The Unbelievers

while not every denial of reason can be blamed on any one religion or one ideology, every wrong thing in this world, can be blamed, on denial of reason. (not nature, not a god or gods, but denial of reason)

it is not that there is nothing wrong with this world, there is plenty enough wrong with it today, it is rather there there is nothing that would be wrong with this world were it not for reason being denied. whatever religious, ideological or any other excuses for doing so, it is more generally greed and ego that motivate doing so. even greed is mostly ego.

religions do have it right about ego being the problem, and they've been better then anything else at drawing attention to it. but they really haven't offered solutions that work. or work very well.

they call attention to the problem, then demand distraction from any real attempt to solve it. claiming instead that their magic little cookbooks are the ultimate and only solutions needed or even possible.

that is where they, (at least 'western/aramaic religions' anyway) are being dishonest.

 

while not every denial of reason can be blamed on any one religion or one ideology, every wrong thing in this world, can be blamed, on denial of reason. (not nature, not a god or gods, but denial of reason)

it is not that there is nothing wrong with this world, there is plenty enough wrong with it today, it is rather there there is nothing that would be wrong with this world were it not for reason being denied. whatever religious, ideological or any other excuses for doing so, it is more generally greed and ego that motivate doing so. even greed is mostly ego.

religions do have it right about ego being the problem, and they've been better then anything else at drawing attention to it. but they really haven't offered solutions that work. or work very well.

they call attention to the problem, then demand distraction from any real attempt to solve it. claiming instead that their magic little cookbooks are the ultimate and only solutions needed or even possible.

that is where they, (at least 'western/aramaic religions' anyway) are being dishonest.

this is what makes christianity, in its more fanatical cults, quite simply a cult.

a very big, powerful cult. but still a cult.

 

Does the world require your reason?

As with anything they work to the degree you apply yourself. The only meaningful change is fundamental. What is practical in this regard is what you practice at. Ego being sense of identity is a personal issue and personal transformation of the ego in the sense of small self to the exalted self depends on personal conviction not on mass consumption. The self with an expanded sense of community reflects beneficially on the community as our protections extend naturally to those we call our own.

An egotistical or exclusionary application of principles not a fault of principles.

Self deluded but convinced superficially at least.

The process of acculturation makes it a cult.

Agreed there is popular culture but there are a few cultured.

 

i'm not the one denying there are things we don't know. things we may never know, things we might never be capable of knowing.

but there is one thing, we can and do know, and too much of belief is an excuse for denying, and christianity especially makes a point of demanding that we deny, and that is that you cannot avoid causing harm by denying reason.

and there's no "my", "yours", or anything personal to anyone about it. reason is reason, and that transcends personhood. of ANY person or personality.
(or 'belief' or lack of it)

 

How does christianity especially make a point of demanding that we deny? I would say you can't avoid harm period. If are going to claim reason as a means of making life better then the reasonable question is how to be truly helpful. First do not be part of the problem and it would be helpful on this point to identify what the problem is. Every problem is an authority problem, i.e. what is the answer or remedy or fix. A good guide for this purpose is to help those who ask for it and beyond that keep helping to yourself and for yourself.

Okay reason is reason;
Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices.
Seems reason requires the participation of the conscious. There is no reason at large however there is the way things function.

 

The fact of the matter is that the authority for scholarly work is unidentifiable as to where authoritative respects for human-social authority rules. Human nature is reasoned for responsible and irresponsible action by the ethical agent in the community. O.K.

I'd claim, Reason is not the reason in the logical set of infinite members belonging to an infinity of sets of arguments, the reason of the Reason. That way in Goedel's theorem it was the Finite that existed last allowing the expected human nature of arguments to change.

 

legitimate authority is peer review, by everyone.

because someone wrote a book a thousand years ago, or five thousand years ago, that does not make authority.

the court of reality judges authority.
harm is caused or prevented.

whatever else exists, whether it is in our hearts or out there in space some where or whatever, there is a right and wrong that has nothing to do with belief, or so called 'authority'. the causing and avoiding of the causing of harm is something everyone can observe.

this argument of "authority' is nonsense. it is just a way of making excuses for lying about harm.

 

Water is legitimate authority.

No argument here.

Things work or they don't. How do you feel about accidents?

Yeah, how much harm have you caused or prevented? It can't be weighed. Appearances can be deceiving. I don't see harm or preventing harm I see relative degrees of comfort daily for all of us. In this world all of us create temporary conditions for ourselves to the extent we are able and most of us are subject to conditions we feel are larger than our own efforts. To think you are the authority on right and wrong by virtue of whether your sentimentality tells you a thing is harmful or not upsets your balanced behavior for you will love one and hate the other. In the appearance of your own personality this is apparent as you are obviously well considered being an adherent of the value of reason, yet publicly stated peer review reports about you in this forum are frequently weighed toward the negative in tone. You display hostility toward one phenomenal version or another and people wonder why. I know why. It's because you see what are energetic phenomena in a split minded way based on your pleasant or unpleasant sensations and that is no more authoritatively directed than the behavior of a planarian.

And you are arguing for authority and boasting that you are the author of harm. Show me harm if you say it can be seen. Helpful is a matter of timing not of right or wrong fact.

 

Invariably one begins to change facts to suite theories rather than theories to suit facts. Are you at all familiar with Occam's Razor?

 

i am. Can you tease apart belief and knowledge? Since being is a matter of probabilities the dice are weighted toward a preponderance of evidence or you need to take many samples to identify trends. We must be convinced over time.

What was it you would point out about Occams Razor in regards to what I said?

 

Ahh... I see what you did there. But let me ask you this... can you constantly point out the ideals of self to justify your own beliefs even if it may not be absolute truth? That is, after all, how religious warfare starts... one group asserting their truth over another. Belief and knowledge are entirely separate, which is where Occam's Razor comes in - there are far more likely ways to explain what you profess in belief. And not only must many samples be taken, but also over a wide range

 

Thus redundant systems of taste touch sight smell and hearing. Make no mistake man is the only measure. I don't assert truth one over the other but share it with every one and everything. People can come and go as they please.
What are the far more likely ways to explain what I profess in belief. I say that it is fundamental in the formation of perception. I also say that consciousness exists for the purpose of finding direction and we always choose with a guide so I guess it best I modify my statement to say that belief is necessary for the formation of consensual perceptions.

 

actually no it isn't. at all.

 

Would you care to expound?

 

These guys are creating a whole lefty minority group identity around something that should be so simple. It's disgusting.

 

Well, they know their audience.

 

What guys, what leftist identity group, what should be simple and why is it disgusting?
And to neodude 1212 who are they that know their audience?

 

I think you are wrong, science definately contradicts religion. I think this quote from Sam Harris explains it very well:

"The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science."

In other words for science to move forward, we must discard religion (or keep changing our religions views when scientific evidence disproves it).

 

That's Sam Harris for you! He thinks that Abrahmic fundamentalism is the prototypical religion, and that religion is mainly about offering supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. How does the advance of science encroach on Buddhism, Taoism, or Hinduism? How, for that matter, does it encroach on mainline Protestant Christianity, or even Catholicism? Does Sam ask himself how it could be that the Big Bang theory could have been first proposed by a Catholic priest? Science is the gold standard in arriving at knowledge that's been rigourously tested. But science has its limitations. First of all, science is concerned with providing naturalistic explanations for phenomena. Nothing wrong with that. In my view, that's exactly what science should be doing. I wouldn't want a scientist to be entertaining the possibility that these phenomena were caused by demons, elves or wood sprites. Supernatural explanations tend to be blind alleys when it comes to acquiring testable knowledge that we can buld on and relate to other human knowldege. But if, in fact, the demons, elves or wood sprites were responsible, science would have a strong bias against knowing that. Second, science tends not to touch certain topics with a ten foot pole. Scientists make their reputations by securing research funding and publishing their findings in peer reveiwed journals. If a subject isn't easy to investigate or there is no funding for it, most scientists will avoid it like the plague. Sometimes, when they venture into such areas--like those studies on the power of prayer--the results are quite embarrassing (for the scientists) because of naive assumptions (that God would readily participate in the study by granting or denying prayer requests). There is a category of propositions about reality that are called "haunted universe" doctrines that are impossible to test empirically--e.g., the existence of ghosts or vampires. Sam Harris and logical positivists might be content to dismiss such things as "metaphysics", but they can't really disprove them. My judgment tells me to disregrd such things because I've never experienced them, and if I start believing in them, I might as well believe in anything. I operate on the basis of such rules of thumb as Occam's razor and Hume's notion that extraordinary happpenings require extraodinary evidence. But that's different from saying science has disproved them. Third, science is mainly concerned with avoiding Type 1 statistical errors--avoiding false positives, or accepting something as true when it isn't. But it's less effective when it comes to Type 2 errors--rejecting something that is actually true because the evidence is insufficient. Then there's the question of what counts as science. Does social science count? Is ancient history included? Hard scientists may turn up their noses, but sometimes the rough, dirty and unavoidbly impressionistic methods are the only ones available. Did Jesus exist? The sources for any historical figure of the period who was not a monarch or a priest are necessarily scant and subject to interpretation. We do our best with what there is to work with. Finally, science isn't of much help in providing meaning . We're on our own in figuring out the the Big Picture. In the last analysis, it's a judgment call. In my judgment, Sam is overconfident.