On 10/20/2010 11:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> No, I find it implausible that someone can **only** believe in the
>> specific mythology of their religion, without taking on, at bare
>> minimum, Altie medicine, *or*, therapeutic touch, *or* astrology, *or*
>> at least **one**, of not far more, other goofy ideas.
>
> Well, I know a bunch of people like that. Sorry you find it implausible
> without any reason to back you up other than your general disdain for
> irrational beliefs.
>
My only argument is, "Its not my experience, even if it is yours", and, 
"Unless you have quizzed them on the whole range of stuff that might 
conflict, you can't say this is true." The later is hardly fair, even if 
accurate, the former, could be wrong, in that maybe I have simply never 
met any myself. But, my assertion is that I find it implausible. You are 
the one claiming certainties.

As for my disdain of irrational beliefs.. I disdain the effects of those 
beliefs, when people insist on applying them to the real world, and by 
extension, other people's lives, or medicine, or technology, etc., 
thereby halting, slowing, or sending on wild goose chases, any 
improvements we try to make. If, as you say, some people manage to 
**completely** avoid this error, I have no damn problem with them 
believing what ever the hell they want.

And, to be even clearer. It hardly matters if someone does perfect work 
on computers, keeping all wacky ideas out of the system, yet holds to 
some idea that, outside of work, results in them supporting things that 
result in those computers never getting *used* for some project, 
because, I don't know, maybe they freak out about genetic engineering, 
or stem cells.

No, you want to know what I truly disdain? Its the argument, presented 
by a lot of people, including some atheists, that you shouldn't call 
Glen Beck an frakking idiot, because it might offend someone among the 
nearest group of mostly rational religious, most of which probably call 
him worse things. Some ideas are worthy of disdain, and the US is just 
about the *only* Western country that hasn't been moving towards 
rationality, and away from the absurd and irrational. On the contrary, 
we keep inventing more stupid shit, then telling each other that its a 
"good thing", because it proves we are tolerant of other ideas (except 
the number of stupid things we defend, which are intolerant of 
everything else, including the rational ideas, which, apparently we 
would be intolerant, of we dared to call out for being intolerant).

I do think we would be better off without religion in general, and that 
"weak" religion is almost worse, since you a) can't pin down what it is, 
and b) it tends to defend the ones you can pin down, while claiming 
those ideas are "not so bad", even when they are. I don't think we are 
going to get rid of it soon. I would rather your friends than most of 
the rest of them, but, the simple reality is, its pretty hard to have 
"any" sort of religion, in any non-vague sense, and not have it do 
things to your thinking.

The only "good" thing about the whole mess is that there "seems" to be 
groups like Christian atheists, the "spiritual, but not religious", 
types, and the sort of, "We leave the Bible on the shelf, and act like 
agnostics/atheists, except when someone asks us which church we attend", 
seem to be growing. Those sorts, I would be happy to believe are 
"unlikely" to be effected by religion. They practically don't have one...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message