Not as Good as They Claim

[LuisDantas]

Anything that emphasizes belief as such, really.

Particularly belief in an afterlife, with belief in a monodeity that must be "correctly understood" a close second.

Such doctrines end up wasting a lot of good will that is sorely needed in better venues. They also hurt the emotional and mental readiness of their adherents.

You would not believe how much disgust for Kardecist Spiritism I have. Islaam and some forms of Christianity have impressed me more in recent years as well. And of course there is Scientology.

But again, I would not call any of those doctrines "religions".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not every religion or denomination is doing the right thing in everyone's eyes. In fact, some religions and denominations are considered to be doing wrong; hurting or disrupting the good of individuals, the community in which they are a member, be it a small town or the country as a whole, or all of mankind.

If you have any candidates please share, and exactly what you think they're doing wrong.

.

Sure--atheism is a religion (I believe by faith that there is no god despite my lack of omniscience) and atheism does harm to righteous behavior (obeying the true God of Christianity).

Thanks for asking!

 

[Akivah]

Not every religion or denomination is doing the right thing in everyone's eyes. In fact, some religions and denominations are considered to be doing wrong; hurting or disrupting the good of individuals, the community in which they are a member, be it a small town or the country as a whole, or all of mankind.

If you have any candidates please share, and exactly what you think they're doing wrong.

.

I think that destructive cults, like Scientology, do wrong. The actions of destructive cults on their members can include behavioral and personality changes, loss of personal identity, cessation of scholastic activities, estrangement from family, disinterest in society and pronounced mental control and enslavement by cult leaders.

 

[sun rise]

Whoa.
I just looked up Westboro.
How can that exist?

There is a fascinating account of a woman who left that organization.

 

[Skwim]

Your first statement seems at odds with the second. If there is many times more Christians than there are atheists, then of course there's going to be many churches and other places of gathering and media for Christians. This should come as no surprise to the atheist nor should they chafe at it.

But Christians should chafe at atheists doing essentially the same thing?

Certainly going on about how Christians are anti-intellectual or anti-science hasn't. And that is a significant chunk if not the majority of threads I come across by atheist about Christians.

I've been on RF for quite some time now and I don't remember a single incidence where anyone, atheists, Hindu, or Muslim has ever accused Christians of being anti-intellectual or anti-science. This isn't to say that some Christians haven't come out with claims that conflict with science, and have been taken to task for them by non-Christians, but it hardly amounted to implying they are anti-intellectual or anti-science.

.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But Christians should chafe at atheists doing essentially the same thing

No, they shouldn't. But even if they did two wrongs doesn't make a right.

I've been on RF for quite some time now and I don't remember a single incidence where anyone, atheists, Hindu, or Muslim has ever accused Christians of being anti-intellectual or anti-science. This isn't to say that some Christians haven't come out with claims that conflict with science, and have been taken to task for them by non-Christians, but it hardly amounted to implying they are anti-intellectual or anti-science.

I have, being directly responsible for addressing that sort of behavior. With depressing regularity. Theists are delusional, intellecually bankrupt, not the brightest crayons in the box, liars and hypocritical, all insults from atheists I've had to go over recently. Although we delete those kinds of comments here, you don't have to look far for that sort of behavior in atheist gathering spaces.

Which is only part of why I made my original comment, I'd be willing to bet our country wouldn't have such a tough time with christian/atheist conflicts if atheist groups stopped being so adversarial even without direct insuts (which dont help.)
I'm pretty sure I did more to improve relations with Christians and get them to see things from my perspective by a year of working with them on humanitarian projcts than 10 years of 'why you no understand evolution?' debates.

 

[Sanzbir]

What's wrong with "more logical than thou?" Is there a situation where we should not use logic? Not suggesting anything in comparison between atheists and theists. Just focusing on that statement.

The other stuff I can agree with.

Well to play some Devil's Advocate, what's wrong with "more moral than thou?" Is there a situation where we should not act morally?

The basic problem with people who posture about being "more moral" is that usually they aren't more moral, and are just using their posturing as a bludgeon to show superiority to another person.

While I'm not the person you replied to, I suspect the problem with "more logical than thou" would be much the same.

 

[Skwim]

No, they shouldn't. But even if they did two wrongs doesn't make a right.

So atheists should back off, but not Christians. Is that it?

Which is only part of why I made my original comment, I'd be willing to bet our country wouldn't have such a tough time with christian/atheist conflicts if atheist groups stopped being so adversarial even without direct insuts (which dont help.)

Perhaps other than in fundamentalist country where Christians ignore the law of separation of church and state, and atheists are stepping in to remind them of it with billboards and other displays of their position, I fail to see the country having any kind of "tough time with christian/atheist conflicts." If anything, it's the Christians who are always yelling at the unbeliever about "getting right with god"

I'm pretty sure I did more to improve relations with Christians and get them to see things from my perspective by a year of working with them on humanitarian projcts than 10 years of 'why you no understand evolution?' debates.

Then good for you.

.

.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So atheists should back off, but not Christians. Is that it?

I very clearly said neither should be. But If you think a wrong thing should be conditional on whether they do a wrong thing first then I don't know what to tell you, except that all you'll do is perpetuate a cycle of misconduct.

Perhaps other than in fundamentalist country where Christians ignore the law of separation of church and state, and atheists are stepping in to remind them of it with billboards and other displays of their position, I fail to see the country having any kind of "tough time with christian/atheist conflicts." If anything, it's the Christians who are always yelling at the unbeliever about "getting right with god"

As I said, it isn't just Christians, and doesn't seem to be more Christians (by ratio not volume). Atheists do it too. They're just more likely to do it on forums and YouTube videos than billboards (although I think the atheist billboards project in the UK is just as silly as Christian get right by God billboards. And just as counterproductive.)

Then good for you.

Good for everyone. Good for people depending on humanitarian aid when multiple people of multiple backgrounds can work for them together. Good for Christians and atheists who can discover that they're both not so different from each other after all and get a more nuanced view into their perspectives, and waste less time arguing endlessly where neither side is going to budge.

 

[suncowiam]

Well to play some Devil's Advocate, what's wrong with "more moral than thou?" Is there a situation where we should not act morally?

The basic problem with people who posture about being "more moral" is that usually they aren't more moral, and are just using their posturing as a bludgeon to show superiority to another person.

While I'm not the person you replied to, I suspect the problem with "more logical than thou" would be much the same.

The morality part is a bit subjective so that's why I didn't want to venture down that path.

What's moral to you and I can be totally different for religion. The argument just simply cannot be concluded unless both sides sets a baseline for morality. Which I highly doubt both sides will do. So saying my standards are more moral than your standards is just giving opinions most of the time. I get into so many arguments with Christians on LBGT morality. Guess where that goes... It's a never ending argument because both our baselines are completely off. Obviously, if I suggest that there are no facts to suggest LBGT as immoral because it does not harm society, it does not matter to the Christians because in their view a powerful being has already set their baseline. Morality does not necessarily need to be logical... Although I would argue for it to be.

Logic on the other hand should be as close to objectivity as possible. That's not always true but it innately implies it.

 

[suncowiam]

Sure--atheism is a religion (I believe by faith that there is no god despite my lack of omniscience) and atheism does harm to righteous behavior (obeying the true God of Christianity).

Thanks for asking!

So not believing in Santa Claus is a religion too?

Thanks for trying!

 

[Sanzbir]

Logic on the other hand should be as close to objectivity as possible. That's not always true but it innately implies it.

Well yes, it should be more objective.

Not that it always is, mind you. I work with Boolean logic every single day, which is by necessity objective. But from experience with working with logic, I can say there are a lot of people out there who use the word "logic" or "logical" to mean something it's not. So many people seem to think it's synonymous with "how to debate" or critical thinking or the like. Or people who think that people who disagree with them aren't logical just because of that. Even you seem to be assuming that logic is the same thing as objectivity which... no it's not. That's not what logic means at all, if indeed that was what you were implying.

So much misuse of the word leads one to suspect that, to most people, "logical" is a subjective term itself merely because of its rampant misuse. I daresay it may be as subjective as "moral" when people outside of logical fields use the term.

 

[Thief]

Well to play some Devil's Advocate, what's wrong with "more moral than thou?" Is there a situation where we should not act morally?

The basic problem with people who posture about being "more moral" is that usually they aren't more moral, and are just using their posturing as a bludgeon to show superiority to another person.

While I'm not the person you replied to, I suspect the problem with "more logical than thou" would be much the same.

I grew up with a slightly different twist....
I was smarter than average....and I knew it

this runs parallel to ....better than you
more logical than you
more sure than you
more likely to get it right
get thee behind me.........

try as I may to be humble.....and yes I tried......
no one saw it that way

if you out perform the next guy....he won't like it

my father had a similar life
he told me about one episode
he could roller skate
he was good at it
so when the contest came around......oh! you should go for it!
you're bound to win!!!!

he did

and then no one wanted to talk to him afterward

 

[Sanzbir]

I grew up with a slightly different twist....
I was smarter than average....and I knew it

this runs parallel to ....better than you
more logical than you
more sure than you
more likely to get it right
get thee behind me.........

try as I may to be humble.....and yes I tried......
no one saw it that way

if you out perform the next guy....he won't like it

my father had a similar life
he told me about one episode
he could roller skate
he was good at it
so when the contest came around......oh! you should go for it!
you're bound to win!!!!

he did

and then no one wanted to talk to him afterward

Sorry, but this reads a bit like the Rick and Morty Copypasta.

 

[Thief]

Sorry, but this reads a bit like the Rick and Morty Copypasta.

are they smarter than me?

I doubt it

 

[PureX]

What's wrong with "more logical than thou?" Is there a situation where we should not use logic?

Many. Logic is a fine life-tool, but so is emotion, and intuition, and fantasy-desire. Atheists make far too much of logic, and far to much of their own presumed "righteous" use of it. Life is not about being logical. It's about being honest. And as complex and multi-faceted human beings, emotion and intuition and fantasy and superstition and so on are all 'part-n-parcel'. They are all legitimate expressions of who and what we are. And they all have their role in the human experience.

 

[suncowiam]

Well yes, it should be more objective.

Not that it always is, mind you. I work with Boolean logic every single day, which is by necessity objective. But from experience with working with logic, I can say there are a lot of people out there who use the word "logic" or "logical" to mean something it's not. So many people seem to think it's synonymous with "how to debate" or critical thinking or the like. Or people who think that people who disagree with them aren't logical just because of that. Even you seem to be assuming that logic is the same thing as objectivity which... no it's not. That's not what logic means at all, if indeed that was what you were implying.

So much misuse of the word leads one to suspect that, to most people, "logical" is a subjective term itself merely because of its rampant misuse. I daresay it may be as subjective as "moral" when people outside of logical fields use the term.

I'm using the proper defintion of logic:

reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Validity is key here. It is a feedback mechanism to ensure objectivity. There should be no mistake about it. You're an engineer and so am I. The logic we use in our work should not be proven fallible. If so, then there is little basis for the products we build.

When I speak of logic, of course, I mean the proper definition of logic. Sure, many people delude themselves of being logical when they are in fact being illogical. An example would be following the command of God because he is presumed our creator but never establishing of his existence in the first place. Hence, the validity aspect.

Being "more logical" should simply mean being logical. All people needs to be logical.

 

[suncowiam]

Many. Logic is a fine life-tool, but so is emotion, and intuition, and fantasy-desire. Atheists make far too much of logic, and far to much of their own presumed "righteous" use of it. Life is not about being logical. It's about being honest. And as complex and multi-faceted human beings, emotion and intuition and fantasy and superstition and so on are all 'part-n-parcel'. They are all legitimate expressions of who and what we are. And they all have their role in the human experience.

Logic is the premise of all the sciences and therefore, technologies that now exist. It is objective. All the other stuff you speak of are human qualities that, yes, adds to expression. But remember the original context. It is based on debating between atheists and theists. One does not debate with emotions, intuitions, fantasies, or superstitions. Arguably, one should not base their ideals on emotions, intuitions, fantasies, nor superstitions. There's a use for these, just not the context of this discussion.

 

[Kiranasa]

There is a difference between religion and Spirituality. Religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) are not Spiritual, but material. They know nothing beyond this world. The word Spiritual means: anything that is related to Spirit. Hinduism and Buddhism are the only spiritual philosophy in the world, and out of these two, Hinduism is the only COMPLETE spiritual philosophy in the world, because Buddhism don't believe in God. Hinduism will tell you that you are not this body, but spirit soul and eternal, which no religion says that.
Everyone chooses religion or spirituality according to their level of consciousness.

 

[PureX]

Logic is the premise of all the sciences and therefore, technologies that now exist.

Who told you that nonsense? Logic is the mechanical expression of fear, and desire, of greed, and the lust for power. It's the means through which our innate need/wish to control our environment to our own advantage, is realized.

It is objective.

Objectivity is an ideological illusion. Even if it exists, we have no "objective" access to it, or understanding of it.