Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by PositivelyDetermined
I am stupid, I believe in God. Thank you so much for explaining as nobody else has been able to in 2,000 years. I am healed of my belief that we are
more than simply mechanical things, I thought we had self-awareness. Thank you for showing me that we do not.
Erm, I think you read a completely different post to me
because nowhere did he say that people are stupid for believing in god persay, just that
religion is a 'closed box' idea. If you were intending to argue against his point, you have failed because what you have actually done is
demonstrated closed box thinking.
However, whilst I agree with what the OP says about closed box thinking as a concept, what I would argue with the OP is (great post S+F btw) is that
having a belief in god or in a particular religion / deity does not mean that you are a closed box thinker (despite the evidence shown here) and in
his first paragraph alone, demonstrates his own, closed boxed thinking.
If we take religion as the example put forward by the OP, it is fair to say that all religions are ultimately based in faith or 'belief'. It is also
fair to say that countless people of faith will be able to recount their own story of how they came to god or how and why they ultimately 'know'
that their god exists. I am not one of these people and I can be pretty certain that the OP isn't either, but does that mean that we are wrong? No.
Does it mean we are right? Definitely not. I do not have a religion or a deity based belief but I recognise that a significant percentage of the
population do and I have had many discussions over the years with friends of different religions to understand that the strength of that belief is
rarely swayed because logical argument, whilst often negates the probability of their particular religious view, does not have the weight or power to
deter someones 'faith' despite what evidence the non-believer believes he is putting forward. Granted, I cannot say this is 100% the case in every
debate regarding religion that has ever existed because that would assume that all peoples faith is unshakeable, but in truth, some people believe
more than others. The fact of the matter is, that there is as much proof that god does not exist for non-believers as there is proof that god exists
to those who do believe.
The OP wrote:
Religion like many other ideas are a prescription to close minded thinking and have no real merit once the idea is conveyed. It's bias because the
thinker who is putting forth a view point drops it through a box, so to speak, of information that fits with his idea that isn't allowed to change
The idea that religion has 'no real merit' once the idea is conveyed, is a prime example of closed box thinking. The fact is, religion, as an idea
has major merit. To teach people to 'be good to thy neighbour' and 'love rather than hate' are absolutely excellent ideas, the problem though, is
that these things are not always practised and every religion throughout history will have left evidence of this (as well as evidence of bad things
being done by non-believers).
The idea is set and not allowed to change which taints the believers thinking. A lateral thinker see's this when someone tries to convey an idea from
any boxed idea's viewpoint and either uses it as a tool or dismisses the entire argument and enlightens the person about what folly the original
argument had. They may also dismiss the argument altogether and move on because it's futile trying to explain to someone who does not want to know.
Well, I would agrue that you are displaying exactly what you are preaching; by choosing religion as your example for closed box thinking and then
dismissing it. That's YOUR idea that is set and not allowed to change.
A good thinker doesn't label boxes of ideas into "Christianity" or "Atheism".
But indeed you did by labelling religion the way you did. I would actually arge that a good thinker, when having a theological argument , or perhaps
arguing a personal moral stand point, will take into account that these types of subject are backed up by a certain amount of belief from the person
and that whilst that person is not swayed by your argument from a different point of view, does not make that person wrong or indeed a boxed thinker,
more that they share a diiferent point of view or belief to you. And a GREAT thinker would not enter into such an argument with the intention of
dissuading someone of religious faith, because they are aware of this knowledge and would respect the other persons choice to believe.
But thats my opinion.