Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We aren't now, nor have we ever been saying that "theism doesn't really count or matter to the course of human history".
Is religious belief influential? Yes. Has it been one of the most influential forces in all of human history? Yes. Big deal, nobody but you is even talking about that. In all of these various threads in which you keep touting the influence of religion, the discussions aren't even about that. We, both atheists and theists, have been debating what is true and real and how one can learn what is true, not what ideas have been influential in human society throughout the ages.
It is like you are jumping up, in the middle of a lesson on mathematics in which the students are debating the correct answer to an equation, and shouting, "Pi is the most influential number. It beats every other number 9 times to 1. It wins. It trounces every other number. Pi rules; all the other numbers drool". The students all say, "Hey, could you quiet down? We are discussing the true answer to the equation and how one can derive it. Who cares right now how influential Pi is? That has no bearing on whether it is the correct answer or not and that is what we are discussing."
Granted, this particular thread began by simply asking what you want others to understand so it was fine for you to state that. What I am objecting to is you using religion's influence as a response to discussions about what we believe to be true about reality and our experiences.
Yeah...But I am talking about it...and, as you noted, answered the OP.
Of course Atheists then critiqued/questioned what I said...so I then answered...just as I would expect answers to my critiques/questions.
You say you "object" to my "using religion's influence as a response to discussions about what we believe to be true about reality and our experiences". Why would you object to that? In fact, the point I am making is that the influence of Theism and religion IS a reality of the human experience. MOF one of the most (if not THE most) major ones.
And BTW...your analogy of the math lesson where someone shouts that pi is the most influential number, is bogus.
In your analogy, they are not discussing pi and it's status...they are trying to figure out something else. So a "shout out" about "the influence of pi" would be strange, if not kinda crazy.
In the discussions here (since you obviously have failed to notice) we specifically discuss/debate Theism, religion, Atheism, etc. Everybody has something to say about different aspects of the general subject. So why would you "object" to the points I offer about the general subject?
Lastly, I don't like your analogy, because pi isn't (or, is at least debateably not) the most influential number, so saying it is, is lame...while Theism is the most influential concept, so me noting that it is, isn't lame. I "object" to my cool statements of great validity and merit being conflated with dumb stuff.
I submit...there is NOTHING that has EVER influenced mankind, for good or bad, to greater degree.
THERE is your "proof"!!!
That does NOT prove anything other than that it is popular. Nothing about whether Jesus was really the "Son of God" or whether any of the Bible stories are factual. Sure, it has "mojo", but it's a communal mythology.
Quote:
It's like a suitcase full of $100 bills. It can, in fact be submitted, that's it's just a lot of "paper and ink" that only "represents" value. But as long as the majority of the world accepts it as having that value...you're rich!!. And THAT is all the PROOF you need that it DOES have that value.
Not a good analogy, although comparing money to religious belief certainly says something. Your entire post is about nothing more than popularity and shared beliefs. Both religion and currency are commonly agreed to arbitrarily have value, whether there is any intrinsic worth or not. I'll give you that.
Quote:
To put it in terms to which you might relate better catman: The arguments many Atheists put forth are sorta like if some Juilliard trained 1st chair violinist for some symphony orchestra went around putting forth the argument that Ian Anderson, or even more to the point, guys like Snoop Dog or Lil Wayne "don't really count or matter to music" because they were never formally educated as musicians. Meanwhile, like Theism, Anderson is as prolific and famous a musician as it gets...and Snoop Dog and Lil Wayne are rich and famous through the music industry in a way that is no comparison over the guy criticizing them.
They don't necessarily "count" to classically trained musicians. But what has this to do with what Atheists say? Other than being vaguely insulting, I don't think there is an apt analogy of any sort here. Besides which, atheism is more on the side of logical argument. No 'belief' needed.
Quote:
Also your assessment of Nonbelief "gaining ground" is wrong. The gains in China alone that Belief is making, overshadow any gains by NonBelief in all other places put together. Again: Based on sheer numbers alone. [emphasis mine]
I should have specified "in the Western world", I suppose. But I seriously doubt that most Chinese were atheists. They have just exchanged one religion for another. (Christianity isn't the only religion, y'know.)
Quote:
And the best way I can explain how you are wrong about Dawkins and Hitchens, is with this thought: Compare their influence to that of Jesus or Mohammed! Now do you understand what I'm trying to explain about that?
That is a bogus comparison. Jesus and Mohammed have had over a millenium for their influence to spread. Thirteen hundred years from now, Dawkins and Hitchens may have the same influence, being seen as important people in the emancipation of mankind from the "because it says so in this here book" mentality of much religion.
Quote:
But the "why" and the "how" is really inconsequential to the "is".
That is where we most differ. It is of great consequence to me.
In short, your arguments are all based on numbers and popularity, not the correctness of the belief. It verges upon 'might makes right'. Yes, huge masses of people can be wrong.
That does NOT prove anything other than that it is popular. Nothing about whether Jesus was really the "Son of God" or whether any of the Bible stories are factual. Sure, it has "mojo", but it's a communal mythology.
Not a good analogy, although comparing money to religious belief certainly says something. Your entire post is about nothing more than popularity and shared beliefs. Both religion and currency are commonly agreed to arbitrarily have value, whether there is any intrinsic worth or not. I'll give you that.
They don't necessarily "count" to classically trained musicians. But what has this to do with what Atheists say? Other than being vaguely insulting, I don't think there is an apt analogy of any sort here. Besides which, atheism is more on the side of logical argument. No 'belief' needed.
I should have specified "in the Western world", I suppose. But I seriously doubt that most Chinese were atheists. They have just exchanged one religion for another. (Christianity isn't the only religion, y'know.)
That is a bogus comparison. Jesus and Mohammed have had over a millenium for their influence to spread. Thirteen hundred years from now, Dawkins and Hitchens may have the same influence, being seen as important people in the emancipation of mankind from the "because it says so in this here book" mentality of much religion.
That is where we most differ. It is of great consequence to me.
In short, your arguments are all based on numbers and popularity, not the correctness of the belief. It verges upon 'might makes right'. Yes, huge masses of people can be wrong.
First, let me say that you know I respect you and your offerings to this board catman. Your stuff is well put and thought provoking. You mix so well with all...I've even called you "The Moderate in Chief" of the R&P forum on C-D.
But our view on this is very different.
To call the most influential concepts, individuals, and writings, to the most people EVER in all of world history, "nothing but popular"...leaves me scratching my head.
By that logic...any idea that isn't universally and absolutely held (so, that's EVERY idea) can be deemed "just popular" and "communal mythology" by the small percentage that don't agree.
And if you REALLY think that "Thirteen hundred years from now, Dawkins and Hitchens may have the same influence" as Jesus and Mohammed now have...I have misjudged how "sharp" a guy you are. 1300 years from now Jesus and Mohammed will be just as well known as they are now...and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who's ever even heard of Hitchens and Dawkins.
IMO...Napoleon Bonaparte put it best: FishForPeople — Napoleon on Jesus Christ (http://www.fishforpeople.net/post/296768799/napoleon-on-jesus-christ - broken link)
And if you think for one second that anyone will EVER say anything even a small fraction like that about Hitchens or Dawkins...only the deepest delusions about religious dogma would compare to that thought.
What is "correct"...and what "moves" the worlds people...is many times very different.
You are hung-up on what YOU think is "correct"...and argue that somehow it negates what IS "the way of the world".
What my "musician analogy" has to do with what The Atheists on this board OFTEN say...is it's conflation with their basic mantra of, "Since it's not been empirically verified, to even postulate the existence of *God* is illogical, and thus doesn't count as a reasonable thought". Do you need me to link you a few dozens posts that say essentially that, to refresh your memory?
Meanwhile...the existence of a God (Theism) is the most prolific concept ever to take residence in the mind of mankind.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS: Regardless of whether you, or any of the few others on that very short list of like-minded people, don't think the existence of God is "correct", or that the concept is "wrong", and nothing but a "communal mythology"...the concept was, is, and will remain, the most powerful and influential concept known to man.
And THAT is what the "other side", like it or not, needs to get hip to.
1300 years from now Jesus and Mohammed will be just as well known as they are now...
Julius Caesar: Ya know mate! I'd bet you a thousand sesterti that 1300 years from now, Triptolemus and Leto will be just as well known as they are now.
Julius Caesar: Ya know mate! I'd bet you a thousand sesterti that 1300 years from now, Triptolemus and Leto will be just as well known as they are now.
Brutus: Don't be a plonker Jules!!
A late lunch because of the rain today...and a side of "Rafius Wit" to go with it and put a smile on my face.
Thanx Man! I needed that. The pump on my pressure washer just exploded into about 10 pieces, so the chuckle was perfectly timed.
Let's see...ebay..."pressure washer replacement pumps"............
A late lunch because of the rain today...and a side of "Rafius Wit" to go with it and put a smile on my face.
Thanx Man! I needed that. The pump on my pressure washer just exploded into about 10 pieces, so the chuckle was perfectly timed.
Let's see...ebay..."pressure washer replacement pumps"............
Stupid pressure washers...The turbo nozzle just went on mine...again.
First, let me say that you know I respect you and your offerings to this board catman. Your stuff is well put and thought provoking. You mix so well with all...I've even called you "The Moderate in Chief" of the R&P forum on C-D.
Well, thanks, but...
Quote:
And if you REALLY think that "Thirteen hundred years from now, Dawkins and Hitchens may have the same influence" as Jesus and Mohammed now have...I have misjudged how "sharp" a guy you are.
No need for the personal insults. I don't impugn your intelligence simply because we disagree. I agree that no one can say for certain who will be remembered 1300 years from now, but I can hope. There may not be any humans 1300 years from now if people continue fighting over the relative merits of Jesus and Mohammed.
Quote:
Meanwhile...the existence of a God (Theism) is the most prolific concept ever to take residence in the mind of mankind.
Here we go with the argument from popularity yet again. God is a "powerful concept", yes. And I won't argue that I am "hung up" on what is correct. I don't feel any need to apologize for that, not wishing to join the teeming throngs in something I don't believe; I just don't feel that much need to 'belong'. I regard my "hangup" as being true to myself and the spirit(!) of what reality consists of. As you may recall, I don't indulge in much denigration of other people or name-calling. As the old saying goes, "Sugar draws more flies than vinegar". And I must add, the concept of gods took root in the ancient period of mankind when there were no real explanations for many natural phenomena which are nowadays understood. I think of religion as being partly a form of veneration of one's ancestors.
Anyway, if you want to continue this, let's do it somewhere else. We have sorta hijacked the thread with a general debate, removed from the topic.
Last edited by catman; 06-14-2011 at 03:11 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
