Hierarchy and social norms.

[QuickTwist]

...amounts to a plea for the credulity of others. In common language, it’s called “Clap your hands if you believe,” and it’s a well-known logical fallacy: believing that a certain thing works makes testing its efficacy impossible because no matter what happens, you’ll believe that it works.


-Duxwing

I like this line of thinking so I want to explore it more.


Basically you have people saying "It has to be this way". Why? Because there is and always will be a hierarchy when it comes to social norms and religion is no different or in this case the idea that there is a God or G-d or what ever else there is. You see, each sect of religion has its own hierarchy that determines what you should believe and if you fallow these ideals you will be accepted into the group and if your presents is felt among the community you will even gain some power to change the way the belief is represented and if you are really good, you may be able to contribute to what is accepted to what is supposed to be believed.


It is true that if you clap your hands to the beat of those who are making the rules then you will be accepted but if not, you will be completely disregarded and labeled as someone who doesn't acknowledged what truth is. Who is to say what truth is? Ultimately our preception of truth is highly subjective. There is a saying, I forget who started it but it was made by a very smart individual, "Beware of the sound of one hand clapping". Basically the idea behind this is that if there is no one to disagree with the given norm then this hierarchy has taken over and has limited itself to a severe degree to what the groups ability is to be on a constant search for truth instead of representing that they have truth.


All this to say I couldn't care less what the accepted way to believe is and neither should you (everyone). Heck even the "non-religious" have a set of unwritten rules they must fallow if they want to be accepted into that line of thinking IE. there is no god. To rid ourselves of this type of thinking we must abandon all preconcieved ideas we have and become highly independant in at least our aproach to understanding what truth is.

 

[Chad]

I like this line of thinking so I want to explore it more.


Basically you have people saying "It has to be this way". Why? Because there is and always will be a hierarchy when it comes to social norms and religion is no different or in this case the idea that there is a God or G-d or what ever else there is. You see, each sect of religion has its own hierarchy that determines what you should believe and if you fallow these ideals you will be accepted into the group and if your presents is felt among the community you will even gain some power to change the way the belief is represented and if you are really good, you may be able to contribute to what is accepted to what is supposed to be believed.


It is true that if you clap your hands to the beat of those who are making the rules then you will be accepted but if not, you will be completely disregarded and labeled as someone who doesn't acknowledged what truth is. Who is to say what truth is? Ultimately our preception of truth is highly subjective. There is a saying, I forget who started it but it was made by a very smart individual, "Beware of the sound of one hand clapping". Basically the idea behind this is that if there is no one to disagree with the given norm then this hierarchy has taken over and has limited itself to a severe degree to what the groups ability is to be on a constant search for truth instead of representing that they have truth.


All this to say I couldn't care less what the accepted way to believe is and neither should you (everyone). Heck even the "non-religious" have a set of unwritten rules they must fallow if they want to be accepted into that line of thinking IE. there is no god. To rid ourselves of this type of thinking we must abandon all preconcieved ideas we have and become highly independant in at least our aproach to understanding what truth is.

In other words seek out the truth yourself not the truth someone else feeds you. I agree completely. My religious views may cause others to label me as Christian my my beliefs are my own. While many of them line up with Christianity I view Christianity as a Religion fall short of the ideals of Christ and therefore in only valid as a way to worship with others not as a proper faith system onto its self.

The bible tells me to seek truth not just accept the popular opinion of what truth is. The bible also tells me to test my faith in God daily. These are not ideas taught in churches today but they are very important to my personal faith.

 

[QuickTwist]

Yup, thats basically what I was trying to say.

Probably an overused topic.

 

[Black Rose]

1 John 2:27
But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

Most people who are wise know that what they say will become dogma in most others.

 

[Chad]

Most people who are wise know that what they say will become dogma in most others.

I find it absolutely hilarious to think what Jesus would say of the modern Church. I actually looks a lot like Judaism of Christ day and he honestly need not have very many nice things to say about the establishment of religion.

This is what make faith in Christ different then a religion. Its about self and spiritual guidance and not a set of rules. The modern church is a religion but its far for the faith Jesus asked us to walk.

Christ taught accountability for ones motives. Which goes far beyond rules to guide ones action and makes it impossible for anyone else to judge you based off your actions.

 

[Chad]

This is an interesting take on Christianity at least as far as this site goes.

In general conversations like this tend to be interrupted by the few Fundamentalist Atheist on this forum that will immediately go to arguing that God doesn't exist instead at look at the rational that is an INTP Christian.

We all seem to have similar ideas about our faith and probably dislike organized religions as much as most of the Fundamentalist Atheist.

Thanks for starting this thread @QuickTwist I am not sure if this is were you envisioned this thead going but if it continues like it is it might be very interesting.

The Admins might move it to religion though. I like it in philosophy though because then the extremist don't feel that they need to come a bash it just because someone states an opinion excepting the existence of God and Jesus's deity.

 

[Duxwing]

Could you provide som examples of the "fundamentalist atheists" of whom you speak simply stating that God doesn't exist (i.e., asking for evidence) in a religious conversation? Remember that they're only wrong to do so if their arguments are not in line with the axioms of the thread (e.g., saying that God doesn't exist in a thread that takes the statement "God exists" as an axiom); in other words, proving that the God assumed in the thread is either logically impossible or inscrutable is fine since they're still within the thread's stated limits. I'd be miffed if they didn't respect those limits, though.

-Duxwing

 

[QuickTwist]

Funny, I always thought the OP had a Philosophy bent to it because of the whole hierarchy thing and how people are always trying to infuence your thinking from one idea to another. Why can't we be free form the infuence of others?

So many people want to be put into a category so that they feel they can belong somewhere. This line of thinking is inherently, what I would say, evil because of all that you have to compromise to get there.

Religion is a topic that will never go undisgussed as long as there is an opportunity to voice ones opinion regarding the validity of the said religion. I made made no intentional reference to religion in and of itself or the lack there of one. It is however, my intention to get a discussion going for what it means to have systems in place where people must fallow a set of unwritten rules to be accepted into a group and what happens to the individuals who "do not play well with others".

 

[Black Rose]

Why can't we be free form the influence of others?

Acceptance

 

[QuickTwist]

Hmm. Is that the only reason? Or is there something in our genetic code that could explain this as well?

 

[Black Rose]

Hmm. Is that the only reason? Or is there something in our genetic code that could explain this as well?

what you identity with generates strong attachments.

how does genetics influence identity socially.

 

[QuickTwist]

Acceptance

Hmm. Is that the only reason?


It feels like an incomplete answer to me. Maybe it also has to do with genetics or being indoctrinated that we must rely on others to help us succeed.


Acceptance requires emotion or a longing for seperation of that is something which we cannot truly achieve?


I can't help be think that you are saying we need attention. Surely there are those out there that have rid themselves of such petty feelings of the need to be accepted. Is it truly a need to be accepted or can we live without it? Are there people not infuenced by others? Can one learn completely on their own without any other individuals to guide their thinking? What would this individual be like?


Basically, do we need others to live a fulfilling life?

 

[QuickTwist]

what you identity with generates strong attachments.

how does genetics influence identity socially.

And when those attachments are broken what causes us to have a need to raplace them?

I guess I mean to say that certain people need others, others don't.

 

[Black Rose]

Some people are truly compatible. Self acceptance and friendship are inoperative would not be the case.

 

[QuickTwist]

Some people are truly compatible. Self acceptance and friendship are inoperative would not be the case.

How do you know that to be true?

 

[Black Rose]

How do you know that to be true?

psychological group similarity's.

mutual benefits and tolerance for selected personality

 

[QuickTwist]

psychological group similarity's.

mutual benefits and tolerance for selected personality

Are these needed?

 

[Chad]

Could you provide som examples of the "fundamentalist atheists" of whom you speak simply stating that God doesn't exist (i.e., asking for evidence) in a religious conversation? Remember that they're only wrong to do so if their arguments are not in line with the axioms of the thread (e.g., saying that God doesn't exist in a thread that takes the statement "God exists" as an axiom); in other words, proving that the God assumed in the thread is either logically impossible or inscrutable is fine since they're still within the thread's stated limits. I'd be miffed if they didn't respect those limits, though.

-Duxwing

I would consider an mild Fundamentalist as someone that believes that the are Morally, Ethically, or Intelligent superior. Based solely on beliefs or lack there of.

My more Intermediate Fundamentalist vocals his moral out rage about other belief systems. (I.E. Dawkin is a Intermediate fundamentalist Atheist)

A radical fundamentalist is someone that destroys life or property in the name of there beliefs/non-belief. A radical fundamentalist Atheist is the type that would burn down a church to prove there passion for the cause.

Most Fundamentalist Atheist here are mild however some would fit into the intermediate category. I honestly can't label anyone here as a radical as this is a forum and a radical would most like sound similar to a Mild or Intermediate fundamentalist on a forum site. As far as I know I haven't read anyone talking about burning down religious places on here.

The problem with fundamentalism and mild fundamentalism is that it makes it nearly impossible for your to understand someone else's world view. If you believe that there views are below you, you will not listen to there views even if they are logical and perfectly reasoned. You have a closed mind and you will never learn form that world view.

I may believe that my views are religious are to some degree factual but I don't believe that I am morally, ethically or Intellectually superior to anyone else who may or may not agree with my assessment on religion. Its one thing to believe that you are right and it a completely different thing to believe that this some how make you better then those who may not agree with you.

 

[Duxwing]

I would consider an mild Fundamentalist as someone that believes that the are Morally, Ethically, or Intelligent superior. Based solely on beliefs or lack there of.

My more Intermediate Fundamentalist vocals his moral out rage about other belief systems. (I.E. Dawkin is a Intermediate fundamentalist Atheist)

A radical fundamentalist is someone that destroys life or property in the name of there beliefs/non-belief. A radical fundamentalist Atheist is the type that would burn down a church to prove there passion for the cause.

Most Fundamentalist Atheist here are mild however some would fit into the intermediate category. I honestly can't label anyone here as a radical as this is a forum and a radical would most like sound similar to a Mild or Intermediate fundamentalist on a forum site. As far as I know I haven't read anyone talking about burning down religious places on here.

The problem with fundamentalism and mild fundamentalism is that it makes it nearly impossible for your to understand someone else's world view. If you believe that there views are below you, you will not listen to there views even if they are logical and perfectly reasoned. You have a closed mind and you will never learn form that world view.

I may believe that my views are religious are to some degree factual but I don't believe that I am morally, ethically or Intellectually superior to anyone else who may or may not agree with my assessment on religion. Its one thing to believe that you are right and it a completely different thing to believe that this some how make you better then those who may not agree with you.

Reread my post: I asked for examples of what you asserted to exist, not an in-depth explanation of your code of private conjecutres.

-Duxwing

 

[Black Rose]

Are these needed?

I would not like to be totally isolated and being free of influence only show that your connections to others is the contemplative assessment of creating values not cultural bound to oneself in the action of pointing your views as rational outside normative opinions. So cognitively if this makes sense to you, you internalize it as an influence from me negating its value to identifying it as a free choice of understanding as both must agree to its rationality as held in common becoming normative between us. Forming opinion requires a cognitive nature shared ideas not pertaining to your acceptance of those ideas but to your awareness of there existence must be others.

 

[QuickTwist]

I would not like to be totally isolated and being free of influence only show that your connections to others is the contemplative assessment of creating values not cultural bound to oneself in the action of pointing your views as rational outside normative opinions. So cognitively if this makes sense to you, you internalize it as an influence from me negating its value to identifying it as a free choice of understanding as both must agree to its rationality as held in common becoming normative between us. Forming opinion requires a cognitive nature shared ideas not pertaining to your acceptance of those ideas but to your awareness of there existence must be others.

You've made some excellent points and described them well but it is not up to me or you specifically to draw conclusions about the original post and the posts that fallowed leading us to believe that normality is neccessary to our well being that we must adhere to to the describing terms that were presented before us to give us a hopefully cognative respence by any that does not neccessarily fallow the lines of logic that we have said to be true. By this I mean that if there is an opinion out there that has not been discussed as of yet there is an opportunity to voice it here. What we say here is not neccessarily correct or incorrect but rather a choice of words illistrating a conclusion of what falls into the perameters of the OP. If there are no other opinions on ther matter I will assume that either the OP was not open ended enough or our line of logic was accurate and no other dinamics needed to be addressed in this discussion.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

Fellow^ For future reference. It was bugging me so I had to correct it. Anyway, carry on .

 

[QuickTwist]

Miscommunication, sorry for the typo.