colubridae wrote:You are no more interested in elucidating information than the man in the moon.

I'm not sure as to why you think this, since i've taken the time to respond to pretty much every post addressed to me in detail. I don't think I'm after a particular agenda. I'm just here to discuss some ideas and throw some around of my own.

Yes they do. Your cherry picking from your narrow selection of la-la land is just closing your mind to reality. See middle-east right now. See History of Christianity.

If i said religion doesn't espouse hatred of out groups, you could likely accuse me for cherry picking. But I said most religions, or religious adherents. But it seems by your statement that you are the one cherry picking, as if pointing to the certain conflicts in the middle east represent the views of most religious people.

That Christianity and Judaism have been tightly leashed by secular authorities may delude you into thinking that your particular flavour is violence free but it’s only a delusion.

The reality is the history of Christianity is all over the place. The early christian movement was fairly violent free, as it spread out, and become a state religion it took on the violence of the respective cultures and regimes. I'm not arguing that any one flavor is true christianity here, but the line you're painting is misleading. When religions are sanctioned by the state this typically leads to violence against all opposing parties, the same can be said of regimes which sanctioned atheism as the official view of the state.

The truth is there are plenty of violence free flavors of christianity, and flavors that existed even at the time of conception. But alas in the comment you quoted of mine, it wasn't particular about violence, but hatred towards out-groups. Hatred doesn't have to equal violence You may hate the KKK and yet not wish any violence towards them. Some religious folks may advocate hatred towards out groups, but most don't even if they deem these out groups as wrong, or even immoral. You could point to a particular region, or certain historical events, but unless you want to argue these are representative of the views of people that number in the billions, than you have no argument. It's not a question of if they belong to a particular flavor, but whether this flavor is representative of most of them.

This is just more mumbo-jumbo. It’s designed to muddy the waters enabling you to kedge in your flavour of fantasy. Seen it all before hundreds of times.

I don't see what so mumbo-jumbo, in discussing the nature of violence, or bigotry, and it's relationship to religion. I'm not begging you to participate, nor do I understand your combative tone, I just wanted to try and explore it in a bit more detail what our views regarding violence and religion are. I wanted to develop my own views in consideration of those who hold an opposing opinion on the subject. I'm not here to foster any sort of animosity between those engaging in the discussion here, I just wanted to try and have an honest dialogue, even if you might not believe this.

Irrational, emotional thinking is a strong contender for the source of both violence and religion.

Yet using violence as a necessary evil, can be neither irrational, or emotional thinking? I'm assuming by emotional thinking, you mean thinking that involves our emotions. In this sense would you say emotional thinking is strong contender for the source of our desire to give to charity, to help our neighbor, care for our children, etc.?

For sure, but it doesn’t imply that religion/violence aren’t generated by the same irrational thinking. False dichotomy.

I went over, why curbing one's impulses to violence, doesn't necessarily mean that one individual is thinking any more rationally than the other, but has more to do with self-constraint and discipline. You can be a model for rational thinking, yet lack impulse control. Thinking rationally doesn't necessarily equate to control of ones emotions. As Hume would put it "Reason is slave to the passions".

. Check out page after page of rational discourse from atheists on his forum. That should give you all the evidence you need that rational thinking allows atheists (or any rational thinker) to “rise above the influence of their emotions” to greater extent than most theists. Don’t project your failures onto atheists.

I have checked out the forum, and participated in a variety of similar forums around the web, and don't agree with your assessment. Even in this very thread, the participants emotions seem manifest in a variety of ways, that having a dialogue seems almost impossible.

Then your experience is embarrassingly limited. Again check out other threads on this forum. They all show that religious thinking is largely emotional and blocks the view of reality.

Well I think my experience is comparable in forums such as this, as with the best of them. In fact these are the only sorts of "forums" that I frequently participated in for the last decade or so. We might have drawn different conclusions, but hey to each his own.

So fucking what. I never said it did extend to all topics. Your point is what? Are you claiming that rational thinking in one area precludes such thinking in all other areas?

Okay you never said explicitly that it extended to all topics, yet you stated "rational thinking allows atheists (or any rational thinker) to “rise above the influence of their emotions”. Did you mean that this only allows them do so in regards to some topics? Like biology, but this may or may not extend to other topics like religion, or culture, or politics, etc...?

Has no effect at all on the rest of one’s psychology?

My mechanic may be able to think very rationally in regards to diagnosing my car, but this ability to think rationally regarding this subject, doesn't necessarily extend to other topics, in which he may just as well think pretty irrationally. So I don't think his ability to be rational when it comes to this topics, gifts him to be any more rational than anyone else regarding other unrelated topics, particularly ones he might be passionate about. But I think you might agree with me here.

and your view is that theists are more able “to rise above their emotions” than atheists.

I never said anything of the sort, nor do i believe anything of the sort.

f so, does rational thinking just lessen a person from acting violently? Yes

I think there's a problem here. Thinking rationally might lead me to understand that acting violently might not be the best course of action, yet I may act violently. Just like I might recognize that sleeping with my employee might not be the best idea, and yet find myself given into temptation. I may recognize that my diet and weight are an issue, that needs to be controlled, that I shouldn't eat the extra cup of ice cream, and yet give in to my impulses. Thinking rationally allows a person to contemplate the consequences of their actions, to recognize that certain actions may or may not be the best course to take, but yet these individuals may give in to temptations that are counterproductive for the sheer pleasure of the moment. In all my examples rational thinking is present, but thoughts and actions don't necessarily correlate.

Yes, your impulses influence your thinking and your thinking influences your impulses.

Not necessarily, as stated in the above examples.

Self-discipline and rational thinking are different things stop conflating the two. It’s confusing you.

I think i stated they are different things, and I pointed out here why I believe you're actually conflating the two.

Total non-sense Of course rational thinkers are more able to exercise self-discipline than irrational thinkers. Irrational thinkers, by definition, are less able to control their emotions.

Again, thinking and acting rationally don't necessarily correlate. I can think rationally about the need for a proper diet and exercise, but yet not take the necessary actions to live a healthy life style. And even a cursory glance at an atheists convention will reveal, these models for rational thinking, are not necessarily models of self-discipline in their personal lives. Being a rational thinker didn't save Hitchens from being an overweight alcoholic.

Your thoughts are of little consequence to reality.

I think my thoughts here correspond more accurately to reality than yours, and I've provided all sorts of examples to showcase this much.