So when your gf asks you "Do I look fat in this dress?", you go "Ya, definitely!" every time?

Also, what's the "fact" about the beauty of a painting. (No, I'm not equating religion to the beauty of paintings. I'm questioning your overly simplistic dichotomy of facts on the one hand and "what they want to be true or what makes them happy" on the other.)

Whilst your methodology can make a difference to how that will perceived, it's rarely going to make you very popular. Unless you have friends who particularly enjoy a debate, my advice would be to avoid picking fights. Eventually you won't have friends, you'll have people who cross the road when they see you coming.

This is a pretty good place to practice and there are some sophisticated minds here who will help you if you don't piss them off too much

Social cohesion is oiled by lies, half truths and insincerity, in fact, our brains mostly evolved so that we could figure out what other people are thinking to avoid gang fights every time we grouped up. You could try and strike a balance.

this is not really consistent with your previously expressed beliefs that such matters are quick and simple.

precision is a crucial part of debunking. 1 stray word and your entire effort is wasted and probably reversed to use against you.

-------

My recommendation is to NOT act on your beliefs. I think you are in that sweetspot where you will not be able to convince any dumb people since they aren't convinced by logic, they just dig their heels in. And you aren't likely to convince any logical people either, since they will outplay you, and you will end up being the one digging your heals in.

2) Religion and the fact that the world would be a better place without religions in their current state. Maybe artificial religions for particular benefits can be put in place in teh future but that is nothing compared to how it is now.

That the world would be a better place without religion is probably an opinion rather than fact. We can discuss this further but to come out and state it as fact is going to require substantial support.

3) People being dishonest to themselves and others - one example is a sort of "acting" in social group situations in order to represent what they want people to think of them, rather than "being who they actually are".

Almost all persons who hold religious beliefs are sincere about their beliefs. I think in the vast majority of the cases it is not a matter of persons being dishonest.

How should I act on my beliefs?

I think you should engage religious people in discussion who are open to discuss. I think it is helpful to focus on specific topics of discussion (eg. Religion is bad because it creates social barriers). Simply telling a religious person that the world would be better without religion doesn't seem helpful. To effectively debate a religious person you should IMO get to know the ins and outs of their belief system to effectively debunk.

In particular, when in a discussion with a religious person, is it okay for me to say what I actually think? I will almost certainly offend the person because I will say something they don't like even though it is what I believe. Does it depend who it is? It shouldn't depend on who it is, but actually it probably does. This is because religious people are dishonest, and try to defend their dishonest "beliefs" (lieing to themselves) with even more elaborate dishonest lies. Imo.

So all religious people are dishonest? This seems like a very unfair generalization.

My point is that you can debunk all of religion very quickly and simply through really simple arguments, and I will feel really bad if I actually tell someone something and they just walk away because they can't stand the truth.

Others have already touched on this so I don't need to belabour it. If you don't want to derail this thread then please start a new thread in which you quickly and simply debunk Christianity with simple arguments. I think it is naive to think you can debunk all of religion with a few simple arguments. Do you realize there are plenty of really smart people that are religious?

You want to live in a world that conforms to your view, just as much as a religious person wants to live in a world that conforms to theirs. You defend this double standard with the idea that your world would be better than theirs. Maybe it would be. But consider this; you will not enact such change by yourself. You cannot force the world to be what you want it to be. However rest assured these changes will evolve naturally over time. Look at where we are today compared to 100 years ago. Look at how much religion has declined and how much man has advanced. Clearly there is a trend here, one which I dont think will ever stop. While you may never live to see the day that all religion is abolished, I feel confident saying that this day will come. These things just take time.

In the meantime you should try to enjoy the world you live in. Crying that you cant be honest with some pretty christian girl and tell her she's stupid for believing in God will not do you any favors. While you may live in a pure altruistic world by yourself, you will be alone. Trust me, you would rather lie a little if it meant being happy, and there is nothing wrong with that. Be sociable, be polite, be amicable, dont disrespect others just to appease yourself, it's not worth it. Play nice with the people around you, be happy, and one day it will all be over.

It's sort of like living in the wilderness and complaining you dont have central air conditioning in your cabin. You can sit there complaining about it and be miserable all day, or you can enjoy some warmth by the fire and make the most of what you have.

Before I reply properly to all the posts above, if javi is correct and I have to choose between being honest and unhappy and lieing a little and being happy, then that is a very sad choice to have to make. Such a choice shouldn't have to be made at all. Everyone should be honest. Because the truth is what is most important.

I don't have a gf so cannot give a definitive answer to this question.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some scientific explanations/theories of the atractiveness of art to certain people, just like there are theories of why music is pleasurable to listen to.

- So, you're a 22ish male, studying math in Nottinham. For the 2nd time you've now taken a hypothetical ("If your GF asks you something...") that was intended to highlight the focal point of your apparent moral dilemma and answered it by focussing on the hypothetical ("Well, I don't HAVE a gf").

- You also see truth as the "most important" quality in life and you seem to have difficulties aligning the concepts of "being honest" with "being social(ly acceptable)/nice".

- You also don't see how passing judgement over people by saying: "This is because religious people are dishonest, and try to defend their dishonest "beliefs" (lieing to themselves) with even more elaborate dishonest lies." could be viewed as being an insulting statement.

- You overall seem to have difficulties in understanding how analogies work in a discussion.

Here's a question that I genuinely don't mean as an insult: Are you autistic?

I finished my degree and I am not in Nottingham. I don't really feel comfortable revealing my whereabouts on the Internet.
I am missing a hypothetical. My point is that I don't know if I would go out with a fat girl in the first place.

This is mostly correct. (One minor note is that I think there are "more important things" than truth, like not killing other people, but that's a bit irrelevant here). I don't see your point. An obvious point is that people act differently in groups than they do by themselves. People will lie in social groups to make themselves sound cool is but one obvious example.

This doesn't apply to all religious people. I agree that in some of my posts I am being a bit extreme but it is perhaps part of an internal rant. Whoopdy ****ing do.

But I stand by the statement for some religious people. Some religious people don't know they're lying to themselves because they are totally brainwashed.

No. You are incorrect. Communication is perhaps even more important than truth. Incorrect use of analogies can lead to misinterpretation. Discussion then becomes meaningless and fizzles out like a lot fo RGT threads. It is essential that for a discussion to be productive, everything must be made crystal clear. I have watched many religious debates recently and I think many are time-wasting and pointless. The main reason is because someone will speak for 20 minutes then the opponent will stand up and say "the first thing _ said was this. I disagree with this". Well then, why is the debate not in a conversational format??? This might be a trait from my mathematical background combined with my skeptical nature, but so what. It is clear to me that it is the best way to progress any serious discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong about this though. But if communication is not crystal clear then I don't see an alternative.

I don't know. I've never been tested for autism. If enough people on here think I might be autistic then after Wednesday I might take some sort of test for ****s and giggles (BBV style). Wouldn't be too surprised if I was though.

On that note I have an assessment day for a permanent job on Wednesday and need to prepare for the next hour or so. I'll probably be on later though. And yes, an hour should be enough (hopefully). Anyway gl to me (lol)

Congrats on the degree and I got this from another thread on 2p2.
By which you are precisely missing the point. It's not about whether you like to date a fat girl but if you really have difficulties deciding on what's "right" when you're in a situation in which you know that telling someone you care about the brutal truth would be, well, brutal..

To me your statement sounds fairly childish. Usually, I'd expect anyone with a decent amount of life experience to have come to the understanding that there are far more important things in life than always being perfectly honest.

Again you're missing the point. I've picked out that quote once before further above and told you that it is insulting. You replied: "Why is it insulting?" This is either you being stubborn or dense, since, as you've just conceeded, it doesn't apply to all religious people. So how do you think those take your comments to which you yourself think it doesn't apply? Part of me is expecting: "How should I know - ask them" as response.

Ok.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I suspect most people do agree with this as they might not have their job if they didn't tell a lie here or there. But that does not mean that lying was the correct thing to do. It might just mean that the structure of how employers choose people to work for them is a fundamentally flawed one.

Why should I have to act how people expect me to act, instead of acting how I want to actually act?

I'm not in the least thinking about a job situation there. Or anything of that sort. Instead, I'm thinking about any situation in which I am dealing with someone I care about and realize that "caring" entails keeping some things to myself.

re the italicized: Because you're not along on this planet. You're living in a world that contains other feeling creatures. Being a moral being yourself entails having a moral obligations towards others. One of those is to not hurt others unnecessarily.

Well I agree but perhaps therein lies the issue: Why do people get offended about things which are true? Is it to do with living up to social expectations?

Well I agree but perhaps therein lies the issue: Why do people get offended about things which are true? Is it to do with living up to social expectations?

Why should I have to act how people expect me to act, instead of acting how I want to actually act?

(I don't mean this in a condescending way)
I think dealing with these type of things is just a part of growing up and maturing into a reasonable/respectable adult. As we grow through being a teenager we try out different things in different social settings and find out what works and what is super awkward.

There were times when I was younger and more idealistic that I would be brutally honest with people. Eventually I think I grew out of that phase and just became a nicer person. Not that I became morally better I just increased IRT social graces. I realized its just as easy to be polite as to be a prick.

I learned not everyone cares that much about all my opinions on various topics. I think I am similar to you jewbinson in that I am rather opinionated. Being an opinionated outspoken prick is common place on the interweb but in real life it is obnoxious.

It also depends what your endgame is. Are you seeking to convince or do you just want to let others know what you think?

To answer your last question, I want to understand the world better. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything until I am sure of it myself.

I would say I am a nice person, not a prick (I'm not suggesting you were accusing me of being one). And people think I am nice. But I often withhold my true thoughts because it seems out of place to say something or more relevant, because it will offend someone. It doesn't feel right for me to not express my views but doing so avoids offending people.

When you say "it is just part of growing up", well... that seems obvious, but maybe it should not be part of growing up. Maybe part of growing up should be being extremely tolerant of others. Undoubtedly, society today is more tolerant and liberal than ever before. Maybe it is getting to "where I think it should be" a bit slower than "I would like it to". But oh well, it's not so bad I guess.

I think the point about calling your girlfriend fat is a fair one actually. I concede this point. Although I still think I would not have a fat girlfriend in the first place. Probably.

I also agree that religion is fine so long as it doesn't affect other people outside of the group. But what about suicide bombing (which wouldn't happen without religion) ? What about countless other examples of bad things which wouldn't happen without religion? These things need to be gotten rid of for a start.

I might have spotted a flaw in my thinking. I am assuming that lying is always bad. But this is not justified. Just because lying *sounds* bad (it is taught as a sin etc.), sometimes it is for good reasons. If everyone told the truth, then so what? Lies are annoying, but they are not so important now I think about it. Although it depends who you are being dihonest to and the particular situation. If you are dishonest to your wife and tell them you love them when you don't then that is more serious than telling a white lie to you child about Santa Claus to keep their imagination alive as a child (assuming such a justification is valid). The "seriousness" of lying to your wife compared to the seriousness of the white lie told to the child depends on values within a society. Seeing as I have a book containing arguments exploring Wittgenstein's theory that "morals are community-based", I should probably read this and try to understand it better.

Are you saying that suicide bombing wouldn't happen without religion?

Yes.

I know 4000 Japanese pilots who disagreed.

Suicide attacks are as old as the hills. The most important characteristic of them is at the start of the quote ie they are carried out against enemies with superior numbers/military might.

"To counter the superior numbers of the Chola empire's army in the 11th century AD, suicide squads were raised by the Indian Chera rulers. This helped the Cheras to resist Chola invasion and maintain the independence of their kingdom from the time of Kulothunga Chola I. These warriors were known as the "chavers"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#Historical

I don't agree with your conclusion here and not just for religious reasons.
lying is bad because it undermines communication and trust.
I know many people justify so called "white lies" but I don't think "white lies" are necessary honestly.

I can't emphasize this enough:
lying is bad because it undermines communication and trust.


Once I realize someone has lied to me, even about something small, I really change how I value what they say. Once I realize someone is ok with lying sometimes then I can no longer just believe them, I always have to weigh their words as to how true/false they are.

Religions do lots of good in the world too.
I personally don't like organized religion but I recognize they do a great deal IRT charity, feeding the hungry, building homes for the homeless, economic development projects etc. The list is massive.

I don't think you or me are in a place to accurately assess what the net result is of religion worldwide. It is worth noting that religion does a lot of good in the world even if we disagree with the tenets of all religions.

EDIT:

take these guys' work for example:
http://www.ijm.org/who-we-are

Honesty is polite, obfuscation an insult. Isn't it a form of lying to stay quiet and leave the wrong impression ? And does it have any merit if it's just done to feed notions of being a "nice" person ?

if you are going to allow "ends justify the means" for lying, then congratulations, you are now on the slippery slope that leads to the justification of all the other things that you probably blanket describe as bad.