This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Do you believe in God?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
b4xx
But the null hypothesis cannot be proved either.
And if I have a reason to believe that there's a portal to Mars in your living room, and I would find a slight hole in your theory (still the singularity) , couldn't my hypothesis be that the portal is there, even if it seems unlikely to some.
I'm trying to demonstrate where the burden of proof lies here. With no evidence for the existence of a deity that claim requires proof.
Your own belief in my portal doesn't matter in a discussion of the scientific merits of the belief in the existence of the portal. I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't believe in the portal, your personal beliefs are your business, but with no evidence for it it isn't worthy of broader consideration.
And I understand that. But we do have evidence, God's word itself. I know it doesn't account for much to you, but it's a stand point.
Post by
asakawa
Well that is not evidence. I'm not trying to undermine the power to believers of what you mention but that isn't evidence in scientific terms. It may be all the reason you require to believe it (and I in no way want to interfere with that) but that subjectivity doesn't have a place in the scientific realm.
As I was saying to ElhonnaDS, this is a discussion of religion in scientific terms. I don't particularly think it's a good idea to put religion in that arena but this is a discussion of that.
Post by
MyTie
You have one knife, but with 2 sets of proper instruction of use.
One says "use
only
as an aid to prepare your meals"
Two says "use
only
as an aid to prepare your meals
and
to kill people who use knives to prepare meals the wrong way"
Which are the correct instructions?
I like your last question. The answer is so obvious. Its obviousness is the reason that people are still at fault for their actions. What is wrong, is obvious.
Post by
Skreeran
You have one knife, but with 2 sets of proper instruction of use.
One says "use
only
as an aid to prepare your meals"
Two says "use
only
as an aid to prepare your meals
and
to kill people who use knives to prepare meals the wrong way"
Which are the correct instructions?
I like your last question. The answer is so obvious. Its obviousness is the reason that people are still at fault for their actions. What is wrong, is obvious.With or without you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Post by
MyTie
With or without you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
That sounds really nice, until you think about it, and then it sounds really incorrect. Would you like me to list people who are generally "good", but have made bad mistakes, but have nothing to do with religion? This is just a really hip and trendy way of trying to shift responsibility,
again
. Why? Why not just hold the person who did something wrong responsible for their own actions? Do people really despise religion so much that they are willing to shift responsibility of heinous things off the shoulders of the perpetrators onto religion?
Post by
Skreeran
I feel like you're really dismissing the notion out of hand. Think of it a different way: Do you really think every Muslim who ever committed an act of Jihad did it because there was evil in his heart?
Maybe you do, considering our differing beliefs about the nature of evil. But it seems to me that a lot of terrible things get done because "that's what God wants me to do."
Post by
MyTie
I don't doubt that religion has a powerful influence on a great number of people, and that influence isn't always positive, but when time comes to pull the trigger, there is a finger on it, not a koran. That's the reason we don't outlaw religion, we outlaw acts of violence.
Post by
gnomerdon
what if acts of violence are directly fueled from a certain religion?
Post by
MyTie
what if acts of violence are directly fueled from a certain religion?
It doesn't shift responsibility. When someone levels a gun at someone, and chooses to pull that trigger, it is THEIR fault. Why is this difficult?
Post by
Skreeran
Of course, but religion isn't a thing or an object. A Bible or a Koran is an object, but it's not the
object
that makes people do
this
or
this
. It's
belief
that does that. It's not the object, it's not the weapon. It's the mindset, the belief. Those people really,
truly
believe in their hearts that what they are doing is right.
That is the problem.
I'm not saying all religious people do terrible things, or even that most do, but it is undeniable that religion is an extremely potent motivator. It can make people do things, good or bad, that they wouldn't consider otherwise. And that's all I'm trying to say.
Post by
gnomerdon
it does shift responsibility. humans on average aren't capable of being that intelligent to feel like it's their fault.
we're still in stage 1 evolution. still in the stone ages.
let's say a 15 year old muslim car bomber. he lives a poor life, and through teachings of heaven, and misconstrued beliefs in the quran OR bible, the child finds the conviction to be strapped in explosives and detonates himself in the car or in a group of people.
where should the responsibility shift to? by the spaghetti god mother, if you say the fault is on the 15 year old, i swear to you, i will go to the kitchen and grab a glass of water.
Post by
MyTie
that makes people do
No. No one forces their fingers on the trigger. You can't blame your kids for making you angry when you beat them. You can't blame your wife if you gun her down because she made you angry. The judge won't let you off when you beat the hell out of someone because someone persuaded you they were gay. The fault lies with the person that acts in that fashion, and no where else.
Post by
Skreeran
that makes people do
No. No one forces their fingers on the trigger. You can't blame your kids for making you angry when you beat them. You can't blame your wife if you gun her down because she made you angry. The judge won't let you off when you beat the hell out of someone because someone persuaded you they were gay. The fault lies with the person that acts in that fashion, and no where else.Again, we're not talking about something physical. Belief, inside their own minds, is why those people make the choices they do. Choices they would not have made without those beliefs.
Post by
MyTie
Again, we're not talking about something physical. Belief, inside their own minds, is why those people make the choices they do. Choices they would not have made without those beliefs.
Yeah. So, they chose to believe something, right?
Post by
Gone
I think it's kind of unfair to acquaint violence done in the name of religion, with religion itself. We don't blame racial violence on the fact that different races exist, we blame it on the intolerance that results from racial diversity.
I hesitate to use this example, because I don't want to further perpetuate the idea that science is the antipode of religion, but scientific advances, mostly in technology, have been responsible for more killings than almost anything else I can think of. Not to mention the immeasurable damage it's done to the planet since the industrial revolution. But nobody is saying that science itself is to blame for these things, it's the people who apply science in the wrong ways.
What is more culpable, the institution that motivates a person to kill? Or the one that gives them the means to do so?
Neither. The only culpable one is the person holding the gun.
Post by
Skreeran
Again, we're not talking about something physical. Belief, inside their own minds, is why those people make the choices they do. Choices they would not have made without those beliefs.
Yeah. So, they chose to believe something, right?I've had it argued to me on this very board that religion is not a choice.
Post by
MyTie
I've had it argued to me on this very board that religion is not a choice.
Just, read Ryja's post. It says what I want to say.
Post by
asakawa
I largely agree with the notion of personal responsibility but we do prosecute coercion. If an entire belief system effectively coerces an individual into carrying out an illegal act then where does the prosecution stop? At the individual that personally coerced the criminal or is the organisation behind the coercive belief system also culpable?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- force is not the word for what we're talking about I think. Lets put it this way:
If Bob shoots a man in cold blood in the street, he's a murderer. If he sees that this man is about to shoot a child down the street, he's a hero. Depending on where you are when you see him shoot, you would initially think he's either one or the other, depending on how much of the situation you see.
For someone who is religious, there are effects that they consider when making decisions that are not immediately discernible, and for people who are not religious are assumed to be non-existent.
On a secular level, based on what we can observe, things that cause intense physical or emotional pain (torture, rape, the murdering of someone's family), or death, are the worst offenses someone commit, because they result in the worst possible things that can happen to a person. The only time you can justify (and even then it us up for debate) doing something that causes pain or death, is when it is to prevent someone from causing pain or death that is either worse, or against someone who is more innocent than they are. You can shoot someone to stop them from shooting someone else, for example, but not because they're a loud jerk. You can hit someone who is about to choke a child, but not because they brought your food out cold. A violent action is only ok when it stops a worse action.
For someone who is religious, they may have (depending on the religion) accepted as fact that there is an afterlife, and that any pain or discomfort on earth is much, much less harmful than an eternity in hell or being reincarnated as some kind of tormented creature. As such, someone who is going to cause someone else to spend an eternity in hell is doing something worse than killing them. If most humans agree that a violent action is only justified in order to stop a worse action, then what this does is make some people feel that they are justified and protecting other people when harming people to keep them from spreading ideas that will corrupt people, or to use physical punishment to "re-educate" them about what they should believe.
If your religion teaches you that a woman who sins will go to hell, then scarring your rebellious daughter's face with acid to keep her from dating, or killing the man of another religion who she is dating and will corrupt her is actually better than saving her life. If you believe that one woman's poor example will encourage other women to follow her into sin and also be lost, then killing her is actually protecting other people from something worse than death. If a man lives a lifestyle that harms no one, but will send him to hell, then it is an attempt to save him from himself to torture him and try to convert him. These are the kinds of ideas that lead to tragedy in the name of religion. And because of their thinking that they are saving people by doing these things, they are making the choice- in their mind- to do the most good. It's scary what people can justify this way.
For someone who does not believe in those religions, it is scary to think that someone will believe so much in a list of rules that they will kill and maim to keep people from disobeying them, or leading other people away from them. It's scary to think that there is no way to change their minds because such faith requires no proof that their actions have the intended results, and no reasoning as to why they are correct.
Now most religious people of course aren't doing anything near this extreme, and most religions (at least as they are practiced today in many parts of the world) wouldn't ask or require someone to. But the concept that someone has a reason to believe that someone not following their ruleset is a fate worse than death, and that they weigh their actions accordingly, is hard for people who are not religious to reconcile themselves to, because the implications are that all of the things that they consider to be the height of "badness" that a person could do have just taken a step down the ladder, and so could be (in the mind of someone who believes) justifiable in a much broader array of circumstances than someone could justify just based on the observable effects in the physical world.
So "force them to do bad things" are not the right words, but perhaps "change their perception of the relative evil of certain actions so that the bad things they do seem less bad than what they are trying to prevent."
Post by
Magician22773
Can I blame the Libertarian Party for my drug conviction?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.