A rather topical Jesus and Mo today

Posted on by

Although I have to say, the adage that “you can’t reason a man out of beliefs he hasn’t reasoned himself into” always struck me as a load of cobblers.  Growing up is, to me, a process of discovering that what you always believed was true ain’t necessarily so.  But I’m sure it gets harder as you get older.

111 thoughts on “A rather topical Jesus and Mo today”

  1. Steve: Well, golly ‘cold foot’, if ISIS were religious, in the sense we all accept it to mean, then you might have a point.

    Fuck off, Steve, my nym’s not “cold foot”.

  2. Steve: Sir Richard is taking the claims of rapers, murderers, tortures at face value???

    Christians have also done all these things. Does this mean they are collectively delegitimized? You’d better find yourself another old book, then.

  3. Steve: The secret to it all is what my composition teacher told me way back when. Positive mental attitude…..and a good vocabulary of course. But she was right.

    Now can one be non-spiritual and still exhibit a positive mental attitude in all of life experiences? Possibly. But the odds are against it.

    Thats the core of the matter. The odds are in favor of the spiritual person since they are more likely to exhibit a positive mental attitude when confronted with life’s obstacles.

    Hence, the religious/spiritually inclined folks tend to have longer lives.

    Its that simple.

    And that foolish, frankly.

    Firstly, your premise is unsupported:

    Now can one be non-spiritual and still exhibit a positive mental attitude in all of life experiences? Possibly. But the odds are against it.

    Why should the odds be against it? No reason at all. Sometimes a religious outlook might help, sometimes a non-religious one might. Certainly, the non-religious don’t have to worry about eternal punishment in an afterlife, nor do they have to worry about figuring why a good God should let evil things happen. People here will testify, I’m sure, as to how much more positive they became about life when they “deconverted”. It can work both ways, I’m sure – but I see no reason to think the “odds” go one way rather than the other.

    Secondly, where is your evidence that this is even true: that “the religious/spiritually inclined folks tend to have longer lives”? I know of no study where the finding has not been confounded by some factor other than religious belief per se.

    Thirdly, you’ve moved the goal posts: you started by claiming that they also lived better lives. I think you may have conceded that this is not the case. Certainly religion has been, and remains, a notorously powerful justification for torture and mass murder. You could argue that that is because it is an ideology, and it is ideologies, rather than religion per se, that is the problem here, and I would agree. However, I would point out that most non-religious people are not ideologues – atheism is not an ideology. However, many forms of religion are – arguable most: there are very few forms of religion that do not claim to be the One True Way.

  4. Steve: Well, golly ‘cold foot’, if ISIS were religious, in the sense we all accept it to mean, then you might have a point.

    But seeing as they rape, murder, steal, torture, we can safely AND logically conclude that well, NO!, they do not fall into the religious category, regardless of ISIS protestations ( or cold foot’s for that matter) to the contrary.

    Someone else has pointed this out, Steve, but let me also draw attention to it: your reasoning is fallacious: it’s the petitio principii fallacy, also known as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy:

    • Religious people live better, longer lives
    • ISIS do not live better longer lives
    • Therefore ISIS is not religious.

    Which would be fine if you were trying to support the claim that “ISIS is not religious”, but useless if you are trying to support the claim, as you were asked to do, that “Religious people live better, longer lives”, because you have taken that claim as your premise.

  6. Atheists have also done these things. Does this mean atheists are collectively delegitimized???

    You’d better find yourself another tidbit soundbite!!

    Richardthughes: Christians have also done all these things. Does this mean they are collectively delegitimized? You’d better find yourself another old book, then.

  7. Sorry, Hotshoe, Please accept my apologies. I thought ‘cold shoe’ was pretty mild as cyber fencing goes.

    Obviously, that is not the case. Feel free to ignore me.

    hotshoe_,

  8. Not foolish in the least. The ‘effects’ of religiousity do tend towards happier, healthier, longer lives.

    So my position still stands. Belief in God is the driver that improves peoples social environment, thus in turn improving people’s lives overall, meaning generally happier, healthier, longer lives.

    Therefore, we can safely conclude that religious activity = generally happier, healthier, longer lives.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-s-friedman-phd/where-exactly-is-the-heal_b_838603.html

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100804110337.htm

    http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2008/05/live-longer-go.html

    http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2011/03/03/why-do-jews-tend-to-live-longer-than-members-of-other-religious-groups/comment-page-1/

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/27/study-christian-tweets-more-positive-than-atheist-twitter-users/

    And that foolish, frankly.

    Firstly, your premise is unsupported:………………

    Now can one be non-spiritual and still exhibit a positive mental attitude in all of life experiences? Possibly. But the odds are against it.

    Why should the odds be against it? No reason at all. Sometimes a religious outlook might help, sometimes a non-religious one might. Certainly, the non-religious don’t have to worry about eternal punishment in an afterlife, nor do they have to worry about figuring why a good God should let evil things happen. People here will testify, I’m sure, as to how much more positive they became about life when they “deconverted”. It can work both ways, I’m sure – but I see no reason to think the “odds” go one way rather than the other.

  9. Not true.

    There are generally agreed upon characteristics that can categorize people as religious, and that includes avoidance of the seven deadly sins.

    If people do not meet the basic criteria, regardless of their denial to the contrary, then they are not religious.

    No true scotsman refers to a situation where the characteristics cannot be articulated but simply declared.

    Again, It is not all that difficult to profile a religious person.

    FWIW, there are many professed Christians who are posers. Christ said as much 2,000 years ago.

    And there were no Scotsman back then AFAICT.

    Elizabeth: Someone else has pointed this out, Steve, but let me also draw attention to it: your reasoning is fallacious: it’s the petitio principii fallacy, also known as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy:

    Religious people live better, longer lives
    ISIS do not live better longer lives
    Therefore ISIS is not religious.

    Which would be fine if you were trying to support the claim that “ISIS is not religious”, but useless if you are trying to support the claim, as you were asked to do, that “Religious people live better, longer lives”, because you have taken that claim as your premise.

  10. Steve: Atheists have also done these things. Does this mean atheists are collectively delegitimized???

    No, it does not. So it would be good if people would stop doing so.

Leave a Reply