Pali Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 As some of you may know, a Christian radio station owned by Harold Camping had been predicting the end of the world to begin on Saturday - clearly that didn't happen, though plenty of people believed it would (Camping apparently predicted the world would end in 1994 as well). While this was viewed simply as funny by many of the people I know who were aware of this, myself included, a few notes about it have dampened my amusement, chiefly among them the to prevent them from having to suffer through the world ending. Plenty of people quit jobs, sold their things, stopped saving for college tuition for their kids, some committed suicide... all because a guy used the Bible to predict that the world would end, and they believed him. This isn't funny. This isn't just stupid/crazy people doing stupid/crazy things. This is one of the vastly negative consequences of us as a society viewing faith, viewing believing things without checking first to see if they apply to reality, as a good thing to have. This is one of uncountable examples of good, intelligent people doing very horrible or stupid things (things that affect others as well as themselves) because of their religious beliefs - things they would have had no motive to do without those beliefs. If you want to know why I am so against faith-based thinking - this kind of thing is why. Thousands of people's lives ruined or ended... because of Biblically-based bull**** someone spewed on the radio. EDIT: To be clear: yes, I know this was in no way a mainstream Christian belief. Yes, Camping had been denounced by plenty of Christian leaders. If your reaction to the above is to think "But that's not what I/most Christians believe", then you are missing the point. The problem is not any specific religious belief - the problem is the concept that faith is a valid way of knowing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 LOL, women be crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 *facepalm* Sexism does not become you, inscribed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 You really cannot blame a homicidal woman on faith. You can blame it squarely on lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRins Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 I agree this particular event and the consequences were terrible. I would like to point out the countless acts of charity and self-sacrifice done in the name of religion as well. As with all tools... it depends on the person using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 People attempt to kill other people for all sorts of reasons, some of them entirely rational. This woman believed, based on faith, that the world would be ending horribly soon. She did not want her daughters to go through that, so she decided to kill them before it would happen. This is not an irrational chain of thought - the only irrational part is the premise it is based originally upon, that her faith justified her belief that the world would be ending soon. Labeling this woman as homicidal is disingenuous - as far as I can tell she showed no signs of mental instability or violent tendencies. This was a decision she made based upon her belief that the world would be ending soon. EDIT: KRins, that people sometimes do good things based on bad reasons doesn't excuse the bad reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRins Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 I honestly am not one to spend too terrible much time on wondering "how come?" If you do something good, then it is good. If you do something bad, then it is bad. Now the why is always interesting, but doesn't change the fact you did a good or bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Surface examinations of the facts may suit you. I prefer to actually understand what happened and why, because that's how you can learn to stop bad things from repeating themselves... and it also helps protect you against cons and frauds who come across seeming good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trick Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 There have been just as many bad things occur in the 'name of Science!', right? Are you against Science-based thinking as well? A simple search of 'unethical things done in the name of science' in Google will provide some good information on the horrible experiments conducted for the advancement of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 First off, the objection isn't just to the ethics involved - it's the reasoning involved. Second, as I've argued here before, modern science is primarily a methodology (as well as a general body of knowledge), a tool used to acquire knowledge and understanding. The desire for knowledge and understanding has served as motivation to conduct scientific experiments in unethical ways, but science itself is not capable of being that motivation because science is not prescriptive when it comes to values and behaviors - it can be used to determine what one should do to achieve an already-desired outcome, but it cannot be used to determine if one should desire that outcome in the first place. Religious faith, on the other hand, comes quite readily with prescriptions for behavior and value sets - all based on horribly flimsy reasoning (edit: this is somewhat unfair - in many cases if the premises of a religion were true, most of its behavioral codes are pretty rational to extrapolate from such, but that's only IF the premises are true - which they cannot demonstrate, hence my negative view of the general reasoning process at work). In the end, I'm less in favor of science-based thinking than I am of rational, skeptical evidence-based thinking - it just so happens that the scientific method incorporates such thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 People are stupid and easy to manipulate. You should know that, you live in great america Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 ...oh, I know (two words: Fox News). I just think that's even more reason to try to get rid of one of the best of such methods of manipulation. That someone falls for a con doesn't excuse the conman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 If it's not faith it will be terrorism. If not terrorism, then chemical warfare, or some mad dictator or whatever. The masterminds know how to work their stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samag08 Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Pali - Although I recognize and admire your beliefs and often, view from a different angle, there are just as many science and data nuts as there are religious nuts. It has been proven time and again that the human brain tries to look for patterns through data which no true pattern really exists. Hence, why we believe so-and-so with a specific batting average is "Due for a hit" even though nothing proving this exists. Random luck is just as likely as anything else. -That said, the religious view is equally unproven by modern standards, and as such becomes not a fact but a statement of faith, which if half these nuts were as truly devoted as they claimed they might have taken a few brief moments throughout their lives to examine the book of Matthew and realize that "None other than the Creator Himself knows of the exact moment of rapture(paraphrasing)." -A good bit of advice is to continue living your lives as normal people would for you either believe or do not believe. - Another good point for folks of belief is this. "God does not judge a man until the very moment of his death, what makes us think that we reserve such a right?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Pali - Although I recognize and admire your beliefs and often' date=' view from a different angle, there are just as many science and data nuts as there are religious nuts.[/quote'] People keep saying this. I'd love to see some evidence that there are "just as many", even by percentage, because I never have. Also, "science" does not cause international wars - religion does. Ethical abuse in scientific research tends to happen in various isolated instances - many of the negative affects of faith I would say are systematic and spread across the majority of the religious population. It has been proven time and again that the human brain tries to look for patterns through data which no true pattern really exists. Hence, why we believe so-and-so with a specific batting average is "Due for a hit" even though nothing proving this exists. Random luck is just as likely as anything else. I'm well aware of these sorts of cognitive biases and tricks. Most people aren't - that's a big problem. -That said, the religious view is equally unproven by modern standards, and as such becomes not a fact but a statement of faith, which if half these nuts were as truly devoted as they claimed they might have taken a few brief moments throughout their lives to examine the book of Matthew and realize that "None other than the Creator Himself knows of the exact moment of rapture(paraphrasing)." Yeah, I'd been amused by that last as well - nobody selectively quotes scripture quite as well as evangelicals. -A good bit of advice is to continue living your lives as normal people would for you either believe or do not believe. Well, "normal" is an appeal to the majority - and the majority believes. I'm certainly not okay with the normal. - Another good point for folks of belief is this. "God does not judge a man until the very moment of his death, what makes us think that we reserve such a right?" I like the clarification in the first sentence - I certainly think we're capable of judging. Who else will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekky Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Firstly, every time f0xx makes a post from now on it should be known as "f0xx News™". Secondly - I don't necessarily disagree specifically with anything Pali has said. However, I would argue that anyone who acted as if this 'rapture' was a given and quit their job, cheated on their spouse, went on spending sprees, or whatever else was particularly stupid, faith or not. I say this because this 'prophet' who predicted this inevitable apocalypse had done it once before in 1994. He was wrong then, and he was wrong now. Seriously, there are few things more untrustworthy than one of those "The End is Nigh" people, especially if they have a track record of predicting the incorrect day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Twendrist Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Lets remember that wars start (and pretty much all large scale bad things) because there are some greedy, self serving individuals that convince the public to trust them. They can use anything from religion to national pride, to anything else. A group is only as good as its leaders, and if the leaders are corrupt it doesn't matter what religion they are. Only a sith speaks in absolutes. Also a fanatic is a fanatic is a fanatic, no matter what they preach, creationism, evolution, or the flying spaghetti monster. Incidently, science may not start wars, but it's made them a hell of a lot more efficient over the years. At least the religious fanatics have stayed mostly the same in the sense that we know they're gonna be there and they're gonna be crazy. My only qualms about science is that some people are really smart but don't have the good sense to consider the future implications of what they are doing and what they are making possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibber Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Just because there was a *small* sect of fanatic fools, and just because they went and did stupid things, doesn't mean the whole of faith, Christianity, or what have you is a bad, bad thing. Basing your consensus and backing up your views on this small event also makes you a bane to science, being that just one, small event should never have any 'science' guru base his beliefs, or consider something factual. I should also say -- no, I didn't believe May 21st was going to be the Rapture. No, I still don't believe Oct 21st is the end of the world, and yes: I think Camping is a ****ING idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 The rapture DID happen. The fact that you're all still here means you're going to hell. the only path to salvation is to send me all your worldy posessions. Please email me your SSN, and bank account numbers. Salvation is only a click away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 I would like to bring up Nazis and their infamous twin research. No religion there, just some science nutters. You can also bring up every manner of UFO suicide cult that has existed since the beginning of time as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Just because there was a *small* sect of fanatic fools, and just because they went and did stupid things, doesn't mean the whole of faith, Christianity, or what have you is a bad, bad thing. Basing your consensus and backing up your views on this small event also makes you a bane to science, being that just one, small event should never have any 'science' guru base his beliefs, or consider something factual. If this one event were the basis of my negative view of faith, I'd fully agree with you. But if you think that, then you haven't paid any attention to previous posts of mine on the subject. My disdain for faith as a basis for belief isn't based on this or any other specific event (that'd be a logical fallacy known as an appeal to consequences) - it's based on what faith is in the first place. Nameless, I'd argue that Naziism itself shares many of the same negative attributes of religion (as did Stalinism). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 Nazi's where not a religion, it was a group of people. Nazi SCIENTISTS performed some of the most gruesome, and horrific "scientific studies" ever documented. You asked for one, and I answered. Also the more you post on the subject, the more you are anti-religion, not pro-science. That is how it appears. Your losing more of your science ammo, and refilling it with religious hate, and slander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 I agree that Naziism was not a religion - I said it shared some of the same negative aspects of religion (appeals to authority, groupthink, etc.). I'm aware that Nazi scientists did some horrible things, but if you re-read my post, I asked not for examples of scientists doing bad things, but evidence that scientists do unethical things on a rate comparable to those[/it] done via religion. This would require a much broader statistical analysis over the last few centuries... as far as I know no such analysis has been done, making the claim that scientists commit atrocities "just as much" as religious people a claim that is not based in evidence. And yes, this was not a pro-science post - this was an anti-religion post. I am anti-religious - I view religion as a primarily negative influence on humanity. That should not surprise anyone here at this point. But I'm curious - where's the slander? Where have I been making false statements? P.S. Nekky, I would not agree that these people were necessarily stupid - smart people do dumb things all the time, all it takes is one false premise (in this case that the Bible can be used to predict the end of the world) to base your thinking off of. This is one of the things I view as most dangerous about religious faith - even very smart people can use it to believe very stupid things, because it doesn't have a reality check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 It is not false statements. It is akin to political mudslinging. Your using fractions of fractions of the truth to get across your point. Did you do any research to see if that woman had a history of mental instability? Did you check if she was under heavy stress? Nope. You took the first layer of truth, and presented it because that is what best got your point across. The fact of the matter is the woman WAS mentally unfit, and had been in trouble before for doing crazy things (inducing public panic). This time her insanity went too far, and you got to blame her actions on religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Nameless Posted May 22, 2011 Report Share Posted May 22, 2011 http://brittaj17.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/woman-shoots-her-teenage-kids-for-being-mouthy-jan-2011/ Clearly this one is the fault of Science. Had we not had technological advancements like TV, Internet, and Firearms, the children would never have learned to disrespect their mother, and the mother would not have a gun to shoot the disrespectful children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.