How do people become so brainwashed?

[ATG]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ATG said:

I couldn't agree more.

both groups mistakenly see inherent conflict between religion and science when there is none.

Most scientists must see a conflict. Figures I heard quoted on the radio a while back said that 75% of American scientists were atheists, compared to 6% of the general US population. For the opposite effect, only 0.6% of the US prison population are atheists.

You can't infer that. I'm a scientist by education, I'm an atheist, I see no inherent conflict.

It is worth repeating over and over again that religions are not focused on making scientific statements about the physical world. They are interested in purpose, meaning, love, responsibility. For example, focusing on the detail of a creation myth and saying "ooooh, look! That's physically stupid!" is to fundamentally misunderstand what the myth is for, what it means to religious people and which parts of the myth they consider important. It's hardly scientific to accuse people of believing nonsense that they don't actually believe.

One of the recurring themes of the weak criticism of religion is for an atheist to flick through a religious text, apply an interpretation that renders it as obvious nonsense, and then claim that his is the only possible interpretation one could reasonably apply to the text. Rather than ask someone what they actually believe, these critics tell people what they ought to believe and then tell them it is nonsense. And these critics usually think they're proponents of the scientific method.

[Goaty Bill 2]

austinsmirk said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Religious - I believe there is a god.
Atheist - Do you have any proof?
Religious - No.
Atheist - I don't believe you then.
Religious - Prove I am wrong.
Atheist - Scientifically impossible
Religious - If you can't prove it (your test), you believe that I am wrong, and now we have reached a point which we can agree upon;
We both believe in (or 'not in' if you prefer) something we can not prove.
There is no further need for conflict between us on this point. Can I buy you a beer?

Ah well no, you can't buy me a beer because my made up sky pilot of "X" faith says I can't drink. (delete made up faith as appropriate)

Interesting.
Well, I can't speak for "made up sky pilot of "X" faith" , but Muslim friends / colleagues / acquaintances are usually ready enough to accept an orange juice or similar, and reciprocate with a beer on their round.
I even know one gentleman of that faith who likes the odd whiskey or glass of wine. But that's between him and his God and I don't press him on the matter.
If said "sky pilot" demanded that his followers not enter establishments serving intoxicating liquors, and assuming I found this person's company agreeable, I personally would be likely agree to accompany them to a coffee shop or tea house.

Nanook said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

At no point did I ask anyone to believe in anything.
I am sure that most people (including myself) are perfectly capable of guiding their soul (if we have one) straight to Hell (if it exists), without my assistance, encouragement or advice.

I accept no 'burden of proof' as I accept no responsibility for the independent actions of others.

In that case your example should stop after the 4th line.

Your religious person then goes on to ask for proof that they're wrong. Why bother?

In a dialectic, as compared to a formal debate, the search for 'truth' and an agreement on what is the 'truth' is the principal goal.
As no provable 'fact' can be established, then each of the participants' truth may be deemed to be 'true enough' for their individual purposes.

My suggestion is that the religious person is satisfied with their faith, and the atheist with their certainty and that there is little purpose to the discussion on the point of 'is there or isn't there a God?'.
They agree to disagree.

[smn159]

ATG said:

You can't infer that. I'm a scientist by education, I'm an atheist, I see no inherent conflict.

It is worth repeating over and over again that religions are not focused on making scientific statements about the physical world. They are interested in purpose, meaning, love, responsibility. For example, focusing on the detail of a creation myth and saying "ooooh, look! That's physically stupid!" is to fundamentally misunderstand what the myth is for, what it means to religious people and which parts of the myth they consider important. It's hardly scientific to accuse people of believing nonsense that they don't actually believe.

One of the recurring themes of the weak criticism of religion is for an atheist to flick through a religious text, apply an interpretation that renders it as obvious nonsense, and then claim that his is the only possible interpretation one could reasonably apply to the text. Rather than ask someone what they actually believe, these critics tell people what they ought to believe and then tell them it is nonsense. And these critics usually think they're proponents of the scientific method.

The trap that you're falling into is to assume that the religious don't actually believe what they say they do.

Since you're someone with scientific training I'd be interested to see your evidence for religious people being interested in purpose, meaning, love and understanding and not about making scientific statements about the physical world and not believing their creation myths.

For example - a quick Google suggests that in 2014 over 40% of Americans believed that God created humans in their current form less than 10,000 years ago. More than half of Americans believe that evolution is guided by God. These are clearly statements of how the world is / came into being and I'm sure that you can see the conflict here between science (and education) and religious belief. On this and other subjects - abortion, contraception, who gets aid - the religious are influencing decisions affecting peoples lives based on these creation myths.

[Digby]

p1stonhead said:

Anti theist is a default because they haven't been told about made up things. Fairly simple.

Anti theist shouldn't even be a word. There isn't a word for not believing in 80ft high purple elephants who can fly because its assumed to not be required. Religion should be the same but it isn't unfortunately.

I'm with you. If ever asked, I just say I don't believe in all that laughable rubbish.

"Oh, an atheist?"

Me: "I'm not anything"

You can label me whatever you like, I still won't be one.

Any religion to me is as daft as the original video.

The technical arguments which appear to defend it just confirm to me how desperately people need it and the lengths many will go to to justify it.

They tried to brainwash me but failed miserably.

Not a single one of my friends is religious, and almost all of my family agree it's complete and utter tripe.

[4x4Tyke]

smn159 said:

Interesting. What happens if you substitute 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster' or 'The Unicorn living in my garage' for God?

It is still necessary gobbledygook 🙄

All that nonsense says is

1 = 1
0!= 1
0 = 0

It says nothing else.

[alock]

ATG said:

One of the recurring themes of the weak criticism of religion is for an atheist to flick through a religious text, apply an interpretation that renders it as obvious nonsense, and then claim that his is the only possible interpretation one could reasonably apply to the text. Rather than ask someone what they actually believe, these critics tell people what they ought to believe and then tell them it is nonsense. And these critics usually think they're proponents of the scientific method.

If you can justify different interpretations of a religious text, you are assuming the moral framework to make that judgement comes from outside the religious text.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ATG said:

It is worth repeating over and over again that religions are not focused on making scientific statements about the physical world. They are interested in purpose, meaning, love, responsibility. For example, focusing on the detail of a creation myth and saying "ooooh, look! That's physically stupid!" is to fundamentally misunderstand what the myth is for, what it means to religious people and which parts of the myth they consider important. It's hardly scientific to accuse people of believing nonsense that they don't actually believe.

You seem to have overlooked the inconvenient fact that 45% of Americans don't think it's a myth. And whilst I accept that in the UK most Christians don't believe in the literal truth of the creation story and accept it's a metaphor for wider concepts, there are many orthodox Christians, Jews and many more Muslims that do believe the myth.

[Vizsla]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ATG said:

It is worth repeating over and over again that religions are not focused on making scientific statements about the physical world. They are interested in purpose, meaning, love, responsibility. For example, focusing on the detail of a creation myth and saying "ooooh, look! That's physically stupid!" is to fundamentally misunderstand what the myth is for, what it means to religious people and which parts of the myth they consider important. It's hardly scientific to accuse people of believing nonsense that they don't actually believe.

You seem to have overlooked the inconvenient fact that 45% of Americans don't think it's a myth. And whilst I accept that in the UK most Christians don't believe in the literal truth of the creation story and accept it's a metaphor for wider concepts, there are many orthodox Christians, Jews and many more Muslims that do believe the myth.

They certainly do!

Rough transcript of a discussion I had with a Jehovah's Witless :

Me: Isn't there something in the bible about there being no death and suffering in the world before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge? (I paraphrase)
JW: Yes, that's correct
Me: So what did all the lions and tigers eat then?
JW: Grass (straight face)
Me:

[Dr Jekyll]

ATG said:

It is worth repeating over and over again that religions are not focused on making scientific statements about the physical world. They are interested in purpose, meaning, love, responsibility. For example, focusing on the detail of a creation myth and saying "ooooh, look! That's physically stupid!" is to fundamentally misunderstand what the myth is for, what it means to religious people and which parts of the myth they consider important. It's hardly scientific to accuse people of believing nonsense that they don't actually believe.

But religious statements were regarded as being factual until they were disproved. It's only after, for example, the evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years old became overwhelming that the religious resorted to 'oh, but it's allegorical'.

[p1stonhead]

Dr Jekyll said:

ATG said:

It is worth repeating over and over again that religions are not focused on making scientific statements about the physical world. They are interested in purpose, meaning, love, responsibility. For example, focusing on the detail of a creation myth and saying "ooooh, look! That's physically stupid!" is to fundamentally misunderstand what the myth is for, what it means to religious people and which parts of the myth they consider important. It's hardly scientific to accuse people of believing nonsense that they don't actually believe.

But religious statements were regarded as being factual until they were disproved. It's only after, for example, the evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years old became overwhelming that the religious resorted to 'oh, but it's allegorical'.

Yeah its funny how people still cling onto various bits and pieces and try to change it for the modern world which it just does not fit into in any way.

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Its a metaphor! (these days...)

[Dagnir]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Stuff...

Do you miss the point on purpose or are you a politician?


Throughout this thread (on at least 4 or 5 occasions) you've repeatedly made ludicrous jumps from what the person has actually written, to what you think they are trying to say. You ignore their main point and then respond with answers that are half relevant but then take it off on a tangent, thus avoiding their post.


If you're not going to address a person's point, what's the point in posting?

Edited by Dagnir on Tuesday 28th February 11:02

[Goaty Bill 2]

Dagnir said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Stuff...

Do you miss the point on purpose or are you a politician?


Throughout this thread (on at least 4 or 5 occasions) you've repeatedly made ludicrous jumps from what the person has actually written, to what you think they are trying to say. You ignore their main point and then respond with answers that are half relevant but then take it off on a tangent, thus avoiding their post.


If you're not going to address a person's point, what's the point in posting?

Without a specific example, you have failed to make a point.

[Dagnir]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Dagnir said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Stuff...

Do you miss the point on purpose or are you a politician?


Throughout this thread (on at least 4 or 5 occasions) you've repeatedly made ludicrous jumps from what the person has actually written, to what you think they are trying to say. You ignore their main point and then respond with answers that are half relevant but then take it off on a tangent, thus avoiding their post.


If you're not going to address a person's point, what's the point in posting?

Without a specific example, you have failed to make a point.

Isn't it up to you to prove I don't have a point?

[yellowjack]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Morningside said:

Back to the original video.

After 6 pages of mostly off topic?
You are the one asking for a miracle on PH I think

Going back to the early posts on the thread, I'm still struggling with this...

williamp said:

Eastenders is currently showing how bad brexit is and how good the nhs is. Must be a labour by-election round the corner...

...specifically what form a "Labour By-Election" might take? I thought we had an open democracy in this country. Where anyone who could put up sufficient deposit could stand for election in a "Parliamentary By-Election". You know - "Of the people, By the people, For the people". I'd hate to live in a constituency where Labour was the only party from which I could vote for a candidate. Sounds all very Communist to me...

[Goaty Bill 2]

Dagnir said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Dagnir said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Stuff...

Do you miss the point on purpose or are you a politician?


Throughout this thread (on at least 4 or 5 occasions) you've repeatedly made ludicrous jumps from what the person has actually written, to what you think they are trying to say. You ignore their main point and then respond with answers that are half relevant but then take it off on a tangent, thus avoiding their post.


If you're not going to address a person's point, what's the point in posting?

Without a specific example, you have failed to make a point.

Isn't it up to you to prove I don't have a point?

You may continue to think so if you wish to. I seriously doubt many would agree.
If you are requesting that I go back through each of my posts to look for proof for your statement, or to remake each of my replies; I decline the offer to do so.

In the case of your first post, I would say the onus was on you to provide an example and some sort of argument to show why you thought so.
Otherwise all anyone can reasonably conclude is that you don't like my posts.
You are of course welcome to do so, but if that is the case, please be more forthright in saying so.

If you have a specific example for the accusation in your first post, I will do my best to respond with my agreement, a justification, or my argument for disagreement, or some combination of all three, as suits the occasion.


I will immediately address two specific questions to start the ball rolling;

Dagnir said:

"Do you miss the point on purpose or are you a politician?"

No, and no.

Dagnir said:

If you're not going to address a person's point,...

A lot of people do that, here and on other discussion forums. It was not my intent.

Dagnir said:

... what's the point in posting?

For most people I would suggest that it is to dispute a statement / express an opinion.
That is my normal motivation in any case.

I have answered your questions that I am able to.
Perhaps you would now do me the courtesy of an example, and how you think I 'missed/ignored' the point?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Vizsla said:

They certainly do!

Rough transcript of a discussion I had with a Jehovah's Witless :

Me: Isn't there something in the bible about there being no death and suffering in the world before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge? (I paraphrase)
JW: Yes, that's correct
Me: So what did all the lions and tigers eat then?
JW: Grass (straight face)
Me:

Yes, there's a funny side to it, but mainly I just think it's actually incredibly sad. The lack of critical thinking is the biggest threat o mankind I fear.

[Dagnir]

I see the concepts of irony and hypocrisy are totally lost on you

Anyway here you go :

Example 1

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Dagnir said:

...but if they weren't ever introduced to Religion as a concept, would it naturally take that form?

I suspect not and certainly not now, in this age of scientific understanding.

I don't think that attempting to ignore 5000+ years of human spiritual evolution is quite that simple.

How does one avoid introducing religion (of some description) without avoiding introducing atheism?
Atheism, while being a perfectly logical conclusion in today's world of science, is still a form of belief in itself.

Example 2

Goaty Bill 2 said:

p1stonhead said:

Someone said the below I cant remember who;

If every religious book and every science book that exist were destroyed today and no one was left who remembered them, in 1000 years, all of the science ones would be back because the tests would all yield the same results. The religious ones wouldnt exist or would be totally different.

If that actually happened, I think we'd all be dead before the decade was out, long before 100 years had elapsed in any case, taking especial note of the underlined text.

Example 3

Goaty Bill 2 said:

can't remember said:

Terrible logic on display here. The burden of proof remains with the believer. The prove I'm wrong method of debate should be left in the playground.

At no point did I ask anyone to believe in anything.
I am sure that most people (including myself) are perfectly capable of guiding their soul (if we have one) straight to Hell (if it exists), without my assistance, encouragement or advice.

I accept no 'burden of proof' as I accept no responsibility for the independent actions of others.

Example 4
You've jumped from not being taught Religion until you're 18 to...

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Surely no one would, as a matter of general principal, wish the state to become responsible for teaching their children their moral codes, to the exclusion of anything the parents may believe?
That is just too Orwellian to imagine...

You seem to draw wild conclusions based on comments that aren't present, as opposed to relying on the facts written in front of you.

I don't usually get drawn into these things but it just struck me as I read each of your posts that you didn't actually address the main point of the post you were replying to.

[Vizsla]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Vizsla said:

They certainly do!

Rough transcript of a discussion I had with a Jehovah's Witless :

Me: Isn't there something in the bible about there being no death and suffering in the world before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge? (I paraphrase)
JW: Yes, that's correct
Me: So what did all the lions and tigers eat then?
JW: Grass (straight face)
Me:

Yes, there's a funny side to it, but mainly I just think it's actually incredibly sad. The lack of critical thinking is the biggest threat o mankind I fear.

Just so. This to me was a perfect example of the 'all in' belief that many of a religious persuasion have, admittedly JW's may well be at the extreme end of the spectrum. They can't accept that even one tiny bit of their beliefs may be erroneous, therefore they have, by necessity, to come up with desperately ludicrous 'explanations' of obvious nonsense.

I sometimes wonder if this is the attraction of such religions, once you believe everything the 'cult' teaches, then there's no need for troubling critical thought, you just blissfully sail along happy in the thought that it's all sorted?

As an atheist it would not bother me in the slightest if someone pointed out a flaw in the theory of evolution, (yep, I did get the childish 'it's only a theory' from him). Hey, no big deal, the theory obviously needs refining then, wouldn't cause me to go into meltdown.

[joshcowin]

I mean just out of interest, were there lions and tigers? why couldn't they eat grass? why are you right and have all the answers and they don't?

You obviously like people respecting your opinion why cant you respect theirs? Also calling them 'Jehovah's witless' is pathetic would you call a Muslim a derogatory name?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

joshcowin said:

I mean just out of interest, were there lions and tigers? why couldn't they eat grass? why are you right and have all the answers and they don't?

You obviously like people respecting your opinion why cant you respect theirs? Also calling them 'Jehovah's witless' is pathetic would you call a Muslim a derogatory name?

No opinions deserve respect by default. They deserve tolerance. That's it. People should be allowed to believe utter crap without fear of persecution or harm. But that's as far as it goes. If you don't want people to laugh at your opinions, then don't hold such laughable opinions.

Herbivore lions & tigers...ffs, don't be such a fking moron. That's my opinion. I won't be offended if you don't respect it.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Tuesday 28th February 16:52