Bigotry as practice

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think people are evil.
I think particular actions can be evil or bad.

I'm wondering why you are trying so hard to put words in my mouth.

Well, I was just trying to understand you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Same as anyone else.

That is not an answer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So we agree. What is good or bad, is not based on evidence or rationality.

I said no such thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, I was just trying to understand you.

Then read and take in what I'm saying.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I said no such thing.

So what is good and bad based on?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not an answer.

Do you reason differently than everyone else?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So what is good and bad based on?

Good actions increase the well being of sentient creatures.
Bad actions decrease and/or harm the well being of sentient creatures.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you reason differently than everyone else?

No. I am just a global skeptic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good actions increase the well being of sentient creatures.
Bad actions decrease and/or harm the well being of sentient creatures.

Well, as a former professional soldier I don't agree.
Killing another human is both good and bad relative to point of view.

 

[night912]

I've noticed that bigotry is not easily seen by the one who is demonstrating his bigotry. But the hate can be seen and felt by those who doesn't share that same bigotry.

I think one of the reasons for the bigotry and its blindness of itself is because of tribalism. Even if some people doesn't have that bigotry, as long as they belong to the same "tribe" they will not confront their own tribe's members of their bigotry. This results in the continuation of that hate, whether it's done consciously or subconsciously.

Sometimes it only takes one person from the same "tribe" to point out the bigotry in order for the person to finally see it for himself and change.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." - Nobelist Steven Weinberg

Cutting and pasting some statement shows that you worship the person or think of him as a prophet. And this statement is an absolute lie, unfounded in research, or science, or any facts. Its just a faith. YOU have created your own religion with a lie as a foundation.

This is what you do when you have no rebuttal, which is always. You make a personal attack to demean whoever disagrees with you as you did with you cavalry comments to @SkepticThinker , followed by unsupported opinions and more insults. I guess cutting-and-pasting is only a sign of worship and constitutes a religion and a lie when others you disagree with do it. You almost never provide any support of any kind for any claim you make, so it's not a big issue with you, and possibly why you demean it when others do it.

Do you really think you can influence the posting habits of others with such bad faith tactics? Do you think that either she or I would not agree with another poster that you are wrong because you demeaned the practice? Do you think that I won't cut-and-paste now because you called it worship, religion, and a lie? Of course not. All you accomplish is to reveal what your values and tactics are, and I can assure you that it is not flattering to you.

I agree with Weinberg's comment, but I wouldn't limit it to religion. Any faith-based belief can cause otherwise good people to do harm thinking they're doing good. Look at all the harm people with little or no malice have done in the name of faith-based beliefs, such as that the US presidential election was a hoax, a meme that significantly damaged democracy in America. I don't know how many of the people storming the Capitol were good people, but I do believe that they all thought they were doing the right thing. Trump just puffed them up and told them they had to be strong and take the country back, and that he would have their backs. They were shocked to discover that it was nothing like what they were told, and many have publicly expressed their regret, recognizing that they were lied to. Some may also feel remorse.

Likewise with the vaccine disinformers. The do tremendous harm based on a belief held by faith and against the evidence that the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus.

But do you have any scientific evidence that "with a higher education one find less need for God as a causal force so are more likely to come to the conclusion that "God" is unnecessary."

Yes, and you can, too. You can get some of that evidence right here on RF reading the opinions of the atheists and comparing them to those of the believers. You can do that on this thread. Look at the people who are disagreeing with you. All quite well educated, and all disagreeing with you in the same way, whereas the theists are all over the place, and making bad, unevidenced arguments. Look at you and @Link . Have either of you provided any evidence of anything yet, or made an argument as opposed to an unsupported claim? The more religious people are, the less well educated they are. The well-educated people that self-identify as Christians (there are two I think of here on RF, both scientists) aren't outwardly very religious, and they both have hinted that it's more of a social thing and tradition. The zealots can hardly think. The more religious, the weaker their posting, typically bad science and logical fallacy. There's one scientific study.

Or, you can go to Google.

I don't provide this information to the faith-based thinkers any more, because I've learned (also scientifically, right here on RF, looking at data and coming to sound inductions) that they really aren't interested in it, and the effort is always wasted. The requests are never in good faith. If they were, the requester would open the link, read it, try to understand it, and come back to the thread to share what he learned and to ask any questions that reading might have suggested.

But that never happens. If I ever run into somebody who actually is interested, which would probably be a teenager, since people that are older that are sincerely interested have already learned that, for example, there is a negative correlation between education and religiosity, I will gladly do whatever I can to help that person learn, but not the sealioners here, who incessantly ask for material that they don't care about in the vain effort to try to make it look like they care about evidence and reason while sending the person trying to help them on wild goose chases. I don't think so:

But you have "experience" which is purely faith. It sounds just like a priest in a Devala saying "by experience I know".

And here you are now trying to disqualify experience. Have you already tried to disqualify mine as described immediately above

There are many philosophers who would say that if you think logically, you will come to the conclusion that God is "necessary". The difference between these philosophers and your statement is that they have philosophical arguments for their statement.

But not sound arguments. If a person says that he has a logical or empirical proof for God, he doesn't. He is offering fallacy and calling it proof.

So, whats your point? Are cavalry to someone else or do you have a point?

She told you her point. You didn't like it, so you ignored it and pretended there was none. Then you tried to demean her, to bully her into not making such comments. Good luck with that. Have you already decided to attack me for making that comment, perhaps something involving a cavalry? Good luck with that as well.

Can you give any evidence to the statement "For good people to do evil things, it takes religion."? If you dont have any research based, hypothesis quantified statistical evidence, this is just a faith statement.

I just gave you my research.

Here you are again trying to disqualify comments with arbitrary standards for who is qualified to make them, and calling ones you don't like faith. Just because you don't understand (or refuse to see) the evidence for that comment doesn't make it faith. It just means you can't know what others can, nor discern that their opinions are grounded in evidence that you don't see.

Religion is not the cause of hatred. Never. Anyone who studies sociology of religion knows this. Its a very common thing. Only the writers who are not sufficiently informed or/and hypocrites paint religions to be the cause of hatred.

Where's your scientific research, without which, this is just your faith, a religion, and a lie (your standards).

A person can write "don't be mean to each other" and say if the whole world followed it, it would be a better place. Trust me, it won't make a better place.

Agreed. I made a similar comment on that a few posts back. Morality is not taught with platitudes like "love one another," and those words seem to have little effect on those who only read them in a book or hear them come from a pulpit

You guys equating them to terrorists you create like ISIS shows that you all truly deserve hell. It's those who ignore oppressors and let them do what they want, that are partners in crime of the oppressors. It's those condemning them and trying to put a halt to them and only them, that have a chance of entering paradise.

This is very disturbing. You are probably at heart a decent person who means to do well as he understands it, but the way you understand good is not how I understand it, and you seem primed to do something harmful in the name of your religious beliefs. Another poster wanted research on the idea that religion can make good people do harm in the name of good. Well, here it is.

I notice you declined to answer my questions about the dictatorship your uncle (?) was tortured in, or for what reason, or why you consider Canada complicit, so, I've substituted my own best guess for the answer. I'm assuming a Muslim dictatorship in or near the Middle East, and that officially, his offense was a violation of some religious law there, and you want to hold Canada to blame, which will be hard to do if you answer honestly. Why else would you decline to answer?

I believe that the true purpose of religion is to foster love and brotherhood amongst men.

It doesn't do that, at least not in the case of the two largest organized, politicized religions. But secular humanism does.

 

[firedragon]

The list I made there was a direct response to a question you asked.

Geez, why is this so difficult?

That question was, "Can you give any evidence to the statement "For good people to do evil things, it takes religion."?

Thats not evidence. Its a cut and paste of rhetoric. And if lists are your "thing", then I have given you a list, but the list I gave is based on fact, not "preaching".

No idea why you've posted this irrelevant list rather than responding to my list which was a direct response to a question you asked.



You didn't respond to the other thing I said in that post either.
Why do you think quoting a person means you “worship that person or think of him as a prophet.” ??

I answered to your cut and paste.

Anyway, why a quote from someone is taken as truth with no question blindly is because someone worships him as God or they think of him as a prophet who is infallible.

You should question it, and do research instead.

 

[firedragon]

This is what you do when you have no rebuttal, which is always. You make a personal attack to demean whoever disagrees with you as you did with you cavalry comments to @SkepticThinker , followed by unsupported opinions and more insults. I guess cutting-and-pasting is only a sign of worship and constitutes a religion and a lie when others you disagree with do it. You almost never provide any support of any kind for any claim you make, so it's not a big issue with you, and possibly why you demean it when others do it.

Do you really think you can influence the posting habits of others with such bad faith tactics? Do you think that either she or I would not agree with another poster that you are wrong because you demeaned the practice? Do you think that I won't cut-and-paste now because you called it worship, religion, and a lie? Of course not. All you accomplish is to reveal what your values and tactics are, and I can assure you that it is not flattering to you.

I agree with Weinberg's comment, but I wouldn't limit it to religion. Any faith-based belief can cause otherwise good people to do harm thinking they're doing good. Look at all the harm people with little or no malice have done in the name of faith-based beliefs, such as that the US presidential election was a hoax, a meme that significantly damaged democracy in America. I don't know how many of the people storming the Capitol were good people, but I do believe that they all thought they were doing the right thing. Trump just puffed them up and told them they had to be strong and take the country back, and that he would have their backs. They were shocked to discover that it was nothing like what they were told, and many have publicly expressed their regret, recognizing that they were lied to. Some may also feel remorse.

Likewise with the vaccine disinformers. The do tremendous harm based on a belief held by faith and against the evidence that the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus.

So when you just cut and paste someones statement with no research behind it to validate it, you are just worshiping him.

Show some research.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is what you do when you have no rebuttal, which is always. You make a personal attack to demean whoever disagrees with you as you did with you cavalry comments to @SkepticThinker , followed by unsupported opinions and more insults. I guess cutting-and-pasting is only a sign of worship and constitutes a religion and a lie when others you disagree with do it. You almost never provide any support of any kind for any claim you make, so it's not a big issue with you, and possibly why you demean it when others do it.

Do you really think you can influence the posting habits of others with such bad faith tactics? Do you think that either she or I would not agree with another poster that you are wrong because you demeaned the practice? Do you think that I won't cut-and-paste now because you called it worship, religion, and a lie? Of course not. All you accomplish is to reveal what your values and tactics are, and I can assure you that it is not flattering to you.

I agree with Weinberg's comment, but I wouldn't limit it to religion. Any faith-based belief can cause otherwise good people to do harm thinking they're doing good. Look at all the harm people with little or no malice have done in the name of faith-based beliefs, such as that the US presidential election was a hoax, a meme that significantly damaged democracy in America. I don't know how many of the people storming the Capitol were good people, but I do believe that they all thought they were doing the right thing. Trump just puffed them up and told them they had to be strong and take the country back, and that he would have their backs. They were shocked to discover that it was nothing like what they were told, and many have publicly expressed their regret, recognizing that they were lied to. Some may also feel remorse.

Likewise with the vaccine disinformers. The do tremendous harm based on a belief held by faith and against the evidence that the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus.



Yes, and you can, too. You can get some of that evidence right here on RF reading the opinions of the atheists and comparing them to those of the believers. You can do that on this thread. Look at the people who are disagreeing with you. All quite well educated, and all disagreeing with you in the same way, whereas the theists are all over the place, and making bad, unevidenced arguments. Look at you and @Link . Have either of you provided any evidence of anything yet, or made an argument as opposed to an unsupported claim? The more religious people are, the less well educated they are. The well-educated people that self-identify as Christians (there are two I think of here on RF, both scientists) aren't outwardly very religious, and they both have hinted that it's more of a social thing and tradition. The zealots can hardly think. The more religious, the weaker their posting, typically bad science and logical fallacy. There's one scientific study.

Or, you can go to Google.

I don't provide this information to the faith-based thinkers any more, because I've learned (also scientifically, right here on RF, looking at data and coming to sound inductions) that they really aren't interested in it, and the effort is always wasted. The requests are never in good faith. If they were, the requester would open the link, read it, try to understand it, and come back to the thread to share what he learned and to ask any questions that reading might have suggested.

But that never happens. If I ever run into somebody who actually is interested, which would probably be a teenager, since people that are older that are sincerely interested have already learned that, for example, there is a negative correlation between education and religiosity, I will gladly do whatever I can to help that person learn, but not the sealioners here, who incessantly ask for material that they don't care about in the vain effort to try to make it look like they care about evidence and reason while sending the person trying to help them on wild goose chases. I don't think so:

View attachment 57789




And here you are now trying to disqualify experience. Have you already tried to disqualify mine as described immediately above



But not sound arguments. If a person says that he has a logical or empirical proof for God, he doesn't. He is offering fallacy and calling it proof.



She told you her point. You didn't like it, so you ignored it and pretended there was none. Then you tried to demean her, to bully her into not making such comments. Good luck with that. Have you already decided to attack me for making that comment, perhaps something involving a cavalry? Good luck with that as well.



I just gave you my research.

Here you are again trying to disqualify comments with arbitrary standards for who is qualified to make them, and calling ones you don't like faith. Just because you don't understand (or refuse to see) the evidence for that comment doesn't make it faith. It just means you can't know what others can, nor discern that their opinions are grounded in evidence that you don't see.



Where's your scientific research, without which, this is just your faith, a religion, and a lie (your standards).



Agreed. I made a similar comment on that a few posts back. Morality is not taught with platitudes like "love one another," and those words seem to have little effect on those who only read them in a book or hear them come from a pulpit



This is very disturbing. You are probably at heart a decent person who means to do well as he understands it, but the way you understand good is not how I understand it, and you seem primed to do something harmful in the name of your religious beliefs. Another poster wanted research on the idea that religion can make good people do harm in the name of good. Well, here it is.

I notice you declined to answer my questions about the dictatorship your uncle (?) was tortured in, or for what reason, or why you consider Canada complicit, so, I've substituted my own best guess for the answer. I'm assuming a Muslim dictatorship in or near the Middle East, and that officially, his offense was a violation of some religious law there, and you want to hold Canada to blame, which will be hard to do if you answer honestly. Why else would you decline to answer?



It doesn't do that, at least not in the case of the two largest organized, politicized religions. But secular humanism does.

Yeah, the problem is that the objective universe doesn't care about what matters to humans. So here is where it ends. That how you make sense of what matters to you, is subjective and without evidence, truth, proof, rationality and all that. That is so for all humans including me.
So if you can do it differently and solve the problem of subjectivity, please let the rest of us know.

BTW in Denmark most people just do bad actions without the use of religion, so to me from my part of the world it is not about religion per se.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thats not evidence. Its a cut and paste of rhetoric. And if lists are your "thing", then I have given you a list, but the list I gave is based on fact, not "preaching".

Dude, lists aren't "my thing."
You asked me a question that required a list as a response. It isn't a cut and paste list, rather it's a list I generated myself. And your response is just to hand wave it away as a cut and paste job? Are you really a serious person here?

I answered to your cut and paste.

It wasn't a cut and paste. Did you just assume that?

Anyway, why a quote from someone is taken as truth with no question blindly is because someone worships him as God or they think of him as a prophet who is infallible.

Wow, that's a lot of assumptions you've made there. Do you imagine that is what is going on every time someone quotes a person? Can someone just quote a person because they like the quote and feel it's valid?

You should question it, and do research instead.

I gave you a bunch of examples in direct response to a question you asked me. You have yet to respond to a single one of them and instead we're wasting our time doing this.
It's quite obvious that you didn't ask the question in good faith.
You've proven my point so many times now, it's not even funny at this point.


Let me know when you actually want to have an actual discussion that goes somewhere.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, the problem is that the objective universe doesn't care about what matters to humans. So here is where it ends. That how you make sense of what matters to you, is subjective and without evidence, truth, proof, rationality and all that. That is so for all humans including me.
So if you can do it differently and solve the problem of subjectivity, please let the rest of us know.

BTW in Denmark most people just do bad actions without the use of religion, so to me from my part of the world it is not about religion per se.

I think you should read the quote again.
Nobody is saying people non-religious people can't do bad things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you should read the quote again.
Nobody is saying people non-religious people can't do bad things.

No, just this:
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.
How do you know that there are bad people?

 

[firedragon]

Dude, lists aren't "my thing."
You asked me a question that required a list as a response.

No mate. I ask questions that only requires research in response. Not a cut and paste of rhetorical preaching.

Wow, that's a lot of assumptions you've made there. Do you imagine that is what is going on every time someone quotes a person?

When ever anyone quotes a person, it has to be backed up by research. Sometimes people quote scholars who have already done the research. Thats fine. But not a quote that has no research behind it. Just preaching. That type of thing is good for a church or a mosque. You know some faith based faith statement.

I gave you a bunch of examples in direct response to a question you asked me. You have yet to respond to a single one of them and instead we're wasting our time doing this.

Sorry mate. If you had done the research, then I will respond. Cannot respond to some random list of preachings. Not gonna happen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And round and round we go ...

No mate. I ask questions that only requires research in response. Not a cut and paste of rhetorical preaching.

Well mate, it wasn't a cut and paste response. As I already pointed out TWICE. You should slow down and try actually reading what people type.

When ever anyone quotes a person, it has to be backed up by research. Sometimes people quote scholars who have already done the research. Thats fine. But not a quote that has no research behind it. Just preaching. That type of thing is good for a church or a mosque. You know some faith based faith statement.

What are you going on about?

You asked a question in reference to a quote someone else provided, and I gave you 9 examples. Nine examples you have yet to address, mind you, because you're too busy whining about it. And we're just wasting more time.

Sorry mate. If you had done the research, then I will respond. Cannot respond to some random list of preachings. Not gonna happen.

Well, what a convenient way to just ignore things you don't like. Call them "preachings" and insist they're a cut and paste job when they aren't, and you can just ignore everything!

LOL What a gargantuan waste of time this is.

 

[F1fan]

Okay. No, I do like truth. But that is not rational as it is a feeling. Are you irrational and like truth?

How do you know you like truth? Maybe you like dogma and confuse it for truth and unaware of it. How would you know differently unless you know what truth is and isnt? And what cognitive tools do you use to discern truth?