|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 11, 2017 21:03:57 GMT
If society was "intolerant of illiteracy" then it would be illegal to be illiterate. Compulsory education isn't because we don't "tolerate" a lack of education, it's to ensure parents give their kids a fair shot at education - nothing can force the kid to absorb it. The most they can do is fail the child.
Further, this "why should we tolerate" logic is flawed as hell. Why should we tolerate any belief that isn't empirically demonstrable? Why tolerate people who think vaccines are harmful and want to make their own choice about what goes into their kid? Why tolerate people who seek out holistic treatments, fortunetelling, etc? Gosh, I can show all sorts of harmful results of unchecked capitalism - should we tolerate people who vote for it? I can show all sorts of ghastly scenarios in which religion and the religious was quelled by the state - the totalitarian enforcement of it kills thousands. Should we tolerate people who refuse to tolerate religion?
And yet we do. Why? Because it's free fucking society, that's why. Honestly, your ongoing and more-than-slinky creeping around the edges of why people basically shouldn't be allowed to possess those beliefs is pretty repugnant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2017 21:35:19 GMT
If society was "intolerant of illiteracy" then it would be illegal to be illiterate. Compulsory education isn't because we don't "tolerate" a lack of education, it's to ensure parents give their kids a fair shot at education - nothing can force the kid to absorb it. The most they can do is fail the child. Further, this "why should we tolerate" logic is flawed as hell. Why should we tolerate any belief that isn't empirically demonstrable? Why tolerate people who think vaccines are harmful and want to make their own choice about what goes into their kid? Why tolerate people who seek out holistic treatments, fortunetelling, etc? Gosh, I can show all sorts of harmful results of unchecked capitalism - should we tolerate people who vote for it? I can show all sorts of ghastly scenarios in which religion and the religious was quelled by the state - the totalitarian enforcement of it kills thousands. Should we tolerate people who refuse to tolerate religion? And yet we do. Why? Because it's free fucking society, that's why. Honestly, your ongoing and more-than-slinky creeping around the edges of why people basically shouldn't be allowed to possess those beliefs is pretty repugnant. Yes Ciné the OP is based upon a flawed premise Considering its author that's hardly surprising. If this disingenuous shit would actually say what he meant then his OP would read: "Tolerance of things people believe that I don't? Why?" What he has failed to understand is that asking why people should tolerate what others believe are the words of a facist. Those who question tolerance are usually the intolerant. He is every bit as bad as the fundamentalists who want to control what people believe,he is just another side of the same diseased coin. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Mar 11, 2017 21:48:54 GMT
If society was "intolerant of illiteracy" then it would be illegal to be illiterate. Compulsory education isn't because we don't "tolerate" a lack of education, it's to ensure parents give their kids a fair shot at education - nothing can force the kid to absorb it. The most they can do is fail the child. Further, this "why should we tolerate" logic is flawed as hell. Why should we tolerate any belief that isn't empirically demonstrable? Why tolerate people who think vaccines are harmful and want to make their own choice about what goes into their kid? Why tolerate people who seek out holistic treatments, fortunetelling, etc? Gosh, I can show all sorts of harmful results of unchecked capitalism - should we tolerate people who vote for it? I can show all sorts of ghastly scenarios in which religion and the religious was quelled by the state - the totalitarian enforcement of it kills thousands. Should we tolerate people who refuse to tolerate religion? And yet we do. Why? Because it's free fucking society, that's why. Honestly, your ongoing and more-than-slinky creeping around the edges of why people basically shouldn't be allowed to possess those beliefs is pretty repugnant. Yes Ciné the OP is based upon a flawed premise Considering its author that's hardly surprising. If this disingenuous shit would actually say what he meant then his OP would read: "Tolerance of things people believe that I don't? Why?" What he has failed to understand is that asking why people should tolerate what others believe are the words of a facist. Those who question tolerance are usually the intolerant. He is every bit as bad as the fundamentalists who want to control what people believe,he is just another side of the same diseased coin. I agree with you both. |
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
 
|
Post by althea on Mar 12, 2017 6:36:43 GMT
Tolerance is part and parcel of living in a free and secular nation, if you want to do so in a peaceful manner. If you have an issue with western countries with constitutional rights to freedom of religion, you could always go somewhere more in line with your own attitudes toward religion. You might like China. They have problems with religion too, and people who think and say the wrong things instead of the right things. They'd probably even agree with you, that such right things and wrong things are objectively determined and subjective personal views don't enter into it at all. I think you're confusing tolerance with silence. I'm not suggesting attacking religious people or banning them or outlawing the practice.
I am suggesting speaking out against it, peacefully.
They have the constitutional right of freedom of religion. They also have the right to be told that their religion is largely a set of irrational beliefs.
There's a fine line between speaking out against religion and religious belief, and inciting hatred. Trying to engage in a rational discussion about religious beliefs is fine, and there should be more of it...even if the point is just creating a dialogue between different groups and removing the fear and ignorance that often separate them. Look at the difference between the way we engage Christians when we criticise their religion, and Muslims, for example. Or the way we worry about the tiny number of Muslims but not the also tiny number of Buddhists (there are twice as many Buddhists as Muslims here, but no one is scared they're going to impose their religion on the rest of us.) A lot of people have an issue with buying halal products, but don't care whether or not they're kosher. Apparently, it matters what prayers you say over an animal before it is slaughtered to people of entirely different religions or none at all. I'm not sure why anyone but the Muslims and the Jews care, personally. I have no problem at all with criticising certain parts of religion (criticising other parts can be pointless, in the sense that it changes nothing at all) but when it comes down to "all religion is bad because I said so" all you're doing is creating discord by pushing your own beliefs onto others and putting minority groups offside rather than engaging in helpful discussion. A lot of times religion has as much to do with cultural heritage and ethnicity as it does with theism and actual belief in gods anyway. ...I just think that if you want to convince people to take a more rational and evidence based approach to their life, you'd be more persuasive if you approached it differently. Telling people they're irrational because you personally disagree with their fundamental belief system isn't any more helpful than walking around telling people they're fat and ugly because you don't personally find them attractive. It's not going to affect any thing or any one in a positive way, all it will accomplish is making people feel negatively toward themselves if they agree, or negatively toward you if they do not. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 12, 2017 14:29:01 GMT
This is what you listed as a good thing? It's completely delusional and this qualifies as a good thing to you.? As opposed to being realistic. Why is something not being delusional or realistic neccesarily a good thing? Imagine there is a world in which people's beliefs cause them to live in an illusion, another world if you will, or a matrix. Now imagine the "real world" is a dreadful place, it is literally hell, as desribed in the bible but infintely times worse.The only thing stoping someone from being subjected to such a thing is their delusional beliefs about reality because as I have said for whatever reason their beliefs about reality determine what world they live in. Also imagine there is a man who for whatever reason is able to avoid going to hell even though he knows the truth about reality. He is able to enter people's illusions and talk to them, he wants them to know the truth. Lets say he convinces someone and they "wake up" from the illusion and find themselves in the "real world" i.e hell. He will now experience unimaginable pain for infinity. By your logic this is a good thing, he is no longer holding delusional beliefs. So clearly someone not holding delusional beliefs isnt a good thing just because they dont hold delusional beliefs. Actions are moral insofar as the minimise harm. If someone believing in a hair pink monster lives in their mind gives them great emotional comfort then the belief is a good thing and to try to take it away from him/her is unethical. So instead of justifying delusion as good in the world we experience, you needed to fantasize that the real world is actually a living hell. And this is the only way you could make it sound like a good thing?
By your logic, any legitimate crazy person is also a good thing. By your logic if everybody believed contradicting fantasies, this would be a good thing. I spend my life looking for pots of gold under rainbows, you could think all frogs are chocolate like in Harry Potter, and somebody could think they're Namor and try to swim the Pacific Ocean. Everybody could spend their lives chasing different fantasies, but it's all better than a living hell, so it's a good thing?
Why would you not agree, that instead of insanity, we all work together to determine how reality actually works, as best we can? Why continue to keep justifying delusional with ridiculous scenerios like this one.
And I'd also like to point out the stupidity of this scenario, in that god must not be all powerful if he couldn't be more convincing the save people from this situation. He's still just providing visions and essentially not caring if anybody gets the message.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 12, 2017 14:46:51 GMT
There's a fine line between speaking out against religion and religious belief, and inciting hatred. Trying to engage in a rational discussion about religious beliefs is fine, and there should be more of it...even if the point is just creating a dialogue between different groups and removing the fear and ignorance that often separate them. Look at the difference between the way we engage Christians when we criticise their religion, and Muslims, for example. Or the way we worry about the tiny number of Muslims but not the also tiny number of Buddhists (there are twice as many Buddhists as Muslims here, but no one is scared they're going to impose their religion on the rest of us.) A lot of people have an issue with buying halal products, but don't care whether or not they're kosher. Apparently, it matters what prayers you say over an animal before it is slaughtered to people of entirely different religions or none at all. I'm not sure why anyone but the Muslims and the Jews care, personally. I have no problem at all with criticising certain parts of religion (criticising other parts can be pointless, in the sense that it changes nothing at all) but when it comes down to "all religion is bad because I said so" all you're doing is creating discord by pushing your own beliefs onto others and putting minority groups offside rather than engaging in helpful discussion. A lot of times religion has as much to do with cultural heritage and ethnicity as it does with theism and actual belief in gods anyway. ...I just think that if you want to convince people to take a more rational and evidence based approach to their life, you'd be more persuasive if you approached it differently. Telling people they're irrational because you personally disagree with their fundamental belief system isn't any more helpful than walking around telling people they're fat and ugly because you don't personally find them attractive. It's not going to affect any thing or any one in a positive way, all it will accomplish is making people feel negatively toward themselves if they agree, or negatively toward you if they do not. I'm simply stating that religious beliefs have not been justified, and thus they are irrational. I follow that up by asking, why anybody accepts them as true? It's just an honest statement.
If it were any other belief, like saying the world is flat, you would have no problem with me questioning it. And yet, when it comes to religion, you think we have to be very understanding. We do not have to continue to approach religions as though the beliefs are intellectually acceptable. Let's just be honest for once.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 12, 2017 20:18:02 GMT
Your questions are the issue - until you can justify why working together to determine how reality actually works is an objective goal supported by empirical evidence, all you're doing is preaching a faith-based belief system, no different to that espoused by religious theists.
It's not about which position you take but rather your ability to use evidence to justify it - and you can't form a argument to justify your beliefs. It's not abut the legitimacy of your beliefs themselves, but about the legitimacy of the argument supporting them.
You're no more than a preacher trying to convert people - and, as with all preachers trying to convert people, you're going to need more than your personal beliefs and values to convince others of their merits and objectivity.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 13, 2017 20:27:08 GMT
Why is something not being delusional or realistic neccesarily a good thing? Imagine there is a world in which people's beliefs cause them to live in an illusion, another world if you will, or a matrix. Now imagine the "real world" is a dreadful place, it is literally hell, as desribed in the bible but infintely times worse.The only thing stoping someone from being subjected to such a thing is their delusional beliefs about reality because as I have said for whatever reason their beliefs about reality determine what world they live in. Also imagine there is a man who for whatever reason is able to avoid going to hell even though he knows the truth about reality. He is able to enter people's illusions and talk to them, he wants them to know the truth. Lets say he convinces someone and they "wake up" from the illusion and find themselves in the "real world" i.e hell. He will now experience unimaginable pain for infinity. By your logic this is a good thing, he is no longer holding delusional beliefs. So clearly someone not holding delusional beliefs isnt a good thing just because they dont hold delusional beliefs. Actions are moral insofar as the minimise harm. If someone believing in a hair pink monster lives in their mind gives them great emotional comfort then the belief is a good thing and to try to take it away from him/her is unethical. So instead of justifying delusion as good in the world we experience, you needed to fantasize that the real world is actually a living hell. And this is the only way you could make it sound like a good thing?
By your logic, any legitimate crazy person is also a good thing. By your logic if everybody believed contradicting fantasies, this would be a good thing. I spend my life looking for pots of gold under rainbows, you could think all frogs are chocolate like in Harry Potter, and somebody could think they're Namor and try to swim the Pacific Ocean. Everybody could spend their lives chasing different fantasies, but it's all better than a living hell, so it's a good thing?
Why would you not agree, that instead of insanity, we all work together to determine how reality actually works, as best we can? Why continue to keep justifying delusional with ridiculous scenerios like this one.
And I'd also like to point out the stupidity of this scenario, in that god must not be all powerful if he couldn't be more convincing the save people from this situation. He's still just providing visions and essentially not caring if anybody gets the message.
It was a hypothethical scenario to prove a point. Nothing I said suggests that believing fantasies is neccesarily a good thing. I said believing fantasies is a good thing if it minimises harm no matter how crazy it is. Lmfao IT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL SCENERARIO YOU FUCKING RETARD. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 14, 2017 0:15:46 GMT
It was a hypothethical scenario to prove a point. Nothing I said suggests that believing fantasies is neccesarily a good thing. I said believing fantasies is a good thing if it minimises harm no matter how crazy it is. Lmfao IT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL SCENERARIO YOU FUCKING RETARD. The problem is you said if the fantasy minimizes harm and your hypothetical scenario doesn't demonstrate that because IT'S FICTIONAL YOU FUCKING RETARD.
I love you went all caps without realizing your point isn't valid because its imaginary.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 14, 2017 16:27:54 GMT
It was a hypothethical scenario to prove a point. Nothing I said suggests that believing fantasies is neccesarily a good thing. I said believing fantasies is a good thing if it minimises harm no matter how crazy it is. Lmfao IT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL SCENERARIO YOU FUCKING RETARD. The problem is you said if the fantasy minimizes harm and your hypothetical scenario doesn't demonstrate that because IT'S FICTIONAL YOU FUCKING RETARD.
I love you went all caps wjithout realizing your point isn't valid because its imaginary.
Jesus christ I have never met someone so fucking stupid in my entire life. What is your IQ? I am not even joking I am genuinly interested. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 14, 2017 17:17:18 GMT
The problem is you said if the fantasy minimizes harm and your hypothetical scenario doesn't demonstrate that because IT'S FICTIONAL YOU FUCKING RETARD.
I love you went all caps wjithout realizing your point isn't valid because its imaginary.
Jesus christ I have never met someone so fucking stupid in my entire life. What is your IQ? I am not even joking I am genuinly interested. You haven't realized you didn't make a point.
You tried using a fictional scenario to justify a completely delusional perspective of reality as a good thing.
If you want to try using a reality based case, such as lies we tell to people to avoid them learning of something that will upset them, then sure, I agree we do that. But even in those cases it's difficult to justify that the person is necessarily better off for being unaware of the reality of the situation being hidden.
Instead of name calling, I would rather you try to make a rational case for your point. When you realize you're wrong here, will you call yourself fucking stupid as well? I think that would be fair.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 14, 2017 21:26:44 GMT
Jesus christ I have never met someone so fucking stupid in my entire life. What is your IQ? I am not even joking I am genuinly interested. You haven't realized you didn't make a point.
You tried using a fictional scenario to justify a completely delusional perspective of reality as a good thing.
If you want to try using a reality based case, such as lies we tell to people to avoid them learning of something that will upset them, then sure, I agree we do that. But even in those cases it's difficult to justify that the person is necessarily better off for being unaware of the reality of the situation being hidden.
Instead of name calling, I would rather you try to make a rational case for your point. When you realize you're wrong here, will you call yourself fucking stupid as well? I think that would be fair.
You are the poster boy of the Dunning-Kruger effect |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 15, 2017 1:11:03 GMT
You are the poster boy of the Dunning-Kruger effect Then demonstrate a god exists and I'll stop saying there's no reason to believe in one.
Until then, you're intellectually impotent.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 15, 2017 17:37:56 GMT
You are the poster boy of the Dunning-Kruger effect Then demonstrate a god exists and I'll stop saying there's no reason to believe in one.
Until then, you're intellectually impotent.
What the fuck? This discussion isnt even about the existence of a god. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 16, 2017 1:40:35 GMT
Then demonstrate a god exists and I'll stop saying there's no reason to believe in one.
Until then, you're intellectually impotent.
What the fuck? This discussion isnt even about the existence of a god. The entire thread is about there being no need for a tolerance of religious delusion.
If it helps not to confuse you, then I'll rephrase. Demonstrate any delusional idea exists and I'll stop saying there's no reason to believe it.
Until then, you're still just trying to justify delusion.
|
|
