Just Making **** Up

[dianaiad]

And all this subjectivity and making **** up is fine for grownups as long as they don't mess up their kids or try to use their made up **** to impact public policy.

With all due respect, better that they 'mess up' their kids than YOU mess up their kids.

I don't have much quarrel with the idea that religions shouldn't influence public policy to the detriment of all other religions. Freedom of religion rather depends on the idea that the 'state' not have one. ..

And that it not mess in them, either.

 

[dianaiad]

If they were, wouldn't they detect their logical fallacies?

I imagine that 'they' can detect logical fallacies as well as the non-believers can. The difference seems to be which opinions one applies fallacious reasoning to. For instance, I am constantly confronted with fallacies of composition, begging the question, slippery slope and strawman fallacies from the non-believers right here, not to mention a good dose of ad hominems.

Ah, well, nobody can see the pimple on one's own nose.

 

[dianaiad]

Comparing beliefs in unicorns to complex beliefs in deity is unusual, at best.

Actually, it's pretty much a 'go to' comparison...the sort of 'slippery slope' bit of critically fallacious thinking that non-theists are most fond of accusing theists of using.

Mind you, it seems that there may have BEEN unicorns. You know, "one-horned' animals? There still are. That they aren't pretty white horse types (or goats) that have pink manes and tails and poop rainbow ice cream is beside the point.

 

[dianaiad]

It sounds like your point is that even religious people are capable of critical thinking. Of course I agree.

But Newton also studied and practiced alchemy.

A great many religious...and non-religious--people did at the time.

Just like medical science of the time did things that we NOW would consider very much in that category of silliness.

 

[icehorse]

With all due respect, better that they 'mess up' their kids than YOU mess up their kids.

I don't have much quarrel with the idea that religions shouldn't influence public policy to the detriment of all other religions. Freedom of religion rather depends on the idea that the 'state' not have one. ..

And that it not mess in them, either.

How about if we taught kids comparative religion and let them decide for themselves?

 

[dianaiad]

So also is the proposition that it took religion to do any of these achievements - which might be just as independently arrived at.

The claim she responded to was that religious people CANNOT think critically. About anything.

One thing one might consider; that monk who established the way genetic characteristics pass from one generation to another....using peas...Gregor Mendel?

He was a monk? After his publication and breakthrough research, he was promoted to be the Abbot of his monastery.

A great many religious people have done amazing work in science. It would be as stupid to dismiss theists as critical thinkers as it is for theists to dismiss atheists as critical thinkers....though sometimes I have to wonder. It is utterly astounding how people can compartmentalize so completely, and think clearly about one aspect of their experiences, and be totally illogical in another.

 

[dianaiad]

How about if we taught kids comparative religion and let them decide for themselves?

I'm all for that, actually. Kids should be given the opportunity to learn all about different religions from believers/teachers of those religions, beginning in, oh, high school.

Oh...you surely didn't mean that some atheist come in and teach 'comparative religion' with the assumption that all of them were false, did you? I mean, really, you weren't going to suggest any such thing?

 

[tayla]

So what is it about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that makes it a "non-religion"?

It is a religion. And like all religions, it is an untrustworthy source of knowledge and truth. The claims should only be believed if they can be backed up via another trustworthy source such as science or philosophy or historical study or such.

 

[MonkeyFire]

The sprit of faith will judge your religion in the air.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It struck me today looking at all the faith descriptions of various posters how religion is completely subjective. People can just make up religions to suit their personalities and desires.

Darn straight! The best religious expression is creative.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Except that all the religions have generally just caused divisions as much as they have brought people into believing whatever they deem as true.

It can't cause division if the foundation lives, is dynamic and can change.

 

[icehorse]

I'm all for that, actually. Kids should be given the opportunity to learn all about different religions from believers/teachers of those religions, beginning in, oh, high school.

Oh...you surely didn't mean that some atheist come in and teach 'comparative religion' with the assumption that all of them were false, did you? I mean, really, you weren't going to suggest any such thing?

"Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong", Dire Straits

 

[Rival]

I'm all for that, actually. Kids should be given the opportunity to learn all about different religions from believers/teachers of those religions, beginning in, oh, high school.

Oh...you surely didn't mean that some atheist come in and teach 'comparative religion' with the assumption that all of them were false, did you? I mean, really, you weren't going to suggest any such thing?

Comparative religion in this country begins at primary school. It works fine. I had it.

 

[dianaiad]

"Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong", Dire Straits

Or both. So...what has this got to do with the post to which you were replying?

 

[dianaiad]

Comparative religion in this country begins at primary school. It works fine. I had it.

It does?

I didn't.

But I DID get some when I was high school age. Not from the school, though.

I got a lot of 'comparative religion' in college. It was really funny when the professor started telling the class what MY beliefs 'really' were.

 

[epronovost]

It is a religion. And like all religions, it is an untrustworthy source of knowledge and truth. The claims should only be believed if they can be backed up via another trustworthy source such as science or philosophy or historical study or such.

Ironically in the case of the LDS, Joseph Smith was previously well known for several cases of religious fraud... I would take the man's word with a grain of salt.

What's more probable, that a known con-man told lies to gain money and adulation or that that same con-man received the visit of supernatural creature that only he ever met and gave him unique and special knowledge about the univers?

 

[Mock Turtle]

The claim she responded to was that religious people CANNOT think critically. About anything.

One thing one might consider; that monk who established the way genetic characteristics pass from one generation to another....using peas...Gregor Mendel?

He was a monk? After his publication and breakthrough research, he was promoted to be the Abbot of his monastery.

A great many religious people have done amazing work in science. It would be as stupid to dismiss theists as critical thinkers as it is for theists to dismiss atheists as critical thinkers....though sometimes I have to wonder. It is utterly astounding how people can compartmentalize so completely, and think clearly about one aspect of their experiences, and be totally illogical in another.

I'm more concerned with people thinking that it was the religion that was the cause of these things perhaps rather than an individual having the critical thinking skills who might have done whatever in any suitable environment, religious or not. That is all. And from what I understand, religions have not been outstanding promoters of (independent) science, especially if it were to contradict the religion quite markedly.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It can't cause division if the foundation lives, is dynamic and can change.

Plenty that don't seem to change and doggedly regard any original texts/doctrines as sacrosanct and not to be messed with.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, he meant it is invalid because it is subjective.

Well, he's not wrong....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And all this subjectivity and making **** up is fine for grownups as long as they don't mess up their kids or try to use their made up **** to impact public policy.

Hmmm. Disagree.

I'ld rather say that all this "making stuff up" is actually fine for kids and NOT for grown ups.

Grown ups are supposed to know better then just making stuff up.... Grown ups are supposed to inform their kids, at some appropriate point, that the stuff the kids are making up, is not how the real world works.