My Religion is the one true path, Your Religion sucks

[mopaul]

this is a universal truth, all religious people have somehow condluded that their religion is the only correct one. how lucky to be in the only real religion on earth, when there are so many. except for a few religions that practice tolerance, buddhists for example, most religions practice exclusivism.

all through history, people getting married always try to marry someone of their own sect, and some religions forbid marriage outside of their own perimiters. when they do marry out of their faiths, there are many problems.

fundies will tell you islam is a 'false' religion, and that Allah is a 'false' god. my own mother thinks this. and she believes that all jews and arabs are hellbound because they have ignored christ.
fundies will also tell you the catholic church is an evil cult. the taliban took the time to blow up statues of buddha in afghanistan. the islam fundies will chop off the heads of women for looking at another man, or some other perceived dishonor.

religions always clash. historically and traditionally, when they do, millions die. the crusades, the genocide of the native american peoples, the conversion of millions to christ's church through violence, a long sad history of religious exclusivism. my religion is the one true path, your religions sucks, so go to hell.

[Tardisian]

1. For a good read on this subject...

"The Fundamentals of Extremism" edited by Kimberly Blaker. Difficult to read this without grinding your teeth, but a real eye-opener.

[Ladyhawk]

63. Interesting, but that book is number one on my wish list.

I've been trying to understand my own involvement in fundamentalism, why I left, why nearly everyone else I know stayed, etc. I have to admit, I'm very, very pissed at fundies and I have been for years. I've tried to "forgive and forget" but have found it impossible. Recently I decided that life is too short to remain friends with fundies. They're a waste of time.

[the Kelly Gang]

2. I believe Christ taught similar beliefs as in Buddhism

[mopaul]

3. some scholars think jesus studied hinduism

some think that jesus was away for years studying hinduism, then came back a changed man. that's subject to interpretation, like all the bible passages.

and some christians attempt to follow the peaceful, tolerant christ.
those are the best christians

[the Kelly Gang]

6. maybe he studied both in India ( or did Buddha come after him ?)

[maxsolomon]

66. jesus could easily have studied with early buddhists

buddha was 500 bc or so.

'the lost years'

[0007]

22. ......and the Mormons believe the garden of eden was in Florida

[arbusto_baboso]

37. Actually, they believe it was in Missouri.

[mopaul]

40. & that Christ appeared before the native Americans

you can't make this stuff up

[arbusto_baboso]

41. Actually, Joe Smith DID make it up...

and he must've been smoking some pretty strong shit, too, because the book of Mormon reads liked some stoner's paranoid religious fantasies.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. "I'm Right, You're Wrong, Go To Hell" - Bernard Lewis

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200305/lewis

For a long time now it has been our practice in the modern Western world
to define ourselves primarily by nationality, and to see other
identities and allegiances—religious, political, and the like—as
subdivisions of the larger and more important whole. The events of
September 11 and after have made us aware of another perception—of a
religion subdivided into nations rather than a nation subdivided into
religions—and this has induced some of us to think of ourselves and of
our relations with others in ways that had become unfamiliar. The
confrontation with a force that defines itself as Islam has given a new
relevance—indeed, urgency—to the theme of the "clash of civilizations."

At one time the general assumption of mankind was that "civilization"
meant us, and the rest were uncivilized. This, as far as we know, was
the view of the great civilizations of the past—in China, India, Greece,
Rome, Persia, and the ancient Middle East. Not until a comparatively
late stage did the idea emerge that there are different civilizations,
that these civilizations meet and interact, and—even more
interesting—that a civilization has a life-span: it is born, grows,
matures, declines, and dies. One can perhaps trace that latter idea to
the medieval Arab historian-philosopher Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), who
spoke in precisely those terms, though what he discussed was not
civilizations but states—or, rather, regimes. The concept wasn't really
adapted to civilizations until the twentieth century.

[soupkitchen]

5. Ambrose Bierce defines an infidel

As a Christian in Constantinoble or a Muslim in New York.

[rasputin1952]

7. "Even a fool will seem intelligent, when he keeps his mouth closed"...

:D

[zanana]

8. The image of the planes hitting the towers...

Boy, how naive am I? I thought that 9/11 would make us take a good, hard look at religion and fanaticism. Well, it did, but only about Muslim fanaticism. I was dumbfounded at the ignorance of fundies who declared Muslims "evil" and Christians "holy". Don't we have thousands of years of history to prove that fanaticism has caused more wars and persecution in the world that anything else? Maybe I'm still naive.

[bleedingheart]

9. "Jesus loves me but can't stand you" -I have that bumper sticker

but I am waiting until my old car is really on it's very last legs before I put it on..cuz I know someone will probably bang my car up for it...
edited:...had to find the bumper sticker to make a correction to my post...renenbered it wrong...

[trof]

12. I learned this song in Sunday School:

Jesus loves me, this is true.
He loves ME, but he don't love YOU.
Just kidding

[progressivebydesign]

47. The more succinct version I've seen:

God Loves You
Everyone Else Thinks You're An Asshole.

I'd love to put that on my car.. but obviously, I'd be beaten senseless by a large Christian with no sense of humor.

[Gregorian]

62. That lines comes from a GREAT tune by the Austin Lounge Lizards

Austin Lounge Lizards - Jesus Love Me (But He Can't Stand You)



I know you smoke, I know you drink that brew
I just can't abide a sinner like you
God can't either, that's why I know it to be true that
Jesus loves me--but he can't stand you


I'm going to heaven, boys, when I die
'Cause I've crossed every "t" and I've dotted every "i"
My preacher tells me that I'm God's kind of guy; that's why
Jesus loves me--but you're gonna fry

Refrain:

God loves all his children, by gum
That don't mean he won't incinerate some
Can't you feel those hot flames licking you Woo woo woo


I'm raising my kids in a righteous way
So don't be sending your kids over to my house to play
Yours'll grow up stoned, left-leaning, and gay; I know
Jesus told me on the phone today

Refrain
Jesus loves me, this I know
And he told me where you're gonna go
There's lots of room for your kind down

below
Whoa whoa whoa

Jesus loves me but he can't stand you . . .

Spoken:
Jesus loves me... He loves me real good I know he does... He called me up on the phone today and told me how much he loves me. Said, "Son... I LOVE you!" He speaks English pretty well considering it's a second language for him... You can talk to him too, you know. I got a 900 number in Tulsa you can call him at. I do it all the time. He's right here. I do it every day.

Jesus loves me but he can't stand you!

[ladjf]

10. Narcissism in disguise.

It is a totally egocentric or, at best human-centric concept of existence. Unfortunately, such a concept can only lead to disaster.

[UTUSN]

11. GIBBON Made This Point in "Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire"

That the ancient Greeks and Romans were TOLERANT, would allow other cultures the space to practice their own religions, that the ancient world was a mishmash of everybody doing their own thing,------that all that changed when the one-godders came along, where there was NO DEALING with people who won't meet anybody else part of the way.

[trof]

13. DOES NOT ! DOES NOT !

YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYA
<fingers in ears>
I CAN'T HEAR YOU

[Richardo]

14. I prefer: "My gal is red hot...your gal ain't doodly squat..."

[Selwynn]

15. You are basically full of shit right from the start.

Sorry for the aggressive heading. I actually meant it as an attention grabber, hoping you would read what I have to say. Now...

"this is a universal truth"

Well, that's a total falsehood right out of the gate.

"all religious people have somehow concluded that their religion is the only correct one."

This is totally untrue. There are PLENTY of religion and religious folks that are PLURALISTIC in nature. Evidence for religious people that believe there are many paths, not one: me, half the people I know, Thich Nhat Hahn, Dr. John Cobb, Jr, Christian theologian, and an many others. Examples of religions -- while there may always be individuals who act differently, Buddhism speaks of religious openness in many traditions, many of the beautiful "pagan" religions speak of religious pluralism, certain sects of Christianity believe pluralistically, certain sects of Islam believe pluralistically. I basically stopped reading after this.

You can not like religion in general or spiritual people in particular all you want. You can believe religious institutions or even personal spiritual beliefs do more harm that good if you feel like it. But don't base you reasoning on obvious false generalizations. It makes whatever larger point you have irrelevant and lost in the midst of such an obvious misstatement of factual reality.

Authoritarian religious power institutions will always clash with other authoritarian religious power institutions. Big deal. That is true of other institutions as well. Power thirsty corporations will always corruptly seek profit at any cost. That doesn't mean that all businessmen are evil. Power hungry political governments will always seek power and domination at any cost. That doesn't mean all government is evil. Religion can and has been abused by many in history. So has political ideology. So has corporate interest. Many things are possible to abuse. But none of them are all or nothing like the false universal you give right in the beginning. I can easily give direct counter examples to that, and just did.

[DoktorGreg]

19. Funny, you prove the root messages point...

You are not even vaguely tolerant of an atheist viewpoint, and immediately resort to name calling. Your own faith is that religion is basically a good thing, although you can only cite faith as to why you believe this. Additionally, you also resort of false generalizations when you say "There are PLENTY of religion and religious folks that are PLURALISTIC in nature." When demonstrably, the current third crusade is very anecdotal evidence that the words tolerance and religion are not compatible.

While I will grant you, religion has not been an entirely bad thing, today it is a force of oppression and control.

[Zynx]

25. Your statement is full of it.

"When demonstrably, the current third crusade is very anecdotal evidence that the words tolerance and religion are not compatible."

Give me a break. Nearly all the great civil rights movements in history have been spearheaded by religious leaders. What is this BS you spew about how atheism is somehow so much more enlightened? I'm completely tolerant of atheists so long as they don't bother me. I even believe that good hearted atheists are more likely than the hate filled hearts of Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell to go to Heaven so don't accuse me of being intolerant. I'm not going to stand there and be quiet while you preach a series of lies about faith to me.

[DoktorGreg]

65. Maybe you haven't been paying attention the last couple of years...

But those guys, over there, want to make war on us. I don't know why. I don't think you do either. The only thing I can figure out about their motives are, obsession with religion, and size of their wealth. At the very least, religion is obscuring the reasons why this war exists.

Over here, our guys, a lot of them, want to go make war on them. For really odd reasons. In this case, religion is used as a shield, to deny the obvious real reasons for the war. None the less, it has been called a crusade by a type of religious leader, even though that religion is illegal to be declared.

This war is optional by both sides, they choose to fight anyway. Maybe because it is easier to fight, than to not fight, as odd as that sounds. Maybe both civilizations, have constructed a machine, which has become greater than them. A device that makes it easier to go to war, then to not. I wonder what role religion plays in this device.

It doesn't matter that you don't like it being characterized as a crusade, but that is what it http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Primetime/iraq_crusade030331.html is.

[mopaul]

72. i think they may have a reason to hate us, other than religious

they, assuming we're talking about certain small percentage of middle eastern islamist crazies bold enough to either fight back against our imperialism or jealous of our many freedoms and riches that we take for granted. maybe they hate seeing us living in huge houses, driving huge cars, and making huge bucks while they have NOTHING but anger.

maybe they hate us because we have a tiny percentage of crazies here too who hate those they see as subhuman. maybe also, i might be full of shit. crazy as it sounds. but there are those who hate a whole nation of peoples just because they are of a different religion. just another reason to hate. i'm for religions that teach tolerance and peace and understanding between all brothers and sisters. and there are a few. they just don't make much noise.

[Selwynn]

30. Also totally untrue. Right in my very first sentence I explain

That my opening line, could have been worded different, was intended for shock value. As for the rest of your post, it is based on lots of fallacious reasoning.

1. "not even vaguely tolerant of the atheist view point." Pardon me, but the atheist viewpoint is one of non-belief in gods. Atheism in and of itself has nothing to do with attacks on religion, criticism of religion, or anything else. Atheism in its purest sense, is simply lack of belief in theism. A-theism. You don't have to be tolerant of logical fallacies. Claiming that it is a "universal" truth that all religious and/or religious people believe their religion is right and all others are wrong is a logical falsehood. This is provable by direct counter example. Case closed.

2. "You resort to false generalization when you say, "there are plenty of religious folks that are pluralistic in nature." Sorry but that's not a sweeping generalization. It would be a sweeping generalization if I said "all religious are pluralistic in nature." What we have here is a semantic micro-technical disagreement wherein you take issue with the word "plenty." However, your next argument that the current "third crusade" is evidence that the words tolerance and religion are not compatible is fallacious and ridiculous. Once again you completely ignore the absolute, incontrovertible fact of individuals who are pluralistic in their faith, as well as religious traditions that are pluralistic.

You may not understand this about logic, but when you make an absolute statement like "religion and tolerance are not compatible" all I have to do to refuse that absolute all or nothing statement is come up with one counterexample where that is not true. There are "plenty" of examples, where I defined "plenty" in this case to mean more than a handful. Buddhism is defined as a religion. It is also most often very tolerant and pluralistic in nature, with monks like Thich Nhat Hahn and others even going as far as to dissuade those desiring to know Buddhism from leaving their own religious tradition. There are specific examples of unitarian universalistis who are also by definition pluralistic in nature. There are all kinds of examples of people from all kinds of religious backgrounds who believe in religious pluralism - John Cobb, Mike Lodahl, John Shelby Spong, Marjorie Suhocki, are just a few well known Christian theologians who write and speak and believe in pluralism between religious traditions.

What's more, I believe it, and most of the people I associate with believe it to. I am more than tolerant of people who believe in no God. My best friend of my whole life is an atheist - but he respects and I think understands my journey and I respect and understand his. What I am not tolerant of, is logical fallacy. Well, I can be "tolerant" of it, but I'm certainly going to point it out.

[Zynx]

31. Atheist fundementalists and Christian fundementalists are the same.

You can't reason with either of them and they have absolutely no regard for the truth. They have their ideology and that's all they need.

[TeacherCreature]

38. Bzzzzzzzz, wrong

The poster in no way demonstrated that he was intolerant of Atheism unless you are saying that Atheism viewpoint is that all religion is exclusionary towards others. I don't have to be intolerant of atheism to think that is nonsense.

[Selwynn]

39. Thanks for the support. :)

[TeacherCreature]

45. Hey, you are doing a great job!

You have more patience than I when it comes to arguing logic.

[DoktorGreg]

64. What part of "Full of shit" do you misunderstand???

IF that is not intolerance, what exactly is intolerance???

[Zynx]

67. What is he intolerant of?

He never said he was intolerant of atheists. Quite to the contrary. Where are you getting this from? Are you using a narrow, self-supporting definition of intolerance?

[Selwynn]

71. If something is provably false, I'm ok with "intolerantly" saying so.

It has nothing to do with "intolerance" of someone's belief system. It has nothing to do with saying "hey your faith based belief is wrong and my faith based belief is right." It has to do with saying, "your statement is logically false, and I can prove it - here's how." That's not belief "intolerance" that's just good old scientific argumentation by counterexample, conjecture and refutation, and falsification principles of critical reasoning in action.

What you're meaning to say, is that in my choice of words I am not tactful. Ok, I wasn't tactful. I stated, not once, not twice, but three times now that my subject line was meant to be an attention grabber. The text of my argument was not rude or shocking at all. But it has nothing to do with "intolerance" to prove something false.

If someone says, "dude, the earth is flat and human kids are born from elephants!" It is not "intolerant" of me to say, "you know, I can prove to you that those claims are provably false - there is actually an objective, empirically observable answer here, and I can show you that it is not what you claim." When you can prove, with concrete evidence, a claim false. That's not being "intolerant" of an impossible to prove or disprove belief. It's just good intellect.

Well you know, come to think of it, I guess if you want to say that I am "intolerant" of provable, logically demonstrable, cut and dry falsehoods, then I can live with that.

[mopaul]

73. my notion of Intolerance is wiping out a whole culture or religion

like the europeans did the native americans, and like the nazis did the jews and gypsies, and like bushco is trying to do now. hell, slavers stole a whole culture and put them on our soil and took away their gods and replaced them with ours and they still are better christians than most white folks i know. they want to subjugate or even eliminate, or ethnically cleanse if you will, pesky islamist arabs.

i have heard several presumably sane americans suggest that we nuke all the arab nations. even ann kkkoulter suggests conquering and converting them all to presbyterians.

we tolerate thousands of religions in america, and i like that. from conservative lutherans to catholics to baptists to snake handlers and wicas and satanists to worshippers of santa rea.

freedom of religion. i like that. it's american. but let's not attempt to wipe out any more cultures or religious groups if we can.
that's my idea of tolerance.

[Selwynn]

75. I can be down with that :D

:toast:

[soupkitchen]

16. And we're both the same religion

[Zynx]

17. You seem to be pretending that religion is the only reason we have problem

s. That is patently major horseshit. I won't even waste my time with you since I won't convince you anyway except for saying that you are confusing fundies with the rest of the religious people in this world. Fundementalists always cause problems whether they are Christian fundementalists like in the Crusades, Islamic fundementalists like Al-Qaeda, or Atheist fundementalists like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

[DoktorGreg]

24. Way to show your tolerance!!!

By comparing anyone who is atheist to Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.

I guess by your logic, you are similar to Osama Bin Laden and George Bush.

[Zynx]

27. I hit every group there.

I was simply making the point that atheists produce their fair share of tyrants too. Do you deny this?

[mopaul]

42. no, i realize there are millions of good christians, and a few assholes

so, i am not confusing fundies with all christians. no way. didn't mean to imply that, don't think i did. my own mother is a fundie from hell, so i know the diff. my father is about as perfect a christian man as you can find.

[fujiyama]

90. .

[ASanders84]

18. If there is a God he/she/it is not of any religion on Earth.

[cheezus]

20. I'll see you in hell!

...from heaven

[drdtroit]

21. What a beautifully Christian sentiment!

[mopaul]

44. the ultimate argument winner. you're goin' to hell, ahma gwine to hebbin

i will sit at the right hand of god and sip mint julips and chuckle while watching your eternal suffering from on high. and in the musim religion, the damned will be forced to watch the pious enjoying paradise while suffering eternal torment.

see you in hell too, it'll be fun really

[LWolf]

23. This is not a universal truth.

There are some universal truths that are common to all (that I know about) faiths, but this isn't one of them.

There are many faiths out there acknowledging that there are many paths to the "source." They just don't happen to be the bulk of judeo/christian groups. There are Christians who have not reached that conclusion, as well. My favorite christian minister is an arch-bishop in the Mar Thoma Orthodox Catholic Church. He is the leader of our local inter-faith council, and regularly attends services with and speaks up for many of the small local non-christian faiths, including buddhists, christian scientists, and wiccans. The unitarian universalists are another group of people who have not reached that conclusion; hence the "univeralist" part. ;-)

Outside of the big three, there are many faiths that are not based on proselytizing, and who freely acknowledge that they are not the only "way." You just don't hear much about them, because they aren't part of the big three.

[DoktorGreg]

28. Ah but it is...

See, you simply dismiss the notion that there is no "source". And everything you cite as tolerance, actually has a very subtle yet profound intolerance. That is, there is a "source" and we must seek it.

Hence even the "universalist" is intolerant, and succumbs to the idea of a "Universal truth".

Again, proving the root posters point.

[Zynx]

29. Being an atheist then techincally means you're being intolerant of religio

n by proclaiming they're wrong. There is very little anyone has to prove any of our beliefs. You believe that there is no God while I believe that there is. There is very little to prove it one way or the other.

[LWolf]

34. Very clever.

:P

For that circle of logic to make sense, we must define athiests as part of the "religious people" mentioned by the original poster:

My Religion is the one true path, Your Religion sucks this is a universal truth, all religious people have somehow concluded that their religion is the only correct one.

I don't have a problem doing so; non-belief is as legitimate a belief as belief, if you get my drift.

But then, if we've included the non-believers in the "religious people" category, it's once again universal, and we've come full circle.

For those faiths that don't proselytize, non-belief, or athiesm, or skepticism, etc., are just as valid "paths" to follow as "belief." Path to what? Whatever it is people are looking for. Answers to whatever questions they have. Whether you call it "God," "Source," "Science," "Truth," whatever. It's all a search for answers. Or for non-answers, in some cases. Interestingly enough, the "skeptic" belief system sometimes mimics their christian counterparts in the "my way is the only way" department. Almost like opposite sides of the same coin.

The only way out of this circle I can find is to restate:

There are faiths, and practitioners of those faiths, who do not believe that they've found the only path to truth, however you want to defing "truth," and that you must follow their path or be "wrong." Therefore, the above quoted statement from the original post cannot be correct.

[Selwynn]

68. Also totally false.

Unitarian Universalists "members" include atheists. You are incorrect that the universalists succumbs to the idea of universal truth. At least in that particular manifestation, it say instead "universal truth, or none, come fellowship together."

Buddhism as I have consistently pointed out, also according to many monks does not ask anyone to reject any belief and embrace any other - including those with belief.

You're also unfortunately being horribly illogical in what you are defining as tolerance or lack there of. There is nothing wrong with any person that says, "I believe x, but I don't care if you don't." Or, "I believe x, and its ok with me if you believe otherwise."

The original poster claims that religion "universally" says, "I believe x, and I judge/condemn you because you don't/believe differently." That is just categorically false, and demonstratively so.

Having a belief <> intolerance of someone else's belief. I believe that the sky is blue. If someone else believes that there is no sky, and everything is a perceptional illusion of a brain in a vat somewhere - that doesn't affect my belief at all. Further more, the simple fact that he or she holds that belief personally has nothing to do with "tolerance" or respect for my right to believe otherwise.

The same is true in religion or in atheism. It would be wrong for example, for me to point the finger back at you, and say that by being an atheist you simply dismiss the notion that there is a source. Therefore you are "intolerant" of people who believe the notion that there is a source. But of course, that isn't fair. It has nothing to do with tolerance. You can respect someone else's right to believe differently than you AND at the same time maintain your own belief. The same is true for religious folk. It is possible to both hold your own convictions about life, and at the same time maintain respect for others who belief differently, as well as acknowledging their right to do so.

The claim in the original post is that it is a universal truth religion never does that. That's false. Provably so. My personal spiritual beliefs are just that - they have nothing to do with comparing them to someone else's beliefs. Further more, its not even about evaluation what is "right" and "wrong" for me. My beliefs work for me - they are useful in a utilitarian pragmatic sense - they make my life happy. They may not do the same for you, and if they don't please - by all means - do not embrace them.

That alone is a direct refutation to the opening absolutist false generalization. But there's no need to stop there - there are "plenty " (I will define plenty here as meaning more than a handful, although it doesn't matter - all you need to refute a universal claim is one counter-example, then it is no longer universally true) of examples of religious individuals and religious theologies and philosophies that are non-absolutist.

There are religious traditions that see spirituality as a mere language game, something that may be practically useful for one person and totally not useful for someone else - both being right. There are religious traditions that see belief in a more Feuerbachian way - also having to do with pragmatic utility. There are still other religions, such as Buddhism in which many of its practitioners encourage others not to abandon their current tradition and belief structure in favor of "conversion" to Buddhism.

I really don't mind if you want to attack religion in general or religious people in particular. I only ask that you do it with logic. That said, logic is my field, so my standards are relatively high.

[DoktorGreg]

79. Other peoples spititual beliefs are harming me though

Thats the premise of your argument, is it not? That your religion is not harming anyone. Other peoples spirityal beliefs result in the world in which we live. Other peoples spiritual beleifs case them to act in irrational ways, often against their own best interests. Other peoples beliefs have negatively affected me.

For example, last spring, my town had a street preacher. When he was present, he was demonstrably affecting my sales, in my store. That hurt. There was a chain of hurt there. True it wasnt his beliefs that were hurting me, it was his actions, but his actions were definately motivated by his beliefs.

George Bush's beliefs have harmed both you and I. His beleifs have resulted is a series of really bad decisions. By association, anyone who voted for Bush because he is a fundamentalist christian, their beleifs have harmed me. I find is hard to accept that all those people would make that same decison is they were not enthralled by faith.

I know a single mother, who has been destroyed by her faith. Her guilt (driven by her faith) by her situation, her marriage to that bastard (driven by her faith), have made her life a mess. I definately see her fundamentalism affecting her life. By proxy, being her friend and a decent human being, I am affected also, if only emotionally.

Finally, you have said you need religion to be happy. Maybe you need to change your life to be happy. Maybe rather than praying for happiness, you went out and did something that made you happy you wouldnt need to use religion to fill an obvious hole in your life. Maybe if rather than spending a day a week on your religion, you spent a day a week volunteering, at something that made other people happy, you could find something to fill that void. Every place I volunteer, there are more than enough volunteer positions to go around. Why tomorrow I am moving campaign signs into storage for the local democratic party.

True, true, you can find an exception to this. Well an exception can be found to just about everything. Nothing is absolute. On the whole, religion is a force for evil, with the best of intentions. It causes good people to do nothing at best, and profound evil at worst.

Finally as far as your logic goes, I could say I beleive in purple elephants on Saturn, and even though it is an absurd claim, it can not be disproven, so it must be true. No, I would say your logical standards are quite low.

[Selwynn]

83. No, that is not the premise of my argument.

Thats the premise of your argument, is it not? That your religion is not harming anyone. Other peoples spiritual beliefs result in the world in which we live. Other peoples spiritual beliefs case them to act in irrational ways, often against their own best interests. Other peoples beliefs have negatively affected me.

No, that is not the premise of my argument. It is certain possible for others beliefs to harm. It is possible for your beliefs, my friend, to harm me. If you decided that you were so right that it justified you persecuting me who sees things differently than you, that would certainly harm me. The potential to harm with beliefs is not monopolized by the religious - that power is held by anyone who takes any belief, spiritual or otherwise, and wields it as a weapon against those who disagree. We see this in politics. We see this in bigotry. We see this as an inherent possibility in any belief system, religious or non-religious.

The argument that I made, the only argument that I made, is that it is logically unjustifiable to claim that all religious people have somehow concluded that their religion is the only correct one. I certainly do not believe that, so I stand as the only counter-example needed to disprove a universalistic claim. However, there are plenty of other examples. Many religious beliefs are non-sectarian in nature, non-evangelical, meaning not about evangelizing or proselytizing, and pluralistic in nature, meaning believing that each person is on an individual journey and that there are many Nobel paths of belief, including even no belief at all. Buddhism teaches this. Many pagan religious teach this. Even some teachers and theologians from progressive Christan tradition teach this.

The rest of your argument is a straw man, arguing against a point that was never my argument in the first place. But I'll go ahead and respond to it. In all honesty, to your response that other peoples beliefs are indirectly harming you through a long causal chain (i.e. the example that the presence of a preacher harmed your sales,) I can only reply: tough. You know, the presence of you might harm my sales in my store, that doesn't mean you are wrong. Your beliefs or lack of beliefs might negatively impact my sales in my neighborhood - but guess what I just have to deal with that in a free society. And guess what else, just because it affected my sales, that doesn't mean that you are wrong to be you. It's totally irrelevant to a logical argument about justification of belief. It's what we like to call a Red Herring.

I could make an argument that you wearing a leather jacket harms my business - does that mean that you are personally doing something wrong, or that you should be forced to change? No. I'm just going to have to deal with it. But that is totally different than me coming up to you and shoving a leather jacket in your face and demanding that you wear it, or threatening to kill you and your family unless you wear a leather jacket. When I do that, I've crossed the line into true infringement of your rights. At the same time no everyone who wears a leather jacket is going to do that to you. Some people who wear leather jackets might - its certainly possible. But it is not a logical guarantee. It is also possible that this will not happen to you.

I'd like to state one more time that you incorrectly stated the premise of my argument in the first place - I've re-stated it correctly in the opening. But I chose to critique this anyway, because it is a Red Herring.

George Bush's "faith" has certainly been harmful. But that also has nothing to do with my argument. Just because George Bush's faith has been harmful doesn't mean that everyone sees faith in the way Bush does. And it is a provable fact that many people do not, so this point is irrelevant to my original observation, that it is a logical falsehood to claim that all religious people have somehow concluded that their religion is the only correct one. The fact that you sight examples which prove that some people have is totally irrelevant. I was never denying that some people have. I was instead proving by direct, specific and irrefutable example, that others have not. So the claim that "all" have done anything is false.

The same thing holds true for the single mother you know.

The next part is almost laughable:


Finally, you have said you need religion to be happy. Maybe you need to change your life to be happy. Maybe rather than praying for happiness, you went out and did something that made you happy you wouldn't need to use religion to fill an obvious hole in your life. Maybe if rather than spending a day a week on your religion, you spent a day a week volunteering, at something that made other people happy, you could find something to fill that void. Every place I volunteer, there are more than enough volunteer positions to go around. Why tomorrow I am moving campaign signs into storage for the local democratic party.


Well, let's just chip away at some of the irrational and baseless assumptions shall we? First let's clear up a falsehood: I never said I need "religion" to make me happy. I said that my beliefs do make me happen. There is a difference. Secondly, I never said I "pray" for happiness. I said that I am happy. There is a difference there too. Third, I never said I spend a day a week on my religion, I said was a philosophy of living daily. Fourth, I never said I felt a void, I said my beliefs work for me. Fifth and most importantly I never - ever - said that I don't volunteer and work within my community, and you show your irrationality and seeming inability to refrain from jumping to totally speculative conclusions. It just so turns out, you're dead wrong. It is however telling to me that you would jump to so many erroneous assumptions and then accuse me of "low" standards in logic. :)

True, true, you can find an exception to this. Well an exception can be found to just about everything. Nothing is absolute.

Thank you for agreeing with the only point I made.


Finally as far as your logic goes, I could say I believe in purple elephants on Saturn, and even though it is an absurd claim, it can not be disproven, so it must be true. No, I would say your logical standards are quite low.

Of course, I was not claiming that purple elephants lived on Saturn. I wasn't even claiming that a certain religious belief is true. I wasn't even claiming that there is a God. No, the only claim I made was that the statement, "all religious people have somehow concluded that their religion is the only correct one" is provably, demonstratively false.

You could actually say my logical standards are in fact low here - all I want is some basic logical coherence and the avoidance of blatant demonstrable falsehood. You'll notice that nothing in my posts has been focuses on arguing about religion vs. whatever else. The focus of all my posts has been logical consistency and soundness.

[DoktorGreg]

89. What if this was the last post on this thread....

Selwynn said...

"You'll notice that nothing in my posts has been focuses on arguing about religion vs. whatever else. The focus of all my posts has been logical consistency and soundness."

Then I said...

How sad to be you... Except for where you edited your posts... "Full of shit", remember that? Where did that go?

You seem to be under the impression that I am against you beleiving what you think. I am not. I just pointed out that you more or less prove mopauls point, in the root thread. You quote yourself in your sig!!! How much more sancatamonious and pedantic can you get than that?

"The greatest evils in the world today are the absence of empath and the persistence of ignorance" ~Selwynn

And im thinkin, when someone is deliberatly trying to harm my living, and by extension my children, you say "Tough!", you can't even apoligize for it. THEN!!! you go on to, just short of, accuse me of persecuting you??!!?!!?

Indeed.

P.S. You can go ahead and respond to this, but Im not going to read it. I only just noticed you were dishonest, and edited your posts, so Im not gonna reply after this, in fact Im just gonna ignore what you say. Goodbye.

[Selwynn]

91. And even more falsehoods and irrelevancies

How sad to be you... Except for where you edited your posts... "Full of shit", remember that? Where did that go?


I edited nothing, and its fairly amazing how quickly and casually you continuously choose to be wrong. That post is #15 on this thread, and it is still here. Just because you repeat something over and over again, doesn't make you argument any more logically sound than it was the first time. Of course, you just chose to respond to everyone but me in post #30, and again in post #71.


You seem to be under the impression that I am against you believing what you think. I am not. I just pointed out that you more or less prove mopauls point, in the root thread.

You've failed to prove much of anything in fact, except prove that your near incapable of a logically consistent argument, and capable of getting everyone who has responded to you so far to disagree with you. What's more even mopaul sees my point, as indicated in post #73. But you can't get over the fact that you walked into an argument with the wrong person, making the wrong claim and now its time to stand there in your wrongness and be wrong and get used to it. :)


You quote yourself in your sig!!! How much more sancatamonious(sic) and pedantic can you get than that?


Ah, the very last bastion of the totally logically beaten: the irrelevant ad hominem attack. You know, I also quote myself on my website, http://www.selwynn.blog-city.com - oh, and even my website has my online name in it. Just wanted to give you a few more examples of my sanctimonious nature, seeing as how that has absolute nothing to do with the fact that your argument is riddled with logical inconsistencies and fallacies and that my original point, the only point I was ever making, continues to be logically true. Whether you think I'm pedantic or not is irrelevant, and its a logically fallacious and obviously desperate tactic to mention something as irrelevant as whether I do or don't quote myself in my sig. It reeks to the desperation of one losing an argument and not being able to just do so with class.


And im thinkin, when someone is deliberatly trying to harm my living, and by extension my children, you say "Tough!", you can't even apoligize for it. THEN!!! you go on to, just short of, accuse me of persecuting you??!!?!!?


And still more falsehoods and inaccuracies abound! I did not say tough to someone directly trying to harm. Someone's mere presence, and then a long inferential change of how that presence affects sales which affects livelihood which effects family, etc. - is by definition indirect and inferential at best. Next, it is little more than I lie to say that I accused you of persecuting me. You really should reconsider using the misrepresentation of my words tactic on me, since I catch it every time. What I said was:

"You know, the presence of you might harm my sales in my store, that doesn't mean you are wrong. Your beliefs or lack of beliefs might negatively impact my sales in my neighborhood - but guess what I just have to deal with that in a free society. And guess what else, just because it affected my sales, that doesn't mean that you are wrong to be you. It's totally irrelevant to a logical argument about justification of belief. It's what we like to call a Red Herring."

And guess what, it was right the first time I wrote it, and its still right now.


P.S. You can go ahead and respond to this, but Im not going to read it. I only just noticed you were dishonest, and edited your posts, so Im not gonna reply after this, in fact Im just gonna ignore what you say. Goodbye.


They're all there my friend. Unedited and in their full glory. Most of them, you've still chosen to ignore. So in the ultimate heart of honestly your parting shot about me being dishonest is in fact - dishonest. Go figure.

You know it would have been so much nicer if you exhibited the maturity to simply acknowledge that you jumped to a wrong conclusion and deal with it, know when you've been beaten in an argument, accept the fact that yes, perhaps in this instance I jumped in on something that I can really defend too well. I supposed 154 posts isn't enough time to know me well, or have any kind of appreciation for context here. But if you did, you would realize that if there are logical inconsistencies and inaccuracies in an attack directed at me, you can count on me consistently, patiently, tirelessly pointing them out. It's how some of us have fun. :)

Enjoy your day - read a critical reasoning book or two. I recommend "Introduction to Logic" by John Layman, "Becoming a Critical Thinker" by Sherry Deistler and "A Rulebook for Argumentation," by Antony Weston

[mopaul]

46. except for a few religions that practice tolerance,

a quote from my original post

[LWolf]

48. Absolutely.

The exceptions make it non-universal.

Still, those "my way or the highway" groups outnumber and out shout the rest, don't they?

And they always seem to be lurking under and within the conflicts across the planet.

[mopaul]

51. only a tiny percentage of fundie screw things up.

i'd say that all religions are on balance, better for humanity than bad, given clashes between them don't cause megadeaths. most are benevolant and peaceful and tolerant. i was raised a christian, and i never ever wanted to bomb people of another sect. now i'm an atheist, and i still don't. however, real fundie christians would love to see me burned alive. i kid you not.

[slutticus]

26. Being in the 700 club sucks...

... x(

[jukes]

32. Bawon Samedi

will be visiting mopaul soon!

[noonwitch]

53. Every time I cross a RR track without getting stuck, I thank Papa Legba

I should probably get a couple of cigars to throw on the tracks for him. I hear he likes cigars and whiskey, same as Baron Samedi.

[mopaul]

56. Obeah, Koku, Togo

a dead chicken would be good with some o that whiskey

[OnionPatch]

33. Probably the most destructive

line of thinking the world has seen. I have a very hard time believing that, say, a Hindu woman in India is going to go to hell, no matter how good she is, simply because she doesn't worship Jesus. I became agnostic because of this (and other things in the Bible that just don't seem right.) Once a friend of mine and I decided that the "worship me" part of the teachings of Jesus was probably distorted. They were so into worshiping deities in those days that it could easily happen. Worship was real big in those days but we really believe that Jesus wanted people to embrace the message and not so much the messenger. If you were to replace "me" with "my message" in the recorded teachings of Jesus, it all makes so much more sense. "My message" meaning "Love your brother." When you substitute "my message" for "me" then anyone who loves their fellow man, regardless of religion, will go to heaven. Of course I have a different idea of heaven but that's a whole other thread.

[TeacherCreature]

43. Well then you should come to my Presbyterian church

your beliefs would fit right in.

[Djinn]

85. does your church beleive

that everyone gets rewarded in the after life?

I ask because although I'm well aware that the practitioners of all the worlds religions are generally NOT fundie loons - they ALL beleive that their version is correct - otherwise why bother?

They can't ALL be right? it can't be an abomination against God to eat pork but perfectly oaky doaky at the same time?

If you beleive that follow Christian precepts is the way to God then the Hindu's and Muslims et al CAN'T be right.

In essence every religious belief has to go hand in hand with beleiving that you're right and the otehrs are wrong? surely?

[moof]

35. As long as people are allowed to believe anything many of them will.

We need more fruitcakes and skeptics on this planet.

[nini]

36. I'm Catholic..

the only 'religion' I question is the fundie movement. They are hyprocrits to their core.

But your point is correct.. people have and will kill for their religion which in itself is opposite of what they profess to believe.

[Snoggera]

49. Am I wrong on this?

Atheism is a conclusion regarding life based upon knowledge gleaned from various scientific sources, and therefore can not be considered a religion. It is not a belief, it is a conclusion reached after following a logical path based upon current knowledge. It is not a belief system, because it relies upon current "facts" that can be shown to be "true."

Religion is based upon faith, because none of the beliefs may be based upon actual knowledge, but need to be accepted simply (and humbly) in order to remain a member supporting that particular belief. All religious groups are historically tribal-based, and therefore retain a need to separate from other groups; by force if need be. It is a belief system because it relies upon belief in the words of others without an ability to verify whether or not these words are true, and actually maintains the belief in the face of evidence that the words are, in fact "untrue."

[Selwynn]

74. Essentially, yes.

Parts that I would disagree with:

1. Agnosticism is a conclusion about life based on knowledge around us, which argues that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, so the subject is irrelevant. That is the only "faith-less" position. Atheism is a belief, without concrete empirical evidence, on the absence of God. There are other kinds of evidence or subjective impressions that might cause one to embrace atheism, but not concrete evidence.

2. The only logical path following current concrete knowledge is agnosticism.

3. Saying that religion is based on faith because none of the beliefs are based on actual knowledge presupposed an understanding of what "actual knowledge" is. But if you study epistemology - and lucky for you it just so happens that I do (hehe) - you'll recall that classical skepticism points out the fact that we can never really be said to know anything "for certain" for it is always possible that my senses are deceived in some way. Therefore what we are really pursuing is the rightful justification for beliefs.

4. Saying that religion is based on faith in things that can't be proven is not always accurate. For example, religion for many people is not faith in a supernatural reality, but rather a language construct by which they represent - symbolically and metaphorically - the experiences of life that are real, yet cannot be easily described concretely or objectively. It's like trying to describe the color blue to someone who has never seen blue before, without pointing to a blue object and saying "well its LIKE that." We know that our experience of blue is real - we do experience it. But trying to relate that experience to someone who has not experience it is virtually impossible - we must resort to metaphor and symbolism. For many people religion is very much like that - metaphor and symbols to talk about non-concrete experiential realities and describe them in terms that make sense.

5. It absolutely not necessary at all that religious faith have anything to do with a need to belong. I do not live with a religious person, I do not attend a religions church or any kind of religious fellowship. My beliefs are my own private beliefs - they are for me, and me only.

6. Religious faith is not necessary about relying on the words of others. I do not rely on the words of others. I experience my world first. Based on those experiences I seek to interpreting in explain those experiences in ways that make sense to me. I begin with logical analysis, scientific reasoning and rationality. But I continue to talk about abstract experiences that cannot be easily categorized or referenced via metaphor and symbolism. Through symbolism, I am able to say, this is what this real and genuine living experience I have *IS LIKE* - which is not the same thing as saying what it is. Maybe my some of the experiences I have are because of my psychology, or other reasons. Maybe they are because I perceive something about the world that I can't fully explain. It doesn't matter. My religious life is not about saying absolutely what is, it is about recognizing the diverse experiences of my life and saying, "this is what these experience ARE LIKE."

Just a few things - I'm sorry I had way more, but I have to leave now. :(

[Guaranteed]

81. Regarding your third point,

as a fellow philosopher, I would argue that you can have a priori knowledge even if your senses deceive you. 2 + 2 = 4, even if the sky is red.

And, of course, there have been many attempts at proving the existence of God a priori, although none were successful. A posteriori attempts such as those by Thomas Aquinas made much more progress, but were unfortunately quashed by Hume's argument against proving the existence of the unobserved, which basically destroys any a posteriori argument.

[Selwynn]

82. Semiotics makes this interesting.

The only place I can ever even see a priori possibility is in things we consider tautologies, logical constants.

The interesting thing is, 2+2+=4 can be - probably should be I think - seen as representational signs, what we are really doing is using "sign" language to represent a empirically perceived reality. This still doesn't get us to absolute certainty that our entire representation or sign or what we perceive isn't distorted in some way. We also know that many of the things human beings at one point considered logical absolutes have been called into question in modern times. For example, the "laws" of the macro world, fall apart at the quantum level, where things do not play by the "rules" we assumed were absolute, well.. a priori, just brute facts. But guess what, those assumptions have been called into question.

How then, can we ever be certain about any of our assumptions?

I would submit to you that an even more challenging obstacle for skeptic would be to try to argue against the claim, "I know a square cannot be a circle." Because now you're talking about logical contradictions and, unless you want to break out some Derrida, its extremely difficult to even try to think of a possible world in which squares can be circles, etc.

Still though, where this all gets really fascinating to me is when it comes to thinking about even logical contradictions in terms of language and signs. A "circle" is what if not a construct, a representational word/sign for a concept....

Bah... this is getting way to in depth for me at this time of night. Now I'm thinking about how much I want to talk about a priori concepts in general, is there really something known prior to experience of it? I don't think so, but that's way too big of a discussion for now. :)

[Guaranteed]

84. Yes, you're right about the square/circle statement

being even more difficult to disprove, because they are more clearly analytic concepts. But, not quite so obviously (but still clearly), so are "2," "+," "=," and "4." Given the definitions of all those concepts, put together in such an example as I gave, the statement is universally and logically true. Now, they ARE abstract concepts in that they may or may not truly exist in the world (although I would argue that the concept of "2" exists more in reality than a TRUE square or circle), but once their definitions are accepted the statement is undeniable.

I don't believe that concepts such as numbers come to the point of knowledge empirically. I seem to remember that it was John Stuart Mill who argued that that was the case (and we've discussed him before) as he was a pretty hardcore empiricist. But we don't "witness" numbers in the classic empirical sense- instead, there is an a priori tendency for our mind to group things together abstractly (as Kant probably would have argued). One can't point out the thing that one would call "2"- you have to understand the concept of grouping first.

I'd also have to say that if quantum theory has begun to suggest that statements such as "2 + 2 = 4" are not necessarily true, then things have gone dreadfully wrong in its study, especially considering that it is a purely theoretical one and is in fact built upon knowledge a priori.

[opihimoimoi]

50. My religion says I can go to the DRIVE THROUGH CHAPEL

and get MARRIED.....so there..... top that.

[mopaul]

52. i want a religion with multiple wives

one for sunday, monday, tuesday, wednesday, none for thursday, and two special wives for friday and saturday night. is that so wrong?

[arbusto_baboso]

55. No, it's not wrong, just masochistic.....

You know if they were all around each other long enough, they'd all "synchronize". Do you really want to be around SIX PMSing women?:scared:

There isn't a whole lot that scares me, but THAT scenario does!

[opihimoimoi]

58. ONly if the women cannot have multiple Husbands like in the days of old

prior to the Levites changing everything to the codes of the bible...which THEY wrote the first 5 books....

Women used to have multiple lovers in Palaces built for them...

It was natures way of producing the best off spring for the Society..

The Levites went and messed it all up by reversing the proven system....

[mopaul]

59. oh, to be the queen's stud in days of old, when gals were bold

and puritans weren't invented, they'd pick a guy to drop on by, and walk away contented.

[opihimoimoi]

61. LOL, yup, many a smile in those days

unless you couldn't "perform"

:bounce:

[noise626]

78. But then you would be shot.

Talk about putting pressure on a guy to Rise to the Occasion.

pax
ant

[Snoggera]

54. Mine says I may marry a homosexual marmoset

if I was so inclined. I am seriously questioning my current religion.

[mopaul]

57. marmoset there'd be days like this, there'd be days like this my marmoset

great, now i got that stuck in my head. could be worse, could be who let the dogs out.

i think there should be a constitutional amendment to define and protect the institution of marriage and keep it between a man and a woman marmoset

[Cats Against Frist]

60. I think no matter how innocuous a religion claims to be

it always seeks to corner some market on "the truth," to the exclusion of others. And not just a truth like "I ate green beans for lunch," but a truth that is absolutist/mystical and sort of claims to have all the answers.

Religion both has good and bad points, but in the end, if you have to say you really "believe" in a theory -- whether devout or athiestic -- as opposed to "how the fuck should I know?" you have to know, down deep, somewhere that it is COMPLETELY FLIPPING ARBITRARY, and that no one's religion corners the market on either 1. "the meaning of life" or the 2. "origin of life," -- no matter how pretty or tolerant it sounds.

And really, the problem is not religion, but only those who seek to be ACTORS of their religion in governance or crusade, which is not only those who seek to crush and evangelize, but also legislate any kind of virtue, whether it be helping the poor, or banning gay marriage. I think the civil rights struggle is largely an exception, as far as religion helping to REALLY make people more free -- in modern times, anyway. I know people will try to make anti-communism and "taming the savages" arguments, but those things are really beside the point, because the idea of liberty, property and peace -- Enlightenment ideals, can take care of all of that, without bringing in Scripture.

This is not to say that religion is the only source of bad in the world, or that it never does charitable work -- because it does -- and, yet, still not altruistically, because it usually comes with a healthy earful of evangelism -- which, if you're a Christian, the Bible provides you with rationalization for that, but if you're a "how the fuck should I know-ist," it doesn't.

Claiming that you have some kind of religious truth, automatically creates a hierarchy. I don't really like hierarchies, to tell you the truth. I'd just as soon we all told the truth and say that "we don't know."

[Selwynn]

70. This ignores the realities of naturalistic i.e. non supernatural religions

"but a truth that is absolutist/mystical and sort of claims to have all the answers."

[drdigi420]

69. pretty funny considering all religion is based on myths adn superstition

i dont see how one false religion can be any better than any other false religion

[noise626]

76. Wasn't it George Carlin who said:

"My God has a bigger dick than your God."

pax
ant

[mopaul]

77. Carlin IS God

bless his cranky old ass

[Fozzledick]

80. My two cents on the only two religions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=156900#157918

[Selwynn]

88. I like that a lot.

[Bat Boy]

86. My religion teaches me that your religion is better.

Frankly I'm not sure why I keep going to church...

[Tight_rope]

87. Religion is man-made..Just be spiritual!