They like to throw the burden of proof on the believer which is fallacious
Someone just redefined "fallacy"
A reason why most religious theological teachings are sociologically dangerous and damaging
by thetrueone 233 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
cyberjesus
-
Phizzy
Too true Cybie, if anyone wants to know the true definition of a fallascious argument, they only need to look at any of the WT's !
It is funny how believers do that sometimes, "You can't prove there isn't a god " as our own very dear Mary would say, (she has a thread title of the same name), "Oh for Chrissakes!"
Back to the thread title ; I had a discussion a few days ago with a fairly well known Philosopher, at least, well known in the U.K, who did not agree with my position that religious teachings are always harmful in some measure, I think he came round a bit toward the end, but it is my default position.
-
Qcmbr
To believers: are you happy to teach something as absolutely true based upon no physical proof greater than your inner subjective experience and in the full knowledge that it will be less effective in all areas of life where it attempts to supplant natural / mechanical solutions? If you are happy that this is an acceptable basis upon which to pass on behaviour modifying information and you will do so to the skeptic and the gullible, the innocent and the wise then this is the reason why you are a danger to society.
Until you can see why this is unacceptable and morally irresponsible then you are the problem. Religion / supernatural thought allows the untrained and foolish to pose as a learned teacher and to bypass the social rigours of education, training and peer review that serve to weed out the unready, inexperienced and the loon. We have some prime wannabe teachers here who see themselves as great preachers passing on divine wisdom as humble servants (ha) when in reality they purvey mental chloroform that will stupify and halt the intellectual progress of those caught in the web. For many, religious thought is a beautiful mental suicide as they cease to be responsible for the world around them but for society it is an abject tragedy as another spark of life sputters into wasteful worship of a Wotan, Zeus, Jehovah , Allah and Quetzalcoatl.
-
WTWizard
These days, most religions are based on the LIE-ble. (Or Quran, for Muslims). What they don't say a peep about is how everything in the LIE-ble has been stolen from ancient religious systems. Those systems had myths that, when taken correctly, guided one to spiritual advancement. The Jews who stole these things from such religions corrupted them so they could not guide one to spiritual advancement. Rather, nothing would work. And they destroyed all artifacts that could prove that the LIE-ble stole them from such sources. Whole nations of people that were proficient in ancient religion were slaughtered, preventing it from being spread back to others.
Once Christi-SCAM-ity came on the scene, the Cat Lick church again altered everything. Both were using terror against people practicing magic, and both murdered anyone doing so. Witch hunts and Inquisitions destroyed anyone that was practicing ancient religion, including use of torture and slavery (yet, these same religions bash and damn people for wimpy "offenses(??)" as homosexuality). They make such a fuss about sex, while the ancient religions were much more permissive about it. This prevents people from advancing spiritually!
I noticed that Christi-SCAM-ity is so similar to Judaism that it is blatant that it is a tool to enslave everyone to those few that have access to the Vatican library. Those are the only ones permitted to see how to learn magic and use it properly (they do release pieces, corrupted so it never works properly). And they use black magic to enslave mankind, while no one else can use it (like having only government permitted to use and own guns--that is how tyranny starts). It is interesting that Paul, a prominent Pharisee at one time, is one of those who got Christi-SCAM-ity in its present form, with the Cat Lick church further corrupting it so no one can advance spiritually using it.
Thus, it is not just cults and fundamentalists that are damaging people. Yes, cults and fundamentalists are worse (and more blatant). However, even the Cat Lick and the major Protestants (Anglican/Episcopalean, Baptists, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, and Lutheran) are going to enslave you. They are less blatant--Hail Marys and Our Fathers (plus the record of your sins confessed going to the Vatican) replace disfellowshipping (those S-77 forms). But shame and guilt are still used, and hell threats are made. All to prevent people from questioning anything--you so much as question whether the LIE-ble is valid, you supposedly go to hell and "sinned against the Holy Spirit".
-
sabastious
To believers: are you happy to teach something as absolutely true based upon no physical proof greater than your inner subjective experience and in the full knowledge that it will be less effective in all areas of life where it attempts to supplant natural / mechanical solutions? If you are happy that this is an acceptable basis upon which to pass on behaviour modifying information and you will do so to the skeptic and the gullible, the innocent and the wise then this is the reason why you are a danger to society. Until you can see why this is unacceptable and morally irresponsible then you are the problem.
Hello Qcmbr, your argument is based upon one big assumption that modifying one's behavior is the responsibility of something or someone other than the person doing the modifying. Without the law of personal responsibility you would be correct, but since it exists believers are not responsible for modifying behavior of others unless coercive tactics are used. What I am hearing is that you want science to do the teaching and science only. That would create a world like the Empire of Star Wars. Lacking empirical evidence does not constitute coercion.
-Sab
-
Qcmbr
All religion is based upon behaviour modification. A set of rules is provided, a set of morals, a hierarchical command structure (god the father ), a resource gathering mechanism ( e.g tithing), mind altering trance inducing steps ( hymns, prayers, favourite scriptures) , a surrogate family with its own outsider excluding language ( saints v worldly people, brotherhood) , false social tensions to generate action ( end time, persecution, apostasy , temptation ) , weakening of previous bonds ( avoid non-believers, critics, unbelieving family ) and a reconstruction of self ( baptism to signify death of old you, Christ in the heart, awakened third eye .) even a religion of one will display these memes.
I cannot think of one religion that truly focuses upon the individual's free will and the development of skeptical thinking.
Should science teach us ? Absolutely - what is the alternative? That we ignore information gathered from an observance of the natural world, ignore the results of repeated tests and choose to be ignorant as to the mechanism by which things happen and the way nature is expressed? Only when we see such things as love, hope, joy, relationships, memory, thought, consciousness and so on as emergent properties of natural mechanical systems guided by chemical interactions and moulded into subjective perceptions of reality will we be able to approach the true magnificence of human life and learn to take control of ourselves finally freeing ourselves from the supernatural and feeble explanations of the mystics and shamans from our barbaric and superstitious past.
Imo.
-
sabastious
All religion is based upon behaviour modification. A set of rules is provided, a set of morals, a hierarchical command structure (god the father ), a resource gathering mechanism ( e.g tithing), mind altering trance inducing steps ( hymns, prayers, favourite scriptures) , a surrogate family with its own outsider excluding language ( saints v worldly people, brotherhood) , false social tensions to generate action ( end time, persecution, apostasy , temptation ) , weakening of previous bonds ( avoid non-believers, critics, unbelieving family ) and a reconstruction of self ( baptism to signify death of old you, Christ in the heart, awakened third eye .) even a religion of one will display these memes.
Qcmbr, that would be like saying that all bags of chips are unhealthy because most companies put unhealthy ingredients in them. In reality the product can be presented both in a healthy and unhealthy way. Look at the Unitarian Universalist church and Buddahism or many non denominational Christian churches. There are systems of belief that do not require coercion and like I said, if it does then the behavior changes resulted from it are in part the responsibility of the system set up.
Should science teach us ? Absolutely - what is the alternative? That we ignore information gathered from an observance of the natural world, ignore the results of repeated tests and choose to be ignorant as to the mechanism by which things happen and the way nature is expressed? Only when we see such things as love, hope, joy, relationships, memory, thought, consciousness and so on as emergent properties of natural mechanical systems guided by chemical interactions and moulded into subjective perceptions of reality will we be able to approach the true magnificence of human life and learn to take control of ourselves finally freeing ourselves from the supernatural and feeble explanations of the mystics and shamans from our barbaric and superstitious past.
Philosophy is just as important as evidence and testing. For instance many atheists use the God of the Bible to disprove God. Once the God of the Bible is disproven, then statements like "a loving designer would do X" or "a caring creator would not do Y" are used to support the evidence presented. Those are partly philisophical arguments. Science is great the way it is, but it doesn't need to take the throne and become the only way to come to conclusions. There will always be unexplained phenomenon and science and philosophy will always be around to explain them.
I wrote this in one of OTWO's threads a few days ago I thnk it fits here too:
I found it facinating that it was long held that the books that came after Aristotle's books on physics were believed to be his thoughts on the supernatural. When in fact it was actually just a way of saying they were the books that came after physics. As in there is "physics" AND (KEYWORD) there is "philosophy." Metaphysics, which is a branch of philosophy could be Einstien's "mind of God." I don't see a reason for science and spirituality to not be able to live within the same life, just as they seem to have in a book that the first Logician wrote. It was not "physics OR philosophy" it was AND.
So, what I am trying to say is that, yes science claims to have all the known facts, but ever since science there was always it's documented counterpart: philosophy which includes all the religious and God frameworks of the world. All of them, while some are stronger than others, are based on reality, not fairytale.
People like Aristotle and Einstine recognized the importance of the book that comes after physics: metaphysics.
-Sab
-
sabastious
What they don't say a peep about is how everything in the LIE-ble has been stolen from ancient religious systems.
Hello WTW, The Bible was an attempt to take all percieved legitimate systems and combine them into one idea and book. This could be called plagiarization, yes, but who cares about that? That's an overtly critical opinion. The purpose for the compilation was not to decieve, but to instruct and preserve ancient knowledge. People want to be connected to their creator, they have that need, so what better way to fill it by combining God systems into one? There's no way you could tell anyone what you were doing, however, because it would be considered heretical.
-Sab
-
Qcmbr
Sab - all that is of use to society in religion has been copied from already working systems. There is nothing that the supernatural explanation has added to mankind except for those at the top of the divine ponzi scheme. Millennia have been wasted in worship of wood, stone and false thought.
-
sabastious
Sab - all that is of use to society in religion has been copied from already working systems. There is nothing that the supernatural explanation has added to mankind except for those at the top of the divine ponzi scheme. Millennia have been wasted in worship of wood, stone and false thought.
There is no such thing as the supernatural, only the supernatural relative to us. What is supernatural to us is not supernatural to what is causing it. That's why we require philosophy. Science doesn't replace philosophy. Philosophy was used to explain the universe for thousands of years. Science is the new kid on the block.
-Sab