Skip to main content

Topic: The Awesomesauce with Religion (Read 117608 times)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
The Awesomesauce with Religion
I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference? :)
  • Last Edit: 2014-02-20, 18:13:52 by Frenzie

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #350
JS, your posts are appallingly unengaging.

Someone like you simply can't stand to hear or contemplate that what they believe today will necessarily be gone tomorrow.  I wasn't trying to engage you, I seldom do, I was merely pointing out that the end of god-belief may come sooner than you think.  It will take many generations of people growing up with the clear truth about our existence to supersede and replace religion, but no one can stop time, tide or the advancement of knowledge (not even a Don Quixote like you on a very high horse).  We will evolve into a galactic civilization in a 100 years or so and from there go on to harness the energy from our entire galaxy to do unimaginable things to explore and conquer our universe in similar fashion that we did the New World.  A few crazies will still be babbling about 'God', but they will have a very nice place for them, rest assured. 

(No reply necessary) 
James J

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #351
@JS
I already changed. Namely, I changed to what I am now. These changes don't happen too often, as we both know from experience. However, if you think some apocalyptic change is imminent for me and you want to speed it up, then act up.



And to help you with quoting. When you select some text and press Quick-Quote, the quote will be thrown into the Quick Reply box at the bottom of the page, but the Quick Reply box is closed by default, you have to open it by pressing the + on its side. Even when the box is closed, the Quick Quote still silently works.

Although I should point out, the quick quote doesn't do nested quotes properly at this moment.
You mean when you select some text, but the selected text already is a quote from another post, then the Quick Quote button still attributes it as from the person whose Quick Quote button you press, right? I thought it wasn't possible to change this. I thought it would always attribute exactly as from the person who wrote the post whose Quick Quote button you pressed.

Anyway, successive quotes are still possible, which should satisfy most needs. It's just that one should carefully select the text really written by the person whose post one is quick-quoting, then it will be okay.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #352
You mean when you select some text, but the selected text already is a quote from another post, then the Quick Quote button still attributes it as from the person whose Quick Quote button you press, right? I thought it wasn't possible to change this. I thought it would always attribute exactly as from the person who wrote the post whose Quick Quote button you pressed.

It actually shouldn't be too hard to fix it up imperfectly; that is, without the timestamp and link to the original post. I might investigate that tomorrow while taking a break from writing.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #353

2. Common sense is not so common apparently, as you cleverly leave out that religion is not inherent in our beings/makeup, rather it is learned.
Actually there are indications that religion is inherent. For example Robespierre, one of the main architects of the gorious heydays of the French Revolution, having slain enough priests, monks and nuns to his taste, made unambiguous moves to institute an alternative religion made up by himself. Another example is Stalin, the supreme leader and father of the peoples of the USSR. Once the Orthodox Church had been pushed basically underground, Stalin's personal cult took quasi-religious forms.

These examples show that religion cannot be eliminated without replacement, which basically means religion is inherent, an inevitable aspect of what it means to be a human. When you try to ignore it or eradicate it, it will come back bugging you in gross shapes.

It's also philosophically meaningful to assume that spirituality in fact is inherent, because it only makes sense to formulate the concept of God in such way that God exists no matter what you think or do or don't. If you think God's existence depends on whether you believe in God or not, or if God needs to be defended against disbelievers, you are not really being spiritual or religious. When God's existence is a transcendent reality independent from our beliefs and proofs, when you see God as a logical inevitability and you perceive it as an inherent necessity to follow through with your spiritual tendencies, then you are really religious.

In any other case you're just talking. For example, have you really proven atheism to yourself so that you are aware of everything it entails and are okay with it? Thought so.

3. One arrives at the conclusion that you'll be proving how your "Real God" is not man-made and how the "others" are man-made?
I never saw you as a proof kind of guy, more like an emotion-driven shifter. If you are proof-driven now, then this must have been another conversion. Too much conversion is bad for you.

1. Have you considered that the terms "quasi-religious" and "power-hungry" might be similar for a reason?

It's also philosophically meaningful to assume that spirituality in fact is inherent, because it only makes sense to formulate the concept of God in such way that God exists no matter what you think or do or don't. If you think God's existence depends on whether you believe in God or not, or if God needs to be defended against disbelievers, you are not really being spiritual or religious. When God's existence is a transcendent reality independent from our beliefs and proofs, when you see God as a logical inevitability and you perceive it as an inherent necessity to follow through with your spiritual tendencies, then you are really religious.
2. Assuming is the worst thing one can do, as it can make an ass out of you and me. :P

On a more serious note, yes, it does indeed make sense to formulate the concept of a deity, as I already mention, religion is learned. Children do not come into this world with an inherent tendency to believe in a deity. Instead, their parent or guarding teaches it to them, most likely because it was what was taught to them, and they might not have bothered considering questioning it all, as they were comfortable with the religious lifestyle and all that goes with it.

After all, putting all of one's problems onto a persona/invisible being/existence is much easier than taking responsibility and shouldering one's problems, one's self.

3. Early on in my posting days on D&D, this was the case; however, in 2009, having both sides present proof made a great deal of sense to me, and it still does. I am not the same emotional-driven poster.  :)

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #354

1. Have you considered that the terms "quasi-religious" and "power-hungry" might be similar for a reason?

The behaviour may look similar, but the concepts are different because the driving motivation behind them is different. So, they are different for a good reason.

2. Assuming is the worst thing one can do, as it can make an ass out of you and me. :P

On a more serious note, yes, it does indeed make sense to formulate the concept of a deity, as I already mention, religion is learned. Children do not come into this world with an inherent tendency to believe in a deity. Instead, their parent or guarding teaches it to them...
Children are not born religious, true, but they are not born atheist either. They are born clueless of what religion and atheism mean. They learn the distinction and then lean one way or the other. And they don't necessarily grow up to become as their parents. There's a rebel phase in our adolescence where anything may happen. Decent parents' children may turn out as criminal junkies, and drunkards' children may become decent purely as a reaction against parents. Same with the religion too. I, for example, grew up in a country and society where everyone, including my parents, is an atheist. Atheism is the official religion here so to speak, but I always struggled with atheism and materialism intellectually and spiritually already at age 10. Nobody taught me this struggle. Nobody else struggled. Everybody else just let it be. I was completely by myself seeing philosophical problems with atheism and materialism, and it was up to me alone to solve the problems for myself. Nobody showed me the solution.

So, to tell me that religion is learned from parents is the most breathtakingly yawning argument one can make. And it's a bit too easily proven false too, as I did. In fact, your own conversion proves you wrong. Your parents are church-going, right?

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #355


1. Have you considered that the terms "quasi-religious" and "power-hungry" might be similar for a reason?

The behaviour may look similar, but the concepts are different because the driving motivation behind them is different. So, they are different for a good reason.

2. Assuming is the worst thing one can do, as it can make an ass out of you and me. :P

On a more serious note, yes, it does indeed make sense to formulate the concept of a deity, as I already mention, religion is learned. Children do not come into this world with an inherent tendency to believe in a deity. Instead, their parent or guarding teaches it to them...
Children are not born religious, true, but they are not born atheist either. They are born clueless of what religion and atheism mean. They learn the distinction and then lean one way or the other. And they don't necessarily grow up to become as their parents. There's a rebel phase in our adolescence where anything may happen. Decent parents' children may turn out as criminal junkies, and drunkards' children may become decent purely as a reaction against parents. Same with the religion too. I, for example, grew up in a country and society where everyone, including my parents, is an atheist. Atheism is the official religion here so to speak, but I always struggled with atheism and materialism intellectually and spiritually already at age 10. Nobody taught me this struggle. Nobody else struggled. Everybody else just let it be. I was completely by myself seeing philosophical problems with atheism and materialism, and it was up to me alone to solve the problems for myself. Nobody showed me the solution.

So, to tell me that religion is learned from parents is the most breathtakingly yawning argument one can make. And it's a bit too easily proven false too, as I did. In fact, your own conversion proves you wrong. Your parents are church-going, right?

1. Not really, as both desire control, and of course, the more control one has the more power on ascertains.

2. Agreed that children do not know what either means, but de facto, without knowing about deities/the possibility of one or many deities, children are born without religion. Even though it may bore you to tears, this is simply how it is. For instance, before I was told what churches/synagogues, and the lone mosque in Oxford were, I used to think they were castles.  8)

You only proved it false in your mind my friend.

My parents used to, yes. But after my siblings and I reached 18, neither go much anymore. Pray tell how my change of stance on the matter, years ago, proves me wrong, please.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #356

Pray tell how my change of stance on the matter, years ago, proves me wrong, please.

Simple, really. If your claim is "religion is learned. Children do not come into this world with an inherent tendency to believe in a deity. Instead, their parent or guarding teaches it to them, most likely because it was what was taught to them..." then any instance of conversion proves it false. You may have learned your religion from parents, but it didn't stick. Instead, you converted to atheism, so see, it's not a one-way street. To be precise and applicable to your own life case, you should formulate the acquisition of religion differently, because your own claim does not properly apply to you.

Of course, you continue, "...and they might not have bothered considering questioning it all, as they were comfortable with the religious lifestyle and all that goes with it." This, however, is also not a one-way street. One grown up with irreligious, anti-religious, atheist, or indifferent parents may inquire and question those stances and end up religious. Happens. Happened to me, for example. I don't have a church to go to, but this does not stop me from formulating my stance as religious after a proper inquiry into the matter.

By the way, you quibbled above about formulating the concept of God as if that was a bad thing. It's only a bad thing when you are not intellectual. But if you are an intellectual - i.e. if you are the inquiring, questioning, methodically problem-solving type of person - then you formulate your concepts in order to clarify them to yourself and to articulate them when you need to explain yourself to others. It's a normal survival thing, really, to formulate concepts.

In fact, I'd argue that if you have not formulated atheism for yourself in this sense, then you are not really atheist, because you are not quite aware of what you got yourself into. You are just kind of relieved by what you got rid of for the time being, but without further clarification you don't know if you got rid of it for good. And if in the past you did not formulate religion in the similar way, then your former self was not really religious either.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #357
It's impossible to know what the natural, unsocialized state of humans is like because all of them are born into a group that directs their intellectual growth. You can't be an atheist until somebody in the community introduces the concept of a god. Presently, I'm neither a religionist nor an atheist. Given the vastness of the known universe, I find the concept of a Jewish god dying on a cross, presumably for the good of everybody out there, absurd.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #358
Is logic good or bad?
If good - still, here's a syllogism:
1) God denies logic.
2) Logic is good.
= God denies good. 
/ Nothing personal./

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #359
The first premise is contentious. How do you support it?

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #360
How do you support it?
Me!??
:left:

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #361
 O'k! :yes: If 'God' doesn't deny logic, then logically - 'He' doesn't exist. :rolleyes:

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #362
Quote
O'k! :yes: If 'God' doesn't deny logic, then logically - 'He' doesn't exist. :rolleyes:

Typical Russian! 'God' is a woman, so it should read 'She' doesn't exist.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #363
Nah, the woman can exist - I don't mind.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #364
"God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we cannot prove the consistency." -- Morris Kline

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #365

'God' is a woman, so it should read 'She'

Reminds me of a joke.

Four Catholic men and a Catholic woman were having coffee.
The first Catholic man tells his friends, "My son is a priest, when he walks into a room, everyone calls him 'Father'."
The second Catholic man chirps, "My son is a Bishop. When he walks into a room people call him 'Your Grace'."
The third Catholic gent says, "My son is a Cardinal.. When he enters a room everyone says 'Your Eminence'."
The fourth Catholic man then says, "My son is the Pope. When he walks into a room people call him 'Your Holiness'."
Since the lone Catholic woman was sipping her coffee in silence, the four men give her a subtle, "Well....?"
She proudly replies, "I have a daughter, slim, tall, 38D breast, 24" waist and 34" hips. When she walks into a room, people say, "Oh My God."

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #366
If the four men were monks and the woman a nun, it would be a funny joke.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #367
If the four men were monks and the woman a nun, it would be a funny joke.

Wrong, it would be an impossible joke.
As it is, is funny and educative.
It shows the delights of Catholicism to everyone (probably but the ice cold, logic-robotic Estonians...) :)
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #368
Impossible jokes are even funnier. Btw, congrats for making it to the hero status, Belfrager.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #369
Let's form the New Avengers squad? :ninja: :wizard: :knight:

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #370
I was forced to turn into an Hero... glad I didn't turn Captain America.
A matter of attitude.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #371
What 'supernatural' powers do you have, an 'ero?:)

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #372
I'm immune to Russian linguists no matter how boring they are. Useful, eh? :)
A matter of attitude.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #373
 :cow:

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Dear Fellow Atheists, STOP Saying Christians Believe God is a Bearded Man in the
Reply #374
This is for Jim, the one with special interest in Christianity:
Quote
So, I'm an atheist blogger and a professional philosopher. So this puts me in the unenviable position of having to deal with ignorant atheists who not only disparage philosophy but disparage sophisticated theology without understanding it. And honestly it makes me wince sometimes. I believe we can do better. We can make better arguments that address Christians' real positions, rather than beat up on straw man versions of their arguments.

And it's important to note that Christians don't believe in such silly and absurd things like that God is a man in the sky with a beard. I used to be a devout Christian and I never thought any such silly thing. God is ineffable. God cannot be material. God cannot, as sophisticated theology and philosophy teaches us, be "a" being at all. God is, rather than ineffable ground of all being or Being Itself. God is that from which all other beings derive their essence and that by which they are instantiated in reality. To call Him merely "a" being would be absurd since that would imply He was just one of the beings rather than that inexplicable, self-existence in which, and through which, all those beings have their being.

This comes from someone who actually knows what he is talking about. Continue reading...