Post: #676

(12-24-2017 05:16 PM)Raylan Givens Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 05:05 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 02:16 AM)xxx Wrote:  Everything that exists follows rules, patterns, and cycles, but who designed these things? Nothing comes out of nowhere.

But then who designed the god? Since nothing comes from nowhere....

If there is room in your belief for "things existing since the beginning of time" then it might as well occam's razor down to matter and the laws of physics.
The introduction of a supernatural creator does not solve the "something from nothing" problem.

Religious people used to think chariots pulled the sun across the sky, and then we learned about orbits and rotation of the Earth etc.
Understanding the laws of physics that are behind the universe's creation are a lot harder than the earth's orbit, but it's no reason to invent a religious explanation.
We should have evolved out of that kind of behavior by now...

How things started or where all this shit comes from is one of the greatest mysteries of the universe.

As apes on a rocky planet we will probably never know the real cause.

I think people of this mindset are short changing our ancestors. I think the myths and lore of our people are a bit more complex than what basically amounts to overgrown children with the mindsets of 6 year olds looking up at the sky and thinking "gee a man is really pulling the sun in a chariot."

In the 5th Century B.C., Anaxagoras was prosecuted for impiety for saying the moon and sun were not divinities. So, yes, they were that simplistic.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/philo...anaxagoras

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anaxagoras

Post: #677

(12-24-2017 10:14 AM)RedPillUK Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 05:44 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Agnostics don't really exist.

Ask them "do you believe god(s) exists" and they have to answer yes and become a deist or no and become an atheist.

"I don't really know" is an answer that all three groups share in common.

"Agnostic" is more of a social position - "I'm too rational to believe in the supernatural, but too polite to suggest you are crazy, so I'll take this fluffy sit on the fence label kthxbi"

I disagree, I don't have to say yes or no. What's wrong with saying "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"? I really have no idea whether God exists or not, and I'm not going to pretend that I know.

The question wasn't "do you know" or "are you sure" - because no one is. We wouldn't even have atheists or theists if everyone knew or was sure. Thats not the question.

The question is "do you have faith?" (despite not knowing or being sure)

You don't have to answer, but it is a question that can only be answered yes or no.

As you do not have faith, you are an atheist.

There is no such thing as an agnostic.

Post: #678

(12-24-2017 05:16 PM)Raylan Givens Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 05:05 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Religious people used to think chariots pulled the sun across the sky, and then we learned about orbits and rotation of the Earth etc.

I think people of this mindset are short changing our ancestors. I think the myths and lore of our people are a bit more complex than what basically amounts to overgrown children with the mindsets of 6 year olds looking up at the sky and thinking "gee a man is really pulling the sun in a chariot."

You are right, out ancestors who imagined these myths to explain unknown natural events (especially scary ones) probably had the mental sophistication of a 6 year old. They had no education, no sum of man's knowledge, no internet and times were tough and they didn't live that long or have too long to dwell on such matters.

In a few thousand years, men will look back on current day religions and spiritual beliefs with some comparisons to 6 year old mentality too...

(some enlightened amongst us here today think that now of the devout :-)

Post: #679

(12-24-2017 05:44 PM)Sherman Wrote:  In the 5th Century B.C., Anaxagoras was prosecuted for impiety for saying the moon and sun were not divinities. So, yes, they were that simplistic.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/philo...anaxagoras

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anaxagoras

Even today, there are religions and nations where you can get in DEEP SHIT for pointing out that this religions stuff, it all sounds a bit silly really.

Post: #680

If the universe has a creator, I don't understand why our choice to believe in a creator or not would be the measure of eternal life.

The concepts are mentally incomprehensible why should it be demanded to "have faith" in something you can't comprehend? I don't blame people for not believing.

Post: #681

(12-24-2017 08:09 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 05:16 PM)Raylan Givens Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 05:05 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Religious people used to think chariots pulled the sun across the sky, and then we learned about orbits and rotation of the Earth etc.

I think people of this mindset are short changing our ancestors. I think the myths and lore of our people are a bit more complex than what basically amounts to overgrown children with the mindsets of 6 year olds looking up at the sky and thinking "gee a man is really pulling the sun in a chariot."

You are right, out ancestors who imagined these myths to explain unknown natural events (especially scary ones) probably had the mental sophistication of a 6 year old. They had no education, no sum of man's knowledge, no internet and times were tough and they didn't live that long or have too long to dwell on such matters.

In a few thousand years, men will look back on current day religions and spiritual beliefs with some comparisons to 6 year old mentality too...

(some enlightened amongst us here today think that now of the devout :-)

Such people couldn't have left records behind. How do you know what was going on in their minds?

Post: #682

^^^^

Also would query the idea that the Internet has made humanity smarter. If anything it's the opposite.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #683

(12-24-2017 08:12 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 05:44 PM)Sherman Wrote:  In the 5th Century B.C., Anaxagoras was prosecuted for impiety for saying the moon and sun were not divinities. So, yes, they were that simplistic.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/philo...anaxagoras

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anaxagoras

Even today, there are religions and nations where you can get in DEEP SHIT for pointing out that this religions stuff, it all sounds a bit silly really.

In other news, we now take as topics for serious discussion quotes from a guy who hasn't been a day sober since he was 18 years old and who makes money off making fun of people and institutions.

Thomas Aquinas summed up the theological situation on blasphemy fairly simply: “[if] we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one's neighbor. On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder does more harm to one's neighbor, than blasphemy does to God.”

If you're talking about the legal position of blasphemy, you are dealing with a state that is not completely secular. That was certainly the position of the Jewish people at the time Leviticus was written, that being the Jewish legal text in which capital punishment was imposed for blasphemy. Jesus, on the other hand, simply forgave the sin of blasphemy (Matthew 9).

The last time anyone was prosecuted under English law for blasphemy was 1977, in which the heinous offender received a 500 pound fine and a suspended sentence, and the publisher a thousand pound sentence. That case was Mary Whitehouse v. Lemon. Whitehouse herself was a figure of fun to the Baby Boomers who she prosecuted, but when you look at her life she was a staunch conservative who was fighting a lot of the very same battles we are now fighting in the West: against degenerate behaviour. Lemon, in an underground paper called Gay News, had published a poem in it envisioning Christ as homosexual.)

The reason for that dwindling number of blasphemy prosecutions, if you read Geoffrey Robertson's book The Justice Game, (or try this interview where he more or less paraphrases that chapter) was because it had come to be recognised that most religions didn't require the criminal sanctions of the state to stand on their own two feet; hence, blasphemy as a criminal offence actually doesn't exist.

Indeed it didn't exist as a crime in 2013, when Gervais made the Twitter remark that is the source of this quote. The criminal offence of blasphemy had been abolished in 2008, five years earlier. Ricky should've kept up with his law report updates, perhaps.

The reason blasphemy comes up in Geoffrey Robertson's book was essentially because, in blasphemy's dying secular throes in the UK, Islam attempted to revive it for the purposes of drawing Salman Rushdie out of hiding. (The interview I've linked to goes into some detail about it.) By writing The Satanic Verses, Rushdie drew down a fatwa on himself from Iran and the "moderate, peaceful" Muslims in the UK decided to bring on a private prosecution for blasphemy against him, in order to bring about a summons to answer a criminal court charge and force Rushdie into the open. It should be pretty obvious why they wanted to do this: basically, in order to carry out the fatwa, to assassinate him either on the way to or from court or by virtue of the fact a person answering a criminal charge generally has to provide their address of residence.

The Court of Appeal which eventually heard the claim neatly sidestepped the issue of whether Rushdie had committed blasphemy in The Satanic Verses by pointing out that the UK's secular crime of blasphemy as written only contemplated blasphemy against Christianity in general and the Church of England in particular (since Catholics had been prosecuted and convicted of blasphemy in the past). Rushdie avoided prosecution for blasphemy, and the whole sordid episode convinced Parliament to abolish the crime once and for all in order to prevent it coming up again.

This, too, is consistent with most Christian jurisdictions around the world, and the co-evolutionary spiral that the West has been in with Christianity for a good four hundred years or more. Islam, as usual, has decided to hang onto the whole thing and, amongst its other idiocies, also has capital punishment for blasphemy (that indeed being the death mark handed to Salman Rushdie and which is still in existence, since the Ayatollah Khomeini's successor continued it.)

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #684

Indo-European mythology, cosmology, and religion (which shares the same root with Hinduism in the P.I.E.R.) is very complex. I don't buy that people are smarter now because of the internet and the modern education complex. I would say the average person is weaker, softer, and dumber than our ancestors. Our ancestors had greater insight into the natural and the "supernatural" world than we do currently.

Post: #685

Our ancestors may have been smarter than us. For example, why were the Ancient Greeks so smart? There seems to be some eugenics going on. The average life span was 40 years allowing for a more rapid turnover of generations, and the Greeks were constantly fighting with each other in wars. If you were dumb or weak, you didn't live very long. And they practiced infanticide.

However, the main difference is today we have scientific knowledge and have eliminated a lot of superstition. Just think of germs which we only recently learned about. Think of living in an ancient society, and an epidemic breaks out and people just start dropping dead. Believing in angry Gods is actually logical. Or think of the argument for God by design. Before evolution, this was actually a good argument, since there was no credible alternative explanation.

Ancient people were smart and did the best the could with their limited knowledge. People today who still follow outdated ancient myths can legitimately be called ignorant because they have no excuse.

Post: #686

(12-25-2017 01:46 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Just think of germs which we only recently learned about. Think of living in an ancient society, and an epidemic breaks out and people just start dropping dead. Believing in angry Gods is actually logical.

LOL. Thucydides' own history of the Peloppenesian War in 400 BC outright said diseases could spread from one infected person to another. Galen, MArcus Terentius Varro, Isidore of Seville, Tommaso del Garbo, Francesco Redi , Anton van Leeuwenhoek, the list goes on. Ancient people weren't quite the cretins you make them out to be.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #687

(12-25-2017 09:02 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  ^^^^

Also would query the idea that the Internet has made humanity smarter. If anything it's the opposite.

Any retard can type in "why does the sun go down" in google and rebuke the wise, devout teachings of the village shaman/priest.

Maybe not smarter then, but less gullible....

Post: #688

(12-25-2017 09:32 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  In other news, we now take as topics for serious discussion quotes from a guy who hasn't been a day sober since he was 18 years old and who makes money off making fun of people and institutions.

He might like a drink, but he is bang on with his witty observation about the obviously human reaction to an insult on a all powerful diety.

I mean the blasphemer is already going to hell, why burn him at the stake and poke his tongue out with red hot irons before hand?

How can anyone seriously claim an all powerful deity who made the universe gets butt-hurt when one of his creations exercises the free will and IQ that baby jesus gave him?

It's really all about human power, and hanging on to it with violence and thought control.

At least we in the west have mostly evolved out of that kind of behavior (and religion in general as they go hand in hand), of course the lingering benefits of religion still "enrich" the lives of the devout in many other less evolved societies.

Post: #689

(12-24-2017 10:57 PM)Laska Wrote:  Such people couldn't have left records behind. How do you know what was going on in their minds?

Personal experience. Thats about the age most kids realise that santa isn't real and that the easter bunny doesn't leave eggs, it's actually mum and dad...

How would you describe the mental age of someone who thinks a chariot pulls the sun across the sky?

Post: #690

(12-24-2017 08:13 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  If the universe has a creator, I don't understand why our choice to believe in a creator or not would be the measure of eternal life.

The concepts are mentally incomprehensible why should it be demanded to "have faith" in something you can't comprehend? I don't blame people for not believing.

The other issue with this belief system is that what about people who never lived in a particular village where a specific religion was invented? Why do they go to hell because they were born in Thailand and got brainwashed into buddhism? How is that fair?

Then there is the time scale factor - you might be born in the right village, but a few thousand years after a religion has died out, giving you no chance to get to whatever afterlife was advertised by said religion.... How is that fair?

And another problem is in today's age, we have access to all the info and good oil on the huge number of religions, deities and advertised afterlives... But how are we supposed to pick "the right one???" the choices are staggering and there is no real evidence to assist us. The odds alone almost guarantee I pick the wrong one, and will never make it to the correct afterlife. How is that fair?

I am not even going to mention the fact that the divine creator gave me IQ and free will, and then if I use those gifts, I get barred from the afterlife... How is that fair?

Post: #691

Focusing on Hell is taking things too literally. That was a stone age fear tactic to keep people in line.

It's not about believing, it's about acting in accordance with a truthful way of life in the image of Logos to make the world a better place and to fight the (((agents of lies))), with (((them))) being the figurative Antichrist, or advocates of degeneracy.

Post: #692

(12-25-2017 07:24 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 01:46 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Just think of germs which we only recently learned about. Think of living in an ancient society, and an epidemic breaks out and people just start dropping dead. Believing in angry Gods is actually logical.

LOL. Thucydides' own history of the Peloppenesian War in 400 BC outright said diseases could spread from one infected person to another. Galen, MArcus Terentius Varro, Isidore of Seville, Tommaso del Garbo, Francesco Redi , Anton van Leeuwenhoek, the list goes on. Ancient people weren't quite the cretins you make them out to be.

Thucydides was the first historian to present history with primarily natural causes as explanations instead of appealing to the gods. Of course they knew epidemics were contagious. But they were sacrificing to the gods during those epidemics. Even as recently as 2017, an evangelical Christian leader blamed hurricane Harvey on LGBT.

Post: #693

God was a very fine metaphor for what men always knew they must eventually become.

Post: #694

(12-24-2017 08:13 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  If the universe has a creator, I don't understand why our choice to believe in a creator or not would be the measure of eternal life.

The concepts are mentally incomprehensible why should it be demanded to "have faith" in something you can't comprehend? I don't blame people for not believing.

The word "pistis" is more theologically accurate if described as faithfulness or trusting God.

It is not mentally having faith or proving mental assent, which is a western concept/bastardization combined with the evolved theology of legalistic concepts of "getting this" if you "do that"

Obviously, those are incorrect teachings, as I detect you've always known.

Knowing God is eternal life

Post: #695

How can we be grateful for eternal life if we don't even know we're eternal though?

My priest did a tour in Iraq, he saw so many dead bodies he broke down and had to go through PTSD and whatnot. I'm like well man, if you believe in eternal life what's the big deal eh?

Despite his decades of study, his visceral reaction is they're dead and gone. It seems people believe we 'carry on' in another realm just to rationalize death.

Post: #696

(02-02-2018 03:42 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  How can we be grateful for eternal life if we don't even know we're eternal though?

My priest did a tour in Iraq, he saw so many dead bodies he broke down and had to go through PTSD and whatnot. I'm like well man, if you believe in eternal life what's the big deal eh?

Despite his decades of study, his visceral reaction is they're dead and gone. It seems people believe we 'carry on' in another realm just to rationalize death.

A thought experiment: suppose you are a chemist and concoct a precise dose of sulphuric acid that you know from decades of empirical and statistical experience will not kill you. You then ingest that dose. Based on your reasoning above, it is now incumbent upon you to wag your (trembling) finger at your body for the (excruciating) pain and (even more excruciating) vomiting that occurs as your body attempts to process a poison that you have every logical reason to believe will not kill you. "Stop working, liver, this isn't going to kill you! Stop heaving, stomach, this isn't a lethal dose!"

Do you also believe a cook with decade of study into culinary matters has no logical justification to get hungry even if he hasn't eaten for seven days?

Or here's another thought exercise, purely hypothetical. Say we take a woman and drug her up so she's utterly unconscious, has no feeling in her lower body. You're present, you watch the doctors do her work, they assure you beyond doubt that she will be feeling nothing. Then we bring in a Syrian cultural enricher and let him have his way with her. We're going to let you watch while it happens. Are you seriously telling me that you have no logical justification to feel any kind of revulsion, no feeling of a need to stop this taking place, no pity, no empathy for the woman whatsoever? You would be really content to just sit there and watch her get raped in her sleep on the rationale that "hey, she's not feeling it?"



Human beings are born with a survival instinct, which has its reflection in our reaction to death and suffering. We are hardwired to become distressed in the face of death, suffering or gore. That's why pro and anti-abortion activists like to wave pictures of dead women and dead babies in our faces, respectively, to make their point. That's something entirely different from knowledge.

To say "Being intellectually aware there is a life beyond this one doesn't make me immune to grief, suffering, or fear of death in this world, therefore that belief is just a rationalisation for there being nothing beyond and there is indeed nothing beyond" is kind of cute, but it also doesn't follow logically from the premise -- if for no other reason than that the body is biological, and of itself does not offer any insight for what is beyond death.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #697

I have the theory that a large percentage of religious people, deep deep down really don't believe in it, and that they know they are not going to "heaven" when they die.

Try as they might to go through the motions and pretend to believe, with all the social and emotional comfort that brings, when the imminent reminder of death appears, the rational mind takes over and feels the real genuine fear of the lurching abyss that awaits us all.

Post: #698

^Just saw a talk by Yuval Harari on why Homo Sapiens conquered the world. People need to collectively believe in fictional stories.

Post: #699

Here is a 30,000 year old cave painting.

   

Once man developed the brain circuitry for language, he had the ability to imagine and make things up. Art requires the ability to imagine something that doesn't exist, create a physical representation and imagine that it could be real. That is all you need for a religion. Likewise, by creating a symbol called "money" and collectively wishing it to be true, it becomes true and serves a useful purpose.

Post: #700

(02-04-2018 06:37 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  I have the theory that a large percentage of religious people, deep deep down really don't believe in it, and that they know they are not going to "heaven" when they die.

Try as they might to go through the motions and pretend to believe, with all the social and emotional comfort that brings, when the imminent reminder of death appears, the rational mind takes over and feels the real genuine fear of the lurching abyss that awaits us all.

The rate at which the sacrament of Extreme Unction, not to mention Holy Communion, is given in hospitals disagrees with this theory. Not to mention that generally speaking there are more religious believers in hospitals than in churches. The fear of death is not rational, as I demonstrated with Disco's post further up. It's an ingrained, irrational response, gifted to us by our biological nature. Exactly how you jump from this irrational response to reading the minds of the majority of religious believers on the verge of death I'm uncertain.

(02-04-2018 11:33 PM)Piankhi Wrote:  ^Just saw a talk by Yuval Harari on why Homo Sapiens conquered the world. People need to collectively believe in fictional stories.

You mean (((Yuval Harari))) who also credits Vipassana meditation -- a religious practice -- with transforming his life? Leaving aside his veganism and his belief that the dairy industry breaks the bond between calves and cows? Or the fact he's openly gay?

Be careful who you let inside your head.

We don't have a need to believe fictional stories. Rather, we are hardwired to use stories as transmission avenues for information worth keeping.

(02-05-2018 01:10 AM)Sherman Wrote:  Once man developed the brain circuitry for language, he had the ability to imagine and make things up. Art requires the ability to imagine something that doesn't exist, create a physical representation and imagine that it could be real. That is all you need for a religion. Likewise, by creating a symbol called "money" and collectively wishing it to be true, it becomes true and serves a useful purpose.

(1) Art doesn't require the ability to imagine something that doesn't exist. Quite the reverse: as your own cave paintings demonstrate, art only requires the ability to make a representation of something that already exists. That is what the cave paintings are: pictures of living things. No unicorns on the walls, no chimaeras, no hydra.

(2) By the way, that cave painting is from the Cave of El Castillo. It's said to have been created by Neanderthals, not homo sapiens.

(3) Money does not exist by creation of a symbol and collectively wishing it to be true. Money is a technology for the store and exchange of value. It rests on the existence of trust between the at least two individuals who agree to use it as such.

You need considerably more than this for a religion.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm