The 'Benefits of Religion' Thread

[Teddoman]

I give up. Everything you and I have said has been said multiple times ad naseum. We disagree on what's been said here. The thread speaks for itself. I don't think we're going anywhere at this point with this.

You can't disagree on what has been said here, there's a public record of the text staring at you. All you can do is acknowledge you didn't read properly what I wrote.

I'm sure you're smart, Fortigurn, you've read a lot on the topic of religion. But let's not be dense, shall we? We in fact do disagree on what has been said, and since we can't appeal to a higher power, we are stuck in Purgatory.

I very sincerely doubt you are right on the matters under discussion, as I am very clear on the argument you think you are trying to make, but since your line of argumentation continues to reveal a lack of comprehension of my line of reasoning, there is very little I can do to make this discussion progress further. Hence, I relinquish the podium.

[E04teacherlin]

I give up. Everything you and I have said has been said multiple times ad naseum. We disagree on what's been said here. The thread speaks for itself. I don't think we're going anywhere at this point with this.

You can't disagree on what has been said here, there's a public record of the text staring at you. All you can do is acknowledge you didn't read properly what I wrote.

I'm sure you're smart, Fortigurn, you've read a lot on the topic of religion. But let's not be dense, shall we? We in fact do disagree on what has been said, and since we can't appeal to a higher power, we are stuck in Purgatory.

I very sincerely doubt you are right on the matters under discussion, as I am very clear on the argument you think you are trying to make, but since your line of argumentation continues to reveal a lack of comprehension of my line of reasoning, there is very little I can do to make this discussion progress further. Hence, I relinquish the podium.

I was just happy that this started going again and now this. I fail to see how he shows "a lack of comprehension of" your line of reasoning, as every posts addresses your claims point by point.

[TheGingerMan]

[
If you have no interest in such things, that's your right, but then many many individuals find deep satisfaction and liberation in religious practice (the robes, stoic lifestyles and meditation) as well as meditation. This has been the case historically as well. If it wasn't traditions like Buddhism, Jainism and some forms of Daoism for example wouldn't exist anymore.

You might think it all nonsense, but plenty of people clearly see value in such practices and derive great satisfaction from it.

Many people see value in video games and Formula 1, and derive great satisfaction from such, but that seeing value/deriving great satisfaction is hardly a conducive argument for ANYTHING.
Least of all some school of thought.
~~~~~~
You seem to have a fixation with the robes.
Are they potato sack variety, or of fine silk?
Do you find them stimulating?

[Teddoman]

I was just happy that this started going again and now this. I fail to see how he shows "a lack of comprehension of" your line of reasoning, as every posts addresses your claims point by point.

Point by point responses do not mean the essential thrust of an idea has been comprehended. In fact, the responder may be so focused on defending themselves that they do not spend any time really taking in the thrust of what has been said to them. But don't take my word for it. Just reread the thread, carefully, as if you are completely disinterested in the outcome and are just observing. In fact, it may be a useful exercise for you to even try to root for me a little bit when you read the thread, i.e. try to be slightly biased against Fortigurn (just for the hell of it). Then read the thread again. If you've truly done this well, you may see both sides of the argument clearly enough to decide who is right.

[Confuzius]

I give up. Everything you and I have said has been said multiple times ad naseum. We disagree on what's been said here. The thread speaks for itself. I don't think we're going anywhere at this point with this.

You can't disagree on what has been said here, there's a public record of the text staring at you. All you can do is acknowledge you didn't read properly what I wrote.

I'm sure you're smart, Fortigurn, you've read a lot on the topic of religion. But let's not be dense, shall we? We in fact do disagree on what has been said, and since we can't appeal to a higher power, we are stuck in Purgatory.

I very sincerely doubt you are right on the matters under discussion, as I am very clear on the argument you think you are trying to make, but since your line of argumentation continues to reveal a lack of comprehension of my line of reasoning, there is very little I can do to make this discussion progress further. Hence, I relinquish the podium.

Fort does like to post a WALL of text he has stashed somewhere, stand over it pointing and go "SEE!!!!" rather than actually engaging in conversation.

Just sayin' (now I await a new wall of text)

[E04teacherlin]

I was just happy that this started going again and now this. I fail to see how he shows "a lack of comprehension of" your line of reasoning, as every posts addresses your claims point by point.

Point by point responses do not mean the essential thrust of an idea has been comprehended. In fact, the responder may be so focused on defending themselves that they do not spend any time really taking in the thrust of what has been said to them. But don't take my word for it. Just reread the thread, carefully, as if you are completely disinterested in the outcome and are just observing. In fact, it may be a useful exercise for you to even try to root for me a little bit when you read the thread, i.e. try to be slightly biased against Fortigurn (just for the hell of it). Then read the thread again. If you've truly done this well, you may see both sides of the argument clearly enough to decide who is right.

OK sorry. You said that non-secular organisations could have the same benefit and fortigurn said yes but research indicate that they don't. Is your hatred for religion clouding your judgement so much that you misinterpret the meaning of research. You said that you can not comprehend how certain risk-minimization behaviors has a positive outcome and even placed words in fortigurn's mouth by claiming things such as not having sex before marriage or not smoking, to which he clearly responded that he did not say that, which he didn't, while at the same time mentioning that risk minimization behaviors lead to exactly what he says and what is mentioned in the literature he mentioned based on research, which is scientific, no?
Now please restate what I missed. I was very biased against him and failed to see you point other than, I dislike religion, any good that comes from it is rubbish and could be attained through non-religious means and if research says otherwise I suddenly misunderstand scientific and research methods because it now suits me to do so.
Please restate your point. I must have missed it.

[Teddoman]

Fort does like to post a WALL of text he has stashed somewhere, stand over it pointing and go "SEE!!!!" rather than actually engaging in conversation.

Just sayin' (now I await a new wall of text)

Thanks for helping out with a little Fort-meta there.

Not having read his other threads, it did kind of throw me for a loop for a second.

OK sorry. You said that non-secular organisations could have the same benefit and fortigurn said yes but research indicate that they don't. Is your hatred for religion clouding your judgement so much that you misinterpret the meaning of research. You said that you can not comprehend how certain risk-minimization behaviors has a positive outcome and even placed words in fortigurn's mouth by claiming things such as not having sex before marriage or not smoking, to which he clearly responded that he did not say that, which he didn't, while at the same time mentioning that risk minimization behaviors lead to exactly what he says and what is mentioned in the literature he mentioned based on research, which is scientific, no?
Now please restate what I missed. I was very biased against him and failed to see you point other than, I dislike religion, any good that comes from it is rubbish and could be attained through non-religious means and if research says otherwise I suddenly misunderstand scientific and research methods because it now suits me to do so.
Please restate your point. I must have missed it.

I don't believe you've really looked at the thread by taking a truly sympathetic view of my perspective. Asking me if my hatred of religion has clouded my judgment is just so off base I don't even know how to respond to that. To really listen, one must first stop treating the Other like an evil strawman. Treating the Other as evil is precisely what jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan do. That is what European crusaders and the Spanish Inquisition did. And that is what the Nazis did. You and I do not believe we ever be led to such extremes, but it starts with how we perceive others.

Imagine I am a soul searching first cousin you have known well since childhood, trying to find his religious way, and I'm being bullied by a Catholic priest (if you're Protestant) or by a minister (if you're Catholic) who isn't really giving me reasonable answers to genuine God-seeking questions of a man trying to find God in his own way. Perhaps that will help give you the empathy you need to read the thread again clearly.

I could lay it out for you point by point again, perhaps more clearly, but then that would deny you the opportunity to figure it out on your own. If you still don't get my side of the argument, I will respond after the weekend. Will be away for a few days.

[E04teacherlin]

Well then I'll wait till after weekend.
If you were my cousin, I'll say this though. "Dear cousin. You are not helping your own search by continuously telling the dude that his sentence structure is poor and his points poorly made. Listen and read with the intent to understand. You are doing what every other instant gratification junky in the modern world is doing. You can not gain a deeper understanding by using your limited knowledge to reason about it. You need to expand your limited knowledge by actually reading relevant literature. Get some books and read them. Books and research articles for and against will be great. They will create more questions but also a true deeper understanding. Stop treating the world like one big google search. Oh and I love you."

[Teddoman]

Well then I'll wait till after weekend.
If you were my cousin, I'll say this though. "Dear cousin. You are not helping your own search by continuously telling the dude that his sentence structure is poor and his points poorly made. Listen and read with the intent to understand. You are doing what every other instant gratification junky in the modern world is doing. You can not gain a deeper understanding by using your limited knowledge to reason about it. You need to expand your limited knowledge by actually reading relevant literature. Get some books and read them. Books and research articles for and against will be great. They will create more questions but also a true deeper understanding. Stop treating the world like one big google search. Oh and I love you."

Obviously ignored everything I said. Hopeless!

I was more interested in helping someone comprehend after giving it their best effort to see both sides of the argument. This makes me totally uninterested in helping.

[Fortigurn]

Point by point responses do not mean the essential thrust of an idea has been comprehended. In fact, the responder may be so focused on defending themselves that they do not spend any time really taking in the thrust of what has been said to them. But don't take my word for it. Just reread the thread, carefully, as if you are completely disinterested in the outcome and are just observing. In fact, it may be a useful exercise for you to even try to root for me a little bit when you read the thread, i.e. try to be slightly biased against Fortigurn (just for the hell of it). Then read the thread again. If you've truly done this well, you may see both sides of the argument clearly enough to decide who is right.

If you have any evidence that I have failed to comprehend or address your points please post it here.

Fort does like to post a WALL of text he has stashed somewhere, stand over it pointing and go "SEE!!!!" rather than actually engaging in conversation.

No, I don't do any such thing.

I was more interested in helping someone comprehend after giving it their best effort to see both sides of the argument.

Are you able to list in point form the two sides of the argument in this thread, together with a summary of the evidence which has been presented for each?