In an attempt to be more competent (less lazy)

[ArcaneEldritchNeurons]

AliKat1988

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

AliKat1988

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

AliKat1988

I think one way to be more competent is to study the topic in depth beyond the sources that support your preconceptions. I am not suggesting you read evangelical apologists, but rather consider reading a religious studies textbook or find out what non-apologist scholars in a topic think. Did you know many Jews and some Christians regard those contradictions and the immoral parts of the Bible as explicable? They do not think the Bible is inerrant-that is a newer doctrine by the way. They regard the Bible as made by humans who were writing their ideas about god, and sometimes later authors disagreed with previous authors-they embrace 'the Argument'.

If you are going to argue against religions make sure you are knowledgeable enough about them to say, "I am only arguing against this variety", "there are other sorts of religious ideas, and this is why they are questionable" or some other qualifier. Competent arguments are less about tone and more about accuracy and nuance. When arguing against religion you better have your facts straight and not merely seek confirmation for your presupposed ideas about what is wrong with religion. If you aim for accuracy you will find the truth to be complicated.

Yeah the truth can be complicated if we want to examine precisely why each piece of a religion came to be and how it could be rationally understood as opposed to assuming its divineness. Such as why there are battles in the bible, if it is reflective of actual events it could be they massacred some places and it ended up ensuring their longer term growth for instance. And if it ensured their growth then is it really a bad thing in that context(it would be if lack of diversity occurred more than numbers increase but how to determine that would be rather difficult in itself). You bring up some good points. If I were to choose a topic of larger independent study I would probably not do it in something such as this however.

If you talk about something which you only know a little bit about you are higher risk for falling into the trap of the Dunning-Kruger effect where you assume you know more than you actually do. You don't have to go to in-depth to find basic but well researched answers to these issues. I am not sure how much you consume media that confirms your expectations, but if you are reading articles/books/blogs/wikis or watching videos with an anti-religious bent you have enough time to sample basic information on such topics. Single chapters of religious studies' textbooks can give a run-down for a lot of these topics. When I have seen the topic of genocide in the Bible talked about there is usually a brief run-down of which are purely fictional bits of propaganda (based on archaeology) and how well the development of such atrocities is explained by human ethnocentric tendencies. Discussions of topics like polytheism in the Old Testament, how Paul was controversial in early Christianity, pseudo-epigraphical texts, the synoptic problem and the documentary hypothesis have been succinct when I have encountered them.

Don't really have any form of media with the purpose of reaffirming my beliefs right now unless you count twitch or mlp fanfiction. Besides something can only be so wrong before its silly to accept on the whole, and Im not going to read through it or study it for the occasional good portion. Studying other things can lead to more faster, unless im a historian or something.

Ok, I wasn't sure if you were the sort to watch youtube atheists or read Dawkins et al. The value of studying religions actually ends up more sociological/anthropological. When studied from a non-apologist viewpoint you find out how very human it is and how much texts and interpretations are products of their time and culture. Such an understanding makes it clear that religion's strength and weaknesses are human strength and weaknesses. We can strive to be better, but deep down humans will always be at risk for the problems that plague religion.

Humans are also a product of their environment. I knew it was sociological n stuff I actually think its a little economical as well if people broke it down enough. And well I uuused to watch dark matter but I dont anymore. Its economical and economical is impacted by geography so its geographical too.

But more on how humans are products of their environment if everyone were very educated lets say, then the human problems that plagued religion sure might not be entirely removed, but it'd have to at least up its game to be acknowledged. Games use gamification, why not utilize motivators such as that in good directions and anti-gamification stuff to demote poor decisions. If a society were structured with those things in mind, it could be a problem in the future when we need to change it however. But we won't simply forget how to deal with it considering our knowledge is constantly growing, so it shouldn't be an issue if society goes that far. I hope I wasn't too confusing explaining what I think, I know I can be sometimes and because this topic has left my brain processes of whats deemed recent I have forgotten to be careful with my wording lol.


But to test out if that gamification-esque stuff would be more correct in theory we would have to organize the problems of humans that were the causes of the problems in religion, and see which ones would not get eliminated with education and that gamification-ish idea. And problems with the gamification idea that would be new also now that I think about it.

[AliKat1988]

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

AliKat1988

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

AliKat1988

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

AliKat1988

I think one way to be more competent is to study the topic in depth beyond the sources that support your preconceptions. I am not suggesting you read evangelical apologists, but rather consider reading a religious studies textbook or find out what non-apologist scholars in a topic think. Did you know many Jews and some Christians regard those contradictions and the immoral parts of the Bible as explicable? They do not think the Bible is inerrant-that is a newer doctrine by the way. They regard the Bible as made by humans who were writing their ideas about god, and sometimes later authors disagreed with previous authors-they embrace 'the Argument'.

If you are going to argue against religions make sure you are knowledgeable enough about them to say, "I am only arguing against this variety", "there are other sorts of religious ideas, and this is why they are questionable" or some other qualifier. Competent arguments are less about tone and more about accuracy and nuance. When arguing against religion you better have your facts straight and not merely seek confirmation for your presupposed ideas about what is wrong with religion. If you aim for accuracy you will find the truth to be complicated.

Yeah the truth can be complicated if we want to examine precisely why each piece of a religion came to be and how it could be rationally understood as opposed to assuming its divineness. Such as why there are battles in the bible, if it is reflective of actual events it could be they massacred some places and it ended up ensuring their longer term growth for instance. And if it ensured their growth then is it really a bad thing in that context(it would be if lack of diversity occurred more than numbers increase but how to determine that would be rather difficult in itself). You bring up some good points. If I were to choose a topic of larger independent study I would probably not do it in something such as this however.

If you talk about something which you only know a little bit about you are higher risk for falling into the trap of the Dunning-Kruger effect where you assume you know more than you actually do. You don't have to go to in-depth to find basic but well researched answers to these issues. I am not sure how much you consume media that confirms your expectations, but if you are reading articles/books/blogs/wikis or watching videos with an anti-religious bent you have enough time to sample basic information on such topics. Single chapters of religious studies' textbooks can give a run-down for a lot of these topics. When I have seen the topic of genocide in the Bible talked about there is usually a brief run-down of which are purely fictional bits of propaganda (based on archaeology) and how well the development of such atrocities is explained by human ethnocentric tendencies. Discussions of topics like polytheism in the Old Testament, how Paul was controversial in early Christianity, pseudo-epigraphical texts, the synoptic problem and the documentary hypothesis have been succinct when I have encountered them.

Don't really have any form of media with the purpose of reaffirming my beliefs right now unless you count twitch or mlp fanfiction. Besides something can only be so wrong before its silly to accept on the whole, and Im not going to read through it or study it for the occasional good portion. Studying other things can lead to more faster, unless im a historian or something.

Ok, I wasn't sure if you were the sort to watch youtube atheists or read Dawkins et al. The value of studying religions actually ends up more sociological/anthropological. When studied from a non-apologist viewpoint you find out how very human it is and how much texts and interpretations are products of their time and culture. Such an understanding makes it clear that religion's strength and weaknesses are human strength and weaknesses. We can strive to be better, but deep down humans will always be at risk for the problems that plague religion.

Humans are also a product of their environment. I knew it was sociological n stuff I actually think its a little economical as well if people broke it down enough. And well I uuused to watch dark matter but I dont anymore. Its economical and economical is impacted by geography so its geographical too.

But more on how humans are products of their environment if everyone were very educated lets say, then the human problems that plagued religion sure might not be entirely removed, but it'd have to at least up its game to be acknowledged. Games use gamification, why not utilize motivators such as that in good directions and anti-gamification stuff to demote poor decisions. If a society were structured with those things in mind, it could be a problem in the future when we need to change it however. But we won't simply forget how to deal with it considering our knowledge is constantly growing, so it shouldn't be an issue if society goes that far. I hope I wasn't too confusing explaining what I think, I know I can be sometimes and because this topic has left my brain processes of whats deemed recent I have forgotten to be careful with my wording lol.


But to test out if that gamification-esque stuff would be more correct in theory we would have to organize the problems of humans that were the causes of the problems in religion, and see which ones would not get eliminated with education and that gamification-ish idea. And problems with the gamification idea that would be new also now that I think about it.

Yes, I agree that religion also is affected by economics-I don't usually see economics as separate from sociology-sociology does sometimes look at how economic conditions affect people.

Yes education and economic stability might be able to help people as they become more aware and able to think things over. One difficulty to changes with humanity that is convenient for most religions and unlikely to go away would be how irrational we are about how we think of ourselves and other people. I think the effort to be better is a constant striving, but too often humans fail to consider that good, decent people can do bad things when they act and think without reflection.

The links below show some of the social psychology issues which, though quite obvious in religion, will probably not be fixed. To address these issues makes it clear we must seek to go further than critiquing the irrationality and moral limitations of religion. Critique religion and point out its problems, but also remember to self examine and note how complicated it is. Also it is worth noting that though religion is irrational some atheists are less rational than some religious people-all because you are right on one point doesn't make you more rational over all.
Milgram Obedience Study
Asch Conformity Study
Ingroup Bias
Confirmation Bias
Groupthink
Fundamental Attribution Error
Outgroup Homogeneity
Just World Hypothesis
Bias Blindspot

[Avgvsto]

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Someone thinks I'm incompetent, its somewhat true but more out of neglect than inability.

All you have to do is cite sources that aren't wikipedia, you really shouldn't be offended that somebody just asked you to do work.

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Why the bible is not credible.- Its only as credible as other religions are depending on the contexts of their credibility.

Why isn't this argument "why all religions are not credible" then?

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

In other cases, such as for learning involving some moral direction, it is rather up for debate as to how effective its morals are for their supposedly desired effects.

It's not up for debate what the desired effects of Christendom are, they are written in each particular dogma or spoken by their priests. Religion itself is a discussion of "desired effects". To ask if something then is productive at meeting those effects is not a question of whether those effects are desired, which is essentially all religion is concerned with, but rather a question of how can that religion improve its method. No religion is so static to never change and

"There is a sense that Christianity is only an old hat. It’s been around for so long and so many people, cultures, and even civilizations have tried it. Yet, despite such endlessly common efforts, they seemed to have still fallen short. They didn’t produce the missing link, the holy grail, or that secret to life that makes sense of this mysterious existence. Christianity is just a worn out pair of shoes, used when useful and in the end “found wanting.” That’s the common perception anyway. But it’s wrong.

The truth is that the Christian life has largely “been found difficult and left untried.” And because of that we’ve never actually experienced the fullness of the Christian ideal.

There are some who have actually overcome the difficulties, given it a fair try and did not find it wanting at all. They’re called Saints. So before we go writing off Christianity as more of the same old hat, consider looking to the Saints and trying on a hat that you perhaps have never fully tried."

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

But religions do not hold a monopoly on morals or ethics. If one were to research how to be moral or ethical today, one simply needs to google it.

What makes this random google source credible? Would it still be appropriate if they found a christian source?

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

How to decide what is moral or ethical when contradictions arise they could simply research studies or ponder logically, rather than have a bias towards any system that discredits questioning itself.

Do you early have to look farther than the reformation to see that the discussion does promote questioning itself?

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Discrediting questioning itself perhaps was good for elder leaders, so the young impressionable people who believe in fairy tales of theirs, would not be so gullible as to join together out of paranoia to combat a supposed threat contradictory to the benefit of the group. Studies do show christian raised people are more gullible than general http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149 so this idea has more evidence for it than one may expect.

"Poetry is finer and more philosophical than history; for poetry expresses the universal, and history only the particular."

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Also another indirect form of evidence being cults themselves usually claim members from a more gullible upbringing, and that is one potential plot removed from the group for added solidarity.

Whats wrong with cults? 40-50% of randomly pooled serial killers are lgbt with only a small percentage of the population being lgbt itself it is a nearly shockingly efficient trait. That said I understand that source would likely be pretty bias, I couldn't find a better one. My point here is not to suggest that its more likely to go on a murderous rampage if you're gay, just to say that stats can be pretty useless if you're just trying to go around doom mongering especially if its pretty baseless- and if you're allowed to call cults dangerous then I feel I should be allowed to do the same with sexual and atheistic deviants.

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

This sort of suggests theres an incapability of self-leadership from a gullible upbringing.

Yea like Joan of Ark, King Richard the lionhearted, and just about every US president.

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Back then it may have been necessary but today its a hindrance. With a thousand new spiritual ideas some of them are just self-destructive and most are a waste of time, and learning these things helps save alot of time money and heartache.

What value are time and money without spirit?

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

There are things like fortune tellers, cold readers, false horoscopes, alot of silly things and expensive unproven self help programs, and illogical or paranoid conspiracy theories. This is why religious moral direction can be a waste of time.

Are you attempting to discredit all of these things at the same time without giving any indication why. You could of made a book for each one on why they aren't credible. Finally, if moral direction is a waste of time, what the hell should you be doing with your time?

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Now, to deal with the plain inaccuracies. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions If we assume they are stories for learning from, this discounts their ability to be true, which discounts most Abrahamic faiths unless I am mistaken, as different faiths do have various beliefs, and may have omitted certain stories, I am sure though that most of them are applicable.

If you're entire argument was going to be posting this and saying "this is infallible evidence and therefore you're wrong" what was the point in posting the rest of this thread?

[ArcaneEldritchNeurons]

Avgvsto

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Someone thinks I'm incompetent, its somewhat true but more out of neglect than inability.

All you have to do is cite sources that aren't wikipedia, you really shouldn't be offended that somebody just asked you to do work.

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Why the bible is not credible.- Its only as credible as other religions are depending on the contexts of their credibility.

Why isn't this argument "why all religions are not credible" then?

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

In other cases, such as for learning involving some moral direction, it is rather up for debate as to how effective its morals are for their supposedly desired effects.

It's not up for debate what the desired effects of Christendom are, they are written in each particular dogma or spoken by their priests. Religion itself is a discussion of "desired effects". To ask if something then is productive at meeting those effects is not a question of whether those effects are desired, which is essentially all religion is concerned with, but rather a question of how can that religion improve its method. No religion is so static to never change and

"There is a sense that Christianity is only an old hat. It’s been around for so long and so many people, cultures, and even civilizations have tried it. Yet, despite such endlessly common efforts, they seemed to have still fallen short. They didn’t produce the missing link, the holy grail, or that secret to life that makes sense of this mysterious existence. Christianity is just a worn out pair of shoes, used when useful and in the end “found wanting.” That’s the common perception anyway. But it’s wrong.

The truth is that the Christian life has largely “been found difficult and left untried.” And because of that we’ve never actually experienced the fullness of the Christian ideal.

There are some who have actually overcome the difficulties, given it a fair try and did not find it wanting at all. They’re called Saints. So before we go writing off Christianity as more of the same old hat, consider looking to the Saints and trying on a hat that you perhaps have never fully tried."

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

But religions do not hold a monopoly on morals or ethics. If one were to research how to be moral or ethical today, one simply needs to google it.

What makes this random google source credible? Would it still be appropriate if they found a christian source?

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

How to decide what is moral or ethical when contradictions arise they could simply research studies or ponder logically, rather than have a bias towards any system that discredits questioning itself.

Do you early have to look farther than the reformation to see that the discussion does promote questioning itself?

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Discrediting questioning itself perhaps was good for elder leaders, so the young impressionable people who believe in fairy tales of theirs, would not be so gullible as to join together out of paranoia to combat a supposed threat contradictory to the benefit of the group. Studies do show christian raised people are more gullible than general http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149 so this idea has more evidence for it than one may expect.

"Poetry is finer and more philosophical than history; for poetry expresses the universal, and history only the particular."

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Also another indirect form of evidence being cults themselves usually claim members from a more gullible upbringing, and that is one potential plot removed from the group for added solidarity.

Whats wrong with cults? 40-50% of randomly pooled serial killers are lgbt with only a small percentage of the population being lgbt itself it is a nearly shockingly efficient trait. That said I understand that source would likely be pretty bias, I couldn't find a better one. My point here is not to suggest that its more likely to go on a murderous rampage if you're gay, just to say that stats can be pretty useless if you're just trying to go around doom mongering especially if its pretty baseless- and if you're allowed to call cults dangerous then I feel I should be allowed to do the same with sexual and atheistic deviants.

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

This sort of suggests theres an incapability of self-leadership from a gullible upbringing.

Yea like Joan of Ark, King Richard the lionhearted, and just about every US president.

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Back then it may have been necessary but today its a hindrance. With a thousand new spiritual ideas some of them are just self-destructive and most are a waste of time, and learning these things helps save alot of time money and heartache.

What value are time and money without spirit?

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

There are things like fortune tellers, cold readers, false horoscopes, alot of silly things and expensive unproven self help programs, and illogical or paranoid conspiracy theories. This is why religious moral direction can be a waste of time.

Are you attempting to discredit all of these things at the same time without giving any indication why. You could of made a book for each one on why they aren't credible. Finally, if moral direction is a waste of time, what the hell should you be doing with your time?

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Now, to deal with the plain inaccuracies. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions If we assume they are stories for learning from, this discounts their ability to be true, which discounts most Abrahamic faiths unless I am mistaken, as different faiths do have various beliefs, and may have omitted certain stories, I am sure though that most of them are applicable.

If you're entire argument was going to be posting this and saying "this is infallible evidence and therefore you're wrong" what was the point in posting the rest of this thread?

When I said poor self-leadership I meant via not following someone, not the exceptions who found the others are willing to follow more than average. It could be a strength to follow, but its more of a strength these days to lead yourself.

Define spirit, however I think purpose for motivation is more relevant than 'spirit'. The ones who tend to feel lost and purposeless tend to be more gullible to fall for scams, as well as people being more gullible being raised religious anyways. If I had to guess its evolutionary benefit the gullibility is to be open into accepting a different group's ideas to be more compatible and be a member more frequently than a skeptic, when their life depends on it. Forget where I heard one of those things about gullibility though.

The point of the rest of the thread? Its a topic, obviously.

I didn't say 'is a waste of time' learn to read, I said it CAN be a waste of time.

Whats wrong with cults is when people are gullible they don't have proper reasoning skills to make the decision if the cult is reasonable or not and cults tend to take advantage of the gullible for said reason, much like how bedding minors is illegal. Lgbt is not related because it doesn't depend on gullibility to recruit members.

Says one person that poetry expresses the universal. Poetry has changed and can be diverse. Its a good method of expression where words are usually not enough by themselves trying to simply state how they feel rather than presenting it to be felt, but also what value is there in philosophy, art I suppose, and perhaps technology since art and inventions require creative thinking. But theres the normal idea of philosophy, which is basically ponderance without evidence, which is a very silly idea in itself and can be a waste of time for everything except feeling profoundness or existential crises etc. "The man of science is a poor philosopher."Albert Einstein

Its not that I was offended someone asked me to do work, its they were basically resorting to ad homs n stuff and being a rather poor conversater in general. I couldn't help but be offended, and I feel they may have just been trying to piss me off judging from a post they made at the time outside of the thread as well, but I tried to have some good come of it. Then they didn't respond, which is another reason to think they were insincere.

"

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

In other cases, such as for learning involving some moral direction, it is rather up for debate as to how effective its morals are for their supposedly desired effects.

It's not up for debate what the desired effects of Christendom are,"

Um, no s**t sherlocke? I was saying the effectiveness is what was up for debate.