[HoosierDaddy]

Cougar;357140 said:

I'm not trying to insult you Draconus and Krul but the idea you are showing is what has kept man clinging to religion even though he knows it is not rational. When Nitesche said god is dead he was right but there are caves where his shadow will linger for generations to come. Rational man has rejected the need for a god but our animalistic fear of the unknown, our deep desire for purpose in a universe occuring entirely by chance makes us hang desperately on to the idea of god.

I'm sure I am not the only 99% atheist 1% agnostic that when things start going horribly wrong I'll pray. Even though I don't think it will help and don't really believe, I'll still pray. Makes me a hypocrite and I recognize that. Very rarely happens but when I'm afraid something bad might have happened to someone I really love then I'd be willing to lose rationality if it'd help.

[Illuyankas]

So what if you spend the time you need to fix or help reduce the problem by thinking rationally in prayer?

[HoosierDaddy]

Illuyankas;357153 said:

So what if you spend the time you need to fix or help reduce the problem by thinking rationally in prayer?

Oh, it's not practiced. I do it only in times of crisis, briefly just in case, and then do what I need to do.

Just re-read that and it made more sense: Using prayer as a form of problem-solving planning system would seem practical, but in my opinion (and I'm by no means an expert here) would undercut the entire purpose of the prayer.

[Cold Iron]

I think he meant what if you waste your window of opportunity to change the situation just praying instead of doing something more useful. But to that I say sometimes there's nothing more you can do.

Cougar;357140 said:

I'm not trying to insult you Draconus and Krul but the idea you are showing is what has kept man clinging to religion even though he knows it is not rational. When Nitesche said god is dead he was right but there are caves where his shadow will linger for generations to come. Rational man has rejected the need for a god but our animalistic fear of the unknown, our deep desire for purpose in a universe occuring entirely by chance makes us hang desperately on to the idea of god.

You want to simultaneously raise humans above animals and reject religion? How does that work?

[stone monkey]

@ Cold Iron -Well, we are animals...and then we're also not.

Human beings are the only ones (that we know of, obviously) that can and do ask the questions we ask. We're the only ones that seek to attach meaning to the world around us and our place in it. That makes us different from the other animals.

But at the same time we're also made of the same basic stuff as them. The processes that allow our bodies - and hence our minds - to function are the same or similar to the one that allow theirs to function. We have arrived at where we are (discounting cultural stuff, naturally) by the same general processes that were involved at getting them to where they are. So therefore we're also the same as them.

We're the same, but different. I don't see religious belief having any part in the appreciation of this. I can't see why it would have to.

@ Hoosier Daddy (Nice name btw) -
That's a critique a lot of religious types like to level at atheists (the "there are no atheists in foxholes" argument) i.e. When it comes to the crunch belief in God is always going to be there, so it must be true. Now I would argue that, as humans have a tendency to fall apart at stressful times, the reversion to belief that some avowed atheists appear to have (not done it yet myself, although it's been quite a while since someone pointed a gun at me) is merely a flight from the rational brought on by that stress. I also would argue that this flight from the rational actually makes you less human at that point, it's a purely animal response (fight or flight, if you will - but on a mental level), as the thing that humans do more than anything is bend the world to their wills, letting their intellect, thought and ingenuity be what they use to control their own destinies. Letting the world just happen to you, merely submitting to it - whether it be at the mercy of an imaginary supernatural being - strikes me as giving up (in more ways than one) something very important.

@ Draconus and K'rul - The idea of free will in a universe that contains (or is created by) an omnipotent, omniscient Creator is a logical fallacy (as half a second of thought will tell you). As far as things lacking meaning in a universe ruled by chance... So what? Things have the meaning(s) we apply to them and it's our choice to do that or not. If anything, that's what human beings are for.

Btw. I don't believe human beings are required to have a purpose for living; we exist and it's up to us whether we want to ascribe any meaning or purpose to it. We define ourselves.

[Cougar]

I'd be loath to respond to one of CI's posts. He knows the answer to the question he asks he's being deliberately obtuse to stimulate a response.

See also: CI's responses to the 'Will the Discovery of Alien Life...' thread for more of his mischief.

[Cold Iron]

Cougar;357524 said:

I'd be loath to respond to one of CI's posts. He knows the answer to the question he asks he's being deliberately obtuse to stimulate a response.

See also: CI's responses to the 'Will the Discovery of Alien Life...' thread for more of his mischief.

Hang on a second, if you read that thread you would know that I had a valid point. As I do now.

You may think we do not need religion to raise ourselves above animals and impose moral obligations upon us, but I argue that it cannot be done without it. Societies form through religion, without it you cannot unite different families and clans, the competitive drive prevents it. There needs to be a perceived external authority and this is as true today as it has ever been. The argument of the actual existence of God beyond futile, the choice to believe in God has less to do with his actual existence than with ours and our nature, and in this way there are plenty of rational reasons to do so. The argument that you should not believe in God because he cannot be shown to exist, in my opinion, misses the point entirely.

[stone monkey]

Cold Iron;358025 said:

Societies form through religion

Well, that's backwards...

Societies form through shared interests, shared language, resource scarcity, geographical accident etc. Then religions happen when you've got a bunch of people together in one place all of whom have that particular human weakness that causes us to believe in things that don't exist...

Human beings do not inherently require supernatural authority figures (or any authority figures if you ask me). One of the interesting things about religions is their sophistry -how they are constructed by humans to provide them with justification for either doing exactly what they want to do or for telling others how you [the people in power who know better than them] want them [those who you want to rule who you're better than] should behave and how they should be happy with their lot.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

So, CI not a big follower of social contract theory then I take it. Gauthier must be spinning in his grave. If he's dead, I cant remember. Certainly Rousseau will be (my hero!).

[Cougar]

@CI: Don't deny it old man, even as the Bull of Minos you were an agitator, there's nothing wrong with it.

@Toby: Rousseau is teh fail, go Locke

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Locke is a swine, trying to inconsistently defend slavery to justify his making a huge bloody profit out of it. Rousseau's the way you want to go, tellling you you;re wrong and here's what you actually want, genius.

[Darkwatch]

Thelomen Toblerone;358437 said:

Locke is a swine, trying to inconsistently defend slavery to justify his making a huge bloody profit out of it. Rousseau's the way you want to go, tellling you you;re wrong and here's what you actually want, genius.

Except that Rousseau made huge mistakes denouncing authoratarian regimes but suggesting something incredibly similar. The basics of the Social Contract is a good reflection on how things should be, but it's drowned in idealism.
Both went too far down one track, just like Sartre would much later.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

I agree, Rousseau's theory is highly borderline authoritarian - whilst not authoritarian in and of itself (to my mind), it's right on the edge and can easily be misconstrued or justified as justification for totalitarianism. The suggestion that in his society everyone would want the same thing, and thus "forcing you to be free" is actually what you want, smacks of complete loss of individuality and illiberality, whilst at the same time trying to compensate through complete direct democracy. That's probably why I like the idea - like communism, it's a nice idea were it consistent with human nature. Rousseau's definition of man in the state of nature seems inherently flawed to me.

Were it the case that there is such a thing as the best interest for everyone, and we could be shown such a thing and recognise it without conflict, then Rousseau's idea works, as people would vote as they willed, see the majority decision, and say "ah yes of course, how could I have been so blind!" In the far more likely case that this isnt possible, Rousseau's idea leads to a complete tyranny of the majority and loss of civil liberties.

[Cold Iron]

stone monkey;358348 said:

Well, that's backwards...

Societies form through shared interests, shared language, resource scarcity, geographical accident etc.

I didn't say that religion is the reason societies form, I said they form through religion, as in without shared beliefs basic societies do not establish. Religion is by no means a driver for sociological formation, but it is a required enabler.

Thelomen Toblerone;358388 said:

So, CI not a big follower of social contract theory then I take it. Gauthier must be spinning in his grave. If he's dead, I cant remember. Certainly Rousseau will be (my hero!).

Social contract theory has nothing to do with what I'm saying, I'm not talking about nation building, I'm talking about the transition from nomadic family clans to early agricultural settlements. Religious belief is not some arbitrary human stupidity, it is both the foundation of social rules and behavioural guide and the psychological and emotional bond without which individuals would neither know how to behave in a socially acceptable manner nor feel enough compassion to his community to chose to do so.

The roots of this are actually found in family dynamics and the development of family units but this long pre-dates the existence of humans.

[Use Of Weapons]

But people have shared beliefs merely by dint of being people. We do not need a set of beliefs above those we already share in order to come together to make communities. We are biologically social animals, and have evolved brain structures that support living together in communities. These structures give us the flexibility to adopt a number of living conditions depending on the environment we find ourselves in, but there is a large set of shared beliefs that cross all human boundaries, and which can be found in every human society, whatever religion or lack of religion it follows.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I think I disagree with you CI. Say you took 2000 atheists and dropped them off on an uninhabited planet. Are you saying they wouldn't form a society because they have no religion?

[stone monkey]

Cold Iron;358923 said:

I'm talking about the transition from nomadic family clans to early agricultural settlements. Religious belief is not some arbitrary human stupidity, it is both the foundation of social rules and behavioural guide and the psychological and emotional bond without which individuals would neither know how to behave in a socially acceptable manner nor feel enough compassion to his community to chose to do so.

I'd disagree, I'd say religion is an arbitrary human stupidity that has been co-opted for the things you believe it does. Religions are opportunistic users of things that are already there.

[Gem Windcaster]

Please read the whole post:

So, this thread ended up being about religion bashing? Go figure...

stone monkey;359071 said:

I'd disagree, I'd say religion is an arbitrary human stupidity that has been co-opted for the things you believe it does. Religions are opportunistic users of things that are already there.

If religion is stupid, then so is atheism, because instead of being devoted to believe in something, atheism is about being devoted to believe in nothing.

Don't generalize like that, or I will generalize you.

- There are just as many different atheistic beliefs as there are atheists.
- There are as many religions as there are 'believers'.


I find it increasingly disturbing that threads like this are solely about bashing religion or belief, and that any other kind of discussion is mocked or repressed by the bully tactics that is the "You don't make sense"- attitude. If you guys can't take a non-personal criticism of your arguments without resorting to "That is so stupid bla bla" and "They are idiots bla bla", then maybe you should consider not entering in discussions like these.

This is not directed at anyone in particular - you're welcome to think about it if you consider it reasonable thinking.

I have my whole life been trained in taking criticism of my own belief, all through school and beyond, so I am used to separate argument and person. I am not insulted by a different perspective and a different argument. But you guys can't take 10 seconds of the same criticism that I have had to take my whole life - instead you start bashing and crying. No offense, but it's starting to get on my nerves.

Meh, it's not that I don't understand you, you have no idea how well I do unerstand you, I guess I was just hoping for more from you guys.

-----
Summary: your generalization about religion is a no-no. It's almost as bad as generalizing about a certain skin color. Think about it. It's insulting, even though I (and probably a lot of people like me) am so used to it I don't even think twice about it, usually. The reason I even mention it here, is because i respect you guys, and that suddenly make it matter somehow.

[Shinrei]

Gem, this is why I've largely come to ignore the religion threads entirely. There's not a whole lot of things that both sides can say to each other until it devolves to name-calling. Both sides are a paradigm of reality that has been internalized, and when they come together they clash.

For example, I think Stone Monkey is a very smart individual, but calling religion "arbitrary human stupidity" undermines the intelligence of everyone on the board including his own. But he'd probably disagree.

So to lighten the mood, I'll tell a joke:

An athiest is hiking alone in Montana when he rounds a bend and comes face to face with a grizzly bear. The beast roars at him and charges. As the saying goes, there are no athiests in foxholes, so the athiest quickly claps his hands together and says "God, if you exist, please make this bear a Christian!"

A beam of light comes down from heaven and settles on the head of the bear. The snarl disappears, the madness in the eyes goes away, and the bear sits down and bows its head. Relieved, the athiest is about to turn away when he hears the bear speak... "Lord, bless this meal of which I am about to partake."

[RodeoRanch]

I would say something but Stone Monkey expresses everything I think in far more eloquent terms than I could.

So, go Stone Monkey go!



Also, from a moderator point of view, big thanks to everyone for not flaming the hell out each other.