Religion is always selfish

[vertigo]

Ok well even though this has virtualy nothing to do with the point.

What you went on to say in that paragraph has nothing to do with the point. I don't care who said what, this is not about what someone or other said. The truth is independent from society or a majority or any one person. What Aristotle or anyone else had to say doesn't bother me in the least. I look and I see. I see scientists making their discoveries known, so that others might benefit. That is co-operation. I see free trade, which is co-operation.

However lets say that for arguments sake that you think this happends to be moraly reprehencible. (snip) There is no way that you can justifiy to me...

Here's the thing, Dragon. It really shouldn't be my job to justify reality to you. I shouldn't need to justify that the sky is blue, for instance. I should only need to point to the evidence and wait for you to see it. It is a matter of making known, not convincing. I can't convince anyone of anything ever. I can't convince you that eating will prolong your lifespan, but I can point out the evidence.

If you or anyone chooses to believe something until someone justifies otherwise, you or they will struggle in the world. The onus is on you to appraise reality, to seek out the truth. It's not a competition.

Similarly, I can't convince believers that faith is folly, I can only point to the evidence. I can't rehash the same arguments hoping that I will achieve the impossible, I won't. I am not about to tell you that nihilism is wrong because XXX, I really can't convince you of that. I will (and did) point to the fact that actions aren't arbitrary, some aid survival and some thwart survival. That is the end of that, make of it what you will.

I see you are studying philosophy. Your spelling is really bad; if I may say so, put effort into spelling the words correctly. I know it doesn't impact on the truth of an argument but people are fickle and may be prone to ignore you or form an overly negative opinion of you. Take this as a friendly suggestion.

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

I see you are studying philosophy. Your spelling is really bad; if I may say so, put effort into spelling the words correctly. I know it doesn't impact on the truth of an argument but people are fickle and may be prone to ignore you or form an overly negative opinion of you. Take this as a friendly suggestion.

This is true ill take the advice. But I still think that the views that you happen to hold are a bit pessimistic. Where as I am sure you have probably had bad times talking with some theists writing them all off as you have is not exactly fair. Plus wouldn't it be best to take the high road and keep trying to help them see reason.

[vertigo]

Plus wouldn't it be best to take the high road and keep trying to help them see reason.

I don't think it would be best to cut religion any slack. Religion is the problem; the only way to make things better is to get rid of it. Unfortunately, I can't do that by trying to convince people. I suppose we lead by example. I honestly think religion is a really bad thing so I should act accordingly.

I don't respect theists who 'live as they believe' because they believe in fairy tales and that is not a good thing. I respect people who try to understand the truth. I don't respect sheep who get spoon-fed in church. In fact, the only example of a theist I could possibly come to respect is one who doesn't attend any manner of church, one who quests to discover the truth on their own.

And if I found such a theist, I would then proceed to give atheistic arguments, the arguments would have an effect. As for the respect-mongers, I don't respect them one whit. I don't care how arbitrary they think their religion is, or how deserving of respect they think they are. When someone demands respect, watch out. Respect is given, one can't ask for respect. You earn respect by living honestly; they earn my avid disrespect. No doubt that's fine with them and so be it, but I won't back down just because society thinks otherwise.

PS: I am a tolerant person. I will tolerate theists but I will never respect them. Tolerance and respect are two very different things.

[The Reservoir Dog]

vertigo said:

PS: I am a tolerant person. I will tolerate theists but I will never respect them. Tolerance and respect are two very different things.

Tolerance and wisdom are two different things as well. Surely even you can see that there are things to be learned from theists.

[vertigo]

Tolerance and wisdom are two different things as well. Surely even you can see that there are things to be learned from theists.

The right question to ask is what there is to learn. If you mean that I might learn a better way to live, that begs the question. I can learn about Christianity by reading the Bible and what its skeptics have to say, and thereafter hearing the Christian answers. The 'my life is more fulfilling as a Christian' type arguments are entirely besides the point. The same goes for other religions.

If you mean that I might learn about virtuous behaviour, I learned the most about virtue from my interactions with Objectivists. In fact, I learned this because many Objectivists are very much not virtuous, even though they propose to be so.

If you mean I might find fellowship, I won't pay the price. The price for their fellowship is living dishonestly and I won't do that.

If you mean I might gain an understand of human behaviour, I very much agree that one should study all sorts of people. This I have certainly done. I went to the church youth-group at my Mother's request when I was younger, I certainly learned alot about the herd-mentality, willingness to fit in, etc. In fact, I went with a friend to a Mormon youth group and the comparison was most interesting.

If you mean Christians are as much pivotal members of society and should be treated as such, realise I don't put stock in authority. As far as I'm concerned, there is no authority on any subject. There are just people who know more or less. A person's observations are clouded by their own bias, if only for the nature of what they are observing. I always ask how the person came to be in the position to make that observation. Hearing from a Christian that their life is more fulfilling is really a moot point. It is more fulfilling for them than their life was before, but so what? They like their crutch, it helps according to them. I need no crutch.

Things should be kept in perspective. Could I learn a physical technique from a theist concerning some discipline? Yes, of course. I might learn how to drive from a theistic driving instructor, etc. I am actually doing the learning in that case, they only advise me of the rules of the road and what to do, not how to do it. They might tell me to turn the wheel, I discover how much to turn it, etc. The discovery is mine. They are not imparting wisdom per se.

Finally, I like to see the world through my own eyes. I don't like to rely on accounts of happenings, which is why I dislike learning about history. I don't read fiction unless there is some other benefit to read it. If I ask someone why they do something, I don't expect them to know why they do it, and if they tell me why, I don't trust their answer. When I ask, it is to understand how they think, why they think they do it. It is a study of their thinking, not their doing.

I don't expect a Christian to fully understand why they are active Christians, for example. To learn that, I observe them and I see all I need to. I don't expect Objectivists to know why (insofar as they do) they act dogmatically. To understand that, I observe them and see all I need to.

So yes, I can learn from theists and all other types of people, but if it is some technical discipline, I am doing the learning. If it is a matter of behaviour, I learn by observing them, not by asking them. If it is about 'the meaning of life' or such, I hear what everyone has to say, I draw comparisons between them to understand how people address this question, whereafter I am more experienced in answering it. The answer does not lie in any one person's essay or any one person's behaviour. If I am wise it is because I see the big picture, how all these people relate to each other, how their actions differ.

Just to recap my main point, people in general are there to learn from, but you can't learn from what they profess to know, you learn by what they do, how they act. As such, I learn from theists. I don't learn what they want me to learn, but that's the whole point.

[The Reservoir Dog]

vertigo said:

If it is about 'the meaning of life' or such, I hear what everyone has to say

Yes you hear what others have to say but do you listen? These are two completely different things after all.

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

Do you think that your arguments also apply to your self? Also why not study what people do as well as what they think. Have you ever heard the expression what i think is important but what I do is what makes me who I am?

[vertigo]

Resevoir Dog, I hear what they have to say. Obviously I am the director of my own action, I am responsible for what I choose to do so it is in my own interest to ensure I make the right decisions. Doing what someone else tells me to do is not a good thing unless I agree with them. Even in that case, I am doing what I want to do but what I want happens to be what they said.

People say one should listen, but what does that mean? I think it usually implies that you agree with what they say or do what they say. I certainly might not agree with what someone says, and I certainly might choose not to do what they say. I certainly might choose not to take their word as fact. I would call that listening, in that I do take in what they say. It's just that I won't act without taking responsibility for it.

It doesn't mean I don't value what they have to say, but I might not value what they say. I might value what they have to say but not act on it. I might act on it in the future, etc.

Dragon, the arguments do apply to myself. If you have a specific argument in mind, make your point.

I have studied both what people do and what they think, but obviously you first need to know what they do to know what they think. Also, they can't tell you what they think or why they do what they do. People lie even to themselves, they are much less likely to tell you the truth. Their thoughts are betrayed by their actions. I have always said you are what you do. I think you have some misconceptions of me.

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

I hear what they have to say. Obviously I am the director of my own action, I am responsible for what I choose to do so it is in my own interest to ensure I make the right decisions. Doing what someone else tells me to do is not a good thing unless I agree with them. Even in that case, I am doing what I want to do but what I want happens to be what they said.

People say one should listen, but what does that mean? I think it usually implies that you agree with what they say or do what they say. I certainly might not agree with what someone says, and I certainly might choose not to do what they say. I certainly might choose not to take their word as fact. I would call that listening, in that I do take in what they say. It's just that I won't act without taking responsibility for it.

Vertigo by your statement here you are saying that yes you hear what people are saying, in so much as it passes though your ears. However you are not listening. The approach you are taking is like a man who strands himself on an island so he wont have to listen to others view points and therefore his concepts will be all his own.

The problem with this idea is the same one monks face. You don't get any other view points so it is impossible to validate your claims. In other words I could blatantly state that the world is flat. If I take your approach I will always believe that the world is flat. Normally you could say that some one would go looking to see if they are right, but not with a person who holds the argument you seem to. With the concepts that you are holding in your head you would never try to reach for the truth because the ideas you hold are to you self evident. Also even if you found a person who knew the truth you would never believe what he said.

Frankly vertigo your concepts are that of a child who says its true because I say it is true and damn what the rest of the world happens to see it is true. Your argument is kind of like that of a child with an imaginary friend "I see him so he is real." Your views on history are a good showing of this. True one should approach history with a sort of skepticism, but at the same time it is vital to understanding the world today so that we don't make the same mistakes. Frankly I think the views you happen to have placed your trust in are childish and unhealthy much less wise.

[vertigo]

Dragon, as always you are entitled to your opinion.

Realise something though. A person doesn't need to believe something to choose to act on a certain premise. I know the world is round, I have seen the evidence myself by looking at the horizon. I haven't been to Finland but I trust that it is where the atlas says it is. I consider that knowledge. I am as certain as can be that Finland is where I think it is.

However, people's opinions are inevitably biased and there is always some doubt in accounts. Obviously where you have a preponderance of corroborating accounts, that would lead one to consider it factual.

As I said, I listen insofar as I take in what they say and weigh it up. I don't consider it a duty to believe what people say, in fact I consider it a matter entirely of my own concern. Almost nothing should be accepted at face value, however one can choose to act on something which one is not sure about.

For instance, someone told me once the silencer on my car was blocked. It had made that noise for years so I didn't think it was a correct diagnosis, I thought it was just how the exhaust sounded. I didn't do anything about immediately, but some time in the future I took off the back resonator to see what affect it had. The car went much better. Consequently, I had a straight pipe fitted in lieu of the resonator.

Too many people misunderstand the present. Realise that you can have direct access to the evidence of the present, but only second-hand accounts of the past. History is according to historians whereas people are living today. I would rather see things happen first-hand.

It is not the case that I have 'happened to place' trust in my views, it has come about through my learning the futility of prematurely believing what people say. Inevitably, when you take what people say as fact you accept a potentially distorted view of the world which may or may not be true. This is true in any field. All I try to do is to cut the wheat from the chaff. I take what people say under advisement.

Just so you know, I do get other viewpoints when people discuss something with me. I get other viewpoints all the time. I just don't give them credence a priori. I do enter into discussion all the time, you might have seen that. It is because I want to hear other views.

Your calling my approach childish does not entice me in any way to change. What adults predominantly do is not necessarily better, but I don't know that your evaluation is even correct. Furthermore, I don't at all see that it makes a difference whether children show similar traits to me or not. I don't live according to what other people do. I don't try to emulate them so as to be 'good'. I look and I see for myself.

I certainly don't think my views are unhealthy, if you wish to qualify that statement, please do so. I wish to hear your opinion on what constitutes a healthy approach to life. I don't want to find a 'wise' way to live from others and then to live that way, to emulate people who have gone before. I want to live honestly and that means seeking out the truth.

[Pilgrim]

While I deplore televangelists such as Benny Hinn, the Christian public contributes more assistance to the poor than any other religious grouping. World Vision is not a Moslem or atheistic organization.

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

Pilgrim thank you for getting us back to the argument at hand. It is true what you say, that Christians do contribute a large amount of assistance. However the question is whether or not their help is in the end only going to help their own selves. For instance is their helping the poor an act of actually caring about another human being, or is it only so that they can appear pious? Is it so that they won't be the only family on the street that doesn't have cans of food in a box on their drive way for pick up? Is it so that they can get to heaven faster? If it happens to be any of these then their helping really has no meaning beyond the fact that some one will eat tonight. It dose nothing to validate their religion, or to that manner their own righteousness. In the end is it for others or for them selves is the question.

[vertigo]

Belief implies action, which is why we judge intent. We distinguish between accidents and intentional/reckless wrongs. Religious belief implies certain actions; you might appreciate some of the actions but judge the intent.

[Pilgrim]

As I said on another board, atheists believe an authority no higher than themselves. Christians relegate the matter of intent to God, the final judge, a higher authority. There are many Christians who give and do not want their identity known. Their are non-christians too I think, who do not want their identity known when they give. I do agree with you that human beings generally like to be noticed for doing good things. Christ made an issue about that when He dealt with the Pharisees in His day. But as finite beings, we cannot judge intent when gifts are given anonymously.

However James 2:14-26 is clear that works is the result of a right faith. How would you be able to say categorically that the motivation of every believer who gives is to be noticed? There are exceptions of genuine love whether seen or unseen.

[Pilgrim]

My previous message was a reply to vertigo and dragon, not maverick