Agnostic.com

18 1

With such a lack of Reason and Logic amongst religionists and spiritualists how do we who have practiced same set about changing their method of thinking to include more of the same?. Not interested in "Can't be done" answers

Mcflewster 8 Aug 7
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

18 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Ummmm... Why should we?

My thought exactly.

@Diogenes also reply to@JanGarber . If people thought like this before the time that religion came along then the good work that religion has done [and there has been plenty] would never have happened and we would be in a worse place now unable to think of a way of getting rid of religion...... which is what this thread is about.

@Mcflewster If logic and reason had preceded imagination and story we might also have green blood and pointed ears... ?

I think it would be good to curb many of the worst excesses associated with religion, but most of those pervade every other aspect of society too...

So I don't see any particular societal advantage to be gained by eradicating religion..

@Mcflewster I got your tag posted to me, but I see that there is a "Diogenes UK", and I am not in the UK, so I have no idea of what you are talking about. And Tristan, "Scientist that were believers". It is hard to explain compartmentalizing the brain. Either one believes in physics--- or you don't believe in physics. You either believe in walking on water--- or you don't believe in walking on water. You can't have it both ways.

@Diogenes @Mcflewster

A reply to me was tagged to you. Much merriment ensues.

So much for compartmentalisation.?

#cognitivedissonance

1

Through out time, and still today there have been many great Scientists that were believers, yet that never got in the way of them using the scientific method.

1

Question faith wherever you encounter it. Religious beliefs are intellectually lazy most of the time. If you get people to actually think about what they believe, many will find that faith is a sheer and flimsy blanket that does not quite conceal the truth.

JimG Level 8 Aug 8, 2018
0

I"m agnostic and spiritual.
Who is to say atheist are not unbalance by being too much into their own heads. Too much in our minds is where the source of problems are. Why not lead their lives with their hearts?, said to be the other brain or sub consciousness.

Suppose they lack the understanding what spiritual means to them. Or have a lame imagination to boldly explore the unknowns about spiritual.

The only thing lacking in atheists is belief in the imaginary. It doesn't mean atheists don't have imagination, but that they understand the distinct difference between imagination and reality.

Exploring the unknown is actually about discovering the truth, not about making up more bullshit. Were I to present the same fallacy you employ, I could say that spiritual people don't want to be bound by religious restriction/dogma, but fear permanent, irreversible death

@JimG
My personal experience, with most atheist that fear going into any discussions with any depth about imagination and spiritual topics. They fear the out of mind experience. Meaning leading with the heart, that they would call just a muscle rather than a second brain. My daughter and I are fearless. Everyone dies yet not everyone lives. We don't fear death, it just this unknown spiritual world, that Religion claim to have found it.

“Religion is belief in someone else’s experience. Spirituality is having your own experience.” Spiritual meaning explore  the 99℅ unknown, until its manifest into our ego self. Everything I have ever achieved in life was all once imagined and the same for the history of of mankind.

Beauty is truth, we all lie, it just in degrees each of us lie. My only two simple rules is to not to harm and be honest, keeping it to the lowest degree. Bullshit is the worst kind of lying, you don't even care that you are lying. To claim a book to be the universal truth and knowledge, is the greatest Bullshit story ever told.

@Castlepaloma it's not fear of discussion; the fact is there's nothing to discuss. Religions mistake isn't claiming knowledge of the spiritual world but asserting that it exists at all. That's begging the question. Religious and spiritual people begin with an unproven premise. That's begging the question and it precludes logic.

The same is true for considering the heart to be a second brain. Nowhere in scientific or medical research is there any indication that the heart is anything other than a muscle.

I want to understand the world in which I live not make one up in order to pretend I have some special insight into it.

@JimG
It's interesting how the overrated mental brain of humans and Dolphins are. They are weaker than brain power of the gut and heart. Look at the jellyfish with no brain yet out survives all animals on earth.

@JimG I think the logic of religious people lies in
a) gaining comfort and reassurance of a future 'prize'
b) avoiding having the more difficult task of thinking of and alternative method of comfort and an alternative path when nothing exists after death.
It is our job to find alternative methods and comforts . Difficult I know, but at least we should try

@Mcflewster

My studies in Asia Taoism in the 70s taught me, we have 3 brains. One in the gut, the heart and the brain for our mental, physical and emotional health. This practice has giving me higher energy to achieve world ranking in athletic sport. Then later on a world renowned sculptor profession for 40 years.

Religion is not meaning being spiritual. Spiritual is different.

I am NOT an atheist, because I will not use my valuable time to argue about 'walking on water'- or anything else akin to such foolish nonsense.

We do not know the reason for the universe, and inventing gods is a moronic joke.

@Diogenes
Best thing about Religion for me, is the comedy material for my standup as Religion is so outrageous. Atheist and Religion I find both extreme and limited in overall thinking, yet atheist is harmless.

From building alot of history museums displays. I'm most impress with the greater number of great people throughout human history. That were more middle grounds thinking. Balance like agnostic , or spiritual sided rather than Religious.

0

...relatively new;::::2 points
1as said in other posts- certain folks
get alot emotional sustanance
from religion*(phsycology)
2- social intergration(belonging)
-connected;. Athiests are the others-choose
sales people

0

Reality has a way of setting in..

Varn Level 8 Aug 7, 2018
1

Why do you feel compelled to do this? Don't people have a right to their faith-based beliefs? There's so much we can't know. Why do you insist that everything be based on logic? That seems illogical...

Gmak Level 7 Aug 7, 2018

I guess your reply was supposed to be funny- so "ha, ha".

1

I don't proselytize my atheism.

1

You need to ask why they believe and then point out what makes that incorrect.

Agree CONSTANTLY but chapter and verse on why they are incorrect

1

I like what KKGator commented. In addition: Uh oh, here it comes...

As alleged physicians of reason and logic, atheists are still, as a group, in need of lots more treatment before we present ourselves with notions that we're much further advanced.

Two things get me on Trigger. (stolen name for my hobby horse)

Many in our number are self-deluded; blinded by our own brightness for having seen through the falsehoods and manipulation of theologies; for having rejected deities and the bunco artists claiming to represent them and in constant need of more money. It is a good thing. Don't get me wrong on that part. It is just that, however. PART

We are not home free in terms of independent thinking by any fair measure. My thought process, for better or worse, is more functional and less structural. Structures might differ greatly; giving the impression of real differences, when in actual fact they function virtually identically. Such is the case with the twin taboos of Religion and Politics. Strident emotional reactions related to 'discussions' of either account for banishment as topics in polite company precisely because they are functionally identical.

My bio contains the comparison, but for a comment it bears repeating.

Religious leaders promise 'pie in the sky' but for a price, of course. Leaders of political ideologies and supportive denominations called parties offer 'pie on Earth', also very conveniently in the future at some undetermined time. The price of admission for both is identical. Abdicate your primary gift of critical thinking and reasoning by checking it at the door and donning assigned robes of indoctrination. Opinions have a new, external source and as a member it is all or nothing in acceptance. Another commonly shared attribute is that leaders are the only ones getting any pie; purchased with 'gifts' supporting their respective 'missions'; 'offerings' that enable propagation of respective gospels (good news to the masses) promising paradise to the voluntarily botched. Illustration I love compares them to Alice in Wonderland at the Queen's Tea Party.

“There is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday—but never jam to-day.”
“It must come sometimes to ‘jam to-day,’” Alice objected.
“No, it can’t,” said the Queen. “It’s jam every other day: to-day isn’t any other day, you know”
― Lewis Carroll

The other area in dire need of sorting and throwing away is in socio-religious mores and rituals. Rituals often serve as the glue that binds people together under this or that common identity for a fuzzy, warm, mindless sense of sharing and exchanging of grinning sameness. Even though many rituals are felt to be annoying or inconvenient or even serve to undermine one's economic well being, rejection of hallowed habits has it's price too. Back to function... I see much of it as comparable to addiction, but not the place here to list all of the structures.

Addicts get uncomfortable around those who 'abstain'; especially when the abstainer is a former participant. The discomfort can also be two-way and imperiling to the abstainer remaining that way steeped in the midst of so many who only question the abstinence, oblivious to the more obvious question of use in the first place.

So many of our atheist friends and fellow travelers in this Earthly 'undiscovered country' continue rituals unquestioning of sources and purposes for their existence; not in the least curious about how they integrate us into sub-groups that are functionally identical to sub-groups of believers. We still celebrate days in close marching order that are based on total myths and result in subtle control of behaviors and parting of people from their money. Wedding rings and other associated integrative supplies are dutifully and ritually purchased and exchanged. Many of our children are still lied to about mythical characters bringing gifts, depositing babies, leaving money under pillows, etc. Babies boys are still 'protected' by genital mutilation. Artifice still substitutes for nature with cold plastic nipples and pacifiers. Women still encounter ample functional evidence that males are still thought to be 'in charge'..

We see it reflected all over this site with altogether too much female acquiescence. Notice the ratio of males to females in posts? When it comes to absurdities on the face of them, I'll not go there, but pulleeeze women, try to step out there a little more. As a close female friend recently said about a nightclub we were visiting: 'The ambience is killing me'.

Lastly, back to the top. As a class of people and thinkers, we have a long road to traverse intellectually before criticizing or ridiculing believers for their lack of independent thought. Oh they have gobs of it alright. What is embarrassing is the popular notions among us that scraping off barnacles half way down the hull, out of sight from the surface, somehow makes us examples of sea worthiness.

1

It is not our place to change someone else’s way of thinking. All we can do is set the example, share our viewpoints and information, and hope that it helps them to grow. Going into it with the mindset of “you need to change your views to fit mine” just perpetuates the problem because, I guarantee you, that a good portion of them are thinking the same thing. Part of the reason I loathe formed religions is the whole ”your beliefs don’t match mine so that means you’re wrong” mindset. It alienates people.

0

People change when the pain of changing is less than the pain of not changing. My only interest is to help people already initiating their own transition. People can only save themselves.

I agree that only people can change themselves. However perhaps if we put more effort into making assemblies of NON religious people more entertaining and inspiring we could get a few religious people to 'change side'. A lot of work needs doing on making alternatives to established religion. The 'Sunday Assembly, movement is doing great things in pockets all over the USA and UK.

@Mcflewster I think the problem is that a lot of unbelievers feel no particular need for such things -- they either see them as an activity they never liked to begin with and have been liberated from finally, or they can't separate the benefits of community / belonging / refuge from the religious tropes and feel like it's some kind of regressive activity.

I understand the sentiment -- I've followed Alain De Botton's talks on "Atheism 2.0" and his desire to borrow what he regards as the salubrious effects of religion and incorporate them somehow for appropriation by the areligious. I'm just skeptical and think it may be inherently doomed. To have any sort of community you need broad acceptance of some kind of shared narrative / tradition / ritual and atheism is just way too narrow to provide that. I note that Sunday Assembly seems to be distancing itself from atheism as a basis and having a broader humanistic emphasis ... selling it as a "woo free" environment for caring, yet thinking people. That might work better, I don't know.

I don't have Humanist Society or Sunday Assembly as options so I tried a UU congregation and found they seem to have a gravitational pull toward substituting political ideology / cliquishness for religious ideology / cliquishness. And even though I'm not that out of phase with them, it's kind of nosebleed liberal SJW activist territory that I'm put off by. For an introvert with modest social needs, it's just more effort than it's worth to me personally.

I ended up playing cards with some other oldsters at the local senior citizens center on Saturday mornings. It has the advantage of simplicity and low expectations. Others will prioritize differently than that, but it works for me.

1

Until schools are secular and religion is only taught as a subject such as Maths or Geography, I can’t see any change ever coming. I don’t know anything about the education sector in US, but over here in Northern Ireland Protestants and Catholics go to different schools and they all get far too much religion pumped into them. In France schools are secular and if parents want a religious education they have to send them to a private school and pay fees. This system should be universally adopted in my opinion.

1

There is no reason that I am aware of that one would want to change anyone's thinking unless one is on an evangelical crusade. In which case the only reason that one would wish another to change their thinking is if one was threatened by them. Just a thought.

Are you suggesting that one can never be evangelical about agnosticism?

@Mcflewster ...the person has to
take back their moral compass
(Conscience) & ask ,,,being a member
of this community help or hurt
society- some folks are just happy
with / can't make the sacrifices
needed?️to bride those divides

@Mcflewster One can be as evangelical as one likes about anything one wants. He must recognise, though, that by trying to change another's mind about something is saying that you know best and your moral philosophy or ideology, whatever is under scrutiny, should supercede the thinking of the recipient.

@Mcflewster

Evangelical agnosticism? That's an oxymoron! It's okay to admit that some things are unknowable. In the-philosophy-of-science jargon, some things simply cannot be falsified. And god is one of those things. One simply cannot know. Admittedly, as scientists expand their repertoire of tools, more and more things come under the umbrella of scientific scrutiny. But that is no reason for hubris! It's this hubris of science that alienates students, leading to an uninformed public! I think scientists like Richard Dawkins have done so much to alienate the public from science! My scientific hero is Darwin, who was humble in the face of his unknowing. So humble, that it took him years to publish the Origin of the Species!

@Mcflewster I wonder about things: if Nature has a conscience: or if it is cognitive, what was the reason of enabling animals that were carnivores or omnivores?

0

the person must be open to change can't change the mind of someone who is happy with their mindset

0

Among the so called "Religionists and spiritualists" are the perpetrators of said "Bull shnit" ... to be such a perpetrator, wouldn't they have to possess the desired "Reason and Logic" already? If so, then a reasonable question might be "How does one motivate these perpetrators to reveal themselves?

3

The only thing any of us can reasonably do is lead by example.
Coming to rational thought and logic, eschewing religion and deities, is an individual pursuit. It cannot be forced upon anyone.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. 😉

We have a whole advertising industry which is dedicated to make us think , often subliminally with a clever slogan and makes big bucks in doing so. Perhaps we should pay them to do the job for us. The politicians do.

@Mcflewster That would be intellectually dishonest and I, for one, would be totally against it. As much as I would love for more people to embrace rational thought and throw away those Bronze-Age myths, I absolutely do NOT want it to occur through dishonest means. I abhor subliminal messaging. It's wrong, period. The ends do not always justify the means.

1

Are you asking how we can employ more reason and logic than we already do or what? I’m not sure I got your meaning. If that was the question:

Those of us who are already trying can work on whatever source we’re weakest on: Be it personal experimentation or reading/listening to more scientific sources, or taking a class. It’s important to keep finding and examining our assumptions and to make concessions when we realize we haven’t based them on an inscrutable enough source.

Punctuation is really important. It took me a minute to figure out the question, too.

@KKGator oh yeah I see now lol regarding how to convince others to employ more reason, yeah if there’s a way I’m sure I don’t know it. Looking back on the people who tried to convince me of more reasonable attitudes when I was religious, none of it was effective. I had to remain intellectually curious and pursue the path on my own. I suppose you can gently become friends with them and try to be kind and lead by example for a start to help them along but you’ve gotta use a fair amount of patience and the Socratic method to allow them to realize their own inconsistencies. If you come at them trying to debate or with the least bit of aggression they will just dig in further, feeling persecuted and validated by their scriptures that tell them they will be.

I know that we are all trying and I am grateful for the contributors to this website for the variety and stamina they illustrate, but we are doing something wrong. Religion has and will continue to damage the world if we accept that nothing can be done. We need new and innovative initiatives . My efforts are in science teaching and I advocate a 'science for all approach, but there must be other methods. Has anyone a tale to relate where a particular application of logic and or reason changed the mind of someone who had otherwise been intransigent?

@Mcflewster yeah it’s frustrating. I’m convinced no single argument will open the mind and heart of someone determined by dogma and fear of hell, but it’s a game of winning very small battles that can amount to changing their mind over time.

One of the quickest arguments I ever had where I felt them have to logically give way to me was: a homophobic boss was railing about some same sex prom date controversy in the news at the time or something. I asked him: when you hit puberty did you have to decide “how am I going to play this hand?” Or were you just automatically attracted to women, nothing you could do or decide could change your mind?” He immediately had to admit that sexuality is not a choice.

Another great story I keep hearing on NPR and such is that: when people went around polling attitudes about abortion they found that a woman sharing her personal story about how she was 16 and the unfortunate reasons why she wound up needing an abortion could change someone from a 1 (being staunchly against) to a 10 (staunchly for the right to choose) in a matter of minutes. So when it comes to bigoted, ignorant ideas that allow the religious (and conservatives in general) to discriminate: we can change people’s minds by introducing them to real people so they can’t cling to their dehumanized ideals on the demographic.

When it comes to introducing them to larger concepts that no one person can embody, I still think it’s a very careful game of empathy and winning very small battles with the Socratic method that might encourage some (those that are ready; not all) to change their mind.

@Mcflewster
It's not within the purview of science to debate religion. Your students have a right to their religious stance.

Examining your assumptions is a good and reasonable way of altering your own life . Asking for reasons for any behaviour and being honest and patient enough with the person who is asking the question will assist you in helping others

@Wurlitzer Empathy is the key to understanding reason for bad behaviour and gives hope that the behaviour can be corrected

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:150015
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.