If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Does religion help you "Love your neighbour"? No, according to this study   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 317
    More: Obvious, faiths  
•       •       •

10484 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2013 at 11:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



317 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-22 01:37:10 PM  

Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.


A $20 also works
 
2013-01-22 01:37:16 PM  

Rich Cream: I drunk what: Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.

the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real


You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.


Tell that to the elderly residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
 
2013-01-22 01:38:24 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works


Well, yeah, in your part of town.
 
2013-01-22 01:41:12 PM  

jso2897: latenite: Cymbal: No one is judging God. We are judging religion. Which is a human invention, and thus extremely fallible. All your misdirection does is show us all how illogical your argument is.

If you are judging religion, which is about man's relationship to God, and religion is a human invention, are you saying that God is also a human invention? If so, how then are you not judging God when you judge religion?

What do you mean by "judging God"?


I mean evaluating both (though independently) the existance and morality of a God that one claims to serve.
 
2013-01-22 01:41:35 PM  

jso2897:
How does one criticize a paranoid without making them feel that they are being "ridiculed", or "persecuted"?
Or should people with paranoid belief systems be held above criticism?
if I were to opine that the world is a behavioral lab being run by invisible unicorns who live on the other side of the Moon, would those who pointed out that the belief is ridiculous be somehow "intellectually insecure"?
It is not "ridicule' to point out that that which is ridiculous, is, in fact, ridiculous. Ridiculous things are ridiculous due to their own ridiculous natures - not to the external observations of those with the wit to perceive that they are ridiculous.
You are trying to make up your own, arbitrary rules of human social intercourse - and they don't apply in the real world. Leave the "fair and balanced" delusion to the Faux News crowd - it fails in actual reality.


Pointing out something is ridiculous and ridiculing someone are not the same thing. Your premise is built on your misunderstanding of the original point.

People will continue to use ridicule, it's not something I would encourage because there have been very few situations of ridicule that aren't meant to make the ridiculer* feel better about what they believe and by extension themselves, by tearing into the ridiculee*. Engage in it all you want, but your intellectual prowess isn't as strong as you think if that's all you can bring to the table.

/*I make up words for fun.
 
2013-01-22 01:41:55 PM  

skipjack: Communication is key. For instance, a smart gentlemen once said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." and also said "religion poisons everything". Both statements are used universally by many atheists yet the second statement was spoken without proper evidence, and faithfully believed by many.


Religion poisons everything was asserted in a book that was in itself a collection of evidence in defense of that point. When you read that single line did you somehow miss the fact that it was in a bound collection of paper with other words written on it?
 
2013-01-22 01:42:57 PM  

jso2897: Rich Cream: I drunk what: Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.

the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real


You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.

Tell that to the elderly residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.


Or look at the damn cell phone in his pocket.
 
2013-01-22 01:43:04 PM  

latenite: If you are judging religion, which is about man's relationship to God, and religion is a human invention, are you saying that God is also a human invention? If so, how then are you not judging God when you judge religion?


nature is god and we have no free will, cuz nature controls us so we are nature and cannot be judged, just like the light bulb is an invention by man so it doesn't judge man, but if you are a light bulb then nature judges god who is an invention of nature, which is how man's relationship to nature judges our inventions
 
2013-01-22 01:43:44 PM  

Farking Canuck: For someone who's quit posting on Fark ... you're really stirring up the shiat today!

/to everyone else: Don't take IDW seriously ... all his posts are designed to spin you around in circles. He has no point to make.


OmniPal doesn't lie, man. But listen -
there's plenty of 'tards out there
living really kickass lives. My
first wife was retarded and she's a
pilot.
 
2013-01-22 01:46:10 PM  

Deucednuisance: skipjack: Communication is key. For instance, a smart gentlemen once said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." and also said "religion poisons everything". Both statements are used universally by many atheists yet the second statement was spoken without proper evidence, and faithfully believed by many.

Perhaps it was spoken without simultaneously stating evidence, but that doesn't mean that the evidence for the veracity of the statement is not plentiful.

Frankly, this is a situation where another oft-spoken phrase is apropos:

"It goes without saying".


Proving religion poisons everything is a mighty task. It's a statement that I somewhat agree with, and it was used as a rhetorical device, but it was a statement made none the less that doesn't have the evidence behind it. There are plenty of organizations that do good and are not "poisoned".

/especially that zoolander school.
 
2013-01-22 01:46:38 PM  

Rich Cream: I drunk what: the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real

You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.


First: IDW is a religious ... he is intentionally misrepresenting non-religious people to yank your chain.

Second: Nobody "believes" in science. Many of us feel that it is the best method for understanding our universe and the objects inside of it. Science only ever offers possible answers and, with these answers, science also provides the evidence that supports these answers.

It is religion that claims to know for sure and offers zero evidence to support these claims.
 
2013-01-22 01:46:57 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works


"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV
 
2013-01-22 01:47:35 PM  

Rich Cream: I drunk what: Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.

the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real

You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.


Science is a method, not a conclusion. Most importantly, science changes in the face of evidence. Religion doesn't.
 
2013-01-22 01:47:51 PM  

Farking Canuck: Theism is believing in an unprovable concept without any evidence. Religion is snake-oil salesmen preying on theists.


What do you call believing in an unprovable concept with evidence?
 
2013-01-22 01:49:08 PM  

Rich Cream: You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.


says the guy who is typing on a computer because of science!!1!

how many computers are here because of religion? 0

for the smartest guy on fark you sure are dumb
 
2013-01-22 01:49:09 PM  

Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV


Maybe in your part of town.
 
2013-01-22 01:50:50 PM  

Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV


But you can buy multiple drinks with $20. Does not compute.
 
2013-01-22 01:51:26 PM  

jso2897: Tell that to the elderly residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.


umad: Or look at the damn cell phone in his pocket.


Pitabred: Science is a method, not a conclusion.


I drunk what: for the smartest guy on fark you sure are dumb



Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.
 
2013-01-22 01:51:54 PM  

Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV


So...what you're telling me is....I could save some money with a bottle of 2 buck Chuck, rather than a $20 bill?
 
2013-01-22 01:53:21 PM  

Rich Cream: Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.


Have you ever actually tried to shoot a fish in a barrel? It isn't as easy as it sounds due to the refraction of the light. You would know that if you knew science.
 
2013-01-22 01:53:21 PM  

Farking Canuck: It is religion that claims to know for sure and offers zero evidence to support these claims.


that's what i said!!

I drunk what: how many computers are here because of religion? 0


Farking Canuck: IDW is a religious ... he is intentionally misrepresenting non-religious people to yank your chain.


i think your tha one misrepresentn non-religious ... to yank his chain

you should get plenty of rest

just because you hate science doesn't mean you speak for the rest of us
 
2013-01-22 01:53:34 PM  

latenite: Farking Canuck: Theism is believing in an unprovable concept without any evidence. Religion is snake-oil salesmen preying on theists.

What do you call believing in an unprovable concept with evidence?


Usually this is the case when someone confuses their inability to explain something as evidence of something else.

Or, from another angle, there is a difference between unprovable and unable to prove at this time.
 
2013-01-22 01:54:38 PM  

skipjack: jso2897:
How does one criticize a paranoid without making them feel that they are being "ridiculed", or "persecuted"?
Or should people with paranoid belief systems be held above criticism?
if I were to opine that the world is a behavioral lab being run by invisible unicorns who live on the other side of the Moon, would those who pointed out that the belief is ridiculous be somehow "intellectually insecure"?
It is not "ridicule' to point out that that which is ridiculous, is, in fact, ridiculous. Ridiculous things are ridiculous due to their own ridiculous natures - not to the external observations of those with the wit to perceive that they are ridiculous.
You are trying to make up your own, arbitrary rules of human social intercourse - and they don't apply in the real world. Leave the "fair and balanced" delusion to the Faux News crowd - it fails in actual reality.

Pointing out something is ridiculous and ridiculing someone are not the same thing. Your premise is built on your misunderstanding of the original point.

People will continue to use ridicule, it's not something I would encourage because there have been very few situations of ridicule that aren't meant to make the ridiculer* feel better about what they believe and by extension themselves, by tearing into the ridiculee*. Engage in it all you want, but your intellectual prowess isn't as strong as you think if that's all you can bring to the table.

/*I make up words for fun.


Yeah - but the problem is that the paranoid mentality perceives anything that isn't 100% agreement as persecution and/or ridicule - and the more bizarre and absurd people's beliefs are, the more likely they are to be that way. So while you are right that there is little percentage in deliberately "ridiculing' people, there are many cases where avoiding the perception that one is engaging in ridicule would require one either to lie or remain silent.
 
2013-01-22 01:55:41 PM  

I drunk what: i think your tha one misrepresentn non-religious ... to yank his chain

you should get plenty of rest

just because you hate science doesn't mean you speak for the rest of us


I see we are way off the meds today. At least you are entertaining when you are in this mode.
 
2013-01-22 01:56:14 PM  

Rich Cream: jso2897: Tell that to the elderly residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

umad: Or look at the damn cell phone in his pocket.

Pitabred: Science is a method, not a conclusion.

I drunk what: for the smartest guy on fark you sure are dumb


Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.


i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-22 01:56:47 PM  

umad: Rich Cream: Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.

Have you ever actually tried to shoot a fish in a barrel? It isn't as easy as it sounds due to the refraction of the light. You would know that if you knew science.



Solution: Put the fish in the barrel of the gun.
 
2013-01-22 01:57:34 PM  

skipjack: Incorrect. I don't have to ridicule someone in order to note that their idea is ridiculous. For instance, I don't have to ridicule you for your ridiculous notion that people aren't allowed ridicule that which you think is deserving. I can just point out the many people that have, the greatest being, IMHO, Mark Twain.



Actually, it was your argument that ridicule isn't the proper response to ridiculous ideas. I was arguing the exact opposite. If you're going to argue that I'm wrong you're going to have to start by getting which of us is arguing what correct first. I also didn't say you HAD to, only that there was nothing wrong with it and that it is indeed a good response to a ridiculous (root word: ridicule) idea.

So as I was saying, when you treat a ridiculous idea as a serious one - instead of ridiculing it as is perfectly proper - you give the idea false merit. Some ideas ARE ridiculous - which literally means worthy of ridicule. For instance, if I tried to sell you on any of the Abrahamic religions - but changed the names so you thought I was just inventing a new one - the details would be so blatantly stupid that you simply could not take me seriously. You'd laugh in my face. But because religion in general has had a few thousand years without serious challenges (other then one religion competing against another of course) these same idiotic, dumbshiat, "ideas" have attained a level of legitimacy that allows them to dictate to the people who write our laws and lead our country.
 
2013-01-22 01:58:06 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV

So...what you're telling me is....I could save some money with a bottle of 2 buck Chuck, rather than a $20 bill?


You could just wait until she needs some routine home maintenance done and use that as a free ice breaker if you like.

/now I feel like I'm writing the script for a cheap 80's skin flick
 
2013-01-22 01:58:46 PM  

Rich Cream: Like shooting fish in a barrel today.


woah not cool dude, space poet said to treat all life as sacred

religion may cause you to hate your neighbor but science is the way to reach a peaceful utopia, where everyone's happiness will be guaranteed

because of science i can watch ow my balls and order a pizza at the same time, all religion does is get people killed, which totally sucks

i like money
 
2013-01-22 02:00:12 PM  

Farking Canuck: I drunk what: i think your tha one misrepresentn non-religious ... to yank his chain

you should get plenty of rest

just because you hate science doesn't mean you speak for the rest of us

I see we are way off the meds today. At least you are entertaining when you are in this mode.


I actually agree. It's certainly better than his usual boring crap.

I withdraw my "One trick pony" label. He's up to two.
 
2013-01-22 02:00:24 PM  

umad: Have you ever actually tried to shoot a fish in a barrel? It isn't as easy as it sounds due to the refraction of the light. You would know that if you knew science.


It's much easier to just shoot the barrel, let the water drain out, and pick up the fish.
 
2013-01-22 02:00:40 PM  

Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV

So...what you're telling me is....I could save some money with a bottle of 2 buck Chuck, rather than a $20 bill?

You could just wait until she needs some routine home maintenance done and use that as a free ice breaker if you like.


What? Like fixing the cable?
 
2013-01-22 02:01:38 PM  

umad: Rich Cream: Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.

Have you ever actually tried to shoot a fish in a barrel? It isn't as easy as it sounds due to the refraction of the light. You would know that if you knew science.


Actually that's a reference to fish that are packed in a barrel for preservation like so;

mcgreggorsback.files.wordpress.com

Which would be pretty easy to shoot when compared to regular fish.

/hotlinked
 
2013-01-22 02:02:13 PM  

Farking Canuck: At least you are entertaining when you are in this mode.


it's cool man, you thought i was one of them religious ... but i'm on youre side dude, i mean we both like brawndo right? it's got electrolites

do you like money?
 
2013-01-22 02:03:00 PM  

Seraphym: I don't want to detract from the derp in this derptastic thread, but as hstein3 pointed out:

"A team of behaviour experts asked a group of Malaysian people with different religious backgrounds to take part in a series of tasks involving sharing money with other participants" means this study is only valid within Malaysian culture of Malaysians actually living in Malaysia, and that's assuming their selection pool was large enough and spread enough across Malaysian culture to even accurately reflect that.

I find it amusing, though, that they are purporting to convey these results from a small, very insular culture in the South Pacific to the entire world. This is how to lie with statistics - don't understand them in the first place, and them report them to a bunch of other people who don't understand them either.

Classic.


On the other hand, there is another recent article showing much the same thing across 3 studies using quite a diverse sample. If you're interested, the citation is below, as well as a description of their samples across the three studies.

Saslow, L. R., Willer, R., Feinberg, M., Piff, P. K., Clark, K., Keltner, D., & Saturn, S. R. (2012). My brother's keeper? Compassion predicts generosity more among less religious individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Description of samples:
Study 1: 1337 adults in the US - 1076 white, 158 black, 103 other.
Study 2: 101 adults recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk - sample included 78 European Americans, 8 Asian Americans, 6 African Americans, the rest other or mixed ethnicity.
Study 3: 210 college students - 64 European/European American, 97 Asian/Asian American, the rest mixed, other, or did not report ethnicity.

In fact, the results of the Saslow et al. article I just mentioned are so similar to those described in TFA that based on the headline that's the study I thought it was about.

While I understand the general criticism against inductive reasoning, one must also make sure that other work on this question either (a) has not been done or (b) has been done and found null results before launching off into a quite casual dismissal of the results of a single study. As it stands, other research (e.g. what I just cited) has found much the same general conclusion from a different cultural background. More to the point, though, is that even from this single study we could theoretically posit that it doesn't matter what cultural background they come from if religious dogmas are supposed to be (as adherents claim) invariant. That is to say, if Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or whatever contributes to people behaving in a moral way, it should do so regardless of if the Christian/Muslim/Hindu is from Malaysia or the US or India or wherever. To dismiss it in the way several people in the thread - yourself included - have is to then say that religion (whichever flavor you like) works differently than has been pushed by every ardent religious supporter, i.e. that the values and virtues of religion X supersede any cultural baggage in making people good, upstanding, moral, whatever (the converse for negative attributes is also true, that religion supersedes cultural baggage in making people xenophobic, racist, authoritarian, etc.).

My biggest complaint about all this is that I cannot find the actual article to review it. I've found a couple of press releases discussing it (almost verbatim from this one) but not the actual published (or pre-print of the) study. There is nothing to let me know how to find it except that a Dr. Robert Hoffmann is a co-author. His own website at Nottingham University isn't much help either. The closest I can find is a reference to a working paper titled "Religious biases in cooperation" where they found that "[k]nowledge of co-player's same religious affiliation raises cooperation. Religiosity and religious fundamentalism do not affect contributions independently, but enhance the religious ingroup effect" from a sample of Malaysians. And the citation for where I got that information is:

Hoffmann, R.(2012). The Experimental Economics of Religion. Journal of Economic Surveys. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00716.x

But still, I want the actual damn paper.
 
2013-01-22 02:03:16 PM  

Amos Quito: umad: Rich Cream: Like shooting fish in a barrel today.

/throws all the little ones back.

Have you ever actually tried to shoot a fish in a barrel? It isn't as easy as it sounds due to the refraction of the light. You would know that if you knew science.


Solution: Put the fish in the barrel of the gun.



I believe I read somewhere that this saying developed from shooting diseased fish over the walls of middle-aged castles so as to introduce pestilence within the fortification.
 
2013-01-22 02:03:56 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV

So...what you're telling me is....I could save some money with a bottle of 2 buck Chuck, rather than a $20 bill?

You could just wait until she needs some routine home maintenance done and use that as a free ice breaker if you like.


What? Like fixing the cable?


Hey, look - we've already got one clown doing the Idiocracy all over the thread - don't you start with the Lebowski.
 
2013-01-22 02:03:57 PM  

Amos Quito:
Solution: Put the fish in the barrel of the gun.


Oh yeah!
t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-22 02:04:21 PM  

Rich Cream: middle-aged castles


lol
 
2013-01-22 02:09:20 PM  
Here in Utah, as in most locations that have a concentration of a particular Religious majority, it turns them into mob mentality self righteous jack asses.

Fun to poke though...they get all wound up.
 
2013-01-22 02:09:49 PM  

jso2897: we've already got one clown doing the Idiocracy all over the thread


is it farkin hostile? cuz that dude needs to chill out
 
2013-01-22 02:11:41 PM  

incendi: UberDave: ou mean the most simple and easy to follow doctrines like being kind to one another, turning the other cheek, not showboating your righteousness, not judging, etc. etc., are often ignored?

Simple, yes. Easy to follow, not so much.

But yes, it seems many Christians are much more concerned with  other people's sinfulness while ignoring one of the central tenets of Jesus's teachings: "Don't be an asshole."


Matthew chapter 5: 43-48

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Goddamn liberal.  That ain't no real American Jesus!
 
2013-01-22 02:11:42 PM  

Egoy3k: The Southern Dandy: Egoy3k: I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.

A $20 also works

"Want to come in for a drink?" Tends to be more profitable than, "Hey here's twenty dollars, lets screw."

YMMV


holding chloroform soaked rag in hand, 'hey does this smell like chloroform to you?'
 
2013-01-22 02:14:30 PM  

Farking Canuck: latenite: Farking Canuck: Theism is believing in an unprovable concept without any evidence. Religion is snake-oil salesmen preying on theists.

What do you call believing in an unprovable concept with evidence?

Usually this is the case when someone confuses their inability to explain something as evidence of something else.

Or, from another angle, there is a difference between unprovable and unable to prove at this time.


I don't know about "usually", but I'd agree with "sometimes". It certainly happens on both sides of the fence, though. The Big Bang is an example. Many scientists hope to explain how something came to be from nothing without the existence of God, but can't do it at this time. Science of the gaps.
 
2013-01-22 02:20:26 PM  

latenite: Haliburton Cummings: the only good christian is a dead christian...

-Foetus

Song

The epitome of tolerance.


failtard is failtard

100/100

why should i tolerate the intolerant?
 
2013-01-22 02:22:35 PM  

Parthenogenetic: incendi: UberDave: ou mean the most simple and easy to follow doctrines like being kind to one another, turning the other cheek, not showboating your righteousness, not judging, etc. etc., are often ignored?

Simple, yes. Easy to follow, not so much.

But yes, it seems many Christians are much more concerned with  other people's sinfulness while ignoring one of the central tenets of Jesus's teachings: "Don't be an asshole."

Matthew chapter 5: 43-48

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Goddamn liberal.  That ain't no real American Jesus!


A man came to Shamai (the Sage) and said: "Teach me the whole Torah whilst I stand on one leg!" Shamai, exasperated, threw the man out.

The man then approached Hillel (the Sage) and said: "Teach me the whole Torah whilst I stand on one leg!" Hillel responded: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. The rest is extrapolation; go and learn it!"

Seems that the question of how to be "moral" while still being "religious" was asked and answered - or at least addressed philosophically - many times over in founding religious documents.

// there's a bit of debate over who was to actually stand on one leg during the teaching - teacher or student - but that's not really important to the story
 
2013-01-22 02:25:43 PM  

latenite: Farking Canuck: latenite: Farking Canuck: Theism is believing in an unprovable concept without any evidence. Religion is snake-oil salesmen preying on theists.

What do you call believing in an unprovable concept with evidence?

Usually this is the case when someone confuses their inability to explain something as evidence of something else.

Or, from another angle, there is a difference between unprovable and unable to prove at this time.

I don't know about "usually", but I'd agree with "sometimes". It certainly happens on both sides of the fence, though. The Big Bang is an example. Many scientists hope to explain how something came to be from nothing without the existence of God, but can't do it at this time. Science of the gaps.


Know how I know you don't know anything about the Big Bang, or Occam's Razor?

Hint: The Big Bang has significant evidence that we have observed that correlates with the theory. Secondly, if goddidit(tm), then who made god? Turtles all the way down is a silly answer.
 
2013-01-22 02:26:52 PM  

latenite: I don't know about "usually", but I'd agree with "sometimes". It certainly happens on both sides of the fence, though. The Big Bang is an example. Many scientists hope to explain how something came to be from nothing without the existence of God, but can't do it at this time. Science of the gaps.


However, with regards to "how something came to be from nothing", the science explanation is "we don't know and currently don't have a solid hypothesis, I can blather on about my personal thoughts on the matter if you like but don't take it as fact" while the religious explanation is "scientists don't know, therefore I'm going to apply faith until scientists make it blindingly obvious how stupid that is... and then maybe a little longer, too."
 
2013-01-22 02:27:27 PM  

latenite: The Big Bang is an example. Many scientists hope to explain how something came to be from nothing without the existence of God, but can't do it at this time. Science of the gaps.


Wow ... this might be the most concise misunderstanding of science I've ever seen. Bravo.

You understand that the following is true:

- atheism has nothing to do with the big bang theory

- many religious people believe the big bang theory is a well supported theory and may be true

- science has absolutely nothing to do with god(s) - it is simply a method of discovery

- science is 100% about explaining the gaps (just like religion) - the difference being that science uses independently verified evidence

- to say science "can't do it at this time" doesn't make sense. You can say that you feel that a scientific theory, like the big bang theory, lacks sufficient evidence to convince you that it is correct at this time. Of course, you should probably look at the evidence and make sure you have enough background in the field to understand it before you make this claim.
 
2013-01-22 02:30:48 PM  
Okay, so let me see if I've read this correctly.

Business school does study.

Finds out that if someone isn't part of your faith that you're not more likely to be charitable.

But doesn't that imply that if they ARE part of your faith that you are more likely to be charitable?

Considering that a neighbor is someone that you likely share things in common with (you're more likely to share many things in common with a neighbor, diet, faith, etc. since you have cultural and social norms more often in common than not when compared to someone say 5000 miles away) it stands to reason that you're statistically likely to share a faith in common and thus the study would indicate that it DOES promote loving your neighbor more.

Or are we using some definition of neighbor to always mean "someone with which you have little in common with simply to illustrate a belabored point"

I mean are we using some socially obtuse model of the word neighbor akin to the concept of neighboring countries or something?
 
Displayed 50 of 317 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report