What's your religion?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

I would like to ask if this is just your way of stating a belief in polylogism?

Nope. I have no such ambition. I could have taken issue with Ricky Controversy's earlier claim about there being many modes of logic, but I chose not to.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

To paraphrase Dawkins, "There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point."

Despite his merits as a scientist, I am not overly fond of Dawkins' aggressive attacks on religious belief. His position smacks of overweening intellectual pride. I'd say he is entitled to his opinion about theists being "infantile", even though I would disagree strongly with that view. In many ways, I find Dawkins to be as "fundamentalist" as some of the theists he so likes to criticise. Not a very attractive position at all.

By and by, I made no claim about the Creator giving meaning to life. And I seriously doubt that a well-read Christian would actually say that is the case. In my experience, at least, I have met no serious Christian who makes such a claim. Rather, God sets standards that He expects his followers to meet. It's not for nothing that I've stated that there is more to being Christian than belief in God. How a Christian acts according to his belief is much more important.

And that, to me, is a question of ethics, a subject that I am far more interested in than religion itself.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I do think there is an innate worth in humanity. We're insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but we are sentient beings with some knowledge of the vastness of the universe we inhabit. Our species (and any other sentient species that may or may not exist in the universe) are almost a mouthpiece for existence itself. With this in mind, I don't necessarily think worth can only be achieved through a creator, even if that is a more familiar concept to humans.

In my view, once you have rejected theism — the idea that we were created for a purpose — human life ceases to have inherent value. We're just another cog in the machine, no more or less special than everything else around us.

But that doesn't mean that our lives cannot have value. I believe that what value you gain comes from your actions in life. Hence the importance of making sure that you take "correct" actions. Yet because we are by nature imperfect, it takes a lifetime of self-education and discipline to shape our behaviour towards that end.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Haak

Let me clarify: I could understand Dawkins point if he was talking about some other fallable human being. But I don't think it's infantile if you believe that somebody else is infallable, omnipitent, omniscient, and not just has the responsibility to give your life meaning and point but everything else in existence. 'Somebody else' makes it sound as if it's no one special.

Uh huh. So, just because someone else might believe in a deity to whom he or she ascribes such qualities, that means I have to respect said deity as such?

....actually, why not? "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart."- H. L. Mencken.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Despite his merits as a scientist, I am not overly fond of Dawkins' aggressive attacks on religious belief. His position smacks of overweening intellectual pride. I'd say he is entitled to his opinion about theists being "infantile", even though I would disagree strongly with that view. In many ways, I find Dawkins to be as "fundamentalist" as some of the theists he so likes to criticise. Not a very attractive position at all.

In other words, you reject Dawkin's arguments by way of an argumentum ad hominem tu quoque, attempting to paint him as being just as "fundamentalist" as the theists in order to undermine his credibility.

Notwithstanding Dawkin's own admission that he is capable of changing his mind if only he was presented with reliable evidence, and thus is by no means "fundamentalist" in that sense, your quick resort to a style-over-substance fallacy to criticise Dawkin's arguments has been noted.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Nope. I have no such ambition. I could have taken issue with Ricky Controversy's earlier claim about there being many modes of logic, but I chose not to.



Despite his merits as a scientist, I am not overly fond of Dawkins' aggressive attacks on religious belief. His position smacks of overweening intellectual pride. I'd say he is entitled to his opinion about theists being "infantile", even though I would disagree strongly with that view. In many ways, I find Dawkins to be as "fundamentalist" as some of the theists he so likes to criticise. Not a very attractive position at all.

By and by, I made no claim about the Creator giving meaning to life. And I seriously doubt that a well-read Christian would actually say that is the case. In my experience, at least, I have met no serious Christian who makes such a claim. Rather, God sets standards that He expects his followers to meet. It's not for nothing that I've stated that there is more to being Christian than belief in God. How a Christian acts according to his belief is much more important.

And that, to me, is a question of ethics, a subject that I am far more interested in than religion itself.



In my view, once you have rejected theism — the idea that we were created for a purpose — human life ceases to have inherent value. We're just another cog in the machine, no more or less special than everything else around us.

But that doesn't mean that our lives cannot have value. I believe that what value you gain comes from your actions in life. Hence the importance of making sure that you take "correct" actions. Yet because we are by nature imperfect, it takes a lifetime of self-education and discipline to shape our behaviour towards that end.

The problem a lot of Christians have is some mistaken notion that the path, and only path, to holiness and understanding purpose entails complete asceticism and passivity. That is to say just take everything as it is and hope for the best and wait for God to spoonfeed the answers to you. If this were the case then every Christian who stays true to what they learned would be living saints right now. Nowhere in the Bible is it even stated that "this" or "that" is the purpose of existence. All we get is a finger pointing in one direction (the moral laws) and being told to look for it there (whether we choose to follow the teachings or not). It's far more likely the the purpose of existence, if there ever was any, is as different and unique as every individual.

The only beef I ever had with Dawkins is the relative contempt he seems to show to those who have attempted rational discussion with him, especially theologians and religious scientists, as if to suggest that by pure nature of being religious they are immediately not on equal terms with him. If he truly remains amazed that there exists religious scientists or generally people who believe in both religion and science, then I have to ask if he truly attempted to understand their positions. I guess I should be happy he hasn't outright stated that such persons "could not exist" because if he did, then by that logic people like me don't exist.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

In other words, you reject Dawkin's arguments by way of an argumentum ad hominem tu quoque, attempting to paint him as being just as "fundamentalist" as the theists in order to undermine his credibility.

Notwithstanding Dawkin's own admission that he is capable of changing his mind if only he was presented with reliable evidence, and thus is by no means "fundamentalist" in that sense, your quick resort to a style-over-substance fallacy to criticise Dawkin's arguments has been noted.

Pfft. Not for the first time, and probably not for the last either, I find your passion for quoting from Latin Cliff Notes to be immensely irritating. Form your own mind, speak with your own words what you believe and feel, instead of quoting verbatim from other sources. To me, it seems that all you are trying to do is to sound more intelligent than you really are.

As for your attempt to label me as you as see fit, I shall not play your game. Rather I refer you to what MeoTwister5 wrote about Dawkins:

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

The only beef I ever had with Dawkins is the relative contempt he seems to show to those who have attempted rational discussion with him, especially theologians and religious scientists, as if to suggest that by pure nature of being religious they are immediately not on equal terms with him. If he truly remains amazed that there exists religious scientists or generally people who believe in both religion and science, then I have to ask if he truly attempted to understand their positions. I guess I should be happy he hasn't outright stated that such persons "could not exist" because if he did, then by that logic people like me don't exist.

He speaks my mind. And he didn't have to quote a word of Latin nor use any fancy phrase to get his point across.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Pfft. Not for the first time, and probably not for the last either, I find your passion for quoting from Latin Cliff Notes to be immensely irritating. Form your own mind, speak with your own words what you believe and feel, instead of quoting verbatim from other sources. To me, it seems that all you are trying to do is to sound more intelligent than you really are.

As for your attempt to label me as you as see fit, I shall not play your game. Rather I refer you to what MeoTwister5 wrote about Dawkins:


He speaks my mind. And he didn't have to quote a word of Latin nor any fancy phrase to get his point across.

And of course, for my trouble, I get hit with the style-over-substance ad hominem abusive instead. I think I should be feeling insulted by this cop-out insult, but somehow I'm not really surprised.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Pfft. Not for the first time, and probably not for the last either, I find your passion for quoting from Latin Cliff Notes to be immensely irritating. Form your own mind, speak with your own words what you believe and feel, instead of quoting verbatim from other sources. To me, it seems that all you are trying to do is to sound more intelligent than you really are.

You do realise that he is being sarcastic right?

In any form of argument, there is always a need for the three Ps - point, proof and pertinence. Point is easy, but generating proof is a big challenge - the proof always has to be a reference, not inference.

The technique employed is called "fact-hammering" which levels the playing field into a knowledge-vs-knowledge compendium. It is irritating because it requires the person presenting the argument to look through and question ALL the proof he/she is about to present, making it inherently difficult to draw pertinence. Think of it as a form of unavoidable psychological warfare - the only way to go through is to take it head on (or argumentum as hominem).

The real people who try to act intelligent are those who break down in their arguments, widen their loopholes upon being questioned or try to skirt around the topic with vagueness. At least he is being a Wilhelm Wundt instead of a early 20th century quantum physicist.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

And of course, for my trouble, I get hit with the style-over-substance ad hominem abusive instead. I think I should be feeling insulted by this cop-out insult, but somehow I'm not really surprised.

There is nothing wrong with style. And it is possible to incorporate both style and substance together - the sentence doesn't have to be excessively gaudy or professional looking with all the blinking technical references in it, neither does it have to be written with vague facts like WSJ with pretty and concise wording.

Style is use to draw attention to critical proof people might otherwise ignore in text-walls, and substance is simply the essence. You cannot discount one for another when writing anything (other than commercials or advertising posters).

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Pfft. Not for the first time, and probably not for the last either, I find your passion for quoting from Latin Cliff Notes to be immensely irritating. Form your own mind, speak with your own words what you believe and feel, instead of quoting verbatim from other sources. To me, it seems that all you are trying to do is to sound more intelligent than you really are.

As for your attempt to label me as you as see fit, I shall not play your game. Rather I refer you to what MeoTwister5 wrote about Dawkins:


He speaks my mind. And he didn't have to quote a word of Latin nor use any fancy phrase to get his point across.

As matter of personal education, having been forced to study philosophy in both English and Filipino (as well as at the same time!) made me appreciate the need to use the lingua franca approach to discourse. Having been a debate judge for a year in college I've been on the ass-end of both sides spouting off Latin rule sets in order to discredit to other side rather than better logical presentations of their sides. A battle of technicalities is a piss-poor replacement for a battle of ideas, which is why I quit the debate society after my freshman year, finding the need to listen to people argue about procedure rather than the topic at hand very ingratiating.

More than that it's probably more my idea of what a discussion is. It's honestly hate to talk to someone who uses highfalutin words every sentence. If I talk to someone who obviously isn't on the same intellectual level then I adjust accordingly. If I speak to someone who is clearly much more intelligent than me (which is a lot of people actually) I try to keep up or respectfully request a more equal approach.

I would in fact claim that the incessant need to use such terms and language with thinly veiled sarcasm is itself style over substance, but whatever.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

I would in fact claim that the incessant need to use such terms and language with thinly veiled sarcasm is itself style over substance, but whatever.

Just a small note : that sarcasm comes from the "RTFM* / JFGI*" intention directed at person on the other side of the argument. It is written in that way because the sarcasm is a byproduct, not the main product, it gives the writer all the power to keep the argument on the track where the opponent is losing.

In the event the opponent tries to derail the argument to give himself space, he can't use the "there isn't enough facts/proof" card. Also, it makes the opponent uncomfortable because he may not know about the facts in detail most of the time.

It can be beaten by the "majority wins" move. That is why megachurches can thrive in society - idiots vastly outnumber those who make sense.

* - Read The F***ing Manual / Just F***ing Google It. The "F***" is there for a reason - it acts impact to the phrase, and if the opponent knows nothing about the presented fact, he takes a morale beating to the ego. In arguments we always think we are invincible don't we?

[Ricky Controversy]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

The key in that quote here, is "somebody else". Measuring value in relation to external factors is not, as you said, inherently bad in itself; the problem begins when people assume that some other being must be responsible for their well-being and meaning in life.

I cut "(parents in the children, God in the case of adults)" from the sentence I quoted to avoid neg reps, but apparently doing so would cut out some key ideas, so.....damned if I do, damned if I don't.

As ChainLegacy said, there are plenty of alternatives from which we can draw meaning in our lives, without having to invoke some sort of deity to ascribe us this meaning. I'd give an example, but as always, there's always someone who says it better than I do.

But there's a problem here. Once you accept that external factors are a valid source of meaning, explaining why other beings are not becomes much more difficult. Let us say you have two men who do relief work in a tortured region of Africa. For one man, the value in his life can be the act of assisting. For the other, the value in his life can be the people he assists. What I'm getting at is that 'somebody else'/'something else' is a false dichotomy in many cases.

One could argue quite readily that there is no practical difference between Dawkins drawing value from his advocacy, and Dawkins drawing value from the people whom are affected by it.

Uh huh. So, just because someone else might believe in a deity to whom he or she ascribes such qualities, that means I have to respect said deity as such?

....actually, why not? "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart."- H. L. Mencken.

I'll extend my argument above to this as well. You needn't respect the other person's deity. However, unless there is a fundamental, practical separation between 'value in somebody else' and 'external value', then treating belief in a deity that gives life meaning as infantile implies that altruism is also infantile.

Now, I'm specifically touching on this idea because you brought it up as a specific response to a quote to which it's relevant. However, it's also worth pointing out that it is indeed quite out of line with some basic Christian principles to place the burden on God to create meaning in life: that's supposed to be self-generated. For this reason, I'd caution you on taking Dawkins too much to heart. Having read some of his books, I can tell you that his understanding of the religions he criticizes is rather weak, and so his arguments often become strawmen.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Ricky Controversy

But there's a problem here. Once you accept that external factors are a valid source of meaning, explaining why other beings are not becomes much more difficult. Let us say you have two men who do relief work in a tortured region of Africa. For one man, the value in his life can be the act of assisting. For the other, the value in his life can be the people he assists. What I'm getting at is that 'somebody else'/'something else' is a false dichotomy in many cases.

One could argue quite readily that there is no practical difference between Dawkins drawing value from his advocacy, and Dawkins drawing value from the people whom are affected by it.

I'd say the problem lies in letting someone else decide what the meaning of your life is. Let's take your example. One person values the act of helping others. The other values... What? The approval of those he assists? So let's say they're ungrateful. Does his life suddenly loses meaning?

That's what terrifies me the most about people who think you need God to have meaning, morals, and so on. So let's say their faith is shaken. Do they suddenly become raving psychopaths?

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

You do realise that he is being sarcastic right?

In any form of argument, there is always a need for the three Ps - point, proof and pertinence. Point is easy, but generating proof is a big challenge - the proof always has to be a reference, not inference.

The technique employed is called "fact-hammering" which levels the playing field into a knowledge-vs-knowledge compendium. It is irritating because it requires the person presenting the argument to look through and question ALL the proof he/she is about to present, making it inherently difficult to draw pertinence. Think of it as a form of unavoidable psychological warfare - the only way to go through is to take it head on (or argumentum as hominem).

The real people who try to act intelligent are those who break down in their arguments, widen their loopholes upon being questioned or try to skirt around the topic with vagueness. At least he is being a Wilhelm Wundt instead of a early 20th century quantum physicist.



There is nothing wrong with style. And it is possible to incorporate both style and substance together - the sentence doesn't have to be excessively gaudy or professional looking with all the blinking technical references in it, neither does it have to be written with vague facts like WSJ with pretty and concise wording.

Style is use to draw attention to critical proof people might otherwise ignore in text-walls, and substance is simply the essence. You cannot discount one for another when writing anything (other than commercials or advertising posters).

I think you're missing the point.

The issue TRL is raising isn't the (almost obsessive-compulsive) need to stick to the rule set of the discussion (that in itself has to be agreed on in the first place) but rather as a matter of personal, if not professional, courtesy. The first thing we learned in debate before I left was the application of the Filipino term walang personalan, or in English, keep things civil and don't take things personally. This includes the obligation to maintain respect and cool heads in the midst of even the most heated discussions, which is why for us (in theory), we place more importance on presenting ideas without sounding like a pedantic ass or an intellectual douchebag.

If that entails active avoidance of sarcasm then it is done. If it means completely avoiding the "hostile witnes" approach then we do it. Passive-aggression is frowned upon. Each person in the discussion is equal, given the benefit of the doubt as far as rules and intellect is concerned, and is given the respect all participants are entitled to.

In theory. Which is why, again, I left the group and have generally developed a distaste for highly pedantic debate proceedings. There is no respect to be found in the incessant need to beat down your opponent using a rulebook, much less when made in sarcasm (intended and unintended), and make him look like a moron.

Anyway that will be my last say on this completely offtopic tangent.

[Ricky Controversy]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I'd say the problem lies in letting someone else decide what the meaning of your life is. Let's take your example. One person values the act of helping others. The other values... What? The approval of those he assists? So let's say they're ungrateful. Does his life suddenly loses meaning?

Ah, see, that's enlightening, because it strikes me as being where the sense of a dichotomy between 'another being' and 'external factor' crops up. Yes, if you place the value of your life in the approval of others, that's very dangerous and exceedingly infantile. However, valuing someone else does not necessarily mean relying on, or even seeking their approval. People perform thankless acts of kindness all the time simply because they care for other people, regardless of how those people react.

That's what terrifies me the most about people who think you need God to have meaning, morals, and so on. So let's say their faith is shaken. Do they suddenly become raving psychopaths?

Well, someone who genuinely believes that is probably going to be so phobic of the idea that God doesn't exist or whatever other notion conflicts with their worldview that they won't even allow themselves to process it. I've dealt with that mindset many a time. It does get rather scary, yes.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Ricky Controversy

Now, I'm specifically touching on this idea because you brought it up as a specific response to a quote to which it's relevant. However, it's also worth pointing out that it is indeed quite out of line with some basic Christian principles to place the burden on God to create meaning in life: that's supposed to be self-generated. For this reason, I'd caution you on taking Dawkins too much to heart. Having read some of his books, I can tell you that his understanding of the religions he criticizes is rather weak, and so his arguments often become strawmen.

Assuming this was not taken out of context, reminds me of the oft quoted reply of Dawkins to the writings in response to his The God Delusion:

do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?

A rather ironic statement if you ask me, if not outright hypocrisy, considering that by asserting this he essentially violated one of the core principles of the scientific method: Making conclusions on appropriate information.

Originally Posted by Ricky Controversy

Ah, see, that's enlightening, because it strikes me as being where the sense of a dichotomy between 'another being' and 'external factor' crops up. Yes, if you place the value of your life in the approval of others, that's very dangerous and exceedingly infantile. However, valuing someone else does not necessarily mean relying on, or even seeking their approval. People perform thankless acts of kindness all the time simply because they care for other people, regardless of how those people react.

Well, someone who genuinely believes that is probably going to be so phobic of the idea that God doesn't exist or whatever other notion conflicts with their worldview that they won't even allow themselves to process it. I've dealt with that mindset many a time. It does get rather scary, yes.

I personally see the need to wholly absolve oneself of will and responsibility in terms of finding meaning in life and putting it in God's hands an escapist fantasy. It's so easy to surrender yourself to the Divine and expect it to do everything for you, to give you meaning and spiritual nourishment and whatnot, and just sit back and enjoy the ride. At the same time, it's so easy to blame Him when your life goes to hell (figuratively speaking).

This is probably my biggest issue with pure asceticism: surrendering all outward and worldly thought, action and intention and to rely wholly on God to give you everything you need to live. A rather odd approach towards a God that gave humanity free will and domain with only a reminder of what he wishes for people, as as for a New Testament that espoused the importance of actions and words and how they reflect the inner workings of your soul more than anything.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

That's what terrifies me the most about people who think you need God to have meaning, morals, and so on. So let's say their faith is shaken. Do they suddenly become raving psychopaths?

That is the great flaw in the "you need religion to be good" assertion. Many species, including humanity, that are inherently social creatures practice empathy, altruism, charity, support, etc. simply because evolution selects for those traits -- they are conducive to the survival of the species. Social species behavior is intrinsically different than the "me me me" mode of behavior.

I could assert at this point that the "I am an island" philosophies that blunder around are, in effect, dysfunctional behaviors in terms of species survival

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Assuming this was not taken out of context, reminds me of the oft quoted reply of Dawkins to the writings in response to his The God Delusion:



A rather ironic statement if you ask me, if not outright hypocrisy, considering that by asserting this he essentially violated one of the core principles of the scientific method: Making conclusions on appropriate information.

But what is appropriate information, in this case? I mean, we know there's no known hard evidence of leprechauns, and that they leave pots of gold at the other end of optical phenomenons. Do you really need to know their favorite food before you start disbelieving them?

[SaintessHeart]

Anyway that will be my last say on this completely offtopic tangent.

Actually I don't think this is off tangent. It is still within the curve, considering the topic we are discussing.

The war of words between them look very similar to those who believe that "religious tolerance = religious harmony" versus "tolerating religion will let them f*** us one day".

In short, it is play-nice versus being-evilly-direct.

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

I think you're missing the point.

The issue TRL is raising isn't the (almost obsessive-compulsive) need to stick to the rule set of the discussion (that in itself has to be agreed on in the first place) but rather as a matter of personal, if not professional, courtesy. The first thing we learned in debate before I left was the application of the Filipino term walang personalan, or in English, keep things civil and don't take things personally. This includes the obligation to maintain respect and cool heads in the midst of even the most heated discussions, which is why for us (in theory), we place more importance on presenting ideas without sounding like a pedantic ass or an intellectual douchebag.

If that entails active avoidance of sarcasm then it is done. If it means completely avoiding the "hostile witnes" approach then we do it. Passive-aggression is frowned upon. Each person in the discussion is equal, given the benefit of the doubt as far as rules and intellect is concerned, and is given the respect all participants are entitled to.

In theory. Which is why, again, I left the group and have generally developed a distaste for highly pedantic debate proceedings. There is no respect to be found in the incessant need to beat down your opponent using a rulebook, much less when made in sarcasm (intended and unintended), and make him look like a moron.

One thing - the sarcasm comes naturally with the heavy load of facts in conversational ways. It's original use is to piss off "factose intolerant" people (people who refuse to take facts in their face), but apparently well-meaning nice people get dissed off too.

It is just like the ID argument years ago. The "factose intolerant" people at the top of the religious organisations use the sarcasm, filter away heavy load of the facts, and presented it as a direct offense to their beliefs to their followers. Dirty way, however it is practically found in every political argument.

The real disrespect is not presenting your argument in full with details. "Gentlemen" trading insults in a "professional" way is double the insult; politically correct or culturally sensitive*, it is still rude not to acknowledge your opponent's ability to take the stress of being hammered in-the-face.

Besides, once one enters an argument, he/she is already not showing respect for the other person's beliefs, nor is he/she showing respect for the peace of the environment. Then again, if we all show respect with that rainbow-unicorn view of each other , society will never improve because ideas are never challenged.

Finally, in any argument, it is always wise to expect anything - you are not the only one trying to bring your beliefs across, the other party is too. And everyone has their own pride to maintain and nobody likes to question their own handmade beliefs, nor be forced to accept someone else's.

Originally Posted by Vexx

That is the great flaw in the "you need religion to be good" assertion. Many species, including humanity, that are inherently social creatures practice empathy, altruism, charity, support, etc. simply because evolution selects for those traits -- they are conducive to the survival of the species. Social species behavior is intrinsically different than the "me me me" mode of behavior.

From another perspective, the practices you have stated could also indirectly lead to our demise because of one thing : reliance. Being too reliant on the good of others breeds laziness and inaction, hence there is a need for "reverse psychology" to kick in; being an asshole to the borderline reliant can help them get off their ass and stand on their own. Unfortunately, it is seen as hostile because these people think that they are being viewed as a liability, which leads to the fear > anger > suffering cycle.

The penultimate cause of all the crapsack stuff in this world is the lack of control over personal fears. There is nothing more painful than suffering, and the pain generates a "fear of suffering", thus the cycle. Selfishness is bred out of such.

I could assert at this point that the "I am an island" philosophies that blunder around are, in effect, dysfunctional behaviors in terms of species survival

Only if the second parameter of "if you are willing to share a little of yours, I will share a little of mine, then we can all ride the unicorn over the rainbow" doesn't exist within the philosophy. Soliphism is something as you have said, but it includes the second parameter.

The real path towards enlightenment is balance in everything we do.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Uh huh. So, just because someone else might believe in a deity to whom he or she ascribes such qualities, that means I have to respect said deity as such?

....actually, why not? "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart."- H. L. Mencken.

I don't understand. Are you saying that you choose not to believe that the diety is omnipotent, infallable, omniscient ect? If you don't believe that then what you believe of the diety and what the supposed 'infantile' person believes are two different things. Calling the person infantile for believing in something he doesn't even believe in seems a little off to me.

The Mencken quote sounds about right to me. Nobody is asking you to believe him so as long as he's not shoving the his view down you're throat then there's no reason why you should shove your view down their throat and all is well. If you want to call someone elses view 'infantile' well that's your right (even if it is rude) and it's also you're right to have such an opinion. I have many atheist friends that obviously believe I'm living a lie and as a religious person, I have to naturally believe that they're living a lie. But we don't shove it down each others throats and we're friendly about it. That's my opinion and that's obviously Menckens opinion. But Dawkins believes that meaning is relative. That means when we judge other people's meaning we're using our own standards of meaning that is not intrinsically better than theirs (After all, how can it be if theirs no intrinsic meaning?). So when Dawkins says someone's meaninng 'infantile', he's using his own subjective standards of meaning, so his judgement becomes entirely subjective as a result, even though he seems to be implying it's objective.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

But what is appropriate information, in this case? I mean, we know there's no known hard evidence of leprechauns, and that they leave pots of gold at the other end of optical phenomenons. Do you really need to know their favorite food before you start disbelieving them?

It's more of the fact that the statement suggests he claims that you don't need to understand something to make a correct conclusion. Which, in context of religion, means that he thinks you don't need to understand their belief systems and their moral systems to make a conclusion about them. Applied to pure scientific inquiry, it doesn't take a PhD to see what's wrong with this.

[Ricky Controversy]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

But what is appropriate information, in this case? I mean, we know there's no known hard evidence of leprechauns, and that they leave pots of gold at the other end of optical phenomenons. Do you really need to know their favorite food before you start disbelieving them?

The problem is that the principle is misdirected, which is characteristic of Dawkins. He flirts with sound ideas, but misapplies them frequently. In this case, his sentiments would be fine if he were simply disbelieving in the concept of a God or gods. Where the problem arises is when he criticizes the merits of ways of thinking without understanding them in any depth. To create a simplistic example, I can disbelieve in Zeus without needing to know everything about him. If I start complaining that he's a cad because of how he treated Indra, who is entirely unrelated to Zeus myths, then we have a problem.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Haak

I don't understand. Are you saying that you choose not to believe that the diety is omnipotent, infallable, omniscient ect? If you don't believe that then what you believe of the diety and what the supposed 'infantile' person believes are two different things. Calling the person infantile for believing in something he doesn't even believe in seems a little off to me.

I think his point is that the person is infantile for believing AND ESPOUSING such a belief as well as blatantly refusing to address its loopholes.

Besides, believing in something wholly perfect as an absolution is stupid. At least give some room for "benefit of doubt"!

P.S *Grammar Nazi Mode* - I have been noting spelling errors in the word "deity", which is often misspelled as "diety". Not all idols/entities are fat and need slimming sessions.

The "i" is after the "e". Keep that in mind. Heil!