We abandon religious beliefs, but we cling to religious logic.

[ZombieHorde]

Even those of us who leave religious beliefs behind will far too often, in my opinion, still use the same exact logic to justify other beliefs. These other false beliefs can be at least as dangerous as religious beliefs. Please question your beliefs.

Thought exercise: without using religious logic, make an argument that the US, or any other country, exists without using the same arguments religious people use to demonstrate the truth of their religious beliefs.

[trotsky]

1. You're still on that?

Can I just ask, what exactly is the point you wish to make? Country borders are defined by agreed-upon documentation. If you want to somehow compare that to a religious text, be my guest. Sure, it's completely arbitrary where humans have drawn those lines, and the whole notion of what a "country" is would have no meaning were humans not around to define it. Yep, just like a god. So what? Go to China, then cross the border into North Korea and declare that countries are fictional creations and that you can take pictures of whatever you want and come and go as you please. See how imaginary borders are for you then.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Visit Saudi Arabia and say Allah is bullshit and see how imaginary gods work for you.

Does violence create or demonstrate truth?

When I see violence justified by false beliefs, I am disheartened. The BLM movement is largely, but not solely, fighting against police brutality. This brutality is justified in some people's minds because of the false belief that police are different than nonpolice. If people didn't justify violence through false beliefs, I wouldn't be concerned, but I see this often, so I am concerned.

[trotsky]

5. Yes, surprise surprise, words mean things to humans.

As I acknowledged, a country's border is just as arbitrary and "imaginary" as a god, however it does have very distinct real world implications. My example of North Korea is of course an extreme one; the example need not have anything to do with violence. Engage in a certain activity on one side of the border, and go about your business. Engage in the same activity on the other side, and you may simply be fined, because it's against the law. And the exact location of the US-Mexico border is hardly as disputed as the nature of god(s).

But what makes you so sure you can declare it a "false belief" that police are different than non-police? How do you know that your beliefs on which you base that judgment aren't false as well?

[ZombieHorde]

9. Excellent questions.

We know we have experiences. Whether we are actually brains in a jar, computer simulations, or even organic beings, we experience things. This conversation is proof that at least one of us is having an experience.

The best way that I am aware of to increase predictability of experiences is the scientific method. For example, we can use the scientific method to determine if a composite object, such as a person or a dog, has cancer. If cancer is present, we can determine with some degree of accuracy how the cancer will affect the composite object and perhaps even manipulate it in a desired way.

I am not aware of any way to determine if the quality "police officer" can be detected through the scientific method. We just have to take someone's word for it. There's no current test other than popular opinion, and I don't currently believe popular opinion determines reality, if there is such a thing as reality. If there is no reality, well then, lets go have some fun.

[trotsky]

10. Well, an experiment you can try is to obtain a weapon, and charge at someone.

In general, an officer is trained and authorized to use deadly force to stop an attack, and they will likely kill you. We can determine that with some degree of accuracy.

Some non-police may also have a deadly weapon on their persons, and may also kill you in defense. But that is much less likely.

So if you run the experiment enough times, I think you can come up with a statistical correlation to charging with a weapon at a member of the police versus a member of the non-police.

[ZombieHorde]

13. I live in an area called "Montana."

Many people here have firearms on their person, though I agree those who identify as police are significantly more likely to have firearms on their person.

However, what will this tell us? Is the definition of government "those who identify as police are more likely to kill than those who do not identify as police?" When we say "government" do really mean "violence?"

When I bring this subject up with people, they often use violence as an example. However, when we discuss the roll of government, other topics, such as environmental regulations, are often discussed. I wonder why this is.

[trotsky]

25. You were looking for experimental data.

I suggested an experiment. It in no way suggests that "goverment" = "violence," and in fact suggests the opposite - that "government" or "authority" seeks to prevent violence (you charging with a weapon). Nice try, though. I see what you're trying to do.

[ZombieHorde]

28. I'm trying to get people to see the absurdity of the violence we support.

When we take something that we say is there to help people (government) and use it to hurt people that aren't harming us then I think we're taking the game way too seriously. People who cross the border without paperwork and we fuck with them. Guy sells cigarettes on the sidewalk and police jump him. Police should be held to the same standard, or perhaps even a higher standard, as everyone else. The imaginary construct of government should be used to help people, and if they use force that force shouldn't be greater than the threat.

[trotsky]

31. When you use the word "imaginary" to describe countries or governments...

is it possible what you really mean is "abstract?" Peace is abstract. But it's not imaginary. We can recognize when there is peace. It's not hard to get agreement on it, either. As opposed to religion in particular.

You'll get no argument from me that we have problems with abuse of authority, in the police and elsewhere. It just seems that you're trying to take a real issue and pull it into a "Duuuude, it's all imaginary" discussion where it becomes meaningless to have any kind of constructive conversation.

[ZombieHorde]

33. Where do abstractions exist?

I'm being honest and calling a spade a spade. In my opinion, meaningful conversations begins by being honest, otherwise we get absurd arguments, such as "just doing their job," and "what about rule of law?"

[trotsky]

35. OK well you have fun then. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

36. I have been.

Thank you. 😃

[Freelancer]

16. Ever notice a bunch of birds on an electric wire?

They're always a set distance apart. They want to perch together, but not any closer than that arbitrary distance. If a bird lands closer than that, they'll peck at it until it moves to the proper distance away. They seek a comfort level based upon their biologically perceived needs. They don't want to be alone, but not encroached upon either. People are like that.

[tkmorris]

2. I gotta say

You may be more intimately familiar with your own belly button than anyone I can recall.

[ZombieHorde]

4. If we were Zen Buddhists I would take that as a compliment.

People who have difficulty defending their false beliefs often resort to insults. What else do they have?

[uriel1972]

6. I believe the concepts exist...

People act as if they exist and there are consequences that come with it. Soooo... in the same way computer programs exist, they exist.

[ZombieHorde]

7. People act as if God exists,

does that mean god exists?

[uriel1972]

8. If you reduce god to a concept created by humans...

Then yes, just like the International date line exists. I doubt that those who follow such 'entities' would be happy with the comparison

[ZombieHorde]

14. I wonder how many who would be unhappy with the comparison for their own god(s)

would be willing to use the comparison for other people's god(s), especially the classical and shamanic ones.

[Freelancer]

18. God is arbitrary & imaginary, but at times useful -- like the yellow painted lines in a parking lot

You can ignore the lines and park all akimbo, but you may walk out with your frozen yogurt, only to find yourself blocked-in by a teal minivan.

(Voice of experience)

[ZombieHorde]

22. Ha!

I think government is a very useful construct, but I also think it's make believe. Government is not a quality of matter, it is a quality of the imagination. When we harm people in the name of rule of law, as opposed to self defense, we are harming people over make believe shit. To me, that is absurdly crazy.

[Tikki]

11. I never acquired a taste for religion...no one taught me anything about it....

I never went looking for it. It never found me.

Not being a part of it doesn't mean I am abusing it.


Tikki
p.s. I am able to observe those who use religion.

[Lordquinton]

12. God describes something completely imaginary

and if you ask in the other room, the only true defining charistic is that he can't be defined.

A country is something very real.

Let's start on something a little smaller, like my office. There is a small cramped, stuffy room that is clearly defined by 4 walls and a door. It is known as my office (Or to other people, LQ's office), it's simply a common name we all use to differentiate it from other areas around.

The city is Concord, something that was agreed upon over time to describe everything in a certain area, it encompases many parks and houses, and buisness and offices that all have their own defined spaces and areas. It wasn't always called Concord, it was once called Todos Santos, and at one point was almost called Drunken Indian.

It is in Contra Costa County, which is a greater area that encompases many cities, that all have many buildings, houses, and offices all with their own name.

It's in California, which contains several counties, each with many cities, that all contain multitudes of houses, parks and offices, each with their own unique name and descriptor.

California is in the Country of the United States of America, which contains about 50 states, all with many counties, which all have many cities, that all have lots of buildings, hoses and offices.

the USA (for short) is on the continent of North America, which is what we designate for a defined landmass, that contains several countries, each with several states, that all have several counties, that all contain several cities, that all have a bunch of buildings, parks,. houses and offices.

The continent is on something we call a planet, which is a body of mass orbiting what we call a sun.

These are all real things that you can touch, see and visit (Well, maybe not visit the sun, but you can see it... just don't look at it) we give them all different names and divisions tso we can track them better and so there is less confusion. They are all clearly defined and all meet certain, if somewhat arbitrary, conditions.

[ZombieHorde]

17. Very good!

I don't detect any religious logic in your argument.

If we wanted to determine if a composite object was your office or not your office, how would we do that? Is "your office" a quality of matter, a projection from the human imagination, or something else?

[Lordquinton]

19. It has my name on the door

Sure, we can make an apple pie from scratch, but there are many aspects you're arguing here that are given. You're asking people to define all aspects of matter until they get to the little spaces where we don't know then saying "ah-ha!"

This is nothing more than a god of the gaps fallacy.

[ZombieHorde]

21. I'm simply asking for evidence.

Are you encouraging people to believe things with no evidence? I doubt it.

I haven't asked you to define all aspects of matter. I asked how a person can determine if your claim is true or false. You said your name is on the door, but if the door is removed for repair, is the office no longer yours? Does the name on the door really what makes the office yours, or is there something else?

[Lordquinton]

23. It's assigned to me

My stuff is there, my work is there, I'm there. It's a social contract. Yea, if you removed every feature that identifies it as my office it would cease to be my office because I would no longer work there.

[ZombieHorde]

27. Do you think social contracts exist outside of the imagination?

If they do not exist outside of the imagination, then wouldn't they be strictly imaginary? Make believe?

[AlbertCat]

15. Is god on a map?

Where is "Shinto" on the globe?




Yes both are man made extended families... so?

[ZombieHorde]

20. I'm trying, with my drunk brain, to make an argument

that fantastic thinking leads to violence we would otherwise not accept. Many of us accept hurting people because they crossed a border that doesn't exist outside of the human imagination. My argument is a bit anarchistic, yet I support the social/rhetorical construct of government. I don't care for violence against humans, except for self defense, and when we use the construct of government to hurt people that are not hurting us, then I believe we are taking the construct to religious extremes. A big part of conservative thought, and some liberal thought, is insiders are good and outsiders are bad. Yes, that is simplistic, but we are hurting people over imaginary things. We've taken a very useful idea to a very absurd extreme, in my opinion. Protect the environment we all live in? To me that's logical. Harm people for crossing an imaginary line out in the desert? Holy fucking shit, that's insane.

[NeoGreen]

24. You seem to be making the observation that both national borders and god(s) are...

...merely human constructs.

Atheists understand that human constructs don't exist as objects in reality, i.e. peace, liberty, national borders, however they understand that these constructs have practical benefits for humans in general, while other human constructs, (which also don't exist as objects in reality), i.e. all the gods that have ever been postulated, don't.

It doesn't make national borders a religious belief derived of religious logic.

[ZombieHorde]

29. We allow/support violence against those who cross imaginary lines without paperwork.

We're hurting people over make-believe things. We allow/support some people to act extremely violently in nonviolent situations because they are the enforces of this make-believe thing.

A guy sells cigarettes on the sidewalk and people jump on top of him and he suffocates under his weight. We wouldn't allow this for a second if the people didn't have the magic label "police officers." We let them shoot our dogs. We don't allow mail carriers to do that. Why?

[NeoGreen]

32. Ahhh...sure..ok...

...but it isn't because of "religious logic".

Religions don't have a monopoly on make-believe, unless maybe I have been unwittingly converted to the Church of D&D.

Religion = Make Believe, however, Make Believe <> Religion.

[ZombieHorde]

34. I love D&D and I would definitely check out that church.

I haven't played in so many years, yet I still have a score of books in my room.

[DetlefK]

26. Oh, that's easy.

"Country X is defined by common language, common culture and common ethical values."

Why would that have anything to do with religious arguments???

[ZombieHorde]

30. Some countries have many languages, cultures, and values.

What are the values of the US?

It's a religious argument because we defend things we wouldn't otherwise defend in the name of a make-believe entity.

For example, if a family crosses the border, which is a make-believe line, without paperwork, we will harm them.