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.
Very well stated, and the courtroom analogy is apt. It is one thing to insist, for example, that we define the key terms of a discussion, to ensure we are talking about the same thing. It is another to parse every word and the presence or absence of every qualifier, as if we had moved from an internet forum to a legal deposition. Actually, the one time I was deposed (as an expert witness on a matter of science and ethics, ironically enough), there was more "charity" and latitude given than I see here, at times. As a result, this thread has become more about the process of dialogue, rather than the underlying topic itself (whatever that was.....).
When someone doesn't have substance to offer, they often resort to lawyers tricks.
just as:
atheism may be beneficial for some people but toxic for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
How so? Atheists have no religious beliefs?
Without their belief in God, some people might become overcome by existential angst to the point of feeling suicidal (or maybe even homicidal?). You might think of religion, for some people, in terms of a placebo effect. For these people, their positive belief in God, their love for God, etc., helps them be happier, healthier, and more socially productive than they would be without this belief. Of course, the underlying reality - whether it is really a "placebo effect" vs. some active effect of God's love, or whatever, can depend on whether there really is a God, the nature of God, etc. - all of which is up for legitimate philosophical debate. And even if it is genuinely a placebo effect as far as science can determine, there are still some core mysteries concerning the exact nature of the effect. We might not need "magic" to full understand the effect, but we may need science that we don't have yet, or philosophical sophistication that is beyond us at this point.
just as:
atheism may be beneficial for some people but toxic for others.
It it is beneficial for everyone but toxic for the religious deluded. That is why they scream and yell and lash out. We know this and we compassionate them, while still continuing to cut away the dead and necrrotic tissue of Religious delusion.
Without their belief in God, some people might become overcome by existential angst to the point of feeling suicidal (or maybe even homicidal?). You might think of religion, for some people, in terms of a placebo effect. For these people, their positive belief in God, their love for God, etc., helps them be happier, healthier, and more socially productive than they would be without this belief. Of course, the underlying reality - whether it is really a "placebo effect" vs. some active effect of God's love, or whatever, can depend on whether there really is a God, the nature of God, etc. - all of which is up for legitimate philosophical debate. And even if it is genuinely a placebo effect as far as science can determine, there are still some core mysteries concerning the exact nature of the effect. We might not need "magic" to full understand the effect, but we may need science that we don't have yet, or philosophical sophistication that is beyond us at this point.
That may the case is some cases, but in fact, I have seen few who have not (after undergoing some rather bad cold Turkey) have not come out at the far end feeling as one new awakened (as Theoden said, so don't bother with Blue Letter Bible search) and only one seemed to have no moral backup and said that (having deconverted from catholicism) would now treat his workforce like crap, and another (having deconverted from Calvinism, started anew religion of conspiracy -theories in which he did the fingers in the ears as firmly as he ever did as a Christian).
The few failures do not, in my view undermine the immense value and urgent need, I would argue for a scientifically -based materialistic humanist atheistic worldview and presidential candidates having to tear a Bible in half with their bare hand to have a hope of winning the election.
The sentence "Swans are white" can be interpreted as saying "All swans are white," but, from 60 years of casual conversation, I've learned that the best way to interpret things - whether in casual conversation or academics - is to apply what I have called the principle of charity. In other words, apply the interpretation that makes the claim as strong as possible, not as weak as possible. This method can sometimes lead to a misinterpretation but, in the vast majority of cases, the stronger interpretation is what the person actually had in mind (or, at least, it is what they would have in mind if they paused to think about it). Basically, most things that people say in casual conversation is not intended to be taken in a strict, literal sense - as if under oath in a court of law where every word can be held against us and our entire livelihood is at stake if we misstep. Casual conversation with you - Tza - feels like giving testimony in court. And, speaking for myself, it does not feel to me like you are simply trying to clarify for the sake of healthier exchange of ideas. I could be wrong; I can't read your mind or feel your feelings, so I don't know your true motives. All I can say is how it feels to me, and that's how it feels to me.
Generally speaking, in casual conversation, if someone who says "Swans are white" really meant "All swans are white" - if they were ready to go to the wall and defend the strong claim with to their last dying breath - they wouldn't just say "Swans are white." They would say something like "All swans are white" or "Absolutely all swans are white" or "absolutely without exception, all swans are white", etc. Practically no one ever really means anything like that in casual conversation. So for you to interpret them in that way seems a bit weird to me.
If Matadora wants to re-state her case with emphasis on words like all, and every, and without exception, etc., then I would be inclined to debate some points with her. I am not convinced that all religions, without exception, always derail people's spiritual paths. I would say that some religions, or some aspects of some religions, can be spiritually beneficial to some people. Most importantly, I would say that a religious belief that is beneficial for some people can be toxic for others (and vice versa).
In summary: I think most of us, in casual conversation, would agree: "Spinach is a healthy food." But does this rule out the possibility that some people are allergic to spinach? Someone who casually says "spinach is healthy" might not be considering possible exceptions, but most people know, in the back of their minds, that this is a possibility. Spinach can also be contaminated with E coli. So, if someone casually says "Spinach is healthy" you could drag them into court and pound them with technical exceptions until they are purple, or you could apply the principle of charity and politely remind everyone that there could be some exceptions to the general rule. Courtroom style theatrics are generally not necessary.
The objective of such courtroom antics is to distract and try to pretend that there is some legitimacy to magical thinking and superstition in religion.
The sentence "Swans are white" can be interpreted as saying "All swans are white," but, from 60 years of casual conversation, I've learned that the best way to interpret things - whether in casual conversation or academics - is to apply what I have called the principle of charity. In other words, apply the interpretation that makes the claim as strong as possible, not as weak as possible. This method can sometimes lead to a misinterpretation but, in the vast majority of cases, the stronger interpretation is what the person actually had in mind (or, at least, it is what they would have in mind if they paused to think about it). Basically, most things that people say in casual conversation is not intended to be taken in a strict, literal sense - as if under oath in a court of law where every word can be held against us and our entire livelihood is at stake if we misstep. Casual conversation with you - Tza - feels like giving testimony in court. And, speaking for myself, it does not feel to me like you are simply trying to clarify for the sake of healthier exchange of ideas. I could be wrong; I can't read your mind or feel your feelings, so I don't know your true motives. All I can say is how it feels to me, and that's how it feels to me.
Generally speaking, in casual conversation, if someone who says "Swans are white" really meant "All swans are white" - if they were ready to go to the wall and defend the strong claim with to their last dying breath - they wouldn't just say "Swans are white." They would say something like "All swans are white" or "Absolutely all swans are white" or "absolutely without exception, all swans are white", etc. Practically no one ever really means anything like that in casual conversation. So for you to interpret them in that way seems a bit weird to me.
If Matadora wants to re-state her case with emphasis on words like all, and every, and without exception, etc., then I would be inclined to debate some points with her. I am not convinced that all religions, without exception, always derail people's spiritual paths. I would say that some religions, or some aspects of some religions, can be spiritually beneficial to some people. Most importantly, I would say that a religious belief that is beneficial for some people can be toxic for others (and vice versa).
In summary: I think most of us, in casual conversation, would agree: "Spinach is a healthy food." But does this rule out the possibility that some people are allergic to spinach? Someone who casually says "spinach is healthy" might not be considering possible exceptions, but most people know, in the back of their minds, that this is a possibility. Spinach can also be contaminated with E coli. So, if someone casually says "Spinach is healthy" you could drag them into court and pound them with technical exceptions until they are purple, or you could apply the principle of charity and politely remind everyone that there could be some exceptions to the general rule. Courtroom style theatrics are generally not necessary.
Excellent. This is something that was the subject of the Rhetoric -thread. What I call 'lawyer-tricks' and is using irrelevant semantic nit -picking to score cheap and irrelevant points so as to build up a case that is nothing to do with the case.
A judge would step in and rule such stuff stricken or ask for relevance. We have to explain why it is inadmissible or irrelevant ourselves.
Specifically relating to your point, we have to go through life using concepts and meaning without picking every term apart. In debate there can be a point in it but too often it's just to short circuit all argument so no conclusion can be reached and faith -claims are as good as anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The objective of such courtroom antics is to distract and try to pretend that there is some legitimacy to magical thinking and superstition in religion.
Indeed, or to try to make any unsubstantiated faith -claim stand up by Rhetoric.
The objective of such courtroom antics is to distract andtry to pretend that there is some legitimacy to magical thinking and superstition in religion.
questions for anyone:
in your own personal view-belief-opinion which of these are "magical thinking and superstition"
"visit from Jesus"
"visit by angels"
"visit by any dead person"
"heard a message from God"
God
God created the universe and everything in it
every human has an eternal soul
reincarnation
prayer
placebo
miracle healing
Divine intervention
acupuncture
chi
there is an unseen energy that gives life and animates life
if for the list above you answered "some are" why aren't they ALL?
in your view belief opinion
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 11-02-2018 at 10:47 AM..
for anyone / bonus questions / for extra credit
in your own personal view-belief-opinion
for each of these statements, do you agree or disagree, why or why not
"magic" "superstition" "supernatural" are all the same
"magic" "superstition" "supernatural" are all primitive and ignorant thinking
none of these are backed by science: "magic" "superstition" "supernatural"
if it is not backed by science it is an unsubstantiated claim
if it is not backed by science it is "supernatural" "magic" "superstition" and it is primitive ignorant thinking
there is no such thing as "supernatural" "magic" "superstition." Those are just "science that has not yet been discovered"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 11-02-2018 at 11:15 AM..
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.
What fun is that? 
The objective of such courtroom antics is to distract and try to pretend that there is some legitimacy to magical thinking and superstition in religion.