I think I've said it already in the thread, but I'll repeat. Not sure when it became an expected behavior, if it ever has, this tip-toeing around, avoiding "shocking" people who have different opinions from yours.
Not just about religion. Why should it matter to me or the teen that some old lady is shocked by a teen's fashion selection? Or that they are aghast at the campiness of the Camp Gay barista at Straybux? Or any of a thousand other things?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. MenckenHoly jumping mother o' god in a side-car with chocolate jimmies and a lobster bib! Religious allusions galore! Blasphemies abound like Ice Cream in the park on a hot summer day at the park! Grab your torches and pitchforks!
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesSo if religion were "natural and obvious" then everybody should be offended by blasphemy all the time?
I'm saying that if there were anything factual about religious belief, as opposed to a bunch of ideas that people pass around like Chinese whispers, then what is considered blasphemous ought to remain fairly consistent over time and across cultures.
After all, you don't believe in Zeus, do you? Yet Zeus was in charge of things long before Yahweh was more than a dream in some Israeli shepherds' fevered imaginations. If you give credence to one religious faith, why not all of them?
edited 8th Feb '16 7:25:55 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The line of thought from which the "Zeus Imaginary god" thing was something like this.
Someone narrating cases of atheists being overly rude to them on social media by describing, among other things, their religion as "imaginary".
Someone asks them what they would describe Zeus as, with the implicit idea and argument of pointing out religion as a cultural and historical event (As well as the feelings of blasphemy). While this is not a really empathetic approach, it is still the point of it.
Then someone expanded on the idea of religion as a more cultural and historical institution rather than a "natural" one (as in: If the ideas behind a certain religion were intrinsecally true, then they would have appeared by now at some point in history instead of changing all the time according to the culture and time)
It is not so much the idea of blasphemy alone being the thing, but rather the fact that this blasphemy and heresies and apocryphals and inconsistencies all through history and location only bolster the argument of atheists of religion not really being a thing, and it is a particularly easy argument to wield.
This is no excuse to be rude to people on social media feeds tho
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
But I'm not offended at blasphemy against Zeus because I don't believe in Zeus, not because I wouldn't be offended by blasphemy. I can't think of a culture that isn't offended at blasphemy against their own religious beliefs, which sounds more like evidence for religious belief being natural rather than against.
edited 8th Feb '16 7:32:02 AM by Bense
Are you suggesting that the ancient Greeks believed in Zeus because nobody had yet instructed them in the glory of the One God, Almighty? Rather odd that He would leave 99% of humanity to languish in ignorance before delivering His Holy Word to some nomadic shepherds, isn't it?
Edit: You might offer that they are all ignorant and/or misguided and that you bring the True Word, but that's what all the other religions of the world also say. Your certainty smacks of hubris.
More to the point, an atheist, looking at this, observes quite logically that, if nobody can arrive at a consensus about what God(s) exist and how to worship It/Them, all religions are equally likely to be false.
The logic of Pascal's Wager falls apart when you look at the "has faith, is right" box and realize that it breaks down into about a million sub-boxes, most of which promise to send you to some version of Hell if you guessed wrong.
edited 8th Feb '16 7:41:26 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The question being posited here is not wether religious belief is natural or not, but rather, religious belief in whom.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesAs for why I believe in one specific denomination in particular, well it's because of my personal religious experiences, and those aren't really applicable to others. I could tell you the rationale my own religion has behind how God works around the fact that most people who have lived on Earth haven't even heard of my particular denomination, but I'm not sure this is the place to discuss that.
Rather, we hold that superstition is a human constant, because our brains are wired to make associations, even if those associations are false to fact. Never underestimate the power of a cultural meme. Nor is religious faith unique or extraordinary in its ability to blind us to logic. You see the same sort of behavior in compulsive gamblers, political fanatics, drug addicts, and QVC shoppers.
Humans, properly trained to distinguish fallacy from rational analysis, need not become mired in the false promises of any superstitious belief system.
edited 8th Feb '16 7:56:31 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Religious explanations don't exactly have a good track record of being proven true once we figure out how something really works.
Lightning? Not gods. Earthquakes? Not gods. Eclipses? Not gods. Tides? Not gods. Seasons? Not gods.
What humanity has a track record of is ascribing phenomena to beings who don't exist.
It's more like "finding a right answer is pretty much impossible when everything is so unreliable".
At the end of the day, it all just boils down to people's need to connect with their spirituality, which can be done in a multitude of ways, and which doesn't necessarily require religious beliefs. Gods are just the most common way people throughout history have found to try and connect with it.
edited 8th Feb '16 8:05:24 AM by Bense
One seeks meaning in seemingly random, hostile phenomena and comes up with the brilliant idea that there must be some agent causing it. If there is an agent, that agent might be capable of being understood and placated so that one is in less jeopardy from the vicissitudes of life.
edited 8th Feb '16 8:09:15 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
You are clearly not one of God's Chosen and are destined for Hell. Sucks to be you.
Not really. Humans just have a need for answers. Not necesarily for spirituality. Humans also have a need for socialization and sense of belonging.
Those explain religion a lot better than the actual existence of an actual unknowable being.
Behaviorally wise, makes little difference so idgaf
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesIt works either way, and therefore isn't evidence one way or the other.
Your explanation invokes a wholly unnecessary third party that is nowhere in evidence. So it is by far the less probable, especially when the naturalistic explanation encompasses the idea that we would invent a higher power to ascribe these phenomena to. Our explanation does not require a tautology.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'd imagine they ancient Greeks would be split between being upset and wanting to get outside the blast radius of the lightning storm.
edited 7th Feb '16 11:32:09 AM by Elfive