America's nonreligious are a growing, diverse phenomenon. They really don't like organized religion
sanpedropeddler @ sanpedropeddler @sh.itjust.works Posts 1Comments 359Joined 2 yr. ago
sanpedropeddler @ sanpedropeddler @sh.itjust.works
Posts
1
Comments
359
Joined
2 yr. ago
There is no point in discussing them because we cannot directly affect them.
There absolutely is a point in discussing things you can't affect. Also, you can affect their power over your ability to reason if you are emotionally aware enough.
That is not an important question. Again, emotions are automatic responses.
It is. If part of the topic of this conversation is people that think with their emotions, it would tell you that emotions are absolutely related to this conversation. You brought those groups up as examples yourself.
The only route through which we can affect emotional response is philosophy.
Not true. You can learn to control your emotions to some extent without changing philosophy. Also, your philosophy is usually based on your emotions. Not the other way around. The belief that murder is bad comes from emotion. There is no argument to be made that a human life has value. We all agree its bad anyway though, because death causes negative emotions.
A philosophy that an individual's personal beliefs are of greater importance than objective reality exacerbates the issues you discuss
No one believes their personal beliefs to be more important than objective reality. They believe their personal beliefs are objective reality. They do this because of their emotions. That's why its important to discuss them.
You are knowingly choosing a dead-end road
It is a destination, not a dead end. The destination being the obvious conclusion that you have no reason to distrust all religious people.
I have nothing of value to add to your decision to follow that path, and I do not choose to walk it with you.
You had nothing of value to add to begin with. You literally just dislike religion for no reason.
Anyone who has any decency or feeling of inner justice will support innocent civilians regardless of their country of origin, and will condemn terrorist acts and war crimes regardless of who commited them.
That's what I was just doing, but I guess I'll expand upon it.
Remember all of the groups of people you mentioned earlier, like anti vaccine or anti mask people? Do you think it was a fully conscious decision to hold that belief? No, they did not sit down and logically come to the conclusion that vaccines or masks are bad. Chances are, they heard a story on Facebook about it that scared them into that belief.
They thought with their emotions instead of actual logic, because they aren't in touch with their emotions enough to reliably differentiate between the two.
There was no conscious decision to conflate personal belief with reality. All of the examples you've given were not caused by a conscious decision at all. They were caused by unconscious emotional processes that they failed to recognize.
To say that things that happen without conscious input are irrelevant to this conversation is completely incorrect. The difference between a normal religious person and a religious person with the problematic beliefs you've mentioned is this unconscious process.
A normal person regardless of religiosity is mentally capable of recognizing that process. A mentally unhealthy person regardless of religiosity is not capable of this.
When you say that's outside of the scope of this conversation, here's what I hear:
I have nothing more of value to add to this conversation, so I will desperately try to end it while maintaining the illusion that my argument had any value in the first place.
The difference in outcomes is due to the conscious, philosophical model held by the actor.
The outcome is whatever avoids the feeling of shame, unless the person is emotionally intelligent enough to recognize it happening. It absolutely can and will affect your logic.
The response is not just to physical threats, it is trying to avoid negative emotions. That may be the shame from recognizing your actions, or realizing your belief is illogical.
I would say that you are overvaluing the effects of emotion on the initial decision
Emotion is the initial decision. The rationalizations are just an attempt to pretend is reasonable.
Yes, you do not consciously make the decision to give up rational thought to emotion. This does not detract from my argument.
Have you considered that an automatic response might have a large impact on what you believe? The reason people don't see the lack of logic in their beliefs is because their emotions don't allow it.
Even outside of this specific function, neocortex activity is inversely correlated with amygdala activity. The more emotionally attached to a belief they are, the more difficult it is to stop believing it.
I don't see how you can just ignore this and pretend it has nothing to do with our conversation. It is literally the entire cause of the problems you've mentioned.
That is how certain people work, not all people.
No. It is literally a function of the human brain. https://www.healthline.com/health/stress/amygdala-hijack#how-to-stop Every single person on earth has done this and will do it again.
I don't think so, but let's check on it: is it a mental health issue when we use an incorrect order of operations in a mathematical statement?
That is simple incorrect logic. What I'm talking about is emotions overriding logic.
Having faith in a religion is very different from justifying emotional reactions with bad logic. You are conflating your personal belief that they are the same with objective reality.
Everyone conflates personal belief with objective reality to varying degrees. A mentally healthy person can process their emotions well and recognize when they do so most of the time. A mentally unhealthy person will not recognize it because of their lack of emotional intelligence.
Again, I am not talking about a clinical condition that inhibits clear logic. I'm talking about the ability to process your emotions in a healthy way.
Indeed. However, for a faithless person, those circumstances must exist in objective reality.
No, they do not. Anyone can justify any belief regardless of faith. I will admit faith is an easy target to justify horrible things, but its not at all the only way to justify things like that.
That's just how people work. Instead of admitting their beliefs are wrong, they will do mental gymnastics to justify them. It is very possible to have incorrect reasoning without being religious.
The underlying problem is absolutely bad mental health. Not necessarily a mental illness, but bad mental health in general. Everyone has justified a belief with bad logic because its too difficult to admit you are wrong. I've done it and still occasionally catch myself doing it. I believe you're doing it right now, although I'll admit I don't know you well enough to know for sure. I'm guessing you had some negative experience with religion and now justify your distaste for it by claiming religious people are more prone to doing horrible things.
I'm not sure what groups you are referring to. Do these groups "conflate personal belief with objective reality"?
Yes, the only difference is that their bad reasoning is not religious in nature. That's why your problem should be people that do that, not religious people. They are not related.
Where did I claim to "hate" anything at all? I believe the strongest criticism I made was "distrust".
Here I was using hate to refer to the examples you gave like anti vaccine and anti mask people. I'm assuming you do hate that, as you should.
This makes slightly more sense to me although it is painfully overdramatic.
I could make an argument that any person under the right set of circumstances will cause harm. As far as I am aware, a religious person is not any more of a ticking time bomb than anyone else.
Blaming religion for these problems without tackling the underlying psychological issues is not going to help in any meaningful way. You just spread more hate and make the world a worse place, instead of approaching the situation with the slightest bit of empathy.
I see secular groups acting exactly the same way religious groups youve mentioned do. Its not a characteristic of religion or the lack thereof, its a characteristic of mentally unhealthy people.
If you care so much about these problems, then recognize that the world is not so black and white that you can always find an idea to make your enemy no matter the circumstances. The way to fix these problems is not to alienate massive groups of people because you think they might become bad one day. That's a childish close-minded world view that only perpetuates the things you claim to hate so much.
You say your problem is that they believe things that are unsupported. Is that all, or do you dislike that because you think it leads to practices you don't like?
Such things do of course exist, but they don't constitute the dislike for all religion. Religious beliefs differ wildly and it makes little sense to denounce all of them because some cause problems.
Earlier you said that it wasn't any specific practices that caused you to dislike religion. So, I focused on your problem just with the unsupported beliefs. Now you again bring up specific practices you don't like.
I don't understand what you are even trying to say at this point.
None of that arises from any part of my argument. Your stated conclusions are a product of your own mind and have nothing to do with anything I have said. Your argument is, thus, a strawman fallacy.
From what I can gather, it effectively is your argument. You dislike that people believe things that are not supported with evidence. I do not personally think it matters because they gain value from it and do not harm others in the process. What am I missing?
The capability of distinguishing fact from fiction is meaningless in the circumstances where the individual deliberately intends to reject fact.
I can't disagree with that, but I just don't see why it matters so much. If they seriously gain that much value from believing something, then let them.
which could be characterized as a preference for hypothesization over experimentation.
This is an oversimplification of religion. There is a difference between someone's religious beliefs, and how they approach logic in a real world situation. A religious person does not just always make a hypothesis and assume it to be true no matter what. They are capable of being normal functioning human beings and differentiating from fact and fiction outside of their religion. If they aren't capable of this, then I agree its a problem. But its not a problem with religion, its a problem with the person.
So your problem is that people are believing things you disagree with because it gives them a sense of fulfillment and community without harming anyone else. It could not possibly be more clear that you are the problem.
And no, it is not gaslighting to point out why you are wrong about something. That's a ridiculous tactic to avoid the tiniest bit of self reflection.
But religious people aren't just saying "God Bless You" when we sneeze. They are telling us how to vote, whether to wear masks, vaccinate our children, shun our neighbors, annihilate nations, and they are doing this on the basis of entirely unsupported, yet strongly held personal belief.
Ah, so your problems with religion are actually problems with specific religious practices. Its almost like you should just hate those practices instead of directing your anger at a very broad concept.
Your justification for distrusting all religious people is a small minority of Christians and Muslims. Grow up and treat people like people
I find the comparison between religion and schizophrenia to be a little over the top. There is a big difference between believing something that cannot be proven true, and having actual schizophrenic delusions.
Religious beliefs don't inherently impair your ability to function. And clearly they have some emotional function or value given that peoples around the world created their own unique religions without fail.
I really don't see why you care so much about what people believe as long as their beliefs aren't hurting anyone else. You are creating a problem where there is none.
I have zeroninteraction with any of them anymore, and I cannot respect anyone who proselytizes in the slightest about anything.
Agreed, and this is coming from a religious person. I think people who proselytize are extremely misguided. I understand wanting other people to be a part of something that is such an important part of your life, but that's not the way to do it at all.
I was raised agnostic and became religious later. I couldn't have the relationship with my religion I do now if I was solicited by someone else to do it. You can't give someone that experience if they don't want it. All you can do is be nice to them and help them if they are genuinely interested.
What is it you hate so much about religion? I could see disliking specific religious practices, but what problem does every religion share that makes you immediately distrust all religious people?
But... you can. It already exists
I guess its more prevelant than I thought, or at least it used to be. Its very confusing to me how people could fall for that. How little do you have to know about music to think a specific type of it will literally increase your intelligence.
I had a history teacher in (US) high school who was not afraid at all to tell his students the whole truth about stuff like this. Its too bad he was the only one not allowed to teach government classes.
There's a good chance when you were younger, you heard classical music in the classroom to try and make you smarter. However, this is a myth - there is no such link between music and intelligence (or that we can measure intelligence for another matter!)
I've never heard anyone claim classical music makes you smarter. I have heard people say it makes you focus better, which is true to some extent. This was one of the first things my therapist recommended I try after being diagnosed with adhd. I can't imagine it isn't applicable to people without adhd, although probably to varying degrees depending on the person.
The only thing I take issue with is the specification of classical music. Some people have told me this is because classical music doesn't have words in it, which would distract you instead of help you focus. Not only can classical music have lyrics, but every other genre of music is perfectly capable of not having lyrics. I'm not sure if its even true that the lyrics would distract you in the first place.
Its pretty clear to me that the only reason people play classical music specifically for this purpose is because it makes them feel smart. You could argue that feeling smart might actually help you get things done, but I dislike the perception of classical music as smart people music in general. It's just a style of music, like every other. There's nothing that makes it superior or more sophisticated, its just what Europeans liked a few centuries ago.
No, I am describing emotional awareness. The ability to understand your emotions and limit their effect on your reasoning is not a philosophical model.
This is a surprisingly good argument, but it does not prove the conclusion you came to. Its more of an exception to what I said. It demonstrates that emotional responses can be impacted by philosophy. It does not demonstrate that this is always how it works, or even most of the time.
Yes, my goal in this argument was in fact to prove I am right. I do not like hateful views with no reasoning behind them.
I'm not particularly happy because you are going to continue believing hateful nonsense, but at least I tried. I should've expected as much anyway, given that I'm arguing with people on the internet.