[xeno]Julios wrote:
He actually said that if he found evidence that the bible was flawed, he'd have to re-examine his beliefs (a very reasonable proposition but one which few believers are capable of contemplating with any sincerity).
That's pretty interesting. I mean, the bible is already hugely flawed but I'm glad people at least have open minds with this. I was discussing Abrahamic religions with some buddies of mine and I postulated that even if incontrovertible true came out that Jesus didn't exist or the bible was BS or whatever, you know, something ANY rational thinker would follow, it still wouldn't end religion. The hard core nuts would either dismiss completely or spin it in another way that satan did it or it's evil science's crusade against god.
From my experiences talking with you average american religious person church is more of a social and tradition thing and none of them have ever dug deeper or tried to answer the hard questions, instead letting what they were raised to believe and what the preacher and other members tell them.
Edit3: They also use this for the basis of their morals and hold themselves higher than the rest of us, but that's such a long argument with so many holes I don't know where to begin. Especially since the simplest would be asking if anyone has ever been divorced, then had sex again. Jesus says you're fucked then buddy. In fact, Abe's thunder god on Sinai struck into some rocks that you shall not covet your neighbors wife (fuckin human nature, gimmie a break) but Jesus said that if you even THINK about your neighbor's wife you've already commited adultery. The way I see it is, if this supposed god is forgiving enough to let them folks in, I figure I'll be alright since I live a fairly "christian" life except for the supernatural bullshit and all. Hopefully god is logical, rational, and open to reason....right? right?
The approach to "converting" the religious needs to change a bit too I think. As awesome as Hitchens or Dawkins(admittedly he's gotten better recently) are, they usually come off as attacking and arrogant. I agree its had not to when you have hard evidence and aren't afraid to say "I don't know" and the people you are debating use faith or circle arguments ("Of course the bible is literal infallible word of god, the bible says so!). I'm not out to "convert" anyone per say, but more to just question their beliefs and how the came to them. When someone thinks they are right in any circumstance, not just the religion or the supernatural, they are inclined to brush off people saying the contrary.
I've just taken the step to asking them some of their core beliefs, then asking them questions about it that may make them question their beliefs. It just seems like the best way to me. I began asking the questions myself when I was getting older in the Catholic church I went to and things didn't make sense, and then later sought out philosophical arguments as well as scientific data that answered those big questions in a more satisfying way.
I was going to conclude this with something else but it slipped my mind...maybe it'll hit me again. With the Lord's help.
Edit: Oh, I remembered, and it makes me wish I could carry tons of literature around with me everywhere. The reasoning for this is; at least 9 or so out of 10 people I run into who don't believe in evolution, natural selection, carbon dating, and all those that are used to attack the science part of it are ignorant. They have an idea about what it is, but it is usually taken very literal and not delivered to them by teachers but by preachers and clergy. I remember a Dawkins documentary where he interviewed Ted Haggard (wiki him, way high up evangelical pastor, apparently talked to bush, oh, and also met a male prostitute to do some meth and fucking). Anyway, Haggard says something to the effect that it's hard for their kind of people to look at something like, the eye, and think that it just came about by accident. Dawkin's jaw drops and says no evolutionist he's ever known or met thinks that the eye just came about accidentally. Haggard responds that Dawkins must not know the evolutionists he knows. Point being is this guy. Haggard. has a huge following, and I doubt his clergy is going home and double checking the facts. Another one got into him with the "survival of the fittest" catchphrase and came to the conclusion that if its real why aren't we all killing each other and mating constantly. It seems they don't take enough time to learn that things like "survival of the fittest" basically means what creature is going to have the best change of making it to adulthood and mating. Shit, survival of the fittest for a lot of birds, definitely peacocks, comes down to sex characteristics. Which one has the more brilliant display of plumage to get that female over there for some bird lovin.
Once again, it all breaks down to ignorance of the science. In a way you could say the eye was an "accident", i.e. the first light sensitive cell to mutate, but the human eye is geological timescales in evolution constantly changing bit by bit.
Of course too, once its so ingrained it's really hard to break out of it I think. One of my uncles who is a quite intelligent guy in politics, genetics, biology, and the like is still a hard core roman catholic, even to the point of being an apologetic to the priests convected of molestation. I always wondered how he could be so open and yet so blind, but I think when you're raised in it all of your life you become subjected to the same kind of confirmation bias that's everywhere. It's worked for him so far, if it was bullshit it could throw his life out of whack, so he'll stick to the things that back him up.
My theory of most of the problems with control of weaker minded people apply not only to religion, but sales, advertisements, or basically everything our brains are inundated with every day. I see two kinds of people in my anecdotal evidence: There are few skeptics who are willing to do the leg work to verify information and judge it based on its source, taking into account what they see, hear, and read but not talking it at complete face value. Then you have the majority of people who I would describe in two words. Ignorant, and trusting.
I welcome skepticism with what I say and preach, and I hope people look it up, but back on the majority of people we need to work on the trusting aspect more than the ignorant. Some friends were saying can tabs because they were told a milk jugs worth of tabs would by them a case. I told them I didn't think that was true, it isn't that much aluminum, but I was dismissed because of whatever friend told them that. Next time I saw them I brought some proof, the going rate of Al/lb (which was around .50 USD). Still wasn't enough to convince them, and their "friend" had done it and turned it in and aldfhakdhfksadhflkahfkajhf. Well I finally printed out some Ronald Mcdonald house and other shit online telling em that their gallon of tabs was worth about 1.69 and they're be better off sellin em on ebay for tab wars.
Even worse, of the 3 I was arguing with only 1 believed me at the end. It seems horrible to say we should be trusting people less, but in my experiences its necessary and doesn't have to be distrust, just skepticism. At any rate, this shit will be along for a long time. Well, of course, not if you read the new testament. Jesus himself, and Paul, John, and other writers of the rest of the NT were predicting doomsday then. Paul even told people not to get married if they hadn't yet cause it was a waste of time before we were going up to 'de sky.
Phew, long post, but I spend a lot of reading and thinking on this shit.
Alright, end of edit...I think. 5 bucks says no one makes it thru this post, lol
