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

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #150
I think Josh was reacting to ersi's emark, not mine. That happens sometimes in the way quotes are displayed, it can be misleading.

It's a bit of a bug really, but a fix is not quite self-evident.

  • string
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Forum Staff
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #151
My additional comments in RED.



So to some extent we are at cross purposes here. But it is an interesting consequence of your concept of an aloof God that it rather rubbishes the idea of any religion based on its own conception of God. No religion is correct (because correctness is not a human prerogative), nor is it important which one is followed, nor does it matter anyway because "God" will continue to ignore what is done. To assign consequences to acts one needs to enter into religions again, which is a futile act because none can ever be correct.

Isn't it a little bit too fatalistic to conclude that none can ever be correct? As long as you have energy to continue the quest for truth, your conclusion that all is futile is not completely sincere.
Perhaps I should have written that more clearly: I was pointing out that, from your argumentation and concept of "God", Mankinds' thoughts cannot be correct in the sense that they do not coincide with "God's" and even if, by chance they had some things "right" they would never be perfect, because perfection is reserved for HIM UP THERE. That would be true of all religions ergo they are all a waste of time  (except as a Hobby) and not to be taken seriously.


We've clashed over the matter of evidence for God, or rather the lack of it, and the answer always amounts to "don't expect physical proof, the proof lies in properly applied reasoning and my reasoning is better than yours, therefore there is a God". I'm sorry but that remains not very convincing.
The point is not to convince anyone to accept any particular persuasion. The point is mere demonstration of reasoning, rationality, intellect, that's it. It's for show. The fact that, to demonstrate reasoning, one needs a thesis to defend, or an opposing motion to go against, is secondary. The show itself is the main thing.

It's a form of bravery to participate in such public displays, because you are making your intellect vulnerable to attacks. Yet it's all perfectly worth while because your intellect gets training in the process. I suppose materialists would say that brain muscle also needs training like any other muscle, and I'd have to agree, even though I'd clash with them on the notion that intellect is as if a physical muscle. Either way, fitness is not a too terrible idea. Intellect is a live thing and needs exercise.

The point is this: Assuming that rationality and irrationality are distinct and not of the same value,there's a need to distinguish between them and choose your preference. Either you side with rationality or irrationality. Having picked your side, live with your choice the rest of your life and be happy.

Please don't think that I am trying to push you either way, but I personally happen to care for rationality a lot. I don't care much which side you choose, but whenever I encounter people in my life, I evaluate them on the scale of rationality and irrationality and I enquire if they made an informed choice in this area. This is my version of the so-called Socratic method.

You can choose either side, but it matters to make an informed choice, right? And then you can follow your own path. You don't have to listen to others any more, because you know perfectly well for yourself where you are going. Rather, when other people ask about it, you will be able to explain yourself. Which is generally good for getting along with people.[/i]
Putting out a theory for discussion and refutation - great, but you seem to be claiming that you are the only person with a rational opinion? Tell me you did not mean that please!

But, as an agnostic myself (with, I admit, atheist leanings) I am comfortable with the idea of positing alternative God Concepts and exploring what it would mean, as long the result is not put forward as "THE TRUTH", the same as in all those defunct Religions.

The same way as in science, in the end you select the most workable theory. Even if not the absolute truth itself, it shall serve you as the best guideline you honestly managed to muster.
Ah! Here we have, perhaps some common ground in that you refer to your opinion as a theory. Workable? --- maybe, but at least that is discussable. This argument is mostly about your insistence that all others are wrong and have opinions resulting from a lack of ... (there's a rather long list).


Religion has been responsible (and still is) for all kind of atrocities and wasted lives. Reason enough I would think.

Yes, I know. It's tough. Still, my immediate ancestors experienced the regimes of Stalin and Lenin. Reason enough to think about atheism too. Think well.
That's not exactly refuting what I wrote. Josh has picked that up too. Mankind has unpleasant traits according to what we judge him by, and it's not just religion which focusses that.


So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.
I suspect you may be thinking of theology; Philosophy is derived from the Greek Philosophia, love of Wisdom.

Not that theology is the private playground of anyone either.

I meant precisely philosophy, Love of Wisdom. Theology is one of the carousels or such in the playground of philosophy, not for beginners.

Science (Latin: knowledge) is the mass of data to make sense of. Maybe think of it as sand in the sandbox. Kids try it out with their little buckets to give it nice shapes. Otherwise it's formless, senseless, purposeless.



On the Philosophy thing. Again, and still, you try to reserve some assumed holy sanctum of special interest as the only place where legitimate human thought can take place. Philosophy can occur in all places, from the peasant farmer to the most reclusive guru hidden away in some ivory tower. Everyone has their thoughts of value and are not to be sneered at because they don't fit some sort of self-seeking definition.  In such a restricted, or closed definition of Philosophy you think rigour, and if you think rigour you think rules and if you think rules you think into existence a mental straight-jacket which prevents the free thinking needed for innovation. Not that I am against structure in thinking, merely pointing out that a closed shop (as in ... I am a philosopher and you are not and don't bother me) is a closed mind.

By the way, I am a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and I'm an Engineer. While that may still mean I'm as thick as a plank of wood I don't equate my poor mental efforts with playing in a sandbox, nor ascribe that put-down to other people, or at least not routinely!

  • string
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Forum Staff
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #152
I'd like to try and change the subject, surely we've had enough of this. Reply if you like ersi but let's move on.

I'm interested to know how you approach the question that comes up frequently, that of creation. Leaving aside the creation theories that it all started a few thousand years ago, discussion on this normally goes back to the Big Bang when the Universe is theorised to have started, and the question of what happened before the Big Bang.

The religious answer to that is normally that God is the answer.

On that one can argue that the concept of a before and after is essentially anthropomorphic and that there is no clear certainty that before or after, or beginning and end, have absolute meaning and that this can apply to both the concept of a God ( because God is "outside time and space") somewhat akin, I think, to your concept) and to the Universe itself.

What are your thoughts on that ersi?

Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #153
I'm not Ersi and am no expert on gods, and have only questions.

What did god do before the Big Bang? I suppose that's not in the Bible.

Was he busy elsewhere? Was there an elsewhere? Was Katsung47 there? And if so, did god try to kill him?

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #154
Well, if you put it like that. I'm not sure if I agree that the implosion should be so disastrous in the specific context, but I might be wrong. In any case, both approaches are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Some people might respond better to Harris' approach, others to yours.

To expand slightly on that, I think that in the video Harris was chiseling a little crack in the structure of the world view, so that a tiny drop of questioning water might seep into it. In time this would hopefully cause further erosion, and eventually the structure should come tumbling down or require renovations.

You essentially argue it's a horrible approach because it didn't use explosives to demolish the structure instantaneously, nor did it replace it with a prefab building. In my view, that would actually be far worse. You'd probably be unsuccessful, but if you were then you'd run the risk of quite literally indeed replacing the building, and while I think replacing most forms of Christianity with whatever Harris likes might well be for the better, it would not solve the fundamental problem. In short, I think Harris is trying this approach in order to make people think more critically, regardless whether they'll end up agreeing with him or not.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #155
By the way, I am a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and I'm an Engineer.

I didn't know that! Nice.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Problem with Religion
Reply #156
I hope not. He was known for having a life of vice before entering monastery... (therefore the importance of the questions he got an answer, such has why not doing something if it gives us pleasure... )

I wonder, to what extent could people without such life experiences understand their acquired wisdom without having gone through something similar themselves?

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #157

Perhaps I should have written that more clearly: I was pointing out that, from your argumentation and concept of "God", Mankinds' thoughts cannot be correct in the sense that they do not coincide with "God's" and even if, by chance they had some things "right" they would never be perfect, because perfection is reserved for HIM UP THERE. That would be true of all religions ergo they are all a waste of time  (except as a Hobby) and not to be taken seriously.

Please write even more clearly how you see these things follow from what I have written. I'm confident that, as a PhD, you can pull it off handily.


Ah! Here we have, perhaps some common ground in that you refer to your opinion as a theory. Workable? --- maybe, but at least that is discussable. This argument is mostly about your insistence that all others are wrong and have opinions resulting from a lack of ... (there's a rather long list).
The seemingly long list is actually variations on one single theme: lack of methodical thought, lack of logical proof, lack of coherence. And if you paid attention, I always demonstrate the case, whenever asked to do it. I do not issue judgements lightly. If right and wrong exist, it's merely natural that we talk about them.


That's not exactly refuting what I wrote. Josh has picked that up too.

Why would I refute facts? Facts are facts. We all must live with facts. If you are smart, you make sense of facts. Only ignoramuses try to refute them.


On the Philosophy thing. Again, and still, you try to reserve some assumed holy sanctum of special interest as the only place where legitimate human thought can take place. Philosophy can occur in all places, from the peasant farmer to the most reclusive guru hidden away in some ivory tower. Everyone has their thoughts of value and are not to be sneered at because they don't fit some sort of self-seeking definition.

So you have your own view what philosophy is and should be. It's okay. So do I.

According to my view, philosophy is pure logic, to be exercised with the faculty of human intellect, distinct from emotions and instincts, the same way as a full argument complete with premises and conclusions is distinct from a bare assertion, a coherent concept system is distinct from a self-contradictory one, etc.

Now, this doesn't mean at all that philosophy is an esoteric closed system reserved to some select few. Everybody has intellect, so everybody can do philosophy. Even a child can make adequate use of the philosophical tools all of a sudden. However, it's better to use philosophy consistently rather than randomly, right? So, a conscious philosopher qualifies better than an accidental one. A conscious philosopher can train himself to master the tools creatively. The levels of training of the intellect vary from person to person. Philosophy is available for everyone, but there are levels of mastery. Just like every person can punch and kick, but not everyone can do it well. And there's just one Bruce Lee. Or maybe you prefer Chuck Norris. All I'm saying is that there are important distinctions between some guy on the street and those two.

This is just an example, my example. There are other philosophies too. For example, instead of intellect, Frenzie's philosophy seems to revolve around "clever gut" even though I know for sure he is mostly speaking from sharp intellect. It's just that he is a materialist so he is bound by the authorities to beautify the lower faculties more, even contrary to his own self-knowledge.

The same way, as a demonstration, please give an exposition of your own philosophy. Or tell more what you think philosophy should be. It's all about sharing and comparing.

I noticed that you asked me about creation. I will answer in a few days. But right now, for a change, I seriously think it's your turn to build a thesis.


By the way, I am a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and I'm an Engineer. While that may still mean I'm as thick as a plank of wood I don't equate my poor mental efforts with playing in a sandbox, nor ascribe that put-down to other people, or at least not routinely!

I am a philologist. I used the metaphor of kids in sandbox very consciously and I stand by it. It can easily be elaborated into a full workable allegory. The kids are all over the playground, not just in the sandbox. They represent humankind. You get the picture, it's simple enough.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #158
This is just an example, my example. There are other philosophies too. For example, instead of intellect, Frenzie's philosophy seems to revolve around "clever gut" even though I know for sure he is mostly speaking from sharp intellect. It's just that he is a materialist so he is bound by the authorities to beautify the lower faculties more, even contrary to his own self-knowledge.

That is not what I was trying to convey. These higher faculties would not exist without the lower ones. They build on them, reuse them, remix them, and are more than the sum of their parts. From my perspective, your interpretation of my words is similar to saying a plane can't fly. A wing can't fly; a body can't fly. How then could a plane fly? I'm not saying a plane can't fly. I'm saying a plane can't fly without wings. There is no consciousness, no self, without feelings.

  • tt92
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #159
I wouldn't care one way or another about religion, except that there are millions of wild-eyed, bearded savages who believe their religion entitles them to murder me because of my attitude to their religion.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #160
Why has the thread's tittle changed?
A matter of attitude.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #161
Somebody's pooped on it.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #162
Somebody's pooped on it.

Probably you. No reason for change a thread's tittle, you poop in all threads.
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #163
We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

And yet the "believers" do things like pass laws make it legal to discriminate based on religion, like they just did in Arizona. You have it a little backwards. The heat certain types of Christians feel is blowback from the shit they do.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #164

Somebody's pooped on it.

Probably you. No reason for change a thread's tittle, you poop in all threads.

He's like an undercover Putin eh?  :lol:

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #165
And there's just one Bruce Lee. Or maybe you prefer Chuck Norris. All I'm saying is that there are important distinctions between some guy on the street and those two.


Your analogies, like your philosophy, only go in the direction you want. Belief isn't methodical that's only the guise portrayed. True of most great philosophers and scientists is that their beliefs have often led them down roads not openly covered with their other materials in history books. That you say there is just only one <great fighter> yet name two outlines the basis of your flawed logic. How far into deduction will go to determine who is the best? Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy have produced much different results culturally but vary across subjects they can agree are human. Tho keep in mind any one human can't fulfill all the attributes for humanity. There are your truths. Hidden in the flotsam of other "methodical" findings that amount to little more than deduction with a heavy dose of bias. The task then, when venturing out on your own journey, is to prove your venture has worth without the luxury of previous handlers and been tried methods. Pretending philosophy is a purely logical stint on reality isn't a good start.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #166

Why has the thread's tittle changed?

Blame it on a whim. I explained it in the OP. ;)

  • string
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Forum Staff
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #167
The same way, as a demonstration, please give an exposition of your own philosophy. Or tell more what you think philosophy should be. It's all about sharing and comparing.I noticed that you asked me about creation. I will answer in a few days. But right now, for a change, I seriously think it's your turn to build a thesis.
I don't have quite the same egocentric approach as some. As I said I've had enough of this and besides your post simply reinforced my remarks so more is not needed.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #168
Arguing about religion is akin to arguing about politics. No minds are ever changed.

  • Macallan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #169

We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

And yet the "believers" do things like pass laws make it legal to discriminate based on religion, like they just did in Arizona. You have it a little backwards. The heat certain types of Christians feel is blowback from the shit they do.

Or, to be fair, in some case from shit that others do in their name.
Poor believers, being forced to acknowledge the fact that unbelievers exist and (these days) have (almost) the same rights as they do. Loss of privilege is such horrible, horrible oppression.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #170
Or, to be fair, in some case from shit that others do in their name.
Poor believers, being forced to acknowledge the fact that unbelievers exist and (these days) have (almost) the same rights as they do. Loss of privilege is such horrible, horrible oppression.

A business that actually uses this chance to discriminate is likely one that wouldn't last. Who really thinks it's good business practice to discriminate against race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc in 2014? The wording the Arizona law is just that broad. It might be a form of social evolution at work; let them try and shake our heads and remind them of our warnings as they close the doors for last time.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #171
Ersi , i thought you understand Buddhism well .

" in Buddhism , there is no ~ i ~ "

Om nom nom nom ....


Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #172
Loss of privilege is such horrible, horrible oppression.


  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #173

I hope not. He was known for having a life of vice before entering monastery... (therefore the importance of the questions he got an answer, such has why not doing something if it gives us pleasure... )

I wonder, to what extent could people without such life experiences understand their acquired wisdom without having gone through something similar themselves?

How can an atheist speak about God? Ohh but they speak a lot...

A matter of attitude.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #174
Now, this doesn't mean at all that philosophy is an esoteric closed system reserved to some select few. Everybody has intellect, so everybody can do philosophy.

In proportion to their intellects.
A matter of attitude.