This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Miram · 31-35, F
@BlueVeins There is lack of care in using disabilities for stupid argument on the internet.
No one knows if god exists, or doesn't or what it would be thinking about while allowing imperfections and suffering. But if the person in pain needs his god to keep on fighting then let him hold on to that God even if imaginary.
Just like I don't fucking like it when others ask me to pray my condition away though I don't believe in god
Let people do and believe what is best for them
No one knows if god exists, or doesn't or what it would be thinking about while allowing imperfections and suffering. But if the person in pain needs his god to keep on fighting then let him hold on to that God even if imaginary.
Just like I don't fucking like it when others ask me to pray my condition away though I don't believe in god
Let people do and believe what is best for them
BlueVeins · 22-25
@Miram I'm not infringing on anyone's right to believe what they believe; I'm asking a simple question about that belief. You could say that question is a challenge to that belief, but beliefs aren't exempt from criticism.
[quote]No one knows if god exists, or doesn't or what it would be thinking about while allowing imperfections and suffering.[/quote]
Depends on both the specific god and the standard of evidence applied.
[quote]But if the person in pain needs his god to keep on fighting then let him hold on to that God even if imaginary.[/quote]
A belief being momentarily intoxicating doesn't make it good. Look at the Just World Phenomenon, for example. Those who believe it are happier, less nervous, and have generally better mental health, but it causes stuff like victim-blaming and other forms of bias.
Also, you seem to forget that religion also causes a lot of its distress in its followers. Teaching children that they're subject to being burned forever over incredibly trivial, mental "crimes" isn't healthy at all.
[quote]No one knows if god exists, or doesn't or what it would be thinking about while allowing imperfections and suffering.[/quote]
Depends on both the specific god and the standard of evidence applied.
[quote]But if the person in pain needs his god to keep on fighting then let him hold on to that God even if imaginary.[/quote]
A belief being momentarily intoxicating doesn't make it good. Look at the Just World Phenomenon, for example. Those who believe it are happier, less nervous, and have generally better mental health, but it causes stuff like victim-blaming and other forms of bias.
Also, you seem to forget that religion also causes a lot of its distress in its followers. Teaching children that they're subject to being burned forever over incredibly trivial, mental "crimes" isn't healthy at all.
Miram · 31-35, F
@BlueVeins I don't have the privilege of forgetting what harms it can cause. I didn't grow up in your country. I have the consequences of that visibly on my physical health and my mental health.
It doesn't mean that I should ignore the benefits some seem to derive from it and not all are biased or blame victims.
No, knowledge and belief are not the same. That's why you have agnosticism within theism and atheism both.
I haven't come across anyone providing evidence of knowledge no matter the religion.
It doesn't mean that I should ignore the benefits some seem to derive from it and not all are biased or blame victims.
No, knowledge and belief are not the same. That's why you have agnosticism within theism and atheism both.
I haven't come across anyone providing evidence of knowledge no matter the religion.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@Miram
[quote]It doesn't mean that I should ignore the benefits some seem to derive from it[/quote]
I'm not suggesting that we ignore religion's benefits, but we should see that it's not good on-balance.
[quote]and not all are biased or blame victims.[/quote]
That wasn't the point I was trying to make in the first place. Just because something makes one feel good doesn't make it okay. The just world phenomenon applies to the world as a whole, not necessarily just theists; it's simply a demonstration of a concept.
[quote]not all are biased or blame victims.[/quote]
That's true, but several prominent religions justify bias. I bet you the caste system wouldn't have existed the way it did if Buddhism and Hinduism had never existed.
[quote]I haven't come across anyone providing evidence of knowledge no matter the religion.[/quote]
Then let me be the first. We know to any reasonable standard of evidence that the young-earth creationist god of the Bible doesn't exist because if that were true, then radiological dating wouldn't reveal that lots of organisms are older than 1,000,000 years old. Also, the light from distant stars wouldn't have reached Earth by now if the Earth was only 6,000 years old.
[quote]It doesn't mean that I should ignore the benefits some seem to derive from it[/quote]
I'm not suggesting that we ignore religion's benefits, but we should see that it's not good on-balance.
[quote]and not all are biased or blame victims.[/quote]
That wasn't the point I was trying to make in the first place. Just because something makes one feel good doesn't make it okay. The just world phenomenon applies to the world as a whole, not necessarily just theists; it's simply a demonstration of a concept.
[quote]not all are biased or blame victims.[/quote]
That's true, but several prominent religions justify bias. I bet you the caste system wouldn't have existed the way it did if Buddhism and Hinduism had never existed.
[quote]I haven't come across anyone providing evidence of knowledge no matter the religion.[/quote]
Then let me be the first. We know to any reasonable standard of evidence that the young-earth creationist god of the Bible doesn't exist because if that were true, then radiological dating wouldn't reveal that lots of organisms are older than 1,000,000 years old. Also, the light from distant stars wouldn't have reached Earth by now if the Earth was only 6,000 years old.
Miram · 31-35, F
@BlueVeins Not all Christians believe the Christian god meant our units of measurement. You will always find those who believe çhrist is god but not all texts to be authentic.
That's about your ex religion. And not god in general. It only dismisses Christ even if accepted.
If it makes a person feel and do good for himself and others, it is great not just okay espacially if they have physical challenge and they are fighting and using that support.
I am an anti theist but i don't take my activism where it doesn't belong. Just because in some cases feeling good comes with other negative behaviour, doesn't mean it applies to everyone.
This whole thing bothers me a great deal because I have known some that draw no ethical boundaries as long as the goal to win an argument from pictures of starving kids to those who have cancer
That's about your ex religion. And not god in general. It only dismisses Christ even if accepted.
If it makes a person feel and do good for himself and others, it is great not just okay espacially if they have physical challenge and they are fighting and using that support.
I am an anti theist but i don't take my activism where it doesn't belong. Just because in some cases feeling good comes with other negative behaviour, doesn't mean it applies to everyone.
This whole thing bothers me a great deal because I have known some that draw no ethical boundaries as long as the goal to win an argument from pictures of starving kids to those who have cancer
BlueVeins · 22-25
@Miram
[quote]Not all Christians believe the Christian god meant our units of measurement. You will always find those who believe çhrist is god but not all texts to be authentic.[/quote]
Yes, those are the old-Earth creationist and non-Biblical gods, respectively. I never claimed to able to prove that [i]all gods[/i] don't exist, just some, which I did. Here it is again:
[quote]Depends on both the specific god and the standard of evidence applied.[/quote]
Frankly, it's impossible to prove an entirely undefined item; I can't prove that there's not an elephant on top of the Washington Monument without at least some qualifiers as to the nature of that elephant and the burden of proof applied. Frankly, saying that I can't prove that there is no god without first defining what a god is is basically meaningless.
[quote]I am an anti theist but i don't take my activism where it doesn't belong.[/quote]
How do you determine where your activism does and doesn't belong? What's so special about this site that it should be exempt from criticism of religion?
[quote]Just because in some cases feeling good comes with other negative behaviour, doesn't mean it applies to everyone.[/quote]
But even without taking over every single believer, religious regressivism and hate is still incredibly corrosive. Shit, only between 4 and 5 hundred million Muslims support the death penalty for apostacy, but apostacy is still punishable by death in several Muslim-majority countries. Acting like a problem isn't harmful because it isn't universal is crazy. You wouldn't argue against vaccination because measles don't harm all of their patients, right?
[quote]This whole thing bothers me a great deal because I have known some that draw no ethical boundaries as long as the goal to win an argument from pictures of starving kids to those who have cancer[/quote]
OK, but that's not really relevant to this conversation. I'm not exploiting anyone; nobody is harmed by me bringing up this perfectly legitimate point against certain varieties of religion.
[quote]Not all Christians believe the Christian god meant our units of measurement. You will always find those who believe çhrist is god but not all texts to be authentic.[/quote]
Yes, those are the old-Earth creationist and non-Biblical gods, respectively. I never claimed to able to prove that [i]all gods[/i] don't exist, just some, which I did. Here it is again:
[quote]Depends on both the specific god and the standard of evidence applied.[/quote]
Frankly, it's impossible to prove an entirely undefined item; I can't prove that there's not an elephant on top of the Washington Monument without at least some qualifiers as to the nature of that elephant and the burden of proof applied. Frankly, saying that I can't prove that there is no god without first defining what a god is is basically meaningless.
[quote]I am an anti theist but i don't take my activism where it doesn't belong.[/quote]
How do you determine where your activism does and doesn't belong? What's so special about this site that it should be exempt from criticism of religion?
[quote]Just because in some cases feeling good comes with other negative behaviour, doesn't mean it applies to everyone.[/quote]
But even without taking over every single believer, religious regressivism and hate is still incredibly corrosive. Shit, only between 4 and 5 hundred million Muslims support the death penalty for apostacy, but apostacy is still punishable by death in several Muslim-majority countries. Acting like a problem isn't harmful because it isn't universal is crazy. You wouldn't argue against vaccination because measles don't harm all of their patients, right?
[quote]This whole thing bothers me a great deal because I have known some that draw no ethical boundaries as long as the goal to win an argument from pictures of starving kids to those who have cancer[/quote]
OK, but that's not really relevant to this conversation. I'm not exploiting anyone; nobody is harmed by me bringing up this perfectly legitimate point against certain varieties of religion.
Miram · 31-35, F
@BlueVeins Since you quoted me it's natural that I'd assume you meant god in general, assumed my meaning besides religious stance instead of anti-religious.
Acting like it is harmful in every case because in some other country apostasy is punishable by death, or for the belief of some other person is just as crazy as ignoring all the flaws and the cases where it needs to be abolished entirely or modified positively.
They are both generalisations.
My activism doesn't belong in my profession places unless there is abuse, it doesn't belong if a harmless person doesn't care to discuss their faith, and it should not use those who are already in pain because simply there are plenty of arguments that can be made without being insensitive to those reading the discourse or engaging..etc
I think someone who is in pain benefits from my actions more than my words. I can better lead by example.
Someone who is causing pain through religion will probably face both and more.
Keeping compassion present is the best way.
I am sure your intentions were good. Looking in your profile you don't seem to be the kind I had at mind.
You can criticize religion in this website. I do it myself.
Acting like it is harmful in every case because in some other country apostasy is punishable by death, or for the belief of some other person is just as crazy as ignoring all the flaws and the cases where it needs to be abolished entirely or modified positively.
They are both generalisations.
My activism doesn't belong in my profession places unless there is abuse, it doesn't belong if a harmless person doesn't care to discuss their faith, and it should not use those who are already in pain because simply there are plenty of arguments that can be made without being insensitive to those reading the discourse or engaging..etc
I think someone who is in pain benefits from my actions more than my words. I can better lead by example.
Someone who is causing pain through religion will probably face both and more.
Keeping compassion present is the best way.
I am sure your intentions were good. Looking in your profile you don't seem to be the kind I had at mind.
You can criticize religion in this website. I do it myself.
BlueVeins · 22-25
[quote]They are both generalisations.[/quote]
Same goes for anything alleged benefit of religion. I don't see how that's any different.
[quote]My activism doesn't belong in my profession places unless there is abuse,[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]it doesn't belong if a harmless person doesn't care to discuss their faith,[/quote]
Agreed. Nobody has to respond to this post.
[quote]and it should not use those who are already in pain because simply there are plenty of arguments that can be made without being insensitive to those reading the discourse or engaging..etc[/quote]
There's nothing insensitive about it. Pointing out that the god who supposedly heals the deaf and the blame conspicuously doesn't heal amputees doesn't have any negative implications about the victims of those problems. If anything, it's empathetic to their plight.
[quote]Someone who is causing pain through religion will probably face both and more.[/quote]
I agree, to an extent. I just don't see what's good about that. When someone hurts others and gets hurt in the process of trying to do the right thing, I consider that a tragedy. I also, by the way, believe your intentions are good. I just don't see the merit of the point you're trying to make.
Same goes for anything alleged benefit of religion. I don't see how that's any different.
[quote]My activism doesn't belong in my profession places unless there is abuse,[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]it doesn't belong if a harmless person doesn't care to discuss their faith,[/quote]
Agreed. Nobody has to respond to this post.
[quote]and it should not use those who are already in pain because simply there are plenty of arguments that can be made without being insensitive to those reading the discourse or engaging..etc[/quote]
There's nothing insensitive about it. Pointing out that the god who supposedly heals the deaf and the blame conspicuously doesn't heal amputees doesn't have any negative implications about the victims of those problems. If anything, it's empathetic to their plight.
[quote]Someone who is causing pain through religion will probably face both and more.[/quote]
I agree, to an extent. I just don't see what's good about that. When someone hurts others and gets hurt in the process of trying to do the right thing, I consider that a tragedy. I also, by the way, believe your intentions are good. I just don't see the merit of the point you're trying to make.