Post: #176

(09-06-2013 03:19 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Nature has two goals for humans: survivability and reproduction. Religious people have more children than atheists (many studies have been done on this)
So far
. From the standpoint of nature, religion is an evolutionary benefit that does a better job at continuing the human species. Whether you believe or not, whether you think religion is rational or not, it has helped perpetuate the human race.

It has also helped to execute a lot of the human race

Many of us exist today due to religion's cultural pressure on causing your grandparents or parents to marry and procreate.

If I was given a kingdom to rule, I would promote religion to ensure it's longevity.

I think feminists would do the selfish thing as well to preserve their power

Post: #177

This thread needs more Aliblabla.

Post: #178

Religion is just another tool.
This good or bad spin is dumb. It's like saying a knife or gun is evil.

On another note, many atheists seem to be almost religious in their fervour. The fact that they don't believe one thing, somehow instantly makes them smarter or better. Many of them think that removing religion will somehow make the world a better place.

Post: #179

(09-05-2013 06:32 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  You're not understanding it because you're processing what I'm saying through your logic complex without any reference point in your experiences to relate. We're all able to distinguish different emotions. We know the difference between sadness, happiness, anger, boredom, excitement. A spiritual experience is often emotional for the first time; with ensuing feelings of bliss and ecstacy, but on repeat visits to "that place" the experiencer is able to move beyond the primary emotions and go through something that's much deeper and profound. It's an experience beyond simple "feelings".

Using your reasoning, I could say the same thing about nearly anything. Just because you see something, doesn't make it real. Just because you hear something, doesn't make it real.

Our experience as living beings is dependent on our ability to sense. Our realities are built upon the sensory. But at the end of all of it, it's as simple as reasoning that all experiences are subject to question given the subjective nature of the thing.

What are humans? We're just little fixed points of consciousness. Little flashlights moving through a sea of space, bumping into each other and having our own unique experiences. There is no concrete reality; only what we perceive as reality. You can call my spiritual religious experience a farce, just like I can call your daily waking life a farce. Neither matters. I can sit someone down and guide them through a meditation (and have) and give them a fairly profound experience (and have). You can call that "just feelings" too, because you're not the one experiencing it.

I've had spiritual experiences, mostly by practising Inner Smile, but also spontaneous ones. I'm still 95% Atheist. Just because my mind experiences something it cannot explain and is filled with wonder, does not automatically mean I have to resort to mystical explanations. I certainly cannot prove that God doesn't exist, but I go on the balance of probabilities.

You seem to want to have it both ways: the limited subjectiveness of our experience is being used as evidence that there is no real world out there, and yet it is also being used as evidence that there is something mystical, beyond our comprehension. The first is a non-sequitur; just because our senses and minds interpret the world for us in no way proves that there isn't solid reality outside of our experiences of it. The fact that you can guide someone's mind in meditation to experience something other-worldy in no way proves that something external to that mind caused the experience.

Religion and spirituality are both comforts against a harsh, uncaring universe. The latter is simply less prescriptive and normative than the former. If I had been designing a system of social control in the past, some kind of religion would probably have been necessary (though technology will soon supplant it, but that's another matter). Even Communism was a kind of pseudo-religion.

I agree with Roosh that the religious have probably outbred the non-religious and therefore religious belief is evolutionarily adaptive. If you want a stable, obedient, fearful, manipulable population then religion is a great tool. But is that what red pill is about? Hardly.

Post: #180

Quote:W. T. Root, professor of
psychology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said
"Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding
that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are absent from
penitentiariers or nearly so.

Doesn't get much more red pill than that fellas!

Post: #181

Quote:I agree with Roosh that the religious have probably outbred the non-religious and therefore religious belief is evolutionarily adaptive. If you want a stable, obedient, fearful, manipulable population then religion is a great tool. But is that what red pill is about? Hardly.

Red-pill is just a euphumism for skepiticism and truth. If something is true, then it is the truth. If something questions dogma, it is skepticism. Truth cannot be dogma.

The truth is that there has never been a long-lasting society that was not a patriarchy. For example, Sparta gave power to it's women, and Sparta died.

The truth is that there has never been a long-lasting society that was atheist. The reason? It's because atheists think like this:

jaakkeli Wrote:Who cares, I'll be dead when that happens.

Sweeden is already an extinct society. In 300 years from now it is guarenteed that Sweeden does not exist.

But in 300 years from now Christians will still exist. Jews will still exist, and Muslims will still exist. Sweeden will be gone. France will be gone. Every country today that is majority atheist will be dead.

On the other hand, the religious are always thinking in the long-term, always caring about how their actions will affect others, because that is what God has taught them to do. It is a fact that religious conservatives donate more of their personal money than atheist liberals. The Bilble says, "Love thy Neighbor," while Atheists say, "Fuck you, I'm in it for me."

Thus the truth appears that religions are necessary for a societies survival, which means relgiions are red-pill (because it is part of the truth). Atheism is a death cult, just like feminism.

Post: #182

(09-06-2013 05:43 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

Quote:W. T. Root, professor of
psychology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said
"Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding
that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are absent from
penitentiariers or nearly so.

Doesn't get much more red pill than that fellas!

The aethists and agnostics are already leaving America. They are not breeding, so when they die they will take their beliefs with them.

The fact is, Atheism is one of the major indicators of a decadent, dying culture.

Post: #183

So all you'll be left with is a less intelligent populace then. Also, that "indication of a dying culture" thing isn't really true. Japan has been atheist for a long, long time and it is still a wildly successful country. It's been spiritual, but not God-fearing by an stretch of the word.

Post: #184

(09-06-2013 05:57 AM)Teedub Wrote:  So all you'll be left with is a less intelligent populace then. Also, that "indication of a dying culture" thing isn't really true. Japan has been atheist for a long, long time and it is still a wildly successful country. It's been spiritual, but not God-fearing by an stretch of the word.

Japan is another one of those countries that will not exist in 300 years.

None of our science today is impressive. It will also all be forgotten in 300 years, just like the science of 300 years ago has been.

Post: #185

(09-06-2013 05:49 AM)Samseau Wrote:  The truth is that there has never been a long-lasting society that was atheist. The reason? It's because atheists think like this:

jaakkeli Wrote:Who cares, I'll be dead when that happens.

Sweeden is already an extinct society. In 300 years from now it is guarenteed that Sweeden does not exist.

But in 300 years from now Christians will still exist. Jews will still exist, and Muslims will still exist. Sweeden will be gone. France will be gone. Every country today that is majority atheist will be dead.

On the other hand, the religious are always thinking in the long-term, always caring about how their actions will affect others, because that is what God has taught them to do. It is a fact that religious conservatives donate more of their personal money than atheist liberals. The Bilble says, "Love thy Neighbor," while Atheists say, "Fuck you, I'm in it for me."

1) I don't think "I'll be dead anyway".
2) America is the most "Fuck you, I'm in it for me" country in the world, it is also the most religious of the developed countries. I'm not saying there is any correlation, but just that your statements don't hold true.

Finally, in 300 years no country as we know it will exist as there will either be some world government or just endless wars between megastates like in 1984.

Samseau, are you actually religious then, or just playing devil's advocate? People have asked a few times and unless I missed it, you haven't actually answered?

Post: #186

(09-06-2013 05:53 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:43 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

Quote:W. T. Root, professor of
psychology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said
"Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding
that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are absent from
penitentiariers or nearly so.

Doesn't get much more red pill than that fellas!

The aethists and agnostics are already leaving America. They are not breeding, so when they die they will take their beliefs with them.

The fact is, Atheism is one of the major indicators of a decadent, dying culture.

That sounds more like an opinion than a fact.

And it might be true if religion were directly related to some genetic trait. However, just because parents are religous, it does not mean their children are going to be religous. People do not pass down their lifestyle directly to their children. If that were the case America would be full of people wearing black hats and buckles on their shoes. Some people grow up to be just like their parents and some people reject everything their parents believed. Most people did some middle ground, so that beliefs change slightly with every generation.

Religion has become less important, because the amount of things that we can understand and explain without religion is increasing. The problem with much religious dogma is that it is too rigid to accommodate some very obvious truths. As a result you get idiots talking about how Jesus must have walked with the dinosaurs.

I've got no real problem with religion (although I have lots of little problems with various aspects of religious dogma), but let's be honest and admit that what you guys are advocating is an external means of controlling the population. How is that red pill?

I think of religion like I think of government. My personal utopia would be a state of anarchy, because people would have evolved pass the point of needing government to tell them how to live. I realize that's not possible right now, so I accept a limited role for government. I'm not an anarchist and I'm not an atheist, but I want neither an authoritarian government nor a dogmatic religion to tell me what to do.

Post: #187

(09-06-2013 06:10 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:57 AM)Teedub Wrote:  So all you'll be left with is a less intelligent populace then. Also, that "indication of a dying culture" thing isn't really true. Japan has been atheist for a long, long time and it is still a wildly successful country. It's been spiritual, but not God-fearing by an stretch of the word.

Japan is another one of those countries that will not exist in 300 years.

None of our science today is impressive. It will also all be forgotten in 300 years, just like the science of 300 years ago has been.

You really think religious countries (religious today) will still be around in 300 years just because they're religious?! That's ludicrous. You think Somalia will be some kind of world power? In 300 years the level of artifical intelliegence and technology in general will have resigned the religions we know of today to a nothingness, save for a few fringe groups on the outskirts of society. When everyone else is being fitted with new organs and whatnot and living much longer and healthier lives they'll be the ones preaching about end times like they've been doing for god knows how long (pun intended).

Not saying Transhumanism and all that stuff is good, or ethically right etc by the way. There is something rather horrid about it all. However that's from a humanist standpoint, not a religious one.

Anyway, I'm pretty tired of this thread. I've said my piece several times. It's a shame that in America, one has to proscribe to one side. I'm probably a paleoconservative when it comes to things like race relations, political correctness etc... But a pinko commie lefty when it comes to religion!

Post: #188

By the way, the idea that religious belief is superior because it can outlive or outbreed non-religious beliefs is not only suspect on truth grounds, but also suspect on the ideology behind it. The cockroach will probably still be a viable species long after homo sapiens have vanished from the universe. Does that mean that cockroaches are a higher life form?

Post: #189

(09-06-2013 06:29 AM)j r Wrote:  The cockroach will probably still be a viable species long after homo sapiens have vanished from the universe. Does that mean that cockroaches are a higher life form?

In some ways, absolutely. There is probably no greater indication of value than being able to stand the test of time.

If humans cannot survive as a species because they are too busy choosing extinction (via shit like hedonism or war) then they cannot be said to be superior in any meaningful sense.

Post: #190

Dumb people outbreed intelligent people.

If I was to have a kingdom I would ensure everyone was dumb.

Post: #191

(09-06-2013 06:31 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 06:29 AM)j r Wrote:  The cockroach will probably still be a viable species long after homo sapiens have vanished from the universe. Does that mean that cockroaches are a higher life form?

In some ways, absolutely. There is probably no greater indication of value than being able to stand the test of time.

If humans cannot survive as a species because they are too busy choosing extinction (via shit like hedonism or war) then they cannot be said to be superior in any meaningful sense.

I care more about happiness and personal success (not hedonism) than I care about superiority. Sure, you can motivate lots of people by using faery tales and scary stories, but none of that interests me.

There is a certain place for religion in my own personal understanding of the universe, so I don't really relate to atheism. I have a conception of the totality of the universe that some people refer to as God. It occurs to me, however, that many religious people don't actually believe in the big G God. They believe in a personified being that hands down a bunch of laws and keeps track of who has been good and who hasn't in a big book. That's a small g god. That's Santa Claus.

The idea of religion as a means to control and direct the population is the very definition of blue pill.

Post: #192

   



   



   



   



   

Post: #193

(09-06-2013 06:10 AM)Samseau Wrote:  None of our science today is impressive. It will also all be forgotten in 300 years, just like the science of 300 years ago has been.

Are you serious???

Will you not be impressed when your doc prescribes you a life-saving medicine rather than your having to rely on a witch-doctor? You would rather die of 'consumption' than take an antibiotic, perhaps?

I suggest you throw your 'unimpressive' computer in a skip and send in your future posts by carrier pigeon.

Post: #194

(09-06-2013 06:17 AM)j r Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:53 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:43 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

Quote:W. T. Root, professor of
psychology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said
"Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding
that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are absent from
penitentiariers or nearly so.

Doesn't get much more red pill than that fellas!

The aethists and agnostics are already leaving America. They are not breeding, so when they die they will take their beliefs with them.

The fact is, Atheism is one of the major indicators of a decadent, dying culture.

That sounds more like an opinion than a fact.

Name a successful atheist culture?

Quote:And it might be true if religion were directly related to some genetic trait. However, just because parents are religous, it does not mean their children are going to be religous. People do not pass down their lifestyle directly to their children. If that were the case America would be full of people wearing black hats and buckles on their shoes. Some people grow up to be just like their parents and some people reject everything their parents believed. Most people did some middle ground, so that beliefs change slightly with every generation.

Irrelevant if not all children share their parents beliefs. Even if only 10% of a religious man's children become followers of his faith, it's still more than the 0 children atheists have.

Quote:Religion has become less important, because the amount of things that we can understand and explain without religion is increasing. The problem with much religious dogma is that it is too rigid to accommodate some very obvious truths. As a result you get idiots talking about how Jesus must have walked with the dinosaurs.

This is strawman. No intelligent Christians believe in any of that shit or disregard science.

The fact is, and again I don't know why so many people on this board willfully deny what is common historical knowledge, that the vast majority of famous scientists:

- Were all Christians
- Followed the dictim, "The truth will set you free," and that the truth is contained within the reason of man and the word of his prophets

Science would not exist had the religious (First Christians, then Jews, then Islamic) not preserved the works of the Ancients (The Greeks and The Romans) which fueled the Reniassance.

Quote:I've got no real problem with religion (although I have lots of little problems with various aspects of religious dogma), but let's be honest and admit that what you guys are advocating is an external means of controlling the population. How is that red pill?

Just as red-pill as advocating external control of women.

Quote:I think of religion like I think of government. My personal utopia would be a state of anarchy, because people would have evolved pass the point of needing government to tell them how to live. I realize that's not possible right now, so I accept a limited role for government. I'm not an anarchist and I'm not an atheist, but I want neither an authoritarian government nor a dogmatic religion to tell me what to do.

Your utopia is called a utopia for a reason. Men will always need governments and they will always need religions.

Post: #195

(09-06-2013 07:36 AM)Acute Angle Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 06:10 AM)Samseau Wrote:  None of our science today is impressive. It will also all be forgotten in 300 years, just like the science of 300 years ago has been.

Are you serious???

Will you not be impressed when your doc prescribes you a life-saving medicine rather than your having to rely on a witch-doctor? You would rather die of 'consumption' than take an antibiotic, perhaps?

I suggest you throw your 'unimpressive' computer in a skip and send in your future posts by carrier pigeon.

In 300 years from now barely anyone will know what a computer is, or an antibiotic.

Post: #196

(09-06-2013 08:07 AM)Samseau Wrote:  In 300 years from now barely anyone will know what a computer is, or an antibiotic.

Yeah, just like that printing press gizmo - what a flash in the pan that was!

Post: #197

(09-05-2013 09:05 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  

Don't come to pray in my school and I'll not go think inside your church.

It is out of discussion that the most successful societies are the most religious ones, understanding by successful not the wellfare of their individuals or the technological development but the basic biological goals of self-conservation, spreading in terms of territory and figure and a continuity in time by passing heritage over to the next generations in a sustainable way. The stronger and more solid the system of beliefs the biggest the achievement of the society. At the same time, whenever there is a crisis of believe and the old the religious basements of the nation tremble and it's usually whiped by a community with stronger religious system. Take for instance the christian asimilation of Vikings or the Roman Empire itself or the islamic conquest of Persia leaving zoroastrism as a living fossil nowadays.

It's indeed a paradox that the more secular and advanced the society and the highest the living standard of their members (health, material wealth, hedonism) the weaker it becomes, the more it seems to encourage the disgenics because while the most inteligent and those with a better socio-economical situation refuse to have children in a lemming-like genetical and cultural suicide. Just like a bee or an ant decided to go her own way, ignore the colony, eat when hungry, relax... sometimes religion is like the instinctive force that keep society together.

Post: #198

What's the point in living in a hell hole that's religious and without medicine?

Just look at Somalia or some Central American banana republic....almost no gubbmint, plenty of religion and poverty.

Teedub and I have mentioned this a few times.....RVF members who support religion because of it's "family values" and "gender roles". So guys, do you know that religion ALSO PROMOTES marriage, sex until marriage, and admonishes promiscuity along with adultery? So guys....please endear us on how religious you are or want to promote it despite racking notches and having no desire to get married.

Cherry picking at its finest. Values are declining because modern-day Christians just pick what they like and forget about the whole package.

Post: #199

What does El Mechanico have to say about this?

Post: #200

(09-06-2013 08:05 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 06:17 AM)j r Wrote:  I've got no real problem with religion (although I have lots of little problems with various aspects of religious dogma), but let's be honest and admit that what you guys are advocating is an external means of controlling the population. How is that red pill?

Just as red-pill as advocating external control of women.

I don't advocate for external control of women (nor do I advocate for radical feminism). I advocate for individual men learning the truth of human nature and social dynamics to have successful relationships and good interactions with women.

I don't advocate for government control (nor do I advocate for anarchism). I advocate for individual citizens understanding how their governmentt really works and acting accordingly.

I don't advocate for religion (not do I advocate for atheism). I advocate for individuals undertaking serious study and introspection to come to an understanding of the universe that leads them down the path of happiness and virtue.

If you can accomplish all this with old school patriarchal views, authoritarian government and dogmatic religion, more power. I have no beef with that. It's just not for me.