart.  There are significant noteworthy gaps in our cognition.

You’re using your intelligence to say that we have limited intelligence.  What I would say is this:  We aren’t designed to know all that there is to know.  In Genesis, God commissioned man to subdue the Earth.  Seems like that’s what humanity it doing.

This is a great example of our cleverness (or lack thereof) and gaps in our cognition.
6th (and possibly 9th) century BCE authors of genesis would not have the knowledge we have now to help them understand that continued ‘growth-industry’, population spread and lack of environmental concerns could have us subdue the earth to the point we can no longer inhabit it. Modern methods of prediction and complex modelling have provided a much more accurate long-term view of what will probably happen if we continue to ‘subdue’ without care or conservation in mind.

Further to that, people of the 21 century who willfully ignore climate science and the abundant evidence of our changing world in favour of cherished mythology are even less clever.

Recognizing and acknowledging one’s limits is not counter to our understanding of intelligence.

[ Edited: 25 April 2019 09:19 by Jefe]
 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
25 April 2019 09:42
 
Jefe - 25 April 2019 09:11 AM
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 08:36 AM
Jefe - 24 April 2019 10:25 PM

We created the gods as explanatory agents of past unexplained phenomena.  As our knowledge grows, the space and utility of these stories diminishes.

Also, we’re clever, but not too smart.  There are significant noteworthy gaps in our cognition.

You’re using your intelligence to say that we have limited intelligence.  What I would say is this:  We aren’t designed to know all that there is to know.  In Genesis, God commissioned man to subdue the Earth.  Seems like that’s what humanity it doing.

This is a great example of our cleverness (or lack thereof) and gaps in our cognition.
6th (and possibly 9th) century BCE authors of genesis would not have the knowledge we have now to help them understand that continued ‘growth-industry’, population spread and lack of environmental concerns could have us subdue the earth to the point we can no longer inhabit it. Modern methods of prediction and complex modelling have provided a much more accurate long-term view of what will probably happen if we continue to ‘subdue’ without care or conservation in mind.

Further to that, people of the 21 century who willfully ignore climate science and the abundant evidence of our changing world in favour of cherished mythology are even less clever.

Recognizing and acknowledging one’s limits is not counter to our understanding of intelligence.

Life can’t go on indefinitely.  Nothing is indefinitely sustainable.  From an atheistic perspective, what does it matter if humanity ends tomorrow?

“Further to that, people of the 21 century who willfully ignore climate science and the abundant evidence of our changing world in favour of cherished mythology are even less clever.”  In light of atheism’s inherrent nihilism, what does it matter people don’t care about changing climates?

“Recognizing and acknowledging one’s limits is not counter to our understanding of intelligence.”  Where there is intelligence, there isn’t stupidity.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
25 April 2019 09:59
 
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 09:42 AM

Life can’t go on indefinitely.  Nothing is indefinitely sustainable.  From an atheistic perspective, what does it matter if humanity ends tomorrow?

This question suggests a poor understanding of atheism and the aspirations of those who are atheists.  Not uncommon for the religious.

My answer to that question: Because then it’s all over and I don’t want it to end just yet.  I would think a religious view that includes a mythical afterlife would have an easier time letting go of our future on earth.
In fact, many religious folk sing hymns about that very subject.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 09:42 AM

In light of atheism’s inherrent nihilism, what does it matter people don’t care about changing climates?

Further evidence of a lack of understanding of atheism.  Not all atheists are nihilists, and not all humanist philosophies necessarily lead to nihilism. Absences of religion does not mean absence of personal existential meaning.  You’re a big kid.  Should you have any interest in correcting your projected misunderstanding, I leave it to you to do some self-guided learning.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 09:42 AM

  Where there is intelligence, there isn’t stupidity.

Disagree.  There are plenty of examples of intelligent people doing and believing stupid things.
Ben Carson comes to mind as an easy example. Intelligent enough to be a neurosurgeon, stupid enough to hang onto all sorts of false-knowledge-claims - like the one about pyramids being constructed to hold grain?  I’m ure we could find other examples of intelligent people doing dumb things if we looked around even a little bit.

While the dictionary definition is not so subtle, actual living people are complex and capable of being relatively intelligent, while still being stupid or doing stupid things.

Edit: Further to that, I’m not just talking about intelligence and stupidity, I’m talking about cognitive gaps or weaknesses we inherently possess.  Like our ability to glaze-over concepts our brains can’t really comprehend.  Or using short-cut concepts or terminology to hurdle these gaps - not really correcting them, but rather disregarding them while thinking we have them licked.

For example, we can time-bind.  But we’re not really good at it.  We can think in terms of a long-time, but our brains sort of glaze-over and shortcut concepts when we actually think about them, because we’re not biologically or intellectually capable of grasping the full import/context of these shortcut concepts.  Forever is ‘a mighty long time’ etc…

[ Edited: 25 April 2019 10:18 by Jefe]
 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
25 April 2019 10:33
 
Jefe - 25 April 2019 09:59 AM
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 09:42 AM

Life can’t go on indefinitely.  Nothing is indefinitely sustainable.  From an atheistic perspective, what does it matter if humanity ends tomorrow?

This question suggests a poor understanding of atheism and the aspirations of those who are atheists.  Not uncommon for the religious.

My answer to that question: Because then it’s all over and I don’t want it to end just yet.  I would think a religious view that includes a mythical afterlife would have an easier time letting go of our future on earth.
In fact, many religious folk sing hymns about that very subject.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 09:42 AM

In light of atheism’s inherrent nihilism, what does it matter people don’t care about changing climates?

Further evidence of a lack of understanding of atheism.  Not all atheists are nihilists, and not all humanist philosophies necessarily lead to nihilism. Absences of religion does not mean absence of personal existential meaning.  You’re a big kid.  Should you have any interest in correcting your projected misunderstanding, I leave it to you to do some self-guided learning.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 09:42 AM

  Where there is intelligence, there isn’t stupidity.

Disagree.  There are plenty of examples of intelligent people doing and believing stupid things.
Ben Carson comes to mind as an easy example. Intelligent enough to be a neurosurgeon, stupid enough to hang onto all sorts of false-knowledge-claims - like the one about pyramids being constructed to hold grain?  I’m ure we could find other examples of intelligent people doing dumb things if we looked around even a little bit.

While the dictionary definition is not so subtle, actual living people are complex and capable of being relatively intelligent, while still being stupid or doing stupid things.

Edit: Further to that, I’m not just talking about intelligence and stupidity, I’m talking about cognitive gaps or weaknesses we inherently possess.  Like our ability to glaze-over concepts our brains can’t really comprehend.  Or using short-cut concepts or terminology to hurdle these gaps - not really correcting them, but rather disregarding them while thinking we have them licked.

For example, we can time-bind.  But we’re not really good at it.  We can think in terms of a long-time, but our brains sort of glaze-over and shortcut concepts when we actually think about them, because we’re not biologically or intellectually capable of grasping the full import/context of these shortcut concepts.  Forever is ‘a mighty long time’ etc…

“This question suggests a poor understanding of atheism and the aspirations of those who are atheists.  Not uncommon for the religious.”  Maybe, but what else am I to reduce atheism to?

“My answer to that question: Because then it’s all over and I don’t want it to end just yet.  I would think a religious view that includes a mythical afterlife would have an easier time letting go of our future on earth.
In fact, many religious folk sing hymns about that very subject.”  I’m talking philosophy and logic, not personal inclinations.  Society shouldn’t use an individual’s ethics or morals as its compass.

“Further evidence of a lack of understanding of atheism.  Not all atheists are nihilists, and not all humanist philosophies necessarily lead to nihilism. Absences of religion does not mean absence of personal existential meaning.  You’re a big kid.  Should you have any interest in correcting your projected misunderstanding, I leave it to you to do some self-guided learning.”  I didn’t say that they are.  I’m showing that atheism reduces to nihilism and gives humanity no foundation.

“Disagree.  There are plenty of examples of intelligent people doing and believing stupid things.”  Their intelligence isn’t stupidity.  Intelligence cannot be stupidity.  Intelligent people can make poor decisions.  The only way to reconcile this is to say that intelligent people don’t use their intelligence to make stupid decisions.

To your edit:

It seems to me that we are not designed to know all that there is to know.  We are intelligent enough to understand that we cannot fully comprehend the infinite.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
25 April 2019 10:50
 
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 10:33 AM

Maybe, but what else am I to reduce atheism to?

Why project a reduction onto it - or the people who hold it as their world-view.  Why not actually get to know the people and find out what makes them tick?

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 10:33 AM

I’m talking philosophy and logic, not personal inclinations.  Society shouldn’t use an individual’s ethics or morals as its compass.

Society doesn’t.  We operate under a set of ethics that is based on social contracts and agreements.
Some religious mores are inappropriate greater humanity.  We should not blindly follow them if they are unhelpful, or harmful, just because they are sourced in religion.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 10:33 AM

I didn’t say that they are.  I’m showing that atheism reduces to nihilism and gives humanity no foundation.

You are not showing.  You are projecting. Humanity is its own foundation without need for mythological constructs.
Just because subsets of people claim their religion gives them foundation and/or purpose does not mean that is a universal or necessary purpose.  And, as mentioned earlier, some of those practices are actively harmful to the planet and our environment - and to people.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 10:33 AM

Their intelligence isn’t stupidity.  Intelligence cannot be stupidity.  Intelligent people can make poor decisions.  The only way to reconcile this is to say that intelligent people don’t use their intelligence to make stupid decisions.

Or that people can be and act stupid despite demonstrable intelligence - which is what I was saying.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 10:33 AM

It seems to me that we are not designed to know all that there is to know.  We are intelligent enough to understand that we cannot fully comprehend the infinite.

Except that plenty of people make claims of comprehending these short-cut concepts in conversation and philosophy (and religion).

[ Edited: 25 April 2019 10:54 by Jefe]
 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
25 April 2019 11:13
 
Jefe - 25 April 2019 10:50 AM
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 10:33 AM

Maybe, but what else am I to reduce atheism to?

Why project a reduction onto it - or the people who hold it as their world-view.  Why not actually get to know the people and find out what makes them tick?

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 10:33 AM

I’m talking philosophy and logic, not personal inclinations.  Society shouldn’t use an individual’s ethics or morals as its compass.

Society doesn’t.  We operate under a set of ethics that is based on social contracts and agreements.
Some religious mores are inappropriate greater humanity.  We should not blindly follow them if they are unhelpful, or harmful, just because they are sourced in religion.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 10:33 AM

I didn’t say that they are.  I’m showing that atheism reduces to nihilism and gives humanity no foundation.

You are not showing.  You are projecting. Humanity is its own foundation without need for mythological constructs.
Just because subsets of people claim their religion gives them foundation and/or purpose does not mean that is a universal or necessary purpose.  And, as mentioned earlier, some of those practices are actively harmful to the planet and our environment - and to people.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 10:33 AM

Their intelligence isn’t stupidity.  Intelligence cannot be stupidity.  Intelligent people can make poor decisions.  The only way to reconcile this is to say that intelligent people don’t use their intelligence to make stupid decisions.

Or that people can be and act stupid despite demonstrable intelligence - which is what I was saying.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 10:33 AM

It seems to me that we are not designed to know all that there is to know.  We are intelligent enough to understand that we cannot fully comprehend the infinite.

Except that plenty of people make claims of comprehending these short-cut concepts in conversation and philosophy (and religion).

“Why project a reduction onto it - or the people who hold it as their world-view.  Why not actually get to know the people and find out what makes them tick?”  I haven’t been talking about individuals.  I am talking about philosphical concepts.  If we reduce most concepts, we can understand them better.  Have you been analyzing religion on an individual basis when you make statements about it?

“Society doesn’t.”  The more society becomes secular, the more the individual’s morals and ethics influence society.

“And, as mentioned earlier, some of those practices are actively harmful to the planet and our environment - and to people.”  I agree with you that some practices of some religions are harmful to people.  I am showing that atheism has no philisophical grounds for ruling what is harmful, stupid, worthwhile, meaningful, etc.

“Or that people can be and act stupid despite demonstrable intelligence - which is what I was saying.”  If an intelligent person acts stupidly, does that make them stupid?

“Except that plenty of people make claims of comprehending these short-cut concepts in conversation and philosophy (and religion).”  So?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
25 April 2019 11:26
 
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 11:13 AM

  I haven’t been talking about individuals.  I am talking about philosphical concepts.  If we reduce most concepts, we can understand them better.  Have you been analyzing religion on an individual basis when you make statements about it?

Do we really understand concepts better when they are reduced?  Would a PHD or Master Craftsman be able to reduce their learning of a subject and still maintain a relative quality of understanding?
When I make a statement about religious people, I usually qualify it as not applying to ‘all’, and have specific examples in mind.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 11:13 AM

The more society becomes secular, the more the individual’s morals and ethics influence society.

Please provide an example of this.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 11:13 AM

I agree with you that some practices of some religions are harmful to people.  I am showing that atheism has no philisophical grounds for ruling what is harmful, stupid, worthwhile, meaningful, etc.

Does atheism claim to rule these things? 
I don’t think it does.  I think people are making judgments about these things.  I think atheism is simply a position about the non-existence of gods.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 11:13 AM

If an intelligent person acts stupidly, does that make them stupid?

Does it?  In the Ben Carson example, he is obviously an intelligent man with stupid opinions about the pyramids.  Is he stupid or intelligent, or both at the same time?

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 11:13 AM

“Except that plenty of people make claims of comprehending these short-cut concepts in conversation and philosophy (and religion).”  So?

Do you not see the dichotomy between claiming we cannot know or comprehend eternity, while claiming to define eternal concepts in philosophy and religion?

[ Edited: 25 April 2019 11:28 by Jefe]
 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
25 April 2019 12:20
 
Jefe - 25 April 2019 11:26 AM
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 11:13 AM

  I haven’t been talking about individuals.  I am talking about philosphical concepts.  If we reduce most concepts, we can understand them better.  Have you been analyzing religion on an individual basis when you make statements about it?

Do we really understand concepts better when they are reduced?  Would a PHD or Master Craftsman be able to reduce their learning of a subject and still maintain a relative quality of understanding?
When I make a statement about religious people, I usually qualify it as not applying to ‘all’, and have specific examples in mind.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 11:13 AM

The more society becomes secular, the more the individual’s morals and ethics influence society.

Please provide an example of this.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 11:13 AM

I agree with you that some practices of some religions are harmful to people.  I am showing that atheism has no philisophical grounds for ruling what is harmful, stupid, worthwhile, meaningful, etc.

Does atheism claim to rule these things? 
I don’t think it does.  I think people are making judgments about these things.  I think atheism is simply a position about the non-existence of gods.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 11:13 AM

If an intelligent person acts stupidly, does that make them stupid?

Does it?  In the Ben Carson example, he is obviously an intelligent man with stupid opinions about the pyramids.  Is he stupid or intelligent, or both at the same time?

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 11:13 AM

“Except that plenty of people make claims of comprehending these short-cut concepts in conversation and philosophy (and religion).”  So?

Do you not see the dichotomy between claiming we cannot know or comprehend eternity, while claiming to define eternal concepts in philosophy and religion?

“Do we really understand concepts better when they are reduced?”  Yes.  If we don’t know what is beneath a concept, then we don’t know what all of its implications are.

“Would a PHD or Master Craftsman be able to reduce their learning of a subject and still maintain a relative quality of understanding?”  We aren’t talking about reduction in learning.  In addition to knowing a concept, we are talking about logically reducing that concept to gain more understanding about it.

“Please provide an example of this.”  I’d like to not go into political territory, but answers to this question seem to have inherent political association:  As a society becomes more secular, its laws change to cater to the ideology of the minority group of transgender people.

“Does atheism claim to rule these things?”  From my observation, yes.  The atheist community seems to unite over their perceived superior rationality over any other group.  This makes it harder for outsiders to reason with them, and for them to grant any merit to outsider ideology.

“Does it?”  No.  Being stupid makes a person stupid.

“Is he stupid or intelligent, or both at the same time?”  He is intelligent.

“Do you not see the dichotomy between claiming we cannot know or comprehend eternity, while claiming to define eternal concepts in philosophy and religion?”  A dichotomy isn’t inherrently bad in itself.  Hypocrisy is bad.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
25 April 2019 12:54
 
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

If we don’t know what is beneath a concept, then we don’t know what all of its implications are.

But if we accept the reduction to be indicative, we risk losing the meat of the concept, and possibly the nuance(es).
Along with synergies with other concepts and disciplines.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

wearen’t talking about reduction in learning.  In addition to knowing a concept, we are talking about logically reducing that concept to gain more understanding about it.

see above.  A summary should only function as a summary.
Ruduction, by itself, is not a benefit.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

As a society becomes more secular, its laws change to cater to the ideology of the minority group of transgender people.

...or maybe it recognizes past prejudices against those (and other) minorities as unjust in an ‘equality before the law’ society. A society, i might add, founded by minority groups seeking life in a new land where they wouldn’t be discriminated against by those enamoured of their old traditions…

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

From my observation, yes.  The atheist community seems to unite over their perceived superior rationality over any other group.  This makes it harder for outsiders to reason with them, and for them to grant any merit to outsider ideology.

From my perspective, athiesm only talks about the non-existence of gods.  What different individual athiests claim about rationality and critical thought may be correlated with athiesm or secularism - more likely education and practice, IMHO, but is not a fundamental part of that world view.  Athiesm is not a guarantor of clear thinking or critical thought patterns.

Similarly, some religious folk try to claim a moral and ethical high-ground when many of their traditions are clearly discriminatory and harmful.

Perhaps they (athiests) have fewer qualms about speaking out about religious social constructs. Or perhaps they dont allow cherished mythology to insert stupid concepts or ideas to over-ride knowledge and evidence?

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

.  Being stupid makes a person stupid.

...so that makes Ben Carson stupid.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

” is he stupid or intelligent, or both at the same time?”  He is intelligent.

....but his pyramid notions are stupid.  Thus, by your argument, making him simultaneously stupid.

...or are you trapped in a false dichotomy?

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

A dichotomy isn’t inherrently bad in itself.  Hypocrisy is bad.

Agree that hypocrisy is bad.
Dichotomies that lead to hypocrisy or logical fallacies are bad too.

[ Edited: 25 April 2019 13:09 by Jefe]
 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
25 April 2019 13:04
 
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

  The atheist community seems to unite…..  This makes it harder for outsiders to reason with them, and for them to grant any merit to outsider ideology.

Maybe being held to higher standards of evidence and critical thought is a good thing.  Any ideology should be able to withstand rigor and scrutiny.  If it does not, perhaps it is inherently flawed.  If that is difficult, perhaps it is deserved.

I think the key here is differing standards of rationality.

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  347
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
25 April 2019 13:26
 
Jefe - 25 April 2019 12:54 PM
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

If we don’t know what is beneath a concept, then we don’t know what all of its implications are.

But if we accept the reduction to be indicative, we risk losing the meat of the concept, and possibly the nuance(es).
Along with synergies with other concepts and disciplines.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

wearen’t talking about reduction in learning.  In addition to knowing a concept, we are talking about logically reducing that concept to gain more understanding about it.

see above.  A summary should only function as a summary.
Ruduction, by itself, is not a benefit.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

As a society becomes more secular, its laws change to cater to the ideology of the minority group of transgender people.

...or maybe it recognizes past prejudices against those (and other) minorities as unjust in an ‘equality before the law’ society. A society, i might add, founded by minority groups seeking life in a new land where they wouldn’t be discriminated against by those enamoured of their old traditions…

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

From my observation, yes.  The atheist community seems to unite over their perceived superior rationality over any other group.  This makes it harder for outsiders to reason with them, and for them to grant any merit to outsider ideology.

From my perspective, athiesm only talks about the non-existence of gods.  What different individual athiests claim about rationality and critical thought may be correlated with athiesm or secularism - more likely education and practice, IMHO, but is not a fundamental part of that world view.  Athiesm is not a guarantor of clear thinking or critical thought patterns.

Similarly, some religious folk try to claim a moral and ethical high-ground when many of their traditions are clearly discriminatory and harmful.

Perhaps they (athiests) have fewer qualms about speaking out about religious social constructs. Or perhaps they dont allow cherished mythology to insert stupid concepts or ideas to over-ride knowledge and evidence?

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

.  Being stupid makes a person stupid.

...so that makes Ben Carson stupid.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

” is he stupid or intelligent, or both at the same time?”  He is intelligent.

....but his pyramid notions are stupid.  Thus, by your argument, making him simultaneously stupid.

...or are you trapped in a false dichotomy?

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 12:20 PM

A dichotomy isn’t inherrently bad in itself.  Hypocrisy is bad.

Agree that hypocrisy is bad.
Dichotomies that lead to hypocrisy or logical fallacies are bad too.

“But if we accept the reduction to be indicative, we risk losing the meat of the concept, and possibly the nuance(es).
Along with synergies with other concepts and disciplines.”  I agree that the risk exists.  It’s better to understand than to not, though.  The more we know, the less naive we are.

“A summary should only function as a summary.
Ruduction, by itself, is not a benefit.”  If we are gaining knowledge from reduction, then we are benefitting.

“...or maybe it recognizes past prejudices against those (and other) minorities as unjust in an ‘equality before the law’ society.”  Perhaps.  That depends on what society is doing in relation to the group’s ideology.

“What different individual athiests claim about rationality and critical thought may be correlated with athiesm or secularism - more likely education and practice, IMHO, but is not a fundamental part of that world view.  Athiesm is not a guarantor of clear thinking or critical thought patterns.”  This is a good point.  However, I do see what I explained consistently coming from the atheist community.  Gnostics seem more open to the reasoning of outsiders.

“Similarly, some religious folk try to claim a moral and ethical high-ground when many of their traditions are clearly discriminatory and harmful.”  Also a good point.

“Perhaps they (athiests) have fewer qualms about speaking out about religious social constructs. Or perhaps they dont allow cherished mythology to insert stupid concepts or ideas to over-ride knowledge and evidence?”  The only problem I have with this is that atheists don’t have a philosphical foundation to say what is stupid and what is good, especially when speaking about society.  All they have is their subjective morality.

“...so that makes Ben Carson stupid.”  If he’s intelligent, then he’s not stupid.

“....but his pyramid notions are stupid.  Thus, by your argument, making him simultaneously stupid.
...or are you trapped in a false dichotomy?”  They are stupid in your subjective opinion.  They aren’t in mine, because I don’t care about the pyramids.  I (addressing myself) cannot honestly call a brain surgeon a stupid person.  He may be misinformed, but not stupid.

The only way to really show that someone is stupid is to show that they are unintelligent.

“Agree that hypocrisy is bad.
Dichotomies that lead to hypocrisy or logical fallacies are bad too.”  Agreed.  It is the result of a dichotomy that shows whether it’s bad or not.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
25 April 2019 13:44
 
TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 01:26 PM

“But if we accept the reduction to be indicative, we risk losing the meat of the concept, and possibly the nuance(es).
Along with synergies with other concepts and disciplines.”  I agree that the risk exists.  It’s better to understand than to not, though.  The more we know, the less naive we are.


So you reduce athiesm and athiests to nihilism and discard ’ the rest’.  To me, that does not increase understanding.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 01:26 PM

” a summary should only function as a summary.
Ruduction, by itself, is not a benefit.”  If we are gaining knowledge from reduction, then we are benefitting.

See above.  I see no benefit to reducing athiesm to nihilism, and no increased knowledge.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 01:26 PM

  Perhaps.  That depends on what society is doing in relation to the group’s ideology.

...reducing and discouraging discrimination through legal protections.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 01:26 PM

What different individual athiests claim about rationality and critical thought may be correlated with athiesm or secularism - more likely education and practice, IMHO, but is not a fundamental part of that world view.  Athiesm is not a guarantor of clear thinking or critical thought patterns.”  This is a good point.  However, I do see what I explained consistently coming from the atheist community.  Gnostics seem more open to the reasoning of outsiders.

then perhaps you should change your presentation to meet the percieved standards?

“Similarly, some religious folk try to claim a moral and ethical high-ground when many of their traditions are clearly discriminatory and harmful.”  Also a good point.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 01:26 PM

Perhaps they (athiests) have fewer qualms about speaking out about religious social constructs. Or perhaps they dont allow cherished mythology to insert stupid concepts or ideas to over-ride knowledge and evidence?”  The only problem I have with this is that atheists don’t have a philosphical foundation to say what is stupid and what is good, especially when speaking about society.  All they have is their subjective morality.

all human morality is subjective.
Philosophy is not a guarantor of objectivity.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 01:26 PM

...so that makes Ben Carson stupid.”  If he’s intelligent, then he’s not stupid.

then I think you have a problem…

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 01:26 PM

....but his pyramid notions are stupid.  Thus, by your argument, making him simultaneously stupid.
...or are you trapped in a false dichotomy?”  They are stupid in your subjective opinion.  They aren’t in mine, because I don’t care about the pyramids.  I (addressing myself) cannot honestly call a brain surgeon a stupid person.  He may be misinformed, but not stupid.

not being stuck in a false dichotomy, i have no problem viewing him as both.  Especially the ‘dig-in-and-double-down” when presented with evidence contrary to his stupid notions.
It has nothing to do with caring about pyramids or not.  It has everything to do with irrationality and cherished ideas. So if you truly desire understanding, this example should be important as an illustration about intelligence and stupidity.

TwoSeven1 - 25 April 2019 01:26 PM

The only way to really show that someone is stupid is to show that they are unintelligent.

see above.

 

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›