Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And THAT is precisely where religion falls off the rails. Opinions are meaningless in a debate. Is it snobbery to continually point out that the means by which humans experience the physical are quantifiable whereas opinions, feeling and hallucinations are not?No. However, stating "this is how things are" while disregarding alternate and contrary opinions as the result of delusion or foolishness is a major aspect of snobbery.
In the same manner in which we all admire the architectural and botanical beauty of the insane asylum, for example? It shows more humanity to feel pity for a mental patient than to simply admire his or her surroundings.Using the atheist as an example, it's the difference between the person who walks by a church on Sunday thinking "Those deluded fools" and the one who thinks "I disagree, but that's a pretty building/nice music/an interesting garden out front."
Anyone who implies that they "see things" "as they are" is automatically snobbish, among other things.
Just for the record, a three-year-old "sees things" "as they are", in that, that toy is mine, not yours, therefore I am right and you are wrong.
What definition of "snob" are you using? Just having an opinion equals snobbery? Having a well-supported belief is snobbery?Anyone who implies that they "see things" "as they are" is automatically snobbish, among other things.
I doubt the three year old is a snob, though. Uninformed, perhaps. Analytically incompetent, probably, but not preoccupied with social status or rank.Just for the record, a three-year-old "sees things" "as they are", in that, that toy is mine, not yours, therefore I am right and you are wrong.
What if it isn't an either/or? What if you exclude the word "fools?"
So what? When did "quantifiable" become the criteria for truth?And THAT is precisely where religion falls off the rails. Opinions are meaningless in a debate. Is it snobbery to continually point out that the means by which humans experience the physical are quantifiable whereas opinions, feeling and hallucinations are not?
Again, so what? Do only non-theists get to determine what is the criteria for truth (that which is quantifiable)? Who made them the definers of such things?It's quite simple. The theist says, "There is a god." The non-theist says, "Prove it." The theist then has to ultimately fall back on "I believe..." because he/she can offer no proof that is quantifiable.
Oh, I don't see that at all. I think it's just as reasonable to presume that "God" would communicate to us each in the manner that we could accept and understand. And that would very likely not be uniform nor quantifiable.Is it snobbery to say, "This is how we study and experience the universe. No deity has bothered to communicate with us as a species in a manner that we can all agree upon as a valid form of communication. Therefore, until such time as any deity does choose to communicate with us (not through some hyper-sensitive spiritual individual but to each of us in the same way that I am now addressing all of you) then I cannot admit that such a deity exists."? I think not.
Conversely, to insist that a deity does exist and that deity clearly has not communicated with us as a species in a manner that we can all agree upon as a valid form of communication is, by definition, irrational (e.g. "not governed by or according to reason").
*Shrug* I personally try to keep the idea "Maybe they're seeing something that I'm not" somewhere in my thoughts. This makes it easier to consider new evidence and experiences with an open mind.
I'd suggest that this kind of "snobbery" is exactly the kind of thing that's at work when one creates a thread asking whether atheism promotes snobbery. Only the target is different.E.g. - I don't believe in God because I have used my sharp mind/I am brave enough to confront my mortality etc. etc
VERSUS
They believe in God because they're not very good at thinking/don't have the courage to face their mortality etc. etc?
:yes: So it does, everyone. We are all The Fool.Seeing things as they really are has served me well in every aspect of life. . .
I'd suggest that this kind of "snobbery" is exactly the kind of thing that's at work when one creates a thread asking whether atheism promotes snobbery. Only the target is different.
I'm gonna have to second that Smoke- or third it since I see ATS did as well...I'd suggest that this kind of "snobbery" is exactly the kind of thing that's at work when one creates a thread asking whether atheism promotes snobbery. Only the target is different.
Agreed, and nothing snobbish about demanding support for an opinion whether it's philosophical or otherwise.There is nothing wrong with rejecting an idea because it is foolish or delusional when it is foolish or delusional.
Maybe. But I don't think so. I was watching a link to Sam Harris in a thread by Sunstone. It seems to me that Harris thinks those who believe in God(s) are idiots. I get the same impression from Dawkins.I'd suggest that this kind of "snobbery" is exactly the kind of thing that's at work when one creates a thread asking whether atheism promotes snobbery. Only the target is different.
t often appears as though Dawkins and his followers – often dubbed the New Atheists, though some object to the term – want to change the country's science community in a lasting way. They'd have scientists and defenders of reason be far more confrontational and blunt: No more coddling the faithful, no tolerating nonscientific beliefs. Scientific institutions, in their view, ought to stop putting out politic PR about science and religion being compatible.The New Atheists win the battle easily on the internet. Their most prominent blogger, the University of Minnesota biologist PZ Myers, runs what is probably the web's most popular science blog, Pharyngula, where he and his readers attack and belittle religious believers, sometimes using highly abrasive language. Or as Myers put it to "fanatical" Catholics at one point: "Don't confuse the fact that I find you and your church petty, foolish, twisted and hateful to be a testimonial to the existence of your petty, foolish, twisted, hateful god."
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/aug/24/atheism-dawkins-science-evolution
I nearly spilled my snifter of brandy while trying to find my monocle that fell when I read the OP.
E.g. - I don't believe in God because I have used my sharp mind/I am brave enough to confront my mortality etc. etc
VERSUS
They believe in God because they're not very good at thinking/don't have the courage to face their mortality etc. etc?
I do not debate "truth" but reality. Truth is entirely too subjective and therefore most people not only cannot agree on the ground rules, they often can't agree to be in the same arena.So what? When did "quantifiable" become the criteria for truth?
Again, so what? Do only non-theists get to determine what is the criteria for truth (that which is quantifiable)? Who made them the definers of such things?
But it is logical that a deity might communicate with people in whatever way they could understand. So that "God" to one person would be different from "God" to another. The fact that people don't agree on what constitutes a message from "God" would not, then, indicate that there is no God. That's all I meant to point out.I do not debate "truth" but reality. Truth is entirely too subjective and therefore most people not only cannot agree on the ground rules, they often can't agree to be in the same arena.
There may be a deity. I don't know. I do know that no deity has bothered to communicate with us as a species in a manner that we can all agree upon as a valid form of communication. For all intents and purposes then, what does it matter if a deity exists or not? Certainly I cannot find reason to justify centering one's life around a non-entity or a disinterested possibility.
I don't think that impression is justified in either case.It seems to me that Harris thinks those who believe in God(s) are idiots. I get the same impression from Dawkins.
That's just plain silly. I might deny that you are unable to communicate with me but that would only last until you got in my face and punched me in the eye. Even a rattle snake knows how to get someone's attention. All your argument means is that god is all in your head and my inability to read your thoughts is entirely my fault. No real thing has trouble making its presence known if it wants to.Also, if you have not received such a message it may be because you have already convinced yourself that such a message cannot occur.