Mike Dulak grew up Catholic in Southern California, but by his teen years, he began skipping Mass and driving straight to the shore to play guitar, watch the waves and enjoy the beauty of the morning. “And it felt more spiritual than any time I set foot in a church,” he recalled.

Nothing has changed that view in the ensuing decades.

“Most religions are there to control people and get money from them,” said Dulak, now 76, of Rocheport, Missouri. He also cited sex abuse scandals in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches. “I can’t buy into that,” he said.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    Remember all of the groups of people you mentioned earlier, like anti vaccine or anti mask people? Do you think it was a fully conscious decision to hold that belief?

    That is not an important question. Again, emotions are automatic responses. By definition, they are not controllable. There is no point in discussing them because we cannot directly affect them.

    The only route through which we can affect emotional response is philosophy. We can’t affect the immediate response, but we can affect the rationalization process by focusing on a different philosophical model.

    A philosophy that an individual’s personal beliefs are of greater importance than objective reality exacerbates the issues you discuss. A philosophy that rejects this mitigates your issues.

    When you say that’s outside of the scope of this conversation, here’s what I hear:

    I have nothing more of value to add to this conversation,

    Your condescending tone aside, that is correct. You are diverting us away from a path of consciously affecting behavior and mindsets, and toward a path that, by definition, we cannot. You are knowingly choosing a dead-end road; I have nothing of value to add to your decision to follow that path, and I do not choose to walk it with you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      There is no point in discussing them because we cannot directly affect them.

      There absolutely is a point in discussing things you can’t affect. Also, you can affect their power over your ability to reason if you are emotionally aware enough.

      That is not an important question. Again, emotions are automatic responses.

      It is. If part of the topic of this conversation is people that think with their emotions, it would tell you that emotions are absolutely related to this conversation. You brought those groups up as examples yourself.

      The only route through which we can affect emotional response is philosophy.

      Not true. You can learn to control your emotions to some extent without changing philosophy. Also, your philosophy is usually based on your emotions. Not the other way around. The belief that murder is bad comes from emotion. There is no argument to be made that a human life has value. We all agree its bad anyway though, because death causes negative emotions.

      A philosophy that an individual’s personal beliefs are of greater importance than objective reality exacerbates the issues you discuss

      No one believes their personal beliefs to be more important than objective reality. They believe their personal beliefs are objective reality. They do this because of their emotions. That’s why its important to discuss them.

      You are knowingly choosing a dead-end road

      It is a destination, not a dead end. The destination being the obvious conclusion that you have no reason to distrust all religious people.

      I have nothing of value to add to your decision to follow that path, and I do not choose to walk it with you.

      You had nothing of value to add to begin with. You literally just dislike religion for no reason.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Also, you can affect their power over your ability to reason if you are emotionally aware enough.

        “Emotions” are the unconscious responses. “Emotional awareness” is the conscious aspect. You are describing a philosophical model against which to evaluate the emotional reaction. You are restating my arguments.

        The belief that murder is bad comes from emotion

        Rejected. Plenty of societies justify killing for everything from self defense to promoting a master race to appeasing the gods. The emotional response to such killings are based on the philosophical model of the individual. The emotion follows the philosophy, it does not guide it.

        The destination being the obvious conclusion that you have no reason to distrust all religious people.

        It seems important that you be right. I have already conceded that I have nothing to add to that aspect of the conversation. You won.

        Now, do you wish to continue the journey anywhere else, or are you happy where you arrived?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Emotional awareness" is the conscious aspect. You are describing a philosophical model in which to evaluate the emotional reaction.

          No, I am describing emotional awareness. The ability to understand your emotions and limit their effect on your reasoning is not a philosophical model.

          Plenty of societies justify killing for everything from self defense to promoting a master race to appeasing the gods. The emotional response to such killings are based on the philosophical model of the individual. The emotion follows the philosophy, it does not guide it.

          This is a surprisingly good argument, but it does not prove the conclusion you came to. Its more of an exception to what I said. It demonstrates that emotional responses can be impacted by philosophy. It does not demonstrate that this is always how it works, or even most of the time.

          It seems important that you be right.

          Yes, my goal in this argument was in fact to prove I am right. I do not like hateful views with no reasoning behind them.

          Now, do you wish to continue the journey anywhere else, or are you happy where you arrived?

          I’m not particularly happy because you are going to continue believing hateful nonsense, but at least I tried. I should’ve expected as much anyway, given that I’m arguing with people on the internet.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            hateful nonsense

            Rejected, with my previous arguments. Strawman, gaslighting, ad hominem.

            Nothing else you have said furthers the discussion.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              The discussion is apparently over now because you won’t continue it. But that doesn’t stop you from naming fallacies at me I guess.

              We’ve had quite a long conversation, and you have yet to provide a half decent argument for your distrust of religious people. Therefore, hateful nonsense. I can’t misrepresent your argument when I’m not even actually representing it. I’m just describing what I think it essentially boils down to. Its hateful nonsense.

              Again, correcting you is not gaslighting. You are literally just wrong.

              I did not personally attack you. I have worded things in passive aggressive ways throughout this conversation, but that’s about it. If you are referring specifically to the “hateful nonsense” part, that’s again just a description of your belief.

              Are you actually done now? Or will you keep saying random words hoping something works.