Agree or Disagree - Religious DUers are "satisfied with not understanding the world."

[el_bryanto]

They may also have "relinquished their power and become sheeple."

This is in reference to another post.

Bryant

32 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Totally Agree
	6 (19%)
	Somewhat Agree
	1 (3%)
	Neither Agree nor Disagree / Everybody is Different
	1 (3%)
	Somewhat Disagree
	1 (3%)
	Totally Disagree
	17 (53%)
	I think we can all agree that this is a bullshit poll, but that other post is fine
	2 (6%)
	I think we can all agree that this is a bullshit poll, like that other post
	2 (6%)
	I like to vote!
	2 (6%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[badtoworse]

1. How about "Bullshit Poll" - period?

[el_bryanto]

2. Why is it a bullshit poll? nt

[badtoworse]

4. Because it's the same kind of question as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[el_bryanto]

6. No it isn't.

If you suggest that religious people people in general are "satisfied with not understanding the world," than, as awkward as it might be, it kind of implies you feel that way about DU religious people as well. It's awkward but it's not unfair.

Or if this post is inappropriate than that other one is inappropriate as well.

Bryant

[badtoworse]

7. What other one?

The premise of your poll is that religious people don't understand the world, just as "you do beat your wife" is the premise to the question of whether youve stopped. Your premise is insulting.

[el_bryanto]

8. OK - than the other post was insulting as well?

The premise of the poll comes from a Richard Dawkins quote about religion - "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." You might well disagree with Dawkins (I do) - but since I provide for you to disagree with it, I'm not sure it's biased. Presumably you disagree with the quote.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Dwakins quote is about the religions, you ask about the people, not about the religions.

Try to cope with this answer. Religions do try to help people be content with things they don't understand, in part because these religions are very old and people lacked much understanding of the world. Religious texts do in fact teach that understanding comes after death, 'now I see through a glass, darkly, but then I will see face to face'.
Many here on DU tell me that in spite of the teachings of their faith, they do not oppose gay people nor birth control. So apparently that which is said by a religion is not always that which the members of the religion believe or practice. Thus, it is very wrong and self serving to conflate the content of a religion's teachings with the content of the religious person's mind.
Unless you will tell me that you agree with all your faith says, then what Dawkins says is about the teachings, not about the people. Your question is about the people, who often claim to pick parts of their faith and reject others.

[el_bryanto]

14. I think that comes close to saying that

being religious is ok so long as it doesn't affect how you see things. But the point to religion is that it should effect how you see things; that's what it promises to do.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

21. No, what I am saying is that discussing what is taught by a faith not the same as

discussing the people who claim that faith. I offer as observation that many on DU who claim a faith also claim they do not follow parts of that faith, ie they support choice or gay equality in spite of their faith teaching the very opposite. They claim that the faith does not define them, that it can teach many things which they simply discount or do not agree with. This means that one can speak of the religion while not speaking of the religious, unless of course those who claim a faith that is homophobic are homophobic themselves by definition. Is THAT what you are saying? If speaking about doctrine is the same as speaking about the people, then the people must believe all of that doctrine, even if they tell us otherwise.....

[el_bryanto]

27. I'm just repeating a quote by Richard Dawkins

as a religious person I don't agree with it; but I'm curious to see what my fellow DUers think. As long as we are allowed to discuss such things on DU.

You have presumably heard the argument, though, that choosing to affiliate with a religion that, for example, teaches that Homosexuality is a sin, lends strength to that Faith's power to promote bigotry even if you yourself don't espouse or believe that Homosexuality is a sin?

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

37. But Bryant, you are not repeating his quote, his quote is about the religions, yours is about

people, specifically about DU's faith community. You don't seem to want to deal with what I am asking you. Catholicism says birth control is forbidden. Catholics use birth control. Thus I can say Catholicism teaches harmful sexist anti science crap about birth control and that's a fact, but it is not true that Catholics are all opposed to birth control and in fact millions of them use it daily. They don't follow that part. Dawkins comment is about the religions themselves. Yours is about the religious people on DU.
One is about institutions and texts, this one is about people here on DU. Not the same thing.

[el_bryanto]

38. That's your assertion; I'd comment that many look at it differently than you

While I can see where you are coming from, and even applaud you for seeing a distinction between believers and the faiths they practice, I don't know that Dawkins sees it the same way you do. I certainly do know that some at DU do believe that religious folk, including DU religious folk, would be better off and happier if they left their religions. You can see that attitude (along with a number of others) all up and down that other thread.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

41. I'm talking about the verbiage of your post, about people on DU and the verbiage

Dawkins uses, about religions themselves, systems of belief. Criticism of a system of belief is not the same as criticism of people. Some of the people who claim those systems of belief also criticize elements of those systems, and do not practice them. Are those people being unfair to themselves when they say 'I think my faith is wrong about X'?
I think a basic element of most evangelical faiths is that others would be better off in that faith. Some faiths knock on doors looking to bring the sheaves in. So I guess religious folk also do that thing where they think they know how others would be happier, no? That attitude is what causes missionary work, the attitude that says others would be better off if they believed like me....isn't it?

[el_bryanto]

45. Two seperate but interesting points

I selected the verbiage to underline why those posts don't belong in GD; because of course when you turn it around to specific people it says more than perhaps most DUers are comfortable with. But lets look at the original quote again - " I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." It strikes me as pretty clear; he is opposed to religion because of the behavior it encourages in religious folk. So my question is do religious DUers exhibit the same traits that Dawkins is warning against? Are they satisfied with not understanding the world?

There are a couple of responses to that statement; one is to say that Dawkins is wrong (that would be my opinion), another is to say that Dawkins may be right about some religious folk and wrong about others (that seems to be your position), another is to say that Dawkins is right (which implies that Religious DUers largely suffer from the malady he warns about).

As for Proselytizing, I understand how it can be annoying no matter how it's done, but there are a wide variety of motivations for wanting to do it. Nobody finds it very winning when someone says "You dolt/sinner, why don't you just accept the truth?" On the other hand someone saying "I think you are a fine person and I'd like to share with you something I've found meaningful," is a much more appropriate route to take. Now anybody who evangelizes for anything, needs to learn that no means no, and to let the matter drop, but certainly one approach is better than the other.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

160. You're wasting your time

Our friend here is just the latest in the (rapidly expanding) "I don't care what Dawkins actually SAID, I'm going to rip on him for what I'm absolutely sure he MEANT" Club.

You'd think they'd be ashamed of such grotesque intellectual dishonesty, but it's really the only tool they have in here.

[badtoworse]

52. I think it would have helped if you provided more information in your OP.

I was not familiar with the Dawkins quote. Quoting Dawkins and asking whether you agreed or disagreed would have been fine with me. Without knowing the context, I think your poll was easy to misconstrue.

[snooper2]

10. Did you know you are literally made up of stardust?

stardust being a pretty non-scientific term...

I should say did you know the atoms in the flakes of skin falling off your arm right now came from an supernova billions and billions of years ago?

[Puzzledtraveller]

26. Wow, you are blowing my mind!

You are blinding me with science!!

[hfojvt]

50. I believe Sagan's term was

star "stuff".

And while he said Billions with a big B, he claims he never said "billions and billions".

[badtoworse]

53. Did you mean the "Big Bang"?

Of course, I know that. Why do you ask?

[snooper2]

55. No LOL, our solar system is only about 4.6 Billion years old

The Universe is around 13.8 Billion years old...

You do know how stars live and die and galaxies and planetary systems are formed right? I hope




Of course you could say Everything came from the big bang but the big bang wasn't really "stardust"...You ever read about what happened after the first few seconds of the big bang? then the next thousands, 10's of thousands of years-millions when the first star reached critical mass to start nuclear fusion?

Fuck it I'll find a chart

[badtoworse]

61. There was a book published by Scientific American that described the whole Big Bang sequence

It went into detail about what was going on in the first fractions of seconds, then seconds, minutes, etc. I read the book about 15 or 20 years ago and it was very interesting. It also went into Quantum Physics and then tied the two things together. The book was written at a high level, understandable by people lacking a PhD in Physics and well worth reading if that sort of things fascinates you (as it does me).

The book was part of series published by Scientific American and I donated it (and a few other from the series) to the local library. Now I wish I hadn't.

BTW, who's to say that our sun doesn't contain atoms from a gas cloud that was formed by some earlier star's supernova?

[snooper2]

63. We know how our Sun was formed, you are correct

"The Sun is a late-generation star, and the Solar System incorporates matter created by previous generations of stars."

Here's a good wiki refresher-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

[badtoworse]

67. Thanks, Looks like a good read.

[demwing]

34. Because it assumes a point and leads the response toward that assumption. /nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

3. I chose "totally disagree"

They're not satisfied with not understanding....they think they do understand.

[LisaLynne]

5. I agree ...

and regardless of anyone's opinion about what they believe they understand (wow, sorry English language), for them, it is an explanation that works.

[pintobean]

9. Other - the SOP is useless. /nt

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Ain't that the truth.

nt

[el_bryanto]

15. What does SOP stand for? Standard Operating Procedure? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Statement Of Purpose of General Discussion excludes both religion and complaints about

DU as subjects of discussion in GD.

[el_bryanto]

19. Ah yes; well I agree that this should be off topic

But the other post got 137 responses and is still going strong; so if that's OK with the SOP I don't see why this one shouldn't be. It's not really a call out, just taking a poll on the issue.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

39. I'm all for getting religious subjects out of a political forum, including the other one

and including the daily rap sheet on the Pop Pope and his Phobic Follies. I sort of enjoy discussing religion in the proper setting but if it gets sent to the politics department, I treat it like politics, and that's some profane shit. If I had a religion, I'd not want it discussed the way folks discuss Congress and I would want it kept unsullied as much as possible. I don't get why folks like politicizing their religions, using them as placards to wave against liberals or gay people, I just don't understand it.

[sarisataka]

40. Agree, though at least

the SOP is being equally ignored on this subject at the moment

[hack89]

11. There are many non-religious people "satisfied with not understanding the world."

it is demonstrated here on a daily basis. Rejecting religion does not automatically remove one's blinders - the causes of ignorance are many.

[Puzzledtraveller]

22. Well said!!

[Marrah_G]

17. And it's a shitty thing for a Du'er to say about another DU'er

[get the red out]

18. This sort of thing

Amounts to a slam on fellow progressives. These "thought purity tests" are getting outrageous.

[el_bryanto]

23. If you are going to say it about religious folk in general

than doesn't that necessarily apply to religious DUers as well?

I admit that it might feel awkward telling a fellow DUer they are "satisfied with not understanding the world."

Bryant

[get the red out]

28. No, all religious people are not of the same mind

Creationists are "satisfied with not understanding the world", which would be their right except they won't really be satisfied until they can prevent anyone else from being able to understand it either.

[el_bryanto]

30. So you disagree with the Dawkins quote? you think it goes too far? nt

[get the red out]

32. Sounds like it

I didn't read all of it, I started to read that thread but was quickly disinterested. All the crap spewing at people for not following directly in line with the thought demands of some liberals is getting as tiresome and irritating as the demands I read on Facebook to repent and practice "real Christianity". THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME! We are either going to be told exactly how to think to keep from being shunned and condemned by others or we are not.

[hfojvt]

20. are there really more than six "religious DUers"?

and aren't they all just trolls waiting for a well-deserved pizza?

[el_bryanto]

25. Now that would be a good subject for another poll. As long as the doors are open

I am a religious DUer, but I don't consider myself a troll. Other's may disagree with me on that assessment though.

Bryant

[get the red out]

29. Depends on the definition of "religious"

It seems sometimes that on certain internet message boards, anyone who isn't an atheist is considered the long lost twin of Jerry Falwell irregardless of what issues they support, how they vote, or what they really believe.

[hrmjustin]

42. Please tell me that is a joke.

[hfojvt]

43. a joke?

no, it is a paraphrase.

In communication, you take what you think other people have said and return it back to them "this is what I hear many DUers saying"

Suppose I started a thread, instead of quoting Dawkins about how bad religion is and said "kick and rec if you are a Christian".

Would it get 105 recs? Would it quickly get locked as "off topic". Alerted as "trolling"?

Of course, I cannot do such a thing. I cannot be an example to DU of how a person can be a progressive AND a Christian, because too many here do not believe I am a progressive. And depending on how you define it, they are correct because I take issue with the definition in this OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4297710

[hrmjustin]

46. Thank you for responding.

[whistler162]

24. See you haven't figured out the difference

between a doorway and a brick wall!

[NuclearDem]

31. No, not at all.

Though holding faith-based beliefs and simultaneously appealing to the scientific method is cognitive dissonance

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. ANYONE who thinks the world can be so simplistically divided between the smart atheist and

agnostics who understand the world and ignorant religious and spiritual people who don't know anything has a fundamental inability to observe. ANYONE who thinks that does not observe history. They do not observe the world around them. And if they are a DU member - they certainly do not observe DU at all.

[loyalsister]

147. Well stated

If a person is to consider atheism an existing legitimate motivating idea, how can they deny the existance of diety as motivating idea?
Are ideas relevant to the discussion as they motivate people to blow up abortion clinics, tithe, work in soup kitchens, strap bombs to themselves, AND argue in favor of atheism\agnosticism, oppose religion on moral grounds, and create polls like this one?
One motivating idea cannot negate the force of the other. Nor, in my opinion can one invalidate the other.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in any kind of god, but I know that that belief exists for others in a very real way and it ultimately exerts influence on my life very often in the most irritating ways possible. At the same time, there are positive implications. I know good people who observe religions and many of them have had good influence on my life. Including recruiting me into the Democratic party.

I really don't see a need for mutual exclusion or insults.

[skepticscott]

187. Silly straw man

Show us one person who says that there are only two kinds of people-smart atheists and agnostics and ignorant religious and spiritual people who don't know anything.

If you can't, then you seem to be getting overwrought over nothing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

189. that is the implication of what is being implied when someone suggest "- Religious DUers are

"satisfied with not understanding the world." - which implies that those who are not religious do understand the world or at least want to. There are those here who refer to themselves as "free thinkers" - meaning they are atheist. No doubt there are many atheist who are relatively free thinkers. And there are many people with a spiritual view of the world who are relatively free thinkers. There are also plenty of people of both categories who don't have the slightest inclination toward intellectual honesty. Or lets take the term skeptic - a skeptic is someone who is open to a possibility that something might be the case but they have serious doubts. For example I am a skeptic that the Democrats will win control of the House of Representatives this November. I think it is possible - but is probably unlikely. Where as an organization like skeptic.com fraudulently call themselves skeptics - or at least completely change the meaning of the word. If someone believes that it is possible that a spirit world exist and is capable of interacting with this world - but they seriously doubt it and consider it unlikely - that would be a skeptic. If someone calls themselves a skeptic of the existence of the spirit world and its ability to interact with this world - but actually does not even consider the existence of the spirit world a remote, far fetched possibility - they are not skeptic - They have completely made up their mind and excluded any possibility of being wrong on this matter. When they call themselves skeptics they are lying - One is not a skeptic if they have completely made up their mind before the question is even asked.

[skepticscott]

190. In the first place, no one suggested that

It was just another invention by another religionist poster here. In the second place, "the implication of what is being implied" sounds very much like you're just projecting your own victimology onto this.

In the third place, skeptics require evidence. When there is no evidence, claims are dismissed. When there is no evidence after many centuries of making the same fucking claims, they are dismissed with even more confidence. Come up with objective, verifiable evidence for your "spirit world" (not the same recycled garbage) and the claim will be reconsidered.

In the fourth place, paragraphs are your friend. The return key will not make your computer explode. Use it...love it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

191. 19 people so far have voted that they completely agree with that statement and several

comments on this thread express agreement with the statement. Exactly skeptics require evidence and don't dismiss the possibility of evidence or refuse to accept evidence that does not support their belief system.

[Xyzse]

35. I think many individuals are satisfied with not understanding the world.

Meaning, they get mired in one particular point of view that they refuse to acknowledge the merits of another.

Besides, it is best to respect a person's point of view no matter how non-sensical it may be. There is a possibility that one can be honestly mistaken. So, it is best to have the humility to accept that we probably don't know the whole issue.

It is when people refuse to address the actual issue and instead zeroes in at a small thing on the whole and decides to make that the problem without acknowledging the wider point (positive or negative).

[Nye Bevan]

36. "Einstein diasassociated himself from the label 'atheist'......."

He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

I suspect that many very smart people are agnostics, since they are smart enough to realize how limited our understanding is.

[hfojvt]

47. agnostic though, is NOT an alternative to atheist

although the word is used that way

atheist - I KNOW there is no god
agnostic - I think there is no god
religious - I think there is a god
fundamentalist - I KNOW there is a god

my Oxford Desk dictionary defines agnostic as "person who believes that the existence or nature of God cannot be proven"

Which is a different question from "Does God exist?"

The theist says "yes, I believe so"
The atheist says "no, I don't believe so."
And sometimes with more certainty than that, like they KNOW and are absolutely SURE.
The agnostic kinda says "I don't know and I don't care."

Which is the classic combination of apathy and ignorance.

[Nye Bevan]

51. "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method,"

Thomas Henry Huxley said:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I think to say that an agnostic "doesn't know and doesn't care" is too simplistic.

[hfojvt]

54. Why? Certainly they are admitting

"I don't know"

but then rather than making a choice, taking a side "yes" or "no" they don't care.

There also is some pretense in that they seem to think that the atheist and the theist are claiming certainty, are claiming that "it is demonstrated".

Some are, of course. I have heard some people "testify" in church. One person said that God took a ten dollar bill that was in their pocket and converted it into two five dollar bills. Others testify that God helped them to get a great deal on a used car.

God IS great. He got me a mercedes.

He doesn't bother to keep millions of children from dying of starvation, but he gets good used cars for other people.

But they are certain that God is helping them every day.

[Nye Bevan]

62. "I don't know" is very different from "I don't care" (nt)

[hfojvt]

64. but if a person cared then

they would either

a) try to find out, or
b) like most people, make a choice in the absence of perfect knowledge.

[LostOne4Ever]

179. I agree with a)

But disagree with b).

Refusing to make a choice when not presented with enough information has nothing to do with caring.

On the other hand, a) one can try but does not mean they will succeed.

[skepticscott]

188. Deeply flawed definition

Perhaps reflecting the deep flaws in agnosticism in general.

NO conclusions about the real world are "certain", and people (agnostics) who refuse to take any position without absolute certainty are not clear and rational thinkers. We can know and understand things with many different levels of confidence short of 100% certainty, and to reject the possibility of useful knowledge that does not reach that level is just assinine. Huxley apparently did not grasp the concept of the relativity of wrong (or right).

[idwiyo]

134. I am an atheist, hard core one. "I KNOW there is no god" doesn't describe me or atheistm.

To me "god" is the same as "bla-di-blah". I will leave arguing about existence of "bla-di-blah" to those who care one way or another.

It doesn't mean I KNOW that "bla-di-blah" doesn't exist.
It doesn't mean I think that "blah-di-blah" MIGHT exist.

It means that concept of "bla-di-blah" makes about as much sense as "red song flying shopping" or "metallic water flying green"

[NuclearDem]

122. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Theism/atheism is a statement of belief.

Gnosticism/agnosticism is a statement of knowledge.

Knowledge is a very high degree of certainty. Belief is a lesser degree. Belief means you are simply rationally justified in holding a claim to be true. Knowledge is holding that claim to be true to such a high degree of certainty that it would be worldview altering to discover that it's not true.

I'm an agnostic atheist, meaning I feel rationally justified in not believing claims of the existence of a god to be true, but I don't believe I will ever be able to hold that belief to the degree of certainty required to be knowledge.

[LostOne4Ever]

181. In other words

He refused to answer the question.

Agnosticism is simply admitting one does not know. It has nothing to do with belief.
One can believe there is a god yet think its not knowable for sure-The Agnostic Theist.
Similarly, one can lack belief in a god and think knowing for sure is not possible-The Agnostic Atheist.

What is casually called agnosticism, neither believing or disbelieving, is in fact another form of atheism. Specifically its implicit atheism.

Why did he avoid answering the question? Because he did not want his perceived impartiality impaired? Because he did not want the baggage that goes along with either label? We can never know.

[0rganism]

48. not a religious person myself, but i'm certain i'm going to die before "understanding the world"

The world is a big-ass thing-of-things, and the closer i get to thoroughly understanding any minor aspect of it the more i see its incredible complexity and the very limited scope of my chosen paradigm. The notion that some human will exit this existence with a complete understanding of all its workings strikes me as preposterous. "Understanding the world" is not a thing one does on one's own, to be satisfied with or not, but rather an ongoing process of many people, many cultures and many centuries,

IMHO, that's no excuse for abandoning one's individual curiosity and adopting blind faith as a substitute. But if someone prefers to bring their religious faith with them in their lifelong search for meaning, who am i to judge?

[hamsterjill]

49. I am a religious DU'er.

I choose to have a set of beliefs. I do not push those beliefs on anyone. I don't judge others that do not believe at all or who believe differently than I do. I do not judge those who choose to live their lives differently from me. In fact, I welcome the differences and marvel and many times learn from those situations where someone has a different mindset or belief.

I expect that when I come to DU, that part of me (i.e., my beliefs) will be respected just as I would be expected to respect anyone else's beliefs here.

Why is THAT a problem here on DU or anywhere?

And what makes you think that ANYONE understands the world? In my opinion, anyone who thinks that they do understand the world is damn fool. The world is simply too complicated for anyone to grasp 100%.

[ieoeja]

56. I think we can all agree that this is a bullshit poll, but that other post is fine.

Because ...

"Religions teach people to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

... does not equal ...

"Religious people are satisfied with not understanding the world."

[el_bryanto]

58. That is a fine line isn't it?

Some religious people don't actually learn not to be satisfied with not understanding the world?

Bryant

[ieoeja]

59. Yes, if your definition of "fine line" includes the width of the Mississippi River at St Louis. n/t

[el_bryanto]

60. So "Atheists are assholes" is not the same as "Atheism teaches people to be assholes?" nt

[ieoeja]

66. Yes. Those are two clearly different statements. n/t

[cleanhippie]

80. No, it's not, for several reasons.

The first being that atheism doesn't teach anything. But religion sure does.

[LostOne4Ever]

184. The latter

Says the Non-religion teaches people to be assholes. Yet, they can choose not to be if they want.

The former says all atheists whether they want to be or not.

[cleanhippie]

78. Winner!

[LadyHawkAZ]

96. Well, that saved me some typing. Thanks. n/t

[CrawlingChaos]

135. No, I don't agree

In regard to the claim that religions teach people to be satisfied with not understanding the world, it is perfectly fair to follow-up by asking if one believes religious people are satisfied with not understanding the world.

What is not fair is to sling mud and expect to dodge the implications.

[el_bryanto]

136. Thank you. nt

[cthulu2016]

57. This poll is petulant

I can't imagine anyone would disagree that religion does promote being satisfied with not understanding, because that is what faith IS.

That. Is. What. Faith. Is.

Ask the pope whether religion promores satisfaction with not understanding some things (The OP added "the world" to the offending quote)

The pope will say, "Yes. That's what faith is."

[el_bryanto]

68. "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

That's the quote isn't it?

[Humanist_Activist]

70. Is there something wrong with that quote, its true isn't it?

Though I would expand it and say this instead: "I am against faith because its the practice of being satisfied with not understanding the world."

[LanternWaste]

69. It appears your personal definition definition deviates from both the classical and the contemporary

I think the classical definition of faith (as supported by Aquinas, Pascal, et.al) is simply belief in that which we do not have full knowledge (e.g., "I have faith that I won't be rear-ended on the highway tonight after work&quot . The relevant contemporary definitions are distinctly similar (i.e., "...belief that is not based on absolute proof&quot .

It appears your personal definition definition deviates from both the classical and the contemporary definition. However, I'm certainly not clever enough assign what the pope would or would not say... your faith in that particular is much stronger than mine.

[hrmjustin]

65. I don't check my brain at the door when I go to church, nor do I feel like my religion is against

Science.

[cleanhippie]

71. You've stated that you believe a man was literally resurrected from the dead.

Where does your critical thought capability go when you make such an assertion?

[hrmjustin]

73. My crtical thinking is just fine.

[cleanhippie]

74. Even when you think a person literally rose from the dead?

How does that work?

[hrmjustin]

75. How does what work?

[cleanhippie]

76. Using critical thought and thinking a person literally rose from the dead?

No need to be intentionally obtuse.

[hrmjustin]

77. It works just fine.

[cleanhippie]

79. Yet you are unable, or unwilling, to show just how that works.

[hrmjustin]

81. How do you want it explained?

[cleanhippie]

83. Just use your own words.

How do you think that a man literally rose from the dead?

[hrmjustin]

85. God did it.

[cleanhippie]

88. Right. That's not critical thought.

[hrmjustin]

90. That is a matter of faith and a mystery of faith.

[cleanhippie]

97. I agree. It's not critical thought, it's faith.

Above you stated that you don't "check your brain at the door," (which I took as an indication that you do, in fact use critical thought) but your responses seem to contradict that statement. Thinking that a person literally rose from the dead and that "god did it" does not come from critical thought. Perhaps you could better explain why you think it does.

[cleanhippie]

82. Then kindly demonstrate just how well, won't you?

Your silence will demonstrate my point.

[hrmjustin]

84. My silence?

[cleanhippie]

72. Apparently you are satisfied with not understanding the post you reference.

Because it doesn't state what you say it does.

[el_bryanto]

86. DU Atheists are such cowards when it comes to this sort of thing, I've noticed. nt

[cleanhippie]

89. Have you really?

Or is it just projection?

[el_bryanto]

92. "Your religion teaches you to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

"So you are saying I'm satisfied with not understanding the world."

"Of course not, how could you even suggest such a thing? How irrational can you get?"

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

94. I have no idea whether you are satisfied with not understanding the world.

But your religion does teach that you should be. Whether you are or not is up to you.

[Egalitarian Thug]

87. What? No distinction between spiritual and religious?

Your selections are invalid and seem designed, not so much to glean perspective, as to invoke further division.

[el_bryanto]

93. The quote was about religion, not spirituality. nt

[cleanhippie]

95. But your poll is about people, not religion.

The quote you reference is about religion, not people.

[el_bryanto]

98. People make up a religion

Religion doesn't exist unless people choose to belong to it or believe in it. I understand that when actually faced with a religious person maybe you don't want to say "You shouldn't belong to that religion, because it teaches you to be satisfied not understanding the world." I don't know why you wouldn't want to say that; as I said above, seems kind of cowardly, but I get that you don't want to come off as aggressive or cross a line or whatever.

But I don't know how you divorce religion from the people who choose to practice it.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

99. It's apparent that you understand very little.

Religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world. Whether or not people actually are satisfied or not is a whole other conversation.

That there is a difference between being critical of religion and being critical of people is something you seem unable to understand. Are you satisfied with that lack of understanding?

[el_bryanto]

100. I think I understand pretty well

One thing I understand is that this conversation and that other thread belong in the religion forum, rather than here in GD.

There is something charitable in what you are saying, which I recognize. You believe that Religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world (or I'm assuming you do) but some people choose to reject that part of their Religious teaching, and those sort of good hearted people may well be the sort of Religious Folk who visit DU.

The problem I have with that formulation is that it implies a contrast between being a good member of a Religion and upholding the beliefs of that religion and the values of free inquiry and free thought that generally make for a good member of the DU Community. In other words, the more of a "good" DUer one is, the less they are likely to uphold the values of their religion (at least when it comes to being satisfied with not understanding the world) and vice versa.

I can see why that would satisfy a DU Atheist; religious DUers aren't really religious, they just say they are. Like i say above there's an element of charity in this formulation - it's the same element of charity that might lead a believer to say "well the light of christ shines in that person, even though he or she claims not to believe. I can tell that he or she really does believe because of all the good works they do."

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

104. If you say so...

But one thing I understand is that you understand only what you want to understand, whether it's correct or not. This is evidenced by the myriad assumptions you've made.

Good luck with that.

[rug]

106. Way to go keeping it about issues, not people.

[cleanhippie]

107. Just following your lead.

[rug]

109. That must be why you chastised him.

[cleanhippie]

110. That must be why.

[el_bryanto]

113. OK - thank you for responding to what I said

instead of just repeating yourself.

See I think you know how tenuous your argument is and don't really want to get into it - so you just declare yourself the winner and move on.

[cleanhippie]

143. Anything to make you feel better about yourself.

I'm here for you.

[liberal_at_heart]

91. Glad to see that those who scream the loudest and insist on demeaning others

based on differing opinions and beliefs are in the minority. Maybe DU is more reasonable than I think it is. Maybe the people who scream the loudest only make it seem like an unreasonable place. I've got plenty of them on ignore, but it gets hard to keep up. It's like throwing junk mail away. If you don't go through on a regular basis and put mean spirited people on ignore DU starts looking like my junk mail pile.

[Skip Intro]

101. I love that this bigoted thread only has one rec. n/t

[el_bryanto]

102. How is this thread bigoted? nt

[cleanhippie]

108. That you don't understand why is the problem.

[el_bryanto]

115. Let's turn to the dictionary

According to google Bigotry is "having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a intolerance of the opinions of others."

How does this poll do that?

[jberryhill]

103. It's backwards

Science does not purport to explain everything. It is a tool of wonder, curiosity and discovery.

Religion is a source of answers that don't require inquiry.

[99Forever]

105. Stupidest. Flamebait. Poll. Ever.

[el_bryanto]

114. Thanks for your contribution

[99Forever]

116. You're welcome.

I gave it everything it deserved.

[el_bryanto]

117. Yep - because attacking religion at DU is just fine and dandy

but defending it is bigotry.

Bryant

[99Forever]

119. Exactly.

Precisely as it should be.

[el_bryanto]

120. Thanks for clearing that up.

[99Forever]

124. I do what I can.

[hrmjustin]

121. What do you think of us that defend our religions?

[99Forever]

123. Ya mean ...

... all of those "oppressed and persecuted Christians?"

About the same as I think of Bill O'Riley and "the war on Christmas."

[hrmjustin]

125. What is your opinion of progressive people of faith?

[99Forever]

127. Nunya.

[hrmjustin]

129. I am not familiar with that response.

[99Forever]

130. Magic isn't real.

Period.

[hrmjustin]

131. You don't have to believe it.

[99Forever]

132. I don't.

Nor do I require your permission not to, it's called reality.

[hrmjustin]

133. Thank you for you responses and time.

[mahina]

154. +1

[Zorra]

111. The only way for me to know for sure about this is to read everyone's palms.

That is the only way anyone can really know the absolute truth of the world.



Bargain Prices today, for DUers only ~ $49.99 for both palms, satisfaction guaranteed or no money back!

[hrmjustin]

112. I thought it was a good poll.

[bluestate10]

118. Religious DUERs seem to be a grounded group of people. nt

[CAG]

126. I'm sure glad some of my fellow DUer's who are atheist fully understand the world.

Where would this stupid Methodist be without their enlightenment??

[Niceguy1]

128. you can be religious and understand the world

you can also be religious and be very scientific.

posts like this just make do DU look bad

[JNelson6563]

137. Oh good! More division!

Let's focus on our differences, that is always so constructive. Oy.

Julie

[MellowDem]

138. I'd say most religious people want to understand the world...

Which is why they ignore their religion and engage in cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty to do so. That's the way to have your cake and eat it too, and it's a small price that most are willing to pay compared to examining those religious beliefs honestly in a society that provides massive privilege and resources to religion.

[el_bryanto]

139. So most religious folk are intellectually dishonest? or did I misread? nt

[MellowDem]

141. Yes, by definition...

In fact, I think most admit to it all the time, though they may not recognize it as intellectual dishonesty.

Really, being intellectually dishonest on this one topic isn't much of a price to pay, and most don't mind being called out on it, because of the massive benefits and privilege that comes with it.

[el_bryanto]

142. That's just bullshit; people don't mind being called intellectually dishonest?

Come on. What sort of religious folk are you talking with that they don't mind that? Is it possible you just label them intellectually dishonest and they get tired of defending themselves?

Bryant

[MellowDem]

146. It's possible they know it and don't care...

Religion isn't about being consistent or even about the beliefs for many, so they're pretty apathetic about it.

[cleanhippie]

148. Can people literally be resurrected from the dead?

Aren't those that say "yes" being intellectually dishonest?

[el_bryanto]

149. Explain your reasoning to me?

I believe in a literal resurrection from the dead; how am I being intellectually dishonest?

Unless you conclude that I don't actually believe in a literal resurrection from the dead and am just pretending to, I don't see how that is intellectually dishonest, but I'm sure you can enlighten me.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

150. One that believes that the laws of physics and the natural laws if the universe can be magically

suspended by a force that exists outside the laws of physics and the natural laws of the universe is not engaging in intellectual dishonesty of the kind discussed above?


Kindly explain your reasoning to me.

[el_bryanto]

152. The kind of intellectual dishonesty explained above

I'd say most religious people want to understand the world...
Which is why they ignore their religion and engage in cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty to do so. That's the way to have your cake and eat it too,

I think that means that most religious folk don't actually believe in God (or a magical force outside the laws of physics and the natural laws of the universe); they just pretend to because they don't want to give up their faith. I agree that it would be intellectually dishonest to claim to believe in God for social benefits while not actually believing in him. Alternatively they might just believe in the Clockmaker God; but if their Church teaches a God of Miracles, and they pretend to believe in that, but don't really, that would be intellectually dishonest.

I disagree, though, that most believers are just pretending to believe for social reasons.

As for how a person can believe in both God and Science, you must be aware that many people have done just that, often by seeing their attempts to understand the world as an attempt to examine God's handiwork. Certainly that's how I look at science. Since God exists (or I believe he does) and he created the natural laws of the universe, it's not too big a step to suggest he understand them better than we do. The Miracles aren't Magic per se, but a reflection of his greater understanding of the world.

Now you might believe that to be crazy (I don't want to go too far out on a limb, but I'm pretty sure you do); but I'm not sure I see how it is intellectually dishonest.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

155. Thank you for your response. I'll stand by my post above.

[el_bryanto]

156. It does seem that to a number of DU Atheists to be a believer is to be intellectually dishonest

But fair enough.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

157. I've noticed you using "DU Atheists" quite a lot.

And it always seems to be a pejorative. Why?

[el_bryanto]

158. I think it's because of the way they act

I mean there are all kinds of Atheists, but a DU Atheist is one who really wants everybody to know that he thinks that believers, for example, are satisfied with not understanding the world (it's really hard to resist shortening that phase down to kind of stupid, but I know if I do I'll catch hell for it). A DU Atheist doesn't really see much difference between a DU Believer and, say Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson. I think there are plenty of Atheists at DU that aren't DU Atheists.

I think your next line is something about projection?

Bryant

[skepticscott]

161. Why are you making shit up?

Link to the source and justify that accusation. I'm betting you can't even come close.

[el_bryanto]

163. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to to your satisfaction either.

I mean there are all kinds of Atheists, but a DU Atheist is one who really wants everybody to know that he thinks that believers, for example, are satisfied with not understanding the world (it's really hard to resist shortening that phase down to kind of stupid, but I know if I do I'll catch hell for it).

This relates back to this post, in which someone wanted to make sure that General Discussion knew what he thought of religion.

A DU Atheist doesn't really see much difference between a DU Believer and, say Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson.

I was thinking of this post when I typed that line.

This is the bit where you pretend I'm doing some sort of obscene lying when I suggest that religions are made up of people and that to insult a religion is to insult the people that make up that religion.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

169. No need to "pretend" that you've missed the point

and are trying to create a false equivalency.

You've tried (badly) to argue that Dawkins' criticism of what religion teaches people to believe and how it teaches them to think is no different than saying that the practitioners of religion believe or think that way, or criticizing them for doing so. Unfortunately, you and a lot of other people have previously spent a lot of time arguing that there is no necessary connection between what a religion teaches and what its member believe and do ("Look, see how many Catholics use birth control or favor same-sex marriage!&quot . Dawkins certainly knows that not every single member of a religion believes every single tenet and teaching of that religion, and has said nothing to the contrary. So criticizing religion for teaching something is obviously not the equivalent of claiming that its adherents believing that something. We'll just leave your rather odious slam of "DU Atheists" in the trash where it belongs.

And here's the thing…the Catholic Church would still deserve to be criticized for even trying to teach people that homosexual sex is unnatural and sinful, and that same-sex couples should never be allowed to marry, even if not a single one of their members actually adopted those beliefs (if only). Just as Protestant fundy churches would still deserve to be criticized for relentlessly promoting the belief that Bronze Age creation myths qualify as science, even if their members had matured mentally to the point where they all saw through it (again, if only).

This is the bit where you respond that you don't care what I say, you still believe the two things are the same, and that you're going to keep criticizing Dawkins for what you invented instead of what he said, regardless of how many people show you how wrong you are.

[el_bryanto]

171. Actually you do make a strong case

It is fairly clear what some people on this board think of believers; and I think the post I was responding to shouldn't have been in GD and shouldn't have been allowed to stay, but perhaps I responded overly harshly as well.

I do think it's a fine line to say one can criticize a religion or the concept of religion without criticizing the people who make up that religion, but I grant that they look pretty different to you.

That said I am reaching a point where I think that believers/religious folk and atheists, at least at this board, really don't have anything to say to each other on the subject of religion. Our frames of reference are too far apart. We can talk about a lot of other things, but what can we meaningfully say about religion to each other?

Bryant

[skepticscott]

175. The fact that you seem to spend

every waking hour responding to atheists on this board makes your response more than a little disingenuous. The truth is that atheists and religionistas on this board have a lot more to say to each other than believers have to say to other believers. Just check out the ghost town that is the Interfaith Group for incontrovertible proof of that.

[el_bryanto]

177. I'm sorry

I'm not saying we can't talk to each other and fill up pages and pages of posts attacking each other - but what does it accomplish? Perhaps i'm a hypocrite for admitting this - but I'd really be better off if I stopped engaging. When somethings put in GD it's hard not to respond to it, but I'd still be better off not saying it. Probably.

What have we accomplished in our discussions? I haven't accomplished anything other than getting angry for no real good reason.

Perhaps you have felt they are more productive.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

183. I don't assume that nothing has been accomplished

just because some people here cling to their "god did it" delusions like a limpet, and will never abandon them or admit they're wrong about anything, no mater how much evidence and logic they're confronted with. There will always be people who are immune to rational, critical thinking, and I frankly don't give a fuck what they admit or acknowledge, nor what smears and insults they fling as a substitute for fact-based arguments. But there are a lot of people who read but don't post, and are capable of evaluating both sides of an argument without being emotionally hidebound to myth and superstition. For people like that, minds can be changed and thinking refined.

[el_bryanto]

185. OK - well i can't exactly wish you good luck, but I hope you find it satisfying. nt

[kwassa]

182. I agree with El Bryanto

which is the reason I rarely participate on this subject anymore ...

the world view of the two sides doesn't meet anywhere.

One cannot have a life-changing or meaningful spiritual experience without having it. One does not know what one hasn't experienced.

It is similar to speaking different languages. Spiritual experiences are also unique and individual, and don't lend themselves to words. They are beyond language.

[rug]

164. His alert failed 0 - 6.

I think it's because of the way they act
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4310517

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS:

If this posters use of "DU Atheists" is not the textbook definition of both bigotry and a personal attack against an entire SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED group of people, what is?

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jan 10, 2014, 12:54 PM, and voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

[el_bryanto]

165. Thanks for the heads up. nt

[Rex]

140. I don't know where to vote, I am agnostic.

How do you know religious people are satisfied with not understanding the world?

[Orsino]

144. Equivocation.

The Dawkins quote doesn't quite say that about DUers, does it?

[el_bryanto]

145. Atheists want to pretend there's a huge difference between the two

I disagree; they are different, but not by much.

Bryant

[FreakinDJ]

151. MORON

see I spelled it write

[mahina]

153. I am not interested in making general assertions abou DUers to pick a fight.

Divide and conquer? Pass, thanks.

[skepticscott]

159. Why do the religionists in DU

always have to make hay by misrepresenting what Richard Dawkins has said, either cherry-picking his words out of context, or just simply making shit up out of thin air?

You've done it here, and you know it.

[el_bryanto]

162. This is in response to another thread

as you know - the other thread uses those words exactly.

I only changed it so that it applied to people instead of religion, which some people see as a huge difference, but I see as being equivalent.

Bryant

[rug]

166. I've noticed you using "religionists in DU" quite a lot.

And it always seems to be a pejorative. Why?

Credit where credit is due:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4310471

[hrmjustin]

168. He likes that term. I hate it.

[leeroysphitz]

167. I'm an atheist and I love not knowin' stuff!

[Vashta Nerada]

170. Religious people don't want their beliefs challenged, even if those beliefs are shown to be false.

They're perfectly happy living in ignorance.

[el_bryanto]

172. DO you believe that GD is the place to challenge those beliefs? nt

[Vashta Nerada]

173. No.

There's a religion forum.

Use it.

[el_bryanto]

174. I generally agree; but was responding to a post in GD

I probably shouldn't have responded in this way.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

180. I would say that is true with a good number but not all.

[shenmue]

176. I think religious and non-religious would both say...

that they understand something, even though their understandings are very different.

With all respect to Dr. Dawkins, I think he is not right on this one.

[LukeFL]

178. I am catholic and a liberal... So there

I do understand the world..I can be both.

[ZombieHorde]

186. I was going to vote "Totally Disagree,"

but a post in the "other" thread has proven me wrong, so I voted "Neither Agree nor Disagree / Everybody is Different."