Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sordid]

Open-mindedness is about the willingness to modify your own ideas based on new information, and the willingness to consider that information.

That's what the video says, Siquo doesn't seem to agree. Given that it's the best explanation of the concept that I've ever heard, I doubt we'll be able to do better and change his mind. Ironic, isn't it.

[G-Flex]

I like how he makes special exceptions for opinions which obviously are problematic, yet still makes a general point that all opinions and perspectives are created equally. I don't get it.

[Sordid]

I like how he makes special exceptions for opinions which obviously are problematic, yet still makes a general point that all opinions and perspectives are created equally. I don't get it.

That's the hypocrisy I was referring to. All viewpoints are equally valid, except those he doesn't agree with.
Also, anyone notice he says blasphemy is not to be tolerated? I guess he doesn't really value free speech very much, at least that of other people who don't share his views of god.

[G-Flex]

To be fair, you can read some good points into what he said, specifically that it's important to be honest about your opinions while remaining civil and respecting people.

[Siquo]

That's the hypocrisy I was referring to. All viewpoints are equally valid, except those he doesn't agree with.
Also, anyone notice he says blasphemy is not to be tolerated? I guess he doesn't really value free speech very much, at least that of other people who don't share his views of god.

Blasphemy was put there as a semi-joke, as the list goes for religious people as well as atheists Terrorism is not a viewpoint or a belief. Nor is blasphemy, or violence or anything else in that list. I don't agree with certain methods or actions. I dislike people mistreating people, and I can definitely do something about that without attacking their core beliefs.

Why is it so hard for people to differentiate between action and reason? If I kill a man, that's just wrong, but if I kill a man because God told me, suddenly believing in God is wrong?

Also, if you feel like being lectured about how wrong you are, then I'm doing it wrong. Validity or worth of an idea has nothing to do with being right or wrong. If you do feel that way, then you're just as bad as the people Andir described, My Viewpoint Is Better Than Yours. If I ever have to take sides between atheist and religious extremes, I'd side with the atheists, because I generally feel that they at least think a lot more about things. But ridiculing or thinking less of the beliefs of others should be beneath you, as an enlightened human being.
If you feel attacked, you're probably way too attached to your belief. Let go a bit. Relax. It's not the end of the world, it's not about being right or wrong, and certainly not about feeling bad because "some random dude on the internet 'attacked' you".

[G-Flex]

Terrorism is not a viewpoint or a belief. Nor is blasphemy, or violence or anything else in that list. I don't agree with certain methods or actions. I dislike people mistreating people, and I can definitely do something about that without attacking their core beliefs.

Er, those things are still the results of belief. After all, if all opinions can be treated equally and with respect, why is "violence is wrong" any better than "violence is right"?

If I kill a man, that's just wrong, but if I kill a man because God told me, suddenly believing in God is wrong?

No, what's wrong would be your willingness to allow arbitrary and baseless beliefs to override sounder pre-existing moral judgements. If you're the kind of person who will literally do anything if they think God told them to do it, then that opens the door to them doing all kinds of things they wouldn't otherwise do the second they convince themselves (or are convinced) that God is telling it to them.

Validity or worth of an idea has nothing to do with being right or wrong.

I have no idea how you're defining "validity" if actually being correct doesn't enter the picture.

[Neruz]

Validity or worth of an idea has nothing to do with being right or wrong.

Because wrong ideas should of course be completely valid. This makes sense.


I just had an idea that you are in fact a large purple unicorn. My idea is valid, therefore you are a large purple unicorn.

[Sordid]

Blasphemy was put there as a semi-joke, as the list goes for religious people as well as atheists

Sorry, no. I don't buy that.

Terrorism is not a viewpoint or a belief. Nor is blasphemy, or violence or anything else in that list.

This here is one of the reasons why I don't buy it. Again you lump people excercising their right to free speech in with murderers. Actually, blasphemy is nothing but belief, as I'm sure you're aware that a person can blasphere in their mind, without ever saying a single word out loud.

I don't agree with certain methods or actions. I dislike people mistreating people, and I can definitely do something about that without attacking their core beliefs.

Then you're treating the symptom without addressing the cause.

Why is it so hard for people to differentiate between action and reason? If I kill a man, that's just wrong, but if I kill a man because God told me, suddenly believing in God is wrong?

And here I thought that went without saying. If a belief causes one to do evil, then that belief itself is also evil. That's why terrorism can be a viewpoint. It's the idea that using terror and violence is okay, that it's an acceptable way to achieve one's goals. I see no reason why that should not be perfectly obvious. If someone thinks violence is okay, then they're going to use it. If they think it's not okay, they're not going to use it. You can't decouple people's actions from their beliefs simply because it's their beliefs that determine their actions.

Also, if you feel like being lectured about how wrong you are, then I'm doing it wrong. Validity or worth of an idea has nothing to do with being right or wrong.

Say what? Validity of an idea has nothing to do with whether it's right? I'm sorry, there really isn't anything I can say to that.

If I ever have to take sides between atheist and religious extremes, I'd side with the atheists, because I generally feel that they at least think a lot more about things. But ridiculing or thinking less of the beliefs of others should be beneath you, as an enlightened human being.

I see no reason to not ridicule the ridiculous and laugh at the laughable. If you think less of me for that, that's your business.

If you feel attacked, you're probably way too attached to your belief. Let go a bit. Relax. It's not the end of the world, it's not about being right or wrong, and certainly not about feeling bad because "some random dude on the internet 'attacked' you".

Againyou presume. I have no emotional attachment to this discussion, I'm merely participating in it to pass the time and because I find it entertaining. I can confidently say there's nothing you can say that would offend me in any way, the reason being that I just don't give a damn. You're an anonymous stranger to me, just as I am to you. There's no reason we should care what the other thinks of us, and therefore no reason to be offended.

[Forumsdwarf]

Why is it so hard for people to differentiate between action and reason? If I kill a man, that's just wrong ...

Not necessarily.  It depends on the reason.  You may have killed him in self-defense.

The problem with religious motivation is that it overrides the natural reason for taking extreme action -- extreme circumstances in which we or our loved ones are threatened with violence -- and replaces it with abstract reasons that could be pretty much anything.

"But my religion says all killing is wrong," as your argument if I understand it correctly goes, errs for a different reason.  What if your life or the lives of your loved ones are threatened and your best chance of survival is to kill the aggressor before he kills you?  Will you give up your Darwinian right to struggle to survive simply because your religion says to?

If you're afraid your religion, if it allowed for violence, would hijack your brain and make you kill for ephemeral reasons, why not put your religion aside and ask yourself the same question we atheists ask before we allow ourselves the option of violence?  "Am I or a loved one in imminent danger from a violent threat?"

[RAM]

Killing people is quite obviously accepted in many communities. People in an army are expected to be willing to kill people, killing is regarded as an acceptable punishment for some crimes, killing is regarded as an appropriate response to a belief that someone will kill you, and killing is regarded as a valid means of voicing political or religious dissatisfaction. It all depends upon the society you find yourself in. In my society I don't think that there would be any situation in which killing wouldn't be regarded as an undesirable outcome. So the real question, from a religious perspective, is "what happens when religious beliefs conflict with what is or is not socially acceptable?"...

[Grakelin]

That's a hard question to answer, considering society is founded in religious beliefs to begin with, and most Western values derive from Christianity to begin with. Before we can make the difference between the two, we need to ascertain which values are actually 'socially acceptable' and which are 'religiously acceptable'.

[Sergius]

The "lie" is the #2 solution: dismiss as fantasy. Easiest solution to unexplainable stuff: pretend it doesn't exist.

Yes, the alternative is much better: assume it is true because it was written down and it is old. Then ask the "scientists" to explain where did the Centaurs go, since they're such smarty-pants!

Open-mindedness is about perspectives, and how your perspective is never better than someone else's, however wrong you think they are.

Funny, it sounds like you have a certain perspective on open-mindedness, and are trying to tell us that it's more valid than ours.

If you feel attacked, you're probably way too attached to your belief. Let go a bit. Relax.

Ah, the "you're getting all worked up, please lie down a bit" condescending argument, it never fails to appear.

[MrWiggles]

That's a hard question to answer, considering society is founded in religious beliefs to begin with, and most Western values derive from Christianity to begin with. Before we can make the difference between the two, we need to ascertain which values are actually 'socially acceptable' and which are 'religiously acceptable'.

oO Religious morals and societal morals are not hand in hand. They can be, but they are not one in the same.

And lets remember that society beget religion, not the other way around. (Or at least not till current understanding changes.)

They may co-depend, and they may follow one or the other, but they are still different moral pools.

[Neruz]

That's a hard question to answer, considering society is founded in religious beliefs to begin with, and most Western values derive from Christianity to begin with. Before we can make the difference between the two, we need to ascertain which values are actually 'socially acceptable' and which are 'religiously acceptable'.

oO Religious morals and societal morals are not hand in hand. They can be, but they are not one in the same.

And lets remember that society beget organized religion, not the other way around. (Or at least not till current understanding changes.)

They may co-depend, and they may follow one or the other, but they are still different moral pools.

Just fixed that for you.

[Siquo]

So many replies to reply to, I don't know where to begin...
Bottom up then.

Sergius: Nobody asked the "scientists" (except for some crackpots). If you believe in centaurs, they're real to you, so you don't need some natural philosophers to find you any proof.
I don't have a perspective on open-mindedness, I've got a definition (yay semantics) that I think could enlighten others. By throwing it out (and having it thrown right back in my face) both parties could learn something. And I'm really worried about offending people, because I A. don't want to offend people and B. this is the longest non-locked religion/non-religion thread on these forums ever and I'd like to keep it that way. I'm sorry if it sounded condescending

RAM: Personally I view killing people as wrong, in any circumstance. I also urge everyone to disregard any "socially acceptable" stuff and follow your own inner rules. Chances are they're more strict than your societies, and otherwise maybe your society's rules are wrong, and you should work on changing them. Organised religion is just another form of (sub/super)society, usually including taxes, "heads of state", citizenship, laws and rules, et cetera.

Forumsdwarf: When faced with a choice between the death of a random murdering stranger or my own child, I know/think/hope that nature will take over and I will choose the natural thing, regardless of my belief. Apart from those extremes, I choose to not-kill, even when threatened. Religion hijacking your brain is a bit far-fetched, but happens in rare circumstances. I'm not pro-organised-religion myself, for the simple reason that it can be abused by others like any other ideal (the American Way, Our People First, Purity of Race were all once untainted, well-meaning ideals).

Sordid: I'm not here to troll you or trick you or anything. Release the fear of being bamboozled. I lump in free speech with murderers because it is a list of actions that may offend people. I say yes, address the symptoms, not the "cause", because the cause is not really the cause, and the cause is not something that can be changed easily.
Example time: Sikhs need to wear a turban and a knife at all times, according to their religion. That really is a bummer at airport security. Instead of stopping being a Sikh altogether, they adapt and don't wear the knife at all times. Another example where changing your actions is possible without changing your belief. Are you saying that just because the religion sais you have to wear a knife, and wearing a knife is illegal in some places, that the entire religion is illegal?
Ridiculing people is an action I disagree with. Regardless of your beliefs. Question: So do you think ridiculing people is allowed, as long as they share your belief? So atheists may ridicule unicorn believers, but not the other way around? Or can anyone ridicule anyone, and let the world become one bitter, hostile, ridiculing place?

Neruz: That is right. I have no reason, nor the authority to question your belief of me being a unicorn. I could show pictures, but you could say I was just deluding you. Anyone else in this topic could try the same, but as it is, it'll be really hard for anyone here to prove that I am or am not a unicorn. You just believe me to be human because of Occam's razor, but nothing is to say that the simplest answer is the Only Right Answer.
Yes, I type with my horn.

G-Flex: Valid != truth. I used the term validity here as "internally consistent", which is the same meaning logic gives to it. Why are the morals sounder? Why are they pre-existing, my belief may be older? Soundness and validity have nothing to do with absolute truth or how much you agree with it or not.

To most of you: For people who hold the scientific principles and modern logic in such high regard, you've obviously not studied it well enough to be critical of it, and wield it well. (ouch! that must've hurt!) If you value criticising one's own belief so much, please do so yourself first. Read! Learn! Re-evaluate! I once was way worse than you guys (except micro!), when I was about 18. Science Is The One And Only Truth or something like that. Then my wiser then-gf gave me some Popper and Kuhn to read, that helped putting things into perspective.

Restating my belief: The scientific principles are cool, and teach us about the universe. They are however limited-by-design, and there is something else, something beyond what science or logic can ever prove.