Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
20. It is not similar to what fundamentalists do...
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 07:11 PM
Jun 2013

at least not as I understand the term. I'm on a discussion board, trying to convince others of my position. I mean, that's what most of politics is, right?

Everyone who is a faith based believer uses the same flawed system of thinking. Only some may use that belief to oppress the rights of others, but the method of thinking is poisonous regardless. That is, believing something is true without evidence is never a good idea. And, it's not just others who violate my rights. It's the people who trash the environment because they believe god is coming back soon, for example. And it's not just religion. It's atheists that try to use herbs to cure cancer because they were told it does so by a new age healer. Sure, progressive religions generally don't try to impose their beliefs on the rest of society, and for that I'm grateful, but the belief systems themselves are still irrational and can still lead to harm.

Skepticism is what I advocate. I am not using terms like "rationality" or "gullibility" as personal attacks, but as accurate descriptors of the kind of thinking promoted by religion. I think religious people generally are incredibly sensitive to having their beliefs criticized because traditionally they have been given privileged status over other ideas or belief systems. I'm treating them no differently than I would political ideologies or ideas. If someone wants to say why the idea of faith doesn't lead to gullibility, I'm all ears.

The link I provided was purposely from that source, since I didn't want to seem biased, I was just showing that religious people have and still do explain experiences with supernatural explanations, even as they themselves aknowledge experts have concluded these explanations are in fact bogus. They just think the experts are wrong, of course.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Had to look up UPG - unverified personal gnosis, I am assuming. cbayer Jun 2013 #1
It's discussed further down in the article. rug Jun 2013 #2
Caught me in not reading the whole thing, lol. cbayer Jun 2013 #4
When a claim is unprovable and unfalsifiable.... MellowDem Jun 2013 #3
You are limiting the term "rational" to "scientific". rug Jun 2013 #6
I'm not limiting the term... MellowDem Jun 2013 #9
That is not the premise. rug Jun 2013 #15
Yes, that is the premise... MellowDem Jun 2013 #18
"It's widely known and accepted." rug Jun 2013 #19
don't worry.. some of us bystanders read you loud and clear. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #21
That would be your problem right there. Well, one of them. gcomeau Jun 2013 #33
Of course you can. Let me tell you what your problem is. rug Jun 2013 #37
Wow... gcomeau Jun 2013 #38
No, read it again. rug Jun 2013 #39
ok, I read it again. gcomeau Jun 2013 #40
Good, then you should know we we were discussing the concept of rationality, not proof of God. rug Jun 2013 #41
Perhaps I am not the one who needs to read things again. gcomeau Jun 2013 #44
Since the unkowable is, well, unknown, I would argue that taking a cbayer Jun 2013 #8
You have the question wrong... MellowDem Jun 2013 #10
So do you claim to hold the truth? cbayer Jun 2013 #12
Sure, on some things... MellowDem Jun 2013 #14
But do you specifically claim to hold the truth on the existence of a god or gods? cbayer Jun 2013 #16
It is not similar to what fundamentalists do... MellowDem Jun 2013 #20
It's a lot like it, IMO. cbayer Jun 2013 #22
Not at all, it's called having a position... MellowDem Jun 2013 #27
God of the gaps Act_of_Reparation Jun 2013 #23
God of the gaps is an argument used to prove there is a god. cbayer Jun 2013 #24
what a wonderful post Stargazer99 Jun 2013 #5
They're not my words. The author has a pretty good blog at the link. rug Jun 2013 #7
Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge durbin Jun 2013 #11
So it is. rug Jun 2013 #13
That's funny, I thought asking for personal information durbin Jun 2013 #17
I've had a lot of strange conversations in my life, including odd conversations about epistemology. rug Jun 2013 #25
"The basic concept of God is that it is unknowable" durbin Jun 2013 #26
What the hell are you talking about? rug Jun 2013 #28
Busted. rug Jun 2013 #30
Cool. I knew it was him but he really backed off when challenged. cbayer Jun 2013 #31
Damn, he's persistent. okasha Jun 2013 #35
Which is not a great quality when you just aren't very good at something. cbayer Jun 2013 #36
What about revelations from God that had to be exterminated along with the people that "heard" them? eomer Jun 2013 #42
Gauguin was a pig. That does not diminish his art. rug Jun 2013 #43
You said how you think we know things about God; my point is a different take on that. eomer Jun 2013 #45
Then we have two different opinions. rug Jun 2013 #46
Just to be clear, okasha Jun 2013 #47
I'd prefer not to be rude, so I'm merely going to characterize this article as "piffle" . . . MrModerate Jun 2013 #29
If UPG is roughly equivalent to unprovable gobbledygook, I concur. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #32
It is. gcomeau Jun 2013 #34
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Making Light: All Religio...»Reply #20