Know Your Religion

[Samadhi23]

from blue to

In the Bible Belt, most anyone can tell you about God and Jesus and why they matter (or don't matter as some of us are atheists, but we're fooling ourselves if we think the predominant religion of the region doesn't effect us). Something I started noticing about all this knowledge several years ago bothers me. Frequently, in conversions concerning Christianity, the more knowledgeable person on the subject is the less religious participant. This is certainly not always the case, but so many people profess to be religious, attend Church regularly and tithe, then go about telling others how they ought to live more Christian lives but have no apparent grasp of what it means to be Christian or what their sacred text says.

Some explanations come to mind as to why this occurs. For example, having to deal with Christians with great frequency can inspire some non-Christians to learn enough about the religion to turn it against some of its more annoying practitioners. Also, when such a high percentage of the population is Christian, included in that group is bound to be some brash individuals who will always speak before thinking.

So I'm curious. Does anyone else see this happen much (or would it be better to ask how often you see this happen) where a proud member of a religion gets in conversations with heathens who know his religion better than he? Does anyone see this problem occurring with other religions? Why do you think people identify with a religion they don't understand? What do you think when you see a loud, proud, but ignorant Christian (is it even right to call that person a Christian)?

1) Yes, I have seen the phenomena you have described here, and I have seen it a lot.
2) Yes, I have seen this phenomena with many religions, and not just Christianity.
3) Yes, I have seen this phenomena amongst atheists.

The natural conclusion is that people as a whole are significantly less intelligent and significantly more culturally conditioned than free-thinkers give them credit for. People like you see the absurdity in vehemently believing in something that you don't even know enough about to provide a discussion about it. Less aware people have no such aversion. They readily choose not to investigate for themselves (we could debate the reasons for this if you like), and the end result is that they mindlessly absorb whatever influence is more culturally sanctioned for their own little corner of the world.

[Mythrill Man]

ChiyuriYami

Ok so I went ahead and watched that entire 49:37 video. Felt like a waste of time since it didn't demonstrate the impossibility of a godly being. Anyway the whole concept of "supernatural" is meaningless. If something exist in this world, then it is a natural part of the world. Calling something "supernatural" is to define it as impossible to begin with. But yea..
Here is the part of the video you seem to have forgotten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Vrs-Azp0i3k#t=2264s
Listen well to the few next words he says.
Through near the end he does deny quite a lot of things and his explanation is cause they don't work with the concept that everything is physical in the world. Well here is what I would tell him. Not everything is physical. He will not be able to deny that possibility with facts and such. And that possibility open the door to many other things.

But everything we observe in the everyday world is physical. That's the point of the lecture and what the Standard Model confirms. The spot in the video you referred to is where Carroll discusses phenomena from the non-everyday world (e.g., dark matter), but that's not part of the world we interact with every day here on Earth as humans.

ChiyuriYami

Also Here is the definition of a godly being that you cannot deny with either logic. Image a godly being who created the world. That godly being is neither all powerful or all knowledgeble. It got some degree of overly strong power but the power is not Omnipotence. It got plenty of knowledge but it isn't omnicience. After it created the world, it left it, hence it doesn't exist in our universe anymore.

What is your evidence for such a proposition? Naturalistic cosmogonic hypotheses already exist, and the principle of Occam's Razor suggests that these naturalistic explanations (e.g., Krauss' zero-energy universe hypothesis) are more believable than vague, untestable, mythical, godly schemes. Although one single scientific theory has not yet been definitively established, positing "God did it" in the absence of knowledge is an argument from ignorance fallacy--the same type of thinking that compelled primitive people to look up the mysterious formation of lightning and say, "Zeus did it."

[ChiyuriYami]

Elephant_Man

ChiyuriYami

Ok so I went ahead and watched that entire 49:37 video. Felt like a waste of time since it didn't demonstrate the impossibility of a godly being. Anyway the whole concept of "supernatural" is meaningless. If something exist in this world, then it is a natural part of the world. Calling something "supernatural" is to define it as impossible to begin with. But yea..
Here is the part of the video you seem to have forgotten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Vrs-Azp0i3k#t=2264s
Listen well to the few next words he says.
Through near the end he does deny quite a lot of things and his explanation is cause they don't work with the concept that everything is physical in the world. Well here is what I would tell him. Not everything is physical. He will not be able to deny that possibility with facts and such. And that possibility open the door to many other things.

But everything we observe in the everyday world is physical. That's the point of the lecture and what the Standard Model confirms. The spot in the video you referred to is where Carroll discusses phenomena from the non-everyday world (e.g., dark matter), but that's not part of the world we interact with every day here on Earth as humans.

I dunno about you but I observe non-physical stuff on daily basic. Of course, trying to prove these observation is like trying to prove "colors" to someone blind.. It's something you observe for yourself, noty soemnoe you can share the observation to others.

[from blue to]

Samadhi23

from blue to

In the Bible Belt, most anyone can tell you about God and Jesus and why they matter (or don't matter as some of us are atheists, but we're fooling ourselves if we think the predominant religion of the region doesn't effect us). Something I started noticing about all this knowledge several years ago bothers me. Frequently, in conversions concerning Christianity, the more knowledgeable person on the subject is the less religious participant. This is certainly not always the case, but so many people profess to be religious, attend Church regularly and tithe, then go about telling others how they ought to live more Christian lives but have no apparent grasp of what it means to be Christian or what their sacred text says.

Some explanations come to mind as to why this occurs. For example, having to deal with Christians with great frequency can inspire some non-Christians to learn enough about the religion to turn it against some of its more annoying practitioners. Also, when such a high percentage of the population is Christian, included in that group is bound to be some brash individuals who will always speak before thinking.

So I'm curious. Does anyone else see this happen much (or would it be better to ask how often you see this happen) where a proud member of a religion gets in conversations with heathens who know his religion better than he? Does anyone see this problem occurring with other religions? Why do you think people identify with a religion they don't understand? What do you think when you see a loud, proud, but ignorant Christian (is it even right to call that person a Christian)?

1) Yes, I have seen the phenomena you have described here, and I have seen it a lot.
2) Yes, I have seen this phenomena with many religions, and not just Christianity.
3) Yes, I have seen this phenomena amongst atheists.

The natural conclusion is that people as a whole are significantly less intelligent and significantly more culturally conditioned than free-thinkers give them credit for. People like you see the absurdity in vehemently believing in something that you don't even know enough about to provide a discussion about it. Less aware people have no such aversion. They readily choose not to investigate for themselves (we could debate the reasons for this if you like), and the end result is that they mindlessly absorb whatever influence is more culturally sanctioned for their own little corner of the world.

You're right to point out that atheists can be just as bad.

So why do you think some people so readily follow the cultural norm while others seek personal understanding?

[Samadhi23]

from blue to

So why do you think some people so readily follow the cultural norm while others seek personal understanding?

For a variety of reasons, depending on the person.

Some people have a weak ego and need constant reassurance from their peers in order to maintain their sense of identity. This person is slightly unique in that their cultural identity could change if exposed to a different but overwhelmingly prevalent norm for a noticeable length of time.

Some people are deeply afraid of death and will go to extravagant lengths to avoid thinking about it. They avoid any type of philosophical questioning by re-asserting "no, this is what there is, and that's all I need to think about" when confronted with contradictory evidence. This person will likely continue to repeat their 5th-grader notion of reality, even if the same person that explained it to them at a young age attempted to tell them something different.

Some people do question things more than they let on. However, since our society is not particularly tolerant of deviant behavior, they find it more beneficial to hide their unique thoughts rather than be labeled as different or an outsider.

Some people are just lazy. While they admit there might be holes in their logic, they don't care. As long as they have a hot meal and a cold beer they are happy to live their lives in ignorance. Of course, just like people have a favorite sports team, however, many of these beliefs will still support their local cultural preference as better than all those other ones that they don't know anything about just because its the home team in a manner of speaking.

Altogether, these natural personality tendencies get nurtured by the American love of conformity so that it becomes pathological to a certain extent. The public education system blatantly promotes conformity over any kind of individual thought. To express individual thought is to be disruptive to the lecture the teacher is trying to present to the classroom. Not only does the teacher not want the interruption, since they have XX amount of material they need to get through, but the other students typically dislike it as well since they just want to get through the day to recess/naptime/etc as soon as possible. Many parents have become the same way: don't bother me with incessant questions that I don't know the answer to. Watch TV instead. And so the process feeds itself. Now even more social controls can be put on the situation if we are looking at America specifically. Every mass shooting is followed up by how the gunmen were lone introverts with unconventional beliefs. Conform or you are a terrorist is the underlying message. It is never specified what to conform to, so people run to whatever is locally the most prevalent.

So yeah, disorganized rant aside, I would put fear and laziness as two of the most common factors, although their means of expression can be significantly different (i.e. the person fearing death and the person fearing social rejection will display their fear the same). If you wanted a more over-arching theme, I guess I would point towards childishness in general. People will go to absurd lengths of self-delusion and self-justification if that's what they feel like they need to do to protect their fragile sense of self. This includes an extreme readiness to persecute anyone that disagrees. The better question might be why there are those of us that are able to break free from the pattern; those of us that are willing to question our own beliefs.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Mythrill Man]

ChiyuriYami

Elephant_Man

ChiyuriYami

Ok so I went ahead and watched that entire 49:37 video. Felt like a waste of time since it didn't demonstrate the impossibility of a godly being. Anyway the whole concept of "supernatural" is meaningless. If something exist in this world, then it is a natural part of the world. Calling something "supernatural" is to define it as impossible to begin with. But yea..
Here is the part of the video you seem to have forgotten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Vrs-Azp0i3k#t=2264s
Listen well to the few next words he says.
Through near the end he does deny quite a lot of things and his explanation is cause they don't work with the concept that everything is physical in the world. Well here is what I would tell him. Not everything is physical. He will not be able to deny that possibility with facts and such. And that possibility open the door to many other things.

But everything we observe in the everyday world is physical. That's the point of the lecture and what the Standard Model confirms. The spot in the video you referred to is where Carroll discusses phenomena from the non-everyday world (e.g., dark matter), but that's not part of the world we interact with every day here on Earth as humans.

I dunno about you but I observe non-physical stuff on daily basic. Of course, trying to prove these observation is like trying to prove "colors" to someone blind.. It's something you observe for yourself, noty soemnoe you can share the observation to others.

You don't observe non-physical stuff. You believe you observe non-physical stuff.

The human brain is naturally inclined to believe in nonsense. Science challenges our natural inclination to believe, and it is a self-regulating process. That is what makes science the best known method for determining what is actually true.

[from blue to]

Samadhi23

Wow, okay. I do not have the energy after the way this week has gone to reply to everything you said, so I'm gonna reply in a general sorta way. Overall, gotta say, that was depressing. Left me thinking, "Why did I ask that?". Your ideas made sense (enough to be depressing anyway, since if they didn't make sense who would care, right?). So what I think I'm saying is good answer and good night.

[ChiyuriYami]

Elephant_Man

ChiyuriYami

Elephant_Man

ChiyuriYami

Ok so I went ahead and watched that entire 49:37 video. Felt like a waste of time since it didn't demonstrate the impossibility of a godly being. Anyway the whole concept of "supernatural" is meaningless. If something exist in this world, then it is a natural part of the world. Calling something "supernatural" is to define it as impossible to begin with. But yea..
Here is the part of the video you seem to have forgotten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Vrs-Azp0i3k#t=2264s
Listen well to the few next words he says.
Through near the end he does deny quite a lot of things and his explanation is cause they don't work with the concept that everything is physical in the world. Well here is what I would tell him. Not everything is physical. He will not be able to deny that possibility with facts and such. And that possibility open the door to many other things.

But everything we observe in the everyday world is physical. That's the point of the lecture and what the Standard Model confirms. The spot in the video you referred to is where Carroll discusses phenomena from the non-everyday world (e.g., dark matter), but that's not part of the world we interact with every day here on Earth as humans.

I dunno about you but I observe non-physical stuff on daily basic. Of course, trying to prove these observation is like trying to prove "colors" to someone blind.. It's something you observe for yourself, noty soemnoe you can share the observation to others.

You don't observe non-physical stuff. You believe you observe non-physical stuff.

The human brain is naturally inclined to believe in nonsense. Science challenges our natural inclination to believe, and it is a self-regulating process. That is what makes science the best known method for determining what is actually true.

So simply cause you couldn't deny it, you choose to assume that instead? That's a pretty cheap move on your part. Personnaly peopel who cling to science liek it's perectly completed like you do right now is what I find to be "believing in nonsense". Science is not completed yet, Heck even some people in the domain of science study those non-physical stuff I talked of, I think they are much more open minded than you are.. Well anyway, you already choose to deny any validity to my post with that last one so any further argumentation would be pointless.

[Samadhi23]

from blue to

Samadhi23

Wow, okay. I do not have the energy after the way this week has gone to reply to everything you said, so I'm gonna reply in a general sorta way. Overall, gotta say, that was depressing. Left me thinking, "Why did I ask that?". Your ideas made sense (enough to be depressing anyway, since if they didn't make sense who would care, right?). So what I think I'm saying is good answer and good night.

lol hope I didn't ruin your night too much man biggrin

[from blue to]

Samadhi23

from blue to

Samadhi23

Wow, okay. I do not have the energy after the way this week has gone to reply to everything you said, so I'm gonna reply in a general sorta way. Overall, gotta say, that was depressing. Left me thinking, "Why did I ask that?". Your ideas made sense (enough to be depressing anyway, since if they didn't make sense who would care, right?). So what I think I'm saying is good answer and good night.

lol hope I didn't ruin your night too much man biggrin

No worries. I got to see my son after reading that. He always cheers me up.

[Mythrill Man]

ChiyuriYami

So simply cause you couldn't deny it, you choose to assume that instead? That's a pretty cheap move on your part. Personnaly peopel who cling to science liek it's perectly completed like you do right now is what I find to be "believing in nonsense". Science is not completed yet, Heck even some people in the domain of science study those non-physical stuff I talked of, I think they are much more open minded than you are.. Well anyway, you already choose to deny any validity to my post with that last one so any further argumentation would be pointless.

1. Belief isn't a choice. I can't choose to believe in the Easter Bunny, for example. One is compelled to accept reality for what it is based on the information available.
2. Did I ever claim "science is completed"? In fact, I specifically said that it wasn't in previous post. My only claim was that the Standard Model for particle physics has been confirmed, which does rule out certain supernatural claims.
3. If you want to make a case for a specific supernatural claim, define what the claim is and present your evidence.

[haruki_jitsunin]

I definitely see how much a major religious following can affect even the non-believers of a community. I was born and raised in an extremely religious community. I watched as the first walmart opened. Okay, so what, cheaper groceries. Little did people realize that a huge socialization factor that this community had was the fact that the whole population of about 10,000 shopped only at about 3 grocery stores and about 5 liquor stores. Slowly, their businesses died and the philanthropy of the shop owners was never returned to the community. Same happened with the first McDonalds and the first Burger king, completely shut down the local restaurants and slowly, with lack of local funding and sponsorship for local community events, the community deteriorated into pockets.

About 3/4 of the population actually began strengthening their religious resolve (I could only imagine it was in the face of utter cultural decay), the other 1/4- because they really weren't religious disconnected more and more until there was/is a communal us/them mentality all based on religion. There was no need for these two groups of people to ever really interact (outside of the few local gun clubs and the annual town and country fair that still occurred). Religion became a club. The club.

My family and I had the wonderfully-adventagous to see both the inside of this club and the excommunication from this club. Problematic christians (divorcees, meth addicts, alcoholics, etc) instead of being lumped into the "us" religious category were lumped into the "them" category and atheism/alternate spirituality were lumped together with those negative sides of humanity. Oh, Amy got pregnant before marriage aaand she smokes, she must be a non-believer. And so what you end up with is a "holier than thou" community that is hurting and hemorrhaging members yet at the same time, these people use their religious high ground to further separate themself from the "them" part of the society. This "them" society hurts because of this transition as the majority of the population is still religious and still treats these other members with isolation or contempt.

Although I know religion can do great things for a community and its members, which in turn can do great and wonderful things for the community. That has never been a personal truth.