Pastelland Forum

Redafro wrote: You wouldn't make gay or black jokes, right? And I know, you don't choose those things, but in many ways you don't choose your religious beliefs either.

They aren't even remotely the same kind of characteristic.

but in many ways you don't choose your religious beliefs either.

What is up with people and this paradigm of religion finding you, and not you finding your religion? Damn, the own concept of religion started when people started to think where the hell we came from. So it's the case that, in a perfect world, EVERYONE should choose their religion, create their theories, find answers! And I hope I don't offend anyone here, but organized religion seems kind of lazy thinking. Do people really agree with everything that's written on those books? It's all people like us that came with those stories, couldn't they be wrong with something?

Oilage, I actually agree with almost everything you say, except that there is a certain determinism to any belief: you can't believe something you don't know and your more likely to believe it if your surrounded by it. There is also the massive, unarguable evidence of personal experience, and we don't necessarily choose that either.

I kind of brought this up before but it bears repeating: where you start from makes a big difference. There is no neutral ground, only infinite numbers of biases we attempt to confirm or disprove.

They aren't even remotely the same kind of characteristic.

No, not the same characteristic, but they ought to be owed some form of respect, and that is the same. Also, being somewhat of a determinist, I draw strong parallels between genetic and experiential influences.

I'm not saying don't challenge irrational beliefs: we all need to be challenged. I'm just saying do it with respect, because not everyone has truly had a choice about their beliefs, and they will never hear your challenge if it is not respectful.

I don't think we have the same definition of choice. Growing up in an environment where a specific belief is promoted does not imply that believing it when you are mentally capable of making your own decisions was not your choice-if you questioned your beliefs even for a moment, but they remained, then clearly you've made a choice about your beliefs just by the definition of the word. I doubt that there are any more than a vanishingly small amount of people who have not questioned their religious beliefs at some point.

What DO you guys intend when you say crass things about other peoples deeply held beliefs?

I can't speak for all of us, but most of us just find your deeply held beliefs more or less silly. Usually you make jokes about things you find silly.

Some atheists like to troll Christians because they know that they'll get a response, since most Christians take all comments as personal insults. This is very childish behaviour, on both sides, IMO. You should not feed the trolls.

Those atheists who make angry/hostile comments may have some serious personal issues with religion (being sexually abused by a priest, for example).

Well, I'd say that for nearly every situation or state (ideological, genetic, or whatever) of a human there are related jokes. There are 2 main theories about the origin of humor, that humor is triggered by the sensation of superiority when one sees another's accident or bad luck, or that humor is triggered when something unexpected, incongruent or ridiculous happens (Looney Tunes-style).
What I think is that there are these two kinds of humor, the first one looks more funny to the person that makes the "joke", but is harmful and cruel to the target person or group of people. The second kind would appear when something surprising happens, and is not sarcastic (has no connotations) like the first, so one cannot make jokes about it, unless those jokes are of the type 'long story with a surprising ending', though still it causes much more fun if it's seen it in real life.

Now people have different tastes, some think that the 1st kind is cruel and not funny, and avoid using it, while enjoying 2nd a lot (me for example XD), while (I believe that) some find the 2nd to be very childish and don't even laugh at it, while finding irony and sarcasm funny. Some of them also have bad feelings about the world (the kind 'i have no friends', 'the world has been cruel with me' (being it true or not), or even 'i'm bored', etc.), so maybe they use the 1st type as a means of having the world pay for the suffering they have. Boredom (the man's bad feeling par excellance) triggers a lot of this, that's probably why you can find so many sarcasm, insulting and trolling in youtube and another sites... won't give names

EDIT: that is not to say that I think there are only these two types; there are people who love both, and also there are people with no sense of humor at all. It's more of a continuum between the two kinds.

EDIT2: funny thing is that God also used sarcasm in the Bible http://bible.cc/judges/10-14.htm

Taalit wrote:I don't think we have the same definition of choice. Growing up in an environment where a specific belief is promoted does not imply that believing it when you are mentally capable of making your own decisions was not your choice-if you questioned your beliefs even for a moment, but they remained, then clearly you've made a choice about your beliefs just by the definition of the word. I doubt that there are any more than a vanishingly small amount of people who have not questioned their religious beliefs at some point.

Well, I tend to agree with that to a degree. Here is the conundrum for me: In a deterministic universe, where every effect has a cause, it is possible to say that choice is an illusion, that it doesn't truly exist. This is because we, the choice makers, are made up of the combination of our genetics and our experiences, and our choice making is always aimed towards what we perceive in any given moment as the best choice. What that best choice is would also be determined, in this view, by the experiences we've had or have not had. In other words, our decision about what choice is best, and how we define best, could be said to be caused by our prior experiences and genetics. So, if we had not, for example, had a strong experience of reasoning, its value and consistency, and had instead been taught that reason is an arrogant betrayal of some deity and the beliefs of the family (and how could you betray your family!?!? *slight-sarcasm*) AND you were simply not a curious person, then questioning your beliefs would be automatically NOT the best choice, right? That doesn't seem like choice to me. Another dimension of this, but which I am less convinced of, is the question "and what caused that?" It hints at a certain predictability to human action, so that if you could trace a line of choices and their causes back you could see how a person was determined to make the choice they did, and if you could know all the choices and influences an a person in a given moment, you could predict perfectly what they would choose (and if they decide to choose something other than the "best choice" because they don't want to be predicted, then that is the cause of that choice). However, this is all Strong Determinism, and I'm not completely convinced by it.

Instead, I question determinism on two points.

One, I do not see why the evidence of cause and effect should be grounds to dismiss as "illusion" the universal experience of making choices and I'm not even sure what "illusion" could mean in this context. Rather, it seems that cause and effect are what make choice meaningful and possible. If there was not consistency (cause and effect) to our experiences and choices, our choices would merely be random. Furthermore, it seems an undeniable fact that people are the source of making choices, not the abstract laws of cause and effect, though cause and effect do enable choice making. Thus, even if a super mind could know what a person would choose, it is still the person who is choosing, and that is what we call "free will," or choice, even if it is not as free as we might have thought it is. We are always limited to what we do and do not know.

Secondly, I tend to believe we do not know all of what is going on in the brain and I think it is quite possible that there is an emergent property of the mind that allows for purely unique choices. This would emerge from our self critiquing property, that capacity to second guess ourselves, to imagine outcomes, to reason, and to the capacity to intuit and invent creative solutions to problems.

So... all that is to say that I would certainly prefer people to think about their beliefs critically, and I will always try to help people know why this has value, but I accept that this is not always something that comes easily or even naturally to some people because of their very nature (genetics and experience). So, I respect them because they are limited to who they are by nature, and because of respect, I challenge them in them a respectful way.

I can't speak for all of us, but most of us just find your deeply held beliefs more or less silly.

I suppose it is getting time for me to clarify my beliefs then, because most of the objections I've heard thus far do not apply much to me, though they do apply to some Christians. I'd like to think that I've demonstrated enough thoughtfulness that my views are not simply dismissed as silly, but again, I haven't really stated what those views are.

@Vortex: You rock dude! A critical analysis of jokes, I love it!

funny thing is that God also used sarcasm in the Bible

Yeah, he is a more complex character than often characterized as. I suppose that leads many to call him inconsistent.

That all sounds well and good, Red. I don't think I could ascribe to any kind of theory determinism of the universe though, and I certainly don't consider it one of my viewpoints now.


I'm interested in hearing your beliefs! You should let us hear them (or read them in this case)

Taalit wrote: I don't think I could ascribe to any kind of theory determinism of the universe though

Oh really? Wow, I thought it was only religious people who rejected determinism. My ignorance is shown once again!

I'll try to do my "religious theory" soon. (trying out the smiles. )

Redafro wrote:

Taalit wrote: I don't think I could ascribe to any kind of theory determinism of the universe though

Oh really? Wow, I thought it was only religious people who rejected determinism. My ignorance is shown once again!

I'll try to do my "religious theory" soon. (trying out the smiles. )

I suppose I would have to say that everything is ultimately determined by the initial conditions of the universe and it's physical laws; however, it is impossible in practice to know the initial conditions and calculate everything, since Universe is a pretty humongous thing to know every single last detail of. Since the slightest of differences in those conditions would've radically altered everything making simulations is also likely to fail.

I don't think that destroys "free choice" though. You will always be the one to make the choice, even if the initial conditions ensure you will do it. It is no more an illusion than life.