There's no such thing as objectivity (so I may as well be religious).

[monkey0506]

It's not exactly "original", but there is a school of thought that true objectivity can never truly exist. As human beings it is in our nature to allow our emotions and past experience to influence our thinking. This makes objectivity seem like an unobtainable goal.

Seeing as the discussion is going in that direction anyway, we may as well make this about religion. If someone (read as: me) was raised in a home with general Christian beliefs, is it possible for them to make an objective decision in favor of Christian beliefs? Or would the only truly objective decision be to abandon the traditions and turn to atheism or perhaps another religion? Of course there's also the possibility that you're all going to say no one could objectively choose religion to begin with, but that would be to entirely discount personal experience. What, personal experience can't be objective? Wouldn't that mean that all observation and scientific research is completely bunk anyway?

Well, guess I'd better stick to religion then.

[Calin Leafshade]

Science is, partially at least, the study of removing bias and subjectivity. We try to *measure* things rather than make judgments on things. We don't say the world isnt 6000 years old because we think thats about right. We say that because all our measurements tell us so.

Epistomologically though, no. Humans can never be objective because we don't have an objective lens through which to view reality. We are, and will forever be, fundamentally disconnected from the universe. Science accepts this fact and does the best it can to mitigate it's effects. This is not a plus for the abrahamic religions though because they make actual claims about the nature of reality (all powerful god and creation and so forth) rather than some other religions which merely advise us on how to deal with our relationship to the underlying reality from which we shall forever be oblivious.

[Khris]

Raising a kid in a religious household is like brainwashing them. Children cannot tell the difference between advice based on reality and advice based on the specific religion of the household. Even if true objectivity were possible, those children are the least likely to make objective decisions about faith. If everybody you have ever known for the first fifteen years of your life thinks hell is a real place, why wouldn't you? And psychologists will tell you that the constant reinforcements of those beliefs, the endless repetition in church and your social life, will cement them in your mind.
If you actually think that at some point, you objectively chose religion, you're doubly wrong. You didn't choose, much less objectively.
Unless of course you have just told us that if you had grown up in Iraq, in a muslim household, at some point you'd have made an objective decision to be a Mormon. Is this actually what you believe? Don't forget that the Joseph Smith story is obviously a cheap scam to everybody who wasn't raised Mormon.

Parents who understand atheism and critical thinking don't try to raise atheists by indoctrinating them, they try to raise free thinkers, skeptics, rational people. They try to give them the proper tools to come up with their own conclusions. Religious people simply don't do this. After all, they're protecting their kid from going to hell.
Science is the closest we can come to objectivity.

Well, guess I'd better stick to religion then.

Sounds like you're conceding that NOMA is bullshit. Be consistent though: please give up all technology, don't get any more vaccinations or other medical care, and go live in a hut without power or phone lines.

[Problem]

Maybe it's true that there's no real objectivity, at least not for us humans. Everything gets filtered through my senses and my brain. So what I see and what I feel isn't necessarily true. But that doesn't mean that science is nonsense, because there's a little more to science than looking at things and guessing. And obviously science has got a few things right - otherwise we wouldn't be sitting in front of our computers to discuss these things on a web forum.

[Anian]

So instead of trying to be objective, you say it's better to trust:
A) a bunch of people who have over history been proven to have done awful things with motivation of greed and personal gain, by butchering, starting wars, burning people alive, stealing, promoting actions that cause the spread of STD-s etc. Not to mention all the riches they've gathered over the centuries by taxing states and poor people to build giant monuments to God while all around them people died in poverty?
B) a book that has it's origin in about 1500 years and contains stories passed on from generations of sheep herders who were mostly illiterate. A book containing stories of magic and floods and miracles that all not seem to have happened in the last 1000 years even though much worse things have? A book that has more ambiguous interpretations through that party from section A, than anything else in the history of mankind...

Choosing that and so much more decide what is right and wrong instead of thinking for yourself, because you have doubt about your objectivity!? Is that what God or Jesus or whatever authority or higher being would have wanted? Man, if you could have rational discussion with religious people, then really there would be no religious people.

[monkey0506]

We don't say the world isnt 6000 years old because we think thats about right. We say that because all our measurements tell us so.

Right. I don't believe that I ever said the Earth is only 6000 years old. The Bible doesn't either.

If everybody you have ever known for the first fifteen years of your life thinks hell is a real place, why wouldn't you?

Interesting argument to use against someone who doesn't believe in "Hell" in the traditional sense.

And psychologists will tell you that the constant reinforcements of those beliefs, the endless repetition in church and your social life, will cement them in your mind.

Because endless repetition of atheist viewpoints isn't equally capable of the same effect?

If you actually think that at some point, you objectively chose religion, you're doubly wrong. You didn't choose, much less objectively.

Sorry, but I did choose, objectively. I objectively observed the results of various experiments throughout my life, and the results were invariable. Even when they didn't match the results I may have been expecting (or have been told to expect), I was still able to state the results that occurred.

Unless of course you have just told us that if you had grown up in Iraq, in a muslim household, at some point you'd have made an objective decision to be a Mormon. Is this actually what you believe?

Were I raised Muslim and later given the opportunity to study the LDS doctrine, I know for a fact that I would have converted. It is the most logically correct gospel doctrine on the face of the planet.

Don't forget that the Joseph Smith story is obviously a cheap scam to everybody who wasn't raised Mormon.

If you'd equally label every religious faction that exists as "a cheap scam" then I could see where you're coming from. Encouraging people to start actually following the teachings of Christ instead of bickering about the correct interpretation of a verse of scripture definitely seems like a huge scam. Especially when it's the only religious faction that will openly declare that every religious faction (including atheism, which is a religious faction) has some degree of truth.

Parents who understand atheism and critical thinking don't try to raise atheists by indoctrinating them, they try to raise free thinkers, skeptics, rational people. They try to give them the proper tools to come up with their own conclusions. Religious people simply don't do this. After all, they're protecting their kid from going to hell.

I would like to see your research that proves that religious people are more discouraging of their children being free thinking or rational people compared to atheists. Oh, and in case you think it would be clever to send a link to LMGTFY, I'll point out that when I did it I was being asked for research about an unrelated topic which I had never mentioned.

Science is the closest we can come to objectivity.

Why on earth would you think that I oppose science? Science and religion are not at odds with each other. In fact, they work together perfectly.

Well, guess I'd better stick to religion then.

Sounds like you're conceding that NOMA is bullshit. Be consistent though: please give up all technology, don't get any more vaccinations or other medical care, and go live in a hut without power or phone lines.

Sounds like you're conceding that your understanding of sarcasm is cattle feces. Also, I'll point out again that many biblical laws were superseded or abolished entirely within the Bible itself. Also, NOMA is bs.

So instead of trying to be objective,

I don't oppose objectivity. I live for it.

you say it's better to trust:
A) a bunch of people who have over history been proven to have done awful things with motivation of greed and personal gain, by butchering, starting wars, burning people alive, stealing, promoting actions that cause the spread of STD-s etc. Not to mention all the riches they've gathered over the centuries by taxing states and poor people to build giant monuments to God while all around them people died in poverty?

I'm sorry, I never said I was Catholic...because I'm not. This point bears no relevance or semblance to the religious faction which I prescribe.

B) a book that has it's origin in about 1500 years and contains stories passed on from generations of sheep herders who were mostly illiterate. A book containing stories of magic and floods and miracles that all not seem to have happened in the last 1000 years even though much worse things have? A book that has more ambiguous interpretations through that party from section A, than anything else in the history of mankind...

The Bible itself is primarily a collection of journals and personal letters, though insofar as it's translated correctly it has never been shown to be incorrect (because it can't be). I'm curious what "magic" you're referring to, unless you mean those acts carried out by street magicians claiming to be acting in the name of God, though they weren't. There are many documented cases of modern day miraculous events that are overlooked simply because science isn't able to explain them. Thousands of people have documented cases of miraculously being cured or healed of disease, even in modern times. As for the unrelated misinterpretations of "that party from section A", that's ties in to my assertion that my religious faction is the most logically correct.

Choosing that and so much more decide what is right and wrong instead of thinking for yourself, because you have doubt about your objectivity!? Is that what God or Jesus or whatever authority or higher being would have wanted?

Why does following a certain faith mean I am incapable of thinking for myself? In actuality, I am very cautious about following religious practices prior to obtaining an objective understanding of why I am doing so. Which is the way God (the Father) and Jesus (the Son) would want it.

Man, if you could have rational discussion with religious people, then really there would be no religious people.

Man, if you could have a rational discussion with atheists, then really there would be no atheists.

[Khris]

(including atheism, which is a religious faction)

As long as you actually think that's the case, arguing with you is a complete waste of time. Don't you want to be taken seriously? Stop trolling.

[monkey0506]

Don't you want to be taken seriously?

Not if I can help it.

Never take me seriously. Unless I'm being serious. Seriously.

If anyone took me seriously then I seriously wouldn't be able to talk seriously about any topic without fear of being taken seriously. This would destroy my ability to objectively state the truth of my observations.

[waheela]

Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God claims.

Some really interesting stuff being said in this thread. These kind of conversations are my favorite. However, they usually don't really lead to anything good. Typically, both parties leave the discussion angrier and more strongly-rooted in their beliefs than before. I feel like these conversations are useless unless both parties can come to the table with an open mind and the conversation doesn't devolve into heated, back-and-forth arguments of who's more stupid.

I actually changed my mind about a lot of stuff after having some calm, in-depth discussions about religion (I wasn't really Christian, more of a spiritual agnostic). I also did a lot of research on my own. Stuff like The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty really helped me solidify what my beliefs were and why. If you're spiritual and want to hear different viewpoints, I'd recommend it.

This episode was really good, although the discussion gets pretty heated in parts.

[Armageddon]

If there's one thing I've learned no one will ever change their beliefs unless they do it on their own.

[monkey0506]

change their beliefs

Khris has openly stated that this is impossible. Which means that it's impossible for me to choose to stop believing. Also, Journey made it impossible for me to stop believin' even before I was born. So.

Waheela raises a good point that this thread probably isn't going anywhere good. Although I won't (read as: can't?) change my beliefs out of anything that comes of this thread, I do also find it interesting. Despite what some might think, I actually do a fair amount of research into other faiths.

(including atheism, which is a religious faction)

As long as you actually think that's the case, arguing with you is a complete waste of time.

I maintain this assertion based on the fact that "not believing in [something]" is syntactic sugar for "believing [something] is false". Atheists believe that God does not exist, therefore atheism is a representation of their religious faith.

21 And now as I said concerning faithâ€"faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

This definition of faith even applies to atheist's faith that God does not exist. In a manner of speaking, "atheists do not have a perfect knowledge of things, therefore atheists hope that God does not exist (for he is not seen), which is true" (from the atheist manifesto, presumably).

[waheela]

I maintain this assertion based on the fact that "not believing in [something]" is syntactic sugar for "believing [something] is false". Atheists believe that God does not exist, therefore atheism is a representation of their religious faith.

Hmmm, I think I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure how plausible it is to say that a lack of a belief in something is a religion.

[monkey0506]

That really depends on the definition of the term religion. Sure, it has a certain connotation about someone who prescribes to a belief in deity, but that doesn't mean it's the only appropriate or applicable definition.

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

1: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...

Atheism is a set of beliefs pertaining to the non-existence of God (gods, etc.), so it's not beyond reason to say that atheism is a religious faction.

[waheela]

As I mentioned before though, I wouldn't really say atheism is a "set of beliefs". The only thing that makes you an atheist is not accepting proof of God claims as true.

If we go by your standards of religion though, couldn't you make almost anything a religion? If you're a Democrat or Republican, does that make you part of a religion?

I think we may just have to agree to disagree on how we want to define religion.

[miguel]

Raising a kid in a religious household is like brainwashing them.

Well, Khris, raising a kid is much more than that. It's the hardest job in the world and it really doesn't matter what religion the parents follow or don't follow. In fact, your assumptions are pretty much old-story, ignorant hate-rants against religious people are so gone this days that I think you're just trying to pick up a fight.
Monkey has told you that religious people cope pretty well with science, I have told you that religious people do think about it when they choose to follow a religion. It looks to me that you have the opportunity to talk about religion with 2 religious persons but refuse to do it, instead you launch attacks that aren't even interesting points of view.
Monkey is not a "easy" guy to read, maybe I'm not as well. But I don't see hostility towards atheists from him or me. And that has a name: respect for other people beliefs.
I have a opinion about atheists as well, you know? What I do is to think first and realize that I'm on a computer game forum and 99% of the people here aren't religious. Therefore I restrain myself from commenting. I respect.

[Khris]

Khris has openly stated that is impossible.

I said you cannot consciously decide what you believe. I'm talking about how ex-religious people lost their faith: they didn't wake up and decide to abandon their faith, what happens is they actually read the bible, or attend seminary, or talk to atheists at college, or listen to atheist podcasts, whatever. At some point, a certain percentage will start to doubt. If they continue this road, and for instance discover that some of the things they believe are propaganda ("atheists hate god"), they can lose their faith. Most ex-religious people will tell you that they remember what it was that actually made them change their minds.
You're free to call this entire process "actively change one's beliefs", but I was talking about the fact that in they end, they couldn't help but lose faith.

I maintain this assertion based on the fact that "not believing in [something]" is syntactic sugar for "believing [something] is false". Atheists believe that God does not exist, therefore atheism is a representation of their religious faith.

So not collecting stamps is a hobby? And being a non-smoker will give you lung cancer? Being allergic to nuts makes you a fan of "not nuts"? My favorite food is "I'm not hungry"?
I'll put it another way: To me, Religion is about accepting supernatural claims about the nature of the universe. I have no good reason to accept any supernatural claims, which is why I'm a skeptic and thus an atheist. I reject religious beliefs, because many of them can shown to be false (for instance creationism).
How this makes me religious, how the rejection of faith makes my position a faith, I don't see.

If you mean to say that I as well accept claims based on faith (for instance the theory that germs cause disease), then well, I guess I do. I wouldn't call it faith though, because faith is believing something to be true without a good reason. And I actively try to get rid of beliefs like that, to suspend judgment until I have all the facts. And I don't need faith to accept the germ theory of disease as true (for now, until it is disproved).

Another good example is what a jury votes in a trial. When the jury isn't convinced that there's sufficient evidence that the defendant is guilty, they don't vote "innocent", they vote "not guilty". Some of them might think he's actually innocent, but they must address whether he's guilty or not.
"-But if he's not guilty, he's innocent!"
Not necessarily, if he actually did it, but there's insufficient evidence, he's not guilty according to the law, he's not innocent either though.

I'm merely stating that the evidence doesn't suggest God's existence. So I don't accept the god hypothesis as true. I'm not convinced there's no god either, and according to my own standards I can never be, because it's impossible to prove a negative (unless it is logically impossible).

Whatever I do, it's the antithesis of religious faith. Calling it that is just inflammatory, and is completely missing the point.


Since you maintain that you objectively chose your belief based on experiments, could you tell us what those were?

Well, Khris, raising a kid is much more than that. It's the hardest job in the world and it really doesn't matter what religion the parents follow or don't follow. In fact, your assumptions are pretty much old-story, ignorant hate-rants against religious people are so gone this days that I think you're just trying to pick up a fight.

So if Muslim fundamentalists raise their kids to believe stuff about Allah and Mohammed, that according to your religion is false, is that not brainwashing?
If it isn't, then I guess we have different definitions of what constitutes brainwashing.

[miguel]

Any kind of fundamentalism can "force" a line of thought into children minds. Every thing a parent does can influence children behaviour. Every thing. Hating God as well.
I thought we were discussing modern religious people, the same people you pass by in the street. We don't have a single clue of what is to be born in a 3rd world fundamentalist country. We are lucky.
Agreeing or not with you that an Afghan kid doesn't really have a choice will not change anything regarding the topic.

[Calin Leafshade]

Right. I don't believe that I ever said the Earth is only 6000 years old. The Bible doesn't either.

I think it's arguable that the bible does say that or at least that mankind is approximately 6000 year old since it has a full genealogy from adam to jesus.
Although this genealogy is arguably 'faked' by the author of luke since it was important to have jesus be a direct descendant of David for the prophecy to work.

[Igor Hardy]

If there's no such thing as objectivity, no one can truly know there's no such thing as objectivity. So backing your actions and beliefs with such claims is pointless. Unless one questions basic logic as well, then everything makes sense and is total nonsense equally.

[miguel]

Calin, the 6,000 years genealogy was a rule around the XVII century. Scholars did base their studies on the bible accounts and went back as far as 4004B.C. However, as with different ancient scripts, genealogy was many times "telescoped". Meaning that generations could be "skipped" while royal and important lineages would always feature. Recent studies point to a margin of 60,000-120,000 years of human kind.