Difference of Opinion

[edgray]

Every point you tried to make is a diversion from the subject. You stated quite emphatically your foregone conclusion that "religious beliefs are the very definition of close-minded," and have since been trying to justify your stance with apologist statements and caveats.

I point that out because that's what the evidence shows: there is a direct correlation between levels of religious belief and a disregard for current scientific understanding.

That in itself shows that religion is inherently closed-minded: new information that goes against previously held beliefs is ignored.

Evidence is neither an "apologist statement" nor a caveat. That's your opinion, based on a misunderstanding of the reasoning and evidence behind mine.

Your statements here suggest that any scientific discovery must first necessarily pass the litmus test of whether the scientist him/herself holds any positive religious views before examining it for scientific merit. What is that if not close-minded?

I'm merely reflecting the latest in understanding. I'm open minded to the fact that this will indeed be replaced with even more in-depth understanding. And my personal and subjective opinions will not come into whether or not I accept that new information. I guess that willingness to accept all new evidence and ideas is what you think is closed-minded. Which is very, very confusing to say the least.

If you can refute my claims using current information and current knowledge then please do, and I'll happily accept them.

I accuse you of the very close-mindedness of which you accuse all religion and religious people. You respond not by denying, but by justifying. Interesting.

As I keep saying, I'm merely reflecting the latest understanding.

I get up at 4am, even on weekends. It's the curse of having assertive pets. They insist on their breakfast at their breakfast time.

Ha! I have to keep 2 closed doors between my sleeping self and my 2 bothersome cats for that very reason!

 

[edgray]

I find some of the observations from the article to be flawed. I mean the correlations mostly. It's not religion that causes "higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion" but the opposite.

People are only ready to get rid of their delusions of the divine when they find their moral compass, when they can do "good" or not cause harm for its own sake independently of the idea of divine reward and punishment.

yes the correlations in certain regards are wandering into grey areas, and there are most definitely other forces at play.

for example: the US, being one of the freest of societies on the planet (especially economically), by it's very nature is the amongst the most stratified. People have fewer immediate peers - there are so many levels of society that the typical class notions of working, middle and upper, include amongst themselves vast differences.

This might very well have the effect of keeping society in a less cohesive state than countries that do not have so many layers as few people share the same place in society.

The studies do not take that into account.

But they do show that, contrary to it's dogma of pushing strict moralism and good behaviour, religion isn't necessarily working. Some have interpreted the findings to show that rather than a cause, religious belief is a symptom of a lack of social cohesion. Which is quite an interesting take on the subject.

 

[Accountable]

If you can refute my claims using current information and current knowledge then please do, and I'll happily accept them.

I'm not interested, thanks. I marvel every day at the wonderful world God has created, using the laws He set up, and see no conflict at all between science and a belief in a superior being. I'm always disappointed when otherwise sensible people insist that it must be either/or without the first iota of real reasoning for it.

 

[sexysadie]

I'm not interested, thanks. I marvel every day at the wonderful world God has created, using the laws He set up, and see no conflict at all between science and a belief in a superior being. I'm always disappointed when otherwise sensible people insist that it must be either/or without the first iota of real reasoning for it.

Bravo my friend. I find it hard to understand how anybody could read these words and accuse you of being close-minded, on the contrary, only the most open mind could possibly be so wise.

 

[sexysadie]

It's probably worth mentioning I used to believe in god once, not any religion or anything, just god. But since learning about science, you'd actually be amazed at how much my eyes were opened.

I'd be interested in knowing what made you believe in God back then....

 

[sexysadie]

well this is true. Religious people, more often than not, are opposed to new ideas, new concepts and new understanding. Is it any wonder that the most religious western nation (the US) has the least agreement and understanding of the Theory of Evolution? And also the least interest in trying to understand it.

Looking at the world through religious eyes already has an answer for things it doesn't understand. "It's God's hand". That shuts off the process of inquiry before it even starts.

Religion is like looking at the world through a skylight. You only get a limited view of what's out there. Science rips off the roof and reveals the entire sky.

I beg to differ, knowing that God created the mind behind the theory of evolution, says it all for me. God created life, life discovered man/woman, man/woman discovered science, science discovered doubt and doubt discovered the athiest...........in that order. God creates.......men/women discover.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I'd be interested in knowing what made you believe in God back then....

Not really sure, it just made sense to me. Doesn't anymore.

 

[sexysadie]

Not really sure, it just made sense to me. Doesn't anymore.

You keep saying 'it'.....what exactly do you mean by 'it'?

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

You keep saying 'it'.....what exactly do you mean by 'it'?

Belief in a god?

 

[edgray]

I'm not interested, thanks. I marvel every day at the wonderful world God has created, using the laws He set up, and see no conflict at all between science and a belief in a superior being. I'm always disappointed when otherwise sensible people insist that it must be either/or without the first iota of real reasoning for it.

:24: best. post. ever! what was it you were calling me? oh yes, closed minded!

this applies here I'd say:

I'd provide you with not only reasoning, but lots and lots of scientific evidence too. But you won't read it, nor will acknowledge it, because of this belief of yours. And thank you for so blindly proving my point in all of this!!! That is just beyond priceless!!!

 

[sexysadie]

Belief in a god?

So let me get this straight....once upon a time you believed in God and then you read some scientific explanation which in turn, made you believe in evolution instead?

 

[Minor Axis]

Not all religious people are close-minded, but I've never met any (open-minded ones). The very definition of close-minded is "Not open to new ideas" (check Google too), and I've never met any religious people or any religions that have welcomed new concepts of science into them.

It is most understandable. Once your fantasy world is set up, you have very little incentive to go from a state of knowing you'll be taken care of to reverting to a state of questioning the unknown and my future. It leads to a state of closed mindedness.

You two's blind prejudice and bigotry is astounding, not to mention ironic given the way in which you choose display it.

I don't think you are being fair to Ed and Kimmy. Does disagreement on religious matters have to be prejudice and bigotry?

Every point you tried to make is a diversion from the subject. You stated quite emphatically your foregone conclusion that "religious beliefs are the very definition of close-minded," and have since been trying to justify your stance with apologist statements and caveats. Your statements here suggest that any scientific discovery must first necessarily pass the litmus test of whether the scientist him/herself holds any positive religious views before examining it for scientific merit. What is that if not close-minded?

I accuse you of the very close-mindedness of which you accuse all religion and religious people. You respond not by denying, but by justifying. Interesting.

I think the hedge-your-bets religious types are open minded, but the ones who have swallowed the dogma hook line and sinker, are not interested in contrary views. They live by faith and faith alone. At least scientists are seeking based on evidence.

I beg to differ, knowing that God created the mind behind the theory of evolution, says it all for me. God created life, life discovered man/woman, man/woman discovered science, science discovered doubt and doubt discovered the athiest...........in that order. God creates.......men/women discover.

Personally I'd reexamine the definition of "knowing" but if it makes you feel good, that is all that matters.
Hey, this is a thread about DISAGREEMENT! Maybe we should work back to the general topic instead of zinging into a relgious debate?

 

[edgray]

I beg to differ, knowing that God created the mind behind the theory of evolution, says it all for me. God created life, life discovered man/woman, man/woman discovered science, science discovered doubt and doubt discovered the athiest...........in that order. God creates.......men/women discover.

this is the thing. God didn't create man. Man evolved over millions of years from the first simple single-celled life to emerge on Earth. He didn't create the Earth, which formed from the collapse of a star, pushed together by the 4 forces that govern the universe. God didn't create that dead star either, that dead star came from the big bang and the energy and the matter and laws that created it...

... now, the big bang, yes, there is a possibility that the big bang was set off by something, or someone, the possibility of a God for sure... but there is no "knowing" in this - no one knows at this moment in time. The very latest scientific explanations are that the big bang was caused by two of the "membranes" that make up reality colliding, and this in turn created not only our own, but possibly an infinite number of other universes too... was this collision set off by a being? It's possible. Scientists are looking to achieve this themselves. So if a scientist can achieve this, what does that tell us about God? Perhaps He's nothing more than a scientist himself, experimenting and exploring his reality beyond the known universe...

As for science, science is simply the only way humans have of perceiving reality without being hindered by our subjective perception. In other words: it's as close to reality as humans have figured out how to get.

 

[edgray]

I don't think you are being fair to Ed and Kimmy. Does disagreement on religious matters have to be prejudice and bigotry?

Apparently it does. Apparently, being open to possibilities and explanations that do not involve an omnipotent and unproven deity makes you closed-minded. Not accepting archaic notions and searching for answers makes you closed-minded. Apparently, looking at evidence and presenting a case based on that evidence is closed minded. And, apparently, being able to support your case with actual studies and evidence rather than personal opinion makes you closed minded too.

All of this makes you a bigot and riddled with prejudice.... apparently.

 

[Accountable]

Bravo my friend. I find it hard to understand how anybody could read these words and accuse you of being close-minded, on the contrary, only the most open mind could possibly be so wise.

:24: best. post. ever! what was it you were calling me? oh yes, closed minded!

this applies here I'd say:

I'd provide you with not only reasoning, but lots and lots of scientific evidence too. But you won't read it, nor will acknowledge it, because of this belief of yours. And thank you for so blindly proving my point in all of this!!! That is just beyond priceless!!!

It seems incredibly important to you to declare that anything but absolute rejection to anything resembling religion is being close-minded. You've approached this consistently from starting with the conclusion and showing information to support it. Why not do what you've already acknowledged is the scientific method and legitimately try to disprove your hypothesis?

 

[Accountable]

I think the hedge-your-bets religious types are open minded, but the ones who have swallowed the dogma hook line and sinker, are not interested in contrary views. They live by faith and faith alone. At least scientists are seeking based on evidence.

Excellent point. :thumbup
Unfortunately, many have simply replaced the dogma of religion for the dogma of anti-religion. Was your use of 'hedge-your-bets' pejorative or simply an observation? I ask because I'm guessing that all true scientists and most religious people allow for unknown possibilities.

 

[edgray]

It seems incredibly important to you to declare that anything but absolute rejection to anything resembling religion is being close-minded. You've approached this consistently from starting with the conclusion and showing information to support it. Why not do what you've already acknowledged is the scientific method and legitimately try to disprove your hypothesis?

This is the whole point, Accountable. The little evidence there is available on the subject, the few studies that have been done, point to the very conclusion I have been talking about.

The greater the religious belief in a country, the lower the scientific uptake in that society.


This is the very closed-mindedness we're arguing about. It's willful ignorance of research to maintain a belief system.

If I could disprove it, I'd be happy too. But none of the evidence I've been able to find on the matter disproves this hypothesis.

So, in light of there being no evidence to the contrary, I can happily say that at this moment in time, with our current understanding, my hypothesis is correct and I stand by it.

 

[Minor Axis]

Apparently it does. Apparently, being open to possibilities and explanations that do not involve an omnipotent and unproven deity makes you closed-minded. Not accepting archaic notions and searching for answers makes you closed-minded. Apparently, looking at evidence and presenting a case based on that evidence is closed minded. And, apparently, being able to support your case with actual studies and evidence rather than personal opinion makes you closed minded too.

All of this makes you a bigot and riddled with prejudice.... apparently.

The matter of the fact is that every one is prejudiced... aren't they? It is just a matter of how prejudiced they are and how willing someone is to consider alternative views. They might consider them and then discount them. I think within the realm of this particular discussion, that the word "bigot" is unnecessarily harsh. What makes it harsh is that the definition connotates intolerance, and animosity. That intent can be easily misconstrued in a debate in a text based forum like this.

 

[edgray]

The matter of the fact is that every one is prejudiced... aren't they? It is just a matter of how prejudiced they are and willing someone is to consider alternative views. I just think within the realm of this particular discussion and those I quoted in a previous message, that the word "bigot" is unnecessarily harsh. What makes it harsh is the aspect of intolerance, and animosity based on the views of others.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animosity

Yes everyone has some form of prejudice: we build up a subjective view of reality in our minds and like to maintain that view whenever we can.

This is why we can only trust evidence and the scientific method. This process removes as much of our preconceived notions about the world as is possible, and allows us to see reality how it really is.

 

[Accountable]

This is the whole point, Accountable. The little evidence there is available on the subject, the few studies that have been done, point to the very conclusion I have been talking about.

The greater the religious belief in a country, the lower the scientific uptake in that society.


This is the very closed-mindedness we're arguing about. It's willful ignorance of research to maintain a belief system.

If I could disprove it, I'd be happy too. But none of the evidence I've been able to find on the matter disproves this hypothesis.

So, in light of there being no evidence to the contrary, I can happily say that at this moment in time, with our current understanding, my hypothesis is correct and I stand by it.

Your statements and stated opinions go well beyond what the statistics support. Your statements and stated opinions are absolute and don't allow for exceptions. Indeed, any exceptions are discounted out-of-hand.
I, on the other hand, don't think the idea is even relevant to anything beyond trivia, and so am willing to listen to elitists of every stripe and only reject their ideas when I believe they become too extreme.