I have been read "Revolt Against The Modern World" by Julius Evola and have changed a lot of my ideas about religion and god. I personally am a very logical and atheist person, I laugh at those of the christian faith and other such jewish inspired religions. However, after reading Evola I think some aspects of the older religions like Zorasoastrianism (sp?) and Horacism had much merit to it.

Anyway to the point. Evola points out that prior to the introduction of the modern world, all laws had to be passed by priests or druids, rather than by regular people. People believed the only laws worth following were those passed down from god, and the ones that weren't passed down for god were ignored and laughed at.

Now to my conclusion: Do you think religions, such as christianity, are exploited by governments in order to keep people following the rules? In Nazi Germany for example, the high ranking officials were all atheist for the most part, while the masses of people were christian/religious.

Of course it is being exploited. Terrorists, for example. The ones that actually commit the crime were mostly found to be peace loving, gentle people. They were simply twisted by the rich aristocracy. Twisted by the misinterpretation and/or misteaching of religion.

I agree that it is being exploited, but I have mixed feelings on if humanity really needs the myth of god and the afterlife.

In the context you presented, where the ruling party uses it as a stronghold method over the population - it's just a grossly misused tool that has morphed over the ages and is now hidden in the subtext, innuendo and fine print of modern law and ethics. Our judicial system used the Bible as a swear-upon method in the court of law, right in the face of the first ammendment of the constitution! (I never understood that)

Maybe the rulers who reigned in the less civilized time in our history found it advantageous to use religion as a way of crowd-control. And of course it only stuck around because it was so successful in manipulating people. In that context, we just don't need it anymore. It's no longer necessary to "control" the people. We are more educated. We assemble more peacefully. We have a wide plethora of knowledge to draw upon to explain the *unknown*, mathematics, physics, etc... We are Enlightened, in a sense.

Nevermind the fact that we can draw upon history and it's lessons to teach us a valuable lesson:

Although religion may be a powerful tool in governing people, it also creates more mayhem and wars and causes separatism and bigotry and hate of fellow humans who don't share in our own beliefs. It is a double-edged sword.

However-

I do feel like religion is necessary for humanity in THIS light:

Some people cannot obtain a sense of worth or a sense of purpose in their life without clinging to a dogmatic belief that seemingly "governs" their day-to-day existence and helps them get out of bed each morning. They enjoy fellowshipping and congregating with other like-minded individuals. They describe feeling an overwhelming love and purpose and dedicate their entire lives to the doctrines of their myth. Most of them, save for the hardcore fanatics, are among the more kinder, gentler people on earth.

So, I'm kind of torn. Keep religion around and respect it's usefulness as it applies to it's practioners. Keep it secular, and above all - keep it out of government.

Wow Vlad, we actually agree on something for once.

But to be more specific, the Nazi Higher Upsweren't atheists. They believed in some sort of Pseudo-Christiainity/Germanic-Norse Paganism. It's actually some intersting stuff to read about.

quote:Anyway to the point. Evola points out that prior to the introduction of the modern world, all laws had to be passed by priests or druids, rather than by regular people. People believed the only laws worth following were those passed down from god, and the ones that weren't passed down for god were ignored and laughed at.

Now to my conclusion: Do you think religions, such as christianity, are exploited by governments in order to keep people following the rules? In Nazi Germany for example, the high ranking officials were all atheist for the most part, while the masses of people were christian/religious.

If a society believes the only criteria that deems a law relevant or important is whether or not it is a law passed down by "god" then society as a whole is in complete and utter intellectual disarray. That shows a failure in society itself, certainly nothing to be promoted.

The fact is, the 'myth of god and the afterlife' is not needed at all. That's a fact. Now an individual may prefer it of course, he may feel that he's unable to accomplish anything without it, sure, but that hardly means society should entertain such people. That's their "problem".

Moreover, if you look at the outline of the situation, it is clearly circular. The only reason people give an credence to laws that are derived from a god is because a god was given credence in the first place. Not because laws or rules inherently need a god for their importance, but because ignorance bred an "answer".

As for religions being used by those in power so that the masses 'follow the rules' I don't think that applies anymore. Religion is used by those in power as a tool undoubtedly, but not in any great number as a method of getting the populace to follow rules. One need only look at the number of theists incarcerated for breaking such rules to see this.

Good grief, of course governments exploit religion--especially Christianity, which is essentially a religion of fear and denial.

A lot of that is just Piscean Age shit, which will die out as the Aquarian Age takes hold. Don't hold your breath, though.

God and the afterlife is a theory not a myth, that being said humanity doesn't need it some people want it.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If a society believes the only criteria that deems a law relevant or important is whether or not it is a law passed down by "god" then society as a whole is in complete and utter intellectual disarray. That shows a failure in society itself, certainly nothing to be promoted.

T

Welcome to Planet Terra.

Yes, y'all have got to give credit to whichever dolt created organized religion.

A rule from a mere Mortal can be questioned easily enough. A rule from a "God" that has absolute power, now that's a lttle harder for most to question.

What it all really boils down to is control.

King wants control, tell priest to "Translate" a rule up for him to control with.

Ignorant sheeple follow rule under fear of reprisal of "God".

This happens far less now than it did in the past, but only as most of the "Good" King empowering "Translations" have been made already.

In my opinion all religions were done for this reason. Most American Indian Religions come close to what I would believe in for a "God"; but I feel each must find thier own way, just do Good and hope for the best is about all you can really do to assure yourself a place in Heaven, Valhalla, Nirvana or where-ever you see the "Good" people going after this journey.

In the end there is only one person and event you have total control over, that person is you, the event is your life; Only you and you alone may decide whether you live as a force of Good or a force of Evil.

It is your choice and you may blame no other for it.

Religon has and always will serve as a means to control the masses. Even those who claim to be athesit or have no religon are affected by the overwhelming majority of christians.

Alot of the reasons why we needed religion no longer exist, or have been given new and more palpable answers.

It's impossible to know the absolute truth. Instead we can sort of make educated guesses and invent things which work out as good as the truth, maybe even 99.9% as good. If people can beleive it, be happy and live their lives, thats all that matters.

Alot of religions are holding us back as a species though. I can see them crumbling over the next few centuries. And if not, the countries whos populations have a more realistic beleif will come out on top and maybe influence the rest.

quote:Originally posted by AsylumSeaker:

the countries whos populations have a more realistic beleif will come out on top and maybe influence the rest

It is pure sugarcoating to call it 'influencing'. It's more like: Strongarming, by occupation, domination, war and persecution. Unless, of course, you just left religion out of it completely. THEN you might get somewhere.

A Universal Realistic Belief System (in the form of a religion)would be very difficult to pull off. I would go so far as to say that it just could not be conceivable. Too many different sects of mysticism and supernaturalism out there, and just one central belief system could not make them all jive peacefully.

If it could be done, it would have to be in the absence of all Religion. Sounds like some kind of Atheist Utopia that will never happen.

quote:Originally posted by Garibaldi:

But to be more specific, the Nazi Higher Upsweren't atheists. They believed in some sort of Pseudo-Christiainity/Germanic-Norse Paganism.

Of course they did. If you never saw those double Sowilo runes on their uniforms on pictures or in movies, you must be pretty young (or uninformed http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) ).

They had some pretty far-out theories. Some were into hollow-earth studies.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

It is pure sugarcoating to call it 'influencing'. It's more like: Strongarming, by occupation, domination, war and persecution. Unless, of course, you just left religion out of it completely. THEN you might get somewhere.

A Universal Realistic Belief System (in the form of a religion)would be very difficult to pull off. I would go so far as to say that it just could not be conceivable. Too many different sects of mysticism and supernaturalism out there, and just one central belief system could not make them all jive peacefully.

Even such a "Universal Realistic Belief System" is no guarantee that it would not be spread by oppression, mental manipulation, coercion, the kinds of things you are mentioning. There would probably a tremendous disdain for the rest of "ignorant" humanity and perhaps even its relegating to the status of some sort of non-humanity. In the absence of actual spiritual and moral growth which you normally find in religious beliefs, there would very likely be excesses.

Remember the Red Guard in The People's Repoublic of China ?



[This message has been edited by Uncus (edited 08-21-2005).]

The Red Gaurd and The People's Republic of China is an excellent example!

S'why I said: I would go so far as to say that it just could not be conceivable.

The idea of a "Universal" belief system isn't only unlikely, but it's not very appealing if you dissect it carefully. It for sure wouldn't leave any room for independent thought, debate, or diversity among people.

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

Of course they did. If you never saw those double Sowilo runes on their uniforms on pictures or in movies, you must be pretty young (or uninformed http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) ).

They had some pretty far-out theories. Some were into hollow-earth studies.

Indeed, I read something once where some of the high level Nazis believed that Aryans were descended form refugees from Atlantis or some such. Heh.

I think the kings, tribal leaders, and alpha males of the ancient past would be quite amused to hear someone claim that prior to the 'modern' world, priests and druids made all the rules.

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

Of course they did. If you never saw those double Sowilo runes on their uniforms on pictures or in movies, you must be pretty young (or uninformed http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) ).

Indeed, but the SS and Nazi leaders generally had little to do with real Norse polytheism. They exploited it when they could to get macho Germanic brethren into a bloodlust(Odin's particularly great at that,) but they didn't believe in it.

They more or less created their own Nazi cocktail of Norse symbolism, Medieval Germanic legend, with Christian lore thrown in for good measure.

No true Asatruar would bother looking for the Holy Grail, something the SS seriously attempted.

VladimirIllyichLenin:

Wow, I'm impressed that someone has even heard of the Baron, and moreso that you've read his work.

In response to your question, it should be clarified that Evola classifies Christianity as a symptom of the modern world, not a victim. In a legitimate Tradition, the 'government' and the 'religion' - insofar as we are granted the liberty of generalizing these definitions to incorporate modern interpretations - are inseparable. The government was the religious institution, and, as you mentioned before, a governmental body had authority precisely because it was sanctioned by the people's spiritual sentiment.

AngryFemme:

Maybe the rulers who reigned in the less civilized time in our history found it advantageous to use religion as a way of crowd-control. And of course it only stuck around because it was so successful in manipulating people. In that context, we just don't need it anymore. It's no longer necessary to "control" the people. We are more educated. We assemble more peacefully. We have a wide plethora of knowledge to draw upon to explain the *unkown*, mathematics, physics, etc... We are Enlightened, in a sense.

You don't seem to give a lot of intellectual credit unto those to whom we owe the cornerstones of art, logic, law, and the whole of culture.

Some people cannot obtain a sense of worth or a sense of purpose in their life without clinging to a dogmatic belief that seemingly "governs" their day-to-day existence and helps them get out of bed each morning. They enjoy fellowshipping and congregating with other like-minded individuals. They describe feeling an overwhelming love and purpose and dedicate their entire lives to the doctrines of their myth. Most of them, save for the hardcore fanatics, are among the more kinder, gentler people on earth.

This psychological defense of existential weakness is precisely the fundamental crime of modern religious institutions, and is hardly its justification.

Rust:

If a society believes the only criteria that deems a law relevant or important is whether or not it is a law passed down by "god" then society as a whole is in complete and utter intellectual disarray. That shows a failure in society itself, certainly nothing to be promoted.

A brief revision of history reveals that the moment society began to stray from this theological tendency, the moment its greatest psychological and existential doom began to emerge - as any Dostoevsky character could tell you.

That fact is, the 'myth of god and the afterlife' is not needed at all. That's a fact. Now an individual may prefer it of course, he may feel that he's unable to accomplish anything without it, sure, but that hardly means society should entertain such people. That's their "problem".

I'm curious. What is the source of the justification of your worldview once 'God', in whatever perspective you view him, is cleared from the board?

Moreover, if you look at the outline of the situation, it is clearly circular. The only reason people give an credence to laws that are derived from a god is because a god was given credence in the first place. Not because laws or rules inherently need a god for their importance, but because ignorance bred an "answer".

'Ignorance bred an answer'? Could you clarify what you mean by this?

Also, in response to this point, I'll restate my previous question - once 'God' is erased, what gives your worldview legitimacy?

The_Rabbi:

I think the kings, tribal leaders, and alpha males of the ancient past would be quite amused to hear someone claim that prior to the 'modern' world, priests and druids made all the rules.

In ancient past, the kings, tribal leaders, alpha males, priests, and druids were all the same person.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



A brief revision of history reveals that the moment society began to stray from this theological tendency, the moment its greatest psychological and existential doom began to emerge - as any Dostoevsky character could tell you.

1. What does that have anything to do with what you quoted?

2. Please, by all means, show me this "biref revision of history" that shows us this.



quote:

I'm curious. What is the source of the justification of your worldview once 'God', in whatever perspective you view him, is cleared from the board?

Why would my worldview need a god for legitimacy, or justification? Answer this and I'll answer your question.

quote:

'Ignorance bred an answer'? Could you clarify what you mean by this?



They gave laws handed down by god importance, because they gave lightning, thunder, rain, animals, et cetera, importance. Their ignorance of natural weather patterns, to just on area, is what bred the first "gods" and consequently any "importance" they gave unto laws.

Rust:

1. What does that have anything to do with what you quoted?

It is an exact contradiction to your claim.

You state that, because religion was not only critical to the survival of the authority of a traditional civilization's governing body, but was in fact its true identity, you say that it is an abhorrent characteristic, referring to it as 'a failure in society itself, certainly nothing to be promoted.'

My statement proclaims that once this alleged 'failure' was corrected in society's history, man faced an existential crisis he was not prepared for. This can be seen in the absolutely directionless character of the previous century's rebellion. In literature, this emerged in the causes of such people as Rimbaud and Lautreamont. In art, this emerged in Dadaism - the exaltation of meaninglessness as an empty 'meaning'. Philosophy saw Surrealism, which led to the suicides of such people as Vache, Crevel, and Rigault. This crisis is historically encapsulated by Andre Breton's prophecy that the simplest surrealist archetype was random manslaughter - an act which occurred frequently following the Second World War.

2. Please, by all means, show me this "biref revision of history" that shows us this.

The Reign Of Quantity & The Signs Of The Times - Rene Guenon

Guenon is quite wordy; it might be beneficial to also look into the book cited at the beginning of this thread.

Revolt Against The Modern World - Julius Evola

Why would my worldview need a god for legitimacy, or justification? Answer this and I'll answer your question.

You've pulled this trick before on me. When I answer that question, you give a million and one reasons why you think my answer is unacceptable, no matter how insignificant it is to the purpose of the original question, and stubbornly refuse to respond because of my unrelated perception on the topic.

Answer my question first.

They gave laws handed down by god importance, because they gave lightning, thunder, rain, animals, et cetera, importance. Their ignorance of natural weather patterns, to just on area, is what bred the first "gods" and consequently any "importance" they gave unto laws.

So, you said what AngryFemme said earlier - that, in spite of the fact that these apparent 'savages' are responsible for the framework of our entire system of society, we must forbid them any credit for any sense of rationality and intelligence and degrade them to easily hypnotized lemmings incapable of exhibiting any healthy frontal-cortical activity. Am I right?

[EDIT: gave up trying to link the books to Amazon.com, plus some grammatical errors - "Philosophicy" is not a word.]

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 08-25-2005).]

quote: Originally posted by Tyrant:

So, you said what AngryFemme said earlier - that, in spite of the fact that these apparent 'savages' are responsible for the framework of our entire system of society, we must forbid them any credit for any sense of rationality and intelligence and degrade them to easily hypnotized lemmings incapable of exhibiting any healthy frontal-cortical activity. Am I right?

I don't believe it's about forbidding them the "credit". Nor is it about degrading the leadership choices they made. It's about Vladymir's closing question:

Do you think religions, such as christianity, are exploited by governments in order to keep people following the rules?

This exploitation doesn't lend them any sense of rationality or intelligence, as far as organizing a society. S'why we don't do it like that today. We learned a valuable lesson from those "easily hypnotized lemmings".

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



It is an exact contradiction to your claim.

You state that, because religion was not only critical to the survival of the authority of a traditional civilization's governing body, but was in fact its true identity, you say that it is an abhorrent characteristic, referring to it as 'a failure in society itself, certainly nothing to be promoted.'



That's not what I said at all.

I said, "If a society believes the only criteria that deems a law relevant or important is whether or not it is a law passed down by "god" then society as a whole is in complete and utter intellectual disarray. That shows a failure in society itself, certainly nothing to be promoted."

In other words, a law stands on its own merits; on a sense of morality that does not necessitate neither a religion nor a god. If a society believes otherwise (i.e. that a law stands only because it is upheld by a god) then it is my opinion that society is intellecutally bankrupt.

What you quoted had nothing to do with the survival of authority.

quote:

My statement proclaims that once this alleged 'failure' was corrected in society's history, man faced an existential crisis he was not prepared for. This can be seen in the absolutely directionless character of the previous century's rebellion. In literature, this emerged in the causes of such people as Rimbaud and Lautreamont. In art, this emerged in Dadaism - the exaltation of meaninglessness as an empty 'meaning'. Philosophy saw Surrealism, which led to the suicides of such people as Vache, Crevel, and Rigault. This crisis is historically encapsulated by Andre Breton's prophecy that the simplest surrealist archetype was random manslaughter - an act which occurred frequently following the Second World War.



See above.

Not only does that have nothing to do with what you quoted, but after all of that, you've manged to not link it to that event at all...



quote:

The Reign Of Quantity & The Signs Of The Times - Rene Guenon

Guenon is quite wordy; it might be beneficial to also look into the book cited at the beginning of this thread.

Revolt Against The Modern World - Julius Evola



While I appreciate book recomendations, it is ridiculous for you to expect me to read those in the life span of this thread. Provide the historical, and factual evidence you have to support your allegations. For example, quote the books, or find a onlie webpage which deals with the subject matter.

quote:

You've pulled this trick before on me. When I answer that question, you give a million and one reasons why you think my answer is unacceptable, no matter how insignificant it is to the purpose of the original question, and stubbornly refuse to respond because of my unrelated perception on the topic.

Answer my question first.

You have pulled that trick on me before. I have absolutely no burden to answer such a question, since it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

If you wish for me to entertain your curiosity, then entertain mine first.

quote:

So, you said what AngryFemme said earlier - that, in spite of the fact that these apparent 'savages' are responsible for the framework of our entire system of society, we must forbid them any credit for any sense of rationality and intelligence and degrade them to easily hypnotized lemmings incapable of exhibiting any healthy frontal-cortical activity. Am I right?

Not only are they not at all responsible for the "framework of our entire system of society", but that is not what I said at all.

I said that the importance given to those laws was the product of ignorance. Ignorance is not an insult if you have no way of becoming educated.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



In ancient past, the kings, tribal leaders, alpha males, priests, and druids were all the same person.

That's incorrect, save for perhaps one or two societies. Even in the most basic tribal culture, there's the holy man, and there's the leader. The leader might get advice from the holy man, but the 500 pound gorilla calls the shots.

[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 08-26-2005).]

AngryFemme:

Agreed. I just instinctively reject the all too commonplace notion Western civilization has towards religion because it has had a bad experience with Christianity.

Rust:

In other words, a law stands on its own merits; on a sense of morality that does not necessitate neither a religion nor a god. If a society believes otherwise (i.e. that a law stands only because it is upheld by a god) then it is my opinion that society is intellecutally bankrupt.

OK, well, this brings me to the point you sidestepped earlier in the discussion, which I will address later.

Not only does that have nothing to do with what you quoted, but after all of that, you've manged to not link it to that event at all...

All of these historical events are exact results of man's attempt to justify his existence without religion, heedless of the fact that the question of meaning is the primary responsibility of religion.

While I appreciate book recomendations, it is ridiculous for you to expect me to read those in the life span of this thread. Provide the historical, and factual evidence you have to support your allegations. For example, quote the books, or find a onlie webpage which deals with the subject matter.

Ironically - and I know this appears to be a copout - my copy of Revolt is being ransomed by a friend of mine from Staten Island. Perhaps Vladimir could help me out?

You have pulled that trick on me before. I have absolutely no burden to answer such a question, since it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You said that a God is not needed to justify a law. You said later that 'a law stands on its own merits; on a sense of morality that does not necessitate neither a religion nor a god.' This means that you attribute to man-made law a categorical imperative. It is perfectly relevant to our topic, and thus appropriate that I request an elaboration.

No, you are not under legal obligation to answer questions that I ask you, but for the sake of polite discussion, it'd be a nice gesture to answer a question asked about your belief.

Not only are they not at all responsible for the "framework of our entire system of society", but that isnot what I said at all.

History is taught in school precisely because the people in question are responsible for the framework of our entire system of society.

I said that the importance given to those laws was the product of ignorance. Ignorance is not an insult if you have no way of becoming educated.

Religion still exists in today's age of technology. The advice of monks, Christian teachings, and various other religious origins are accepted and heeded by people far more educated in all branches of science and life than you. It is not a question of ignorance.

The_Rabbi:

That's incorrect, save for perhaps one or two societies. Even in the most basic tribal culture, there's the holy man, and there's the leader. The leader might get advice from the holy man, but the 500 pound gorilla calls the shots.

The division between regality and priesthood occurred later in history. At the point where spirituality becomes extroverted, to something separate from the ruling identities, it shows an anthropological deterioration.

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

Of course they did. If you never saw those double Sowilo runes on their uniforms on pictures or in movies, you must be pretty young (or uninformed http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) ).

They had some pretty far-out theories. Some were into hollow-earth studies.

Actually, only Himmler and his cohorts seriously believed all of the Norse stuff, most (all?) of those "omg teh nazis wanted teh holy grael" or "they thought teh earth was hollow" theories are myths and won't be found in any serious history book, and most of the Nazis sneered at the Norse Revivalists.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

AngryFemme:

Agreed. I just instinctively reject the all too commonplace notion Western civilization has towards religion because it has had a bad experience with Christianity.

In this day and age, it is not necessary for an individual to have to leave the confines of his/her own country to have bad experiences with other religions. While the Christians have fervently been worming their way into third-world countries serving as missionaries to "save souls", the Nation of Islam are recruiting black American youth in mobs, and the fucking Jews and Palestinians are bleeding the American news stations to post stories about their politically-fired plight at Gaza. Those are just a few examples.

I don't think one has to measure the destructiveness of religion as a government force just by being exposed to the most dominant religion in their country (i.e.: Christianity). The "all too commonplace notion" Western civilization has adopted is a result of watching all the religions fail when it takes on a role of societal leadership.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



All of these historical events are exact results of man's attempt to justify his existence without religion, heedless of the fact that the question of meaning is the primary responsibility of religion.



Yet again you say it, yet do not link it.

I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I know what you're claiming. I want you to prove, or at the very least, support, what you just claimed. You haven't.

quote:

You said that a God is not needed to justify a law. You said later that 'a law stands on its own merits; on a sense of morality that does not necessitate neither a religion nor a god.' This means that you attribute to man-made law a categorical imperative. It is perfectly relevant to our topic, and thus appropriate that I request an elaboration.



You yourself admitted that it was to satisfy your curiosity, which is why you ignored the comment I made about satisfying mine. Your curiosity is irrelevant, as is mine. If you want me to entertain something irrelevant, then I ask you that you entertain something irrelevant first.

quote:

No, you are not under legal obligation to answer questions that I ask you, but for the sake of polite discussion, it'd be a nice gesture to answer a question asked about your belief.



It would also be polite for you to answer mine first, so as to, in a sense, "pay" for the answer that you would be receiving. I do not think it is polite at all to ask something without expecting to "pay" for it.

quote:

History is taught in school precisely because the people in question are responsible for the framework of our entire system of society.

No, it is taught because they influenced our society. That does not mean they are responsible for the entire system of it.

quote:

Religion still exists in today's age of technology. The advice of monks, Christian teachings, and various other religious origins are accepted and heeded by people far more educated in all branches of science and life than you. It is not a question of ignorance.

Humongous straw man and red herring.

Who said Christians or any other form of theists are "ignorant"? Not me.

I said that the credence given to those laws was the product of ignorance, which it undoubtedly was. Do not put words in my mouth please.

Not to mention that they are ignorant by definition, as they have faith, which is the belief in something without evidence; thus being ignorant of the reality or lack there of, of what they believe in. Thus, even if I had said that, which I did not, I would be entirely correct.

Furthermore you are using the crude definition of "ignorant", as used by the common folk, a definition tantamount to "stupid", which is certainly not the definition I was using.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-27-2005).]

AngryFemme:

I'm confused as to why Christians going into other countries is seen as this anti-humanitarian rape-and-pillage invasion. Churches sponsor community service during missions trips, and if it's a really bad area, they bring food and medical supplies. They sponsor world-hunger associations and make enthusiastic commitments to improve the conditions of their communities.

And this world has continuously declined in quality since religion was separated from societal leadership, so I'm going to have to disagree here.

Rust:

Yet again you say it, yet do not link it.

I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I know what you're claiming. I want you to prove, or at the very least, support, what you just claimed. You haven't.

So, everything's gotta be spelled out for you?

All the things I just mentioned - the emergence of Dadaism and its war against meaning, Surrealist philosophers supporting near-psychotic sentiments and behaviors, the emergence of the nihilist movement: the 'teddy boys', the German Halbstarken, the Slavic hooligans, the American Beat generation, and the most recent punk rock movement (notwithstanding the Utopian anarchist motion, though it is a precursor to this circumstance nonetheless) - all of these events deal with the question of meaning. They are reactions to a world man has constructed without the sentiment of anything higher than himself, a world where there was nothing left for him, no values, no hope or aspiration worth considering. His only response to the deaf hustle of emptiness in the world he created for himself was directionless, aimless, hopeless rage, as can be seen by the aforementioned circumstances.

The question of meaning is the responsibility of religion. A man looks at himself with a subjective eye and sees nothing but his own body - flesh, water, blood, and bone. He does not foresee any direction for himself when he reviews this predicament. When he has nothing to fight for that exceeds every element of himself, his reaction is passionate yet directionless fury that, if taken to its logical end, results in suicide.

"You ape [Stepanovich], you assent to get the better of me [Kirilov]. Hold your tongue; you won't understand anything. If there is no God, then I am God."

"There I could never understand that point of yours: why are you God?"

"If God exists, all is His will and from His will I cannot escape. If not, it's all my will and I am bound to show self-will."

"Self-will? But why are you bound?"

"Because all will has become mine. Can it be that no one in the whole planet, after making an end of God and believing in his own will, will dare to express his self-will on the most vital point? It's like a beggar inheriting a fortune and being afraid of it and not daring to approach the bag of gold, thinking himself too weak to own it. I want to manifest my self-will. I may be the only one, but I'll do it."

"Do it by all means."

"I am bound to shoot myself because the highest point of my self-will is to kill myself with my own hands."

"But you won't be the only one to kill yourself; there are lots of suicides."

"With good cause. But to do it without any cause at all, simply for self-will, I am the only one."

-a conversation between Kirilov and Stepanovitch in Dostoevsky's The Possessed.

You yourself admitted that it was to satisfy your curiosity, which is why you ignored the comment I made about satisfying mine. Your curiosity is irrelevant, as is mine. If you want me to entertain something irrelevant, then I ask you that you entertain something irrelevant first.

Only to the end that you will successfully dodge the question with fruitless accusations of irrelevancy.

It would also be polite for you to answer mine first, so as to, in a sense, "pay" for the answer that you would be receiving. I do not think it is polite at all to ask something without expecting to "pay" for it.

Who are you, Wimpy from Popeye? I can't recall any conversation I've ever had where an answer was countered with such a ridiculously absurd proclamation.

Pay for an answer? Why are you being such a baby about this? I ask a question, it's polite for you to answer it. Get over yourself; it's a fucking question. Belly up to the bar and answer it.

No, it is taught because they influenced our society. That does not mean they are responsible for the entire system of it.

Stop playing semantic games. They 'influenced' it by being - proverbially and quite literally - its fathers and mothers. Nor is the point relevant.

Humongous straw man and red herring.

Who said Christians or any other form of theists are "ignorant"? Not me.

I said that the credence given to those laws was the product of ignorance, which it undoubtedly was. Do not put words in my mouth please.

'A Christian or any other form of theist' is, by virtue of definition, a person who gives credence to the laws in question.

Not to mention that they are ignorant by definition, as they have faith, which is the belief in something without evidence; thus being ignorant of the reality or lack there of, of what they believe in. Thus, even if I had said that, which I did not, I would be entirely correct.

So, because you do not accept the basic principles of a particular metaphysical reality, which by definition of it being metaphysical and not physical rejects any scientifically empirical attempt at its vindication, the ones who hold this reality... is ignorant?

Furthermore, you are using the crude definition of "ignorant", as used by the common folk, a definition tantamount to "stupid", which is certainly not the definition I was using.

Allow me to redirect you a previous statement you made, when you said, "Ignorance is not an insult if you have no way of becoming educated." This implies that, if ignorance can be corrected by education, it was the lack of education that yielded ignorance. Thus, it follows that ignorance is a result of stupidity.

My statement therefore followed that many people, few of whom are stupid in any interpretation of the word, conducted the very act you deemed to be the result of "ignorance breeding answers" - they put credence in laws deriving from God.

I am not using the crude definition of ignorant, but merely following the train of thought you appeared to be on.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



So, everything's gotta be spelled out for you?



Yes. Your inability to support your already unsubstantiated claims is "me needing things spelled out".

quote:

All the things I just mentioned - the emergence of Dadaism and its war against meaning, Surrealist philosophers supporting near-psychotic sentiments and behaviors, the emergence of the nihilist movement: the 'teddy boys', the German Halbstarken, the Slavic hooligans, the American Beat generation, and the most recent punk rock movement (notwithstanding the Utopian anarchist motion, though it is a precursor to this circumstance nonetheless) - all of these events deal with the question of meaning. They are reactions to a world man has constructed without the sentiment of anything higher than himself, a world where there was nothing left for him, no values, no hope or aspiration worth considering. His only response to the deaf hustle of emptiness in the world he created for himself was directionless, aimless, hopeless rage, as can be seen by the aforementioned circumstances.



Yet these movements have come and passed all while materialism not diminishing, but the opposite, increasing. Thus, you fail completely in connecting those effectively to man justifying his existence without a god; or at the very least, you reduced this "doom" couple of philosophical movements that are currently obsolete. Great.

Moreover, if we look at this "history" we can find similar "existential doom" when man considered the logical inaccuracies of a supposedly benevolent god while contrasting that alleged virtue with the suffering they witnessed on Earth. As such, history also shows the opposite of your conclusion: the ponderings of the many interpretations of what god is, the qualities he may or may not posses, and the logical fallacies those qualities may bring about, have had similar effects on the psyche of man.



quote:Only to the end that you will successfully dodge the question with fruitless accusations of irrelevancy.

Fruitless why? They are most certainly not fruitless, as they expose your question for what it really is: an irrelevant inquiry. Moreover, as a result of the question being irrelevant, I do not have to answer your question, which is yet again another result.

Fruitless? Hardly. Maybe not the fruits you wanted, but certainly not fruitless.



quote:Who are you, Wimpy from Popeye? I can't recall any conversation I've ever had where an answer was countered with such a ridiculously absurd proclamation.

Pay for an answer? Why are you being such a baby about this? I ask a question, it's polite for you to answer it. Get over yourself; it's a fucking question. Belly up to the bar and answer it.

Who's being a baby? I want you to answer my question first, before I answer yours. How is that at all indicative of matureness or a lack of it?

Moreover, if you recall, you brought up "politeness" as an issue; accusing me of not being polite for not answering an irrelevant question (thus making your current attack a laughable one). It's certainly not absurd or ridiculous for me to the bring up how impolite it is for you to ask me such an irrelevant question, without expecting to do something in return.



quote:Stop playing semantic games. They 'influenced' it by being - proverbially and quite literally - its fathers and mothers. Nor is the point relevant.

Yes. Accuse me of arguing "semantics" when you do not use correct words. Brilliant.

'Influencing something' and 'being responsible for the entire framework of something' are very different things, with varying degrees. If you meant something, say that something, but do not blame me for your poor choice of words.

quote:'A Christian or any other form of theist' is, by virtue of definition, a person who gives credence to the laws in question.

Not necessarily, at least not all theists.

In any case, that is irrelevant as the main point is that you are twisting what I said to mean that I had called them stupid, which is not at all what I said.

quote:So, because you do not accept the basic principles of a particular metaphysical reality, which by definition of it being metaphysical and not physical rejects any scientifically empirical attempt at its vindication, the ones who hold this reality... is ignorant?

More straw men. They are ignorant because they lack knowledge, as the very definition states. I never, not once, said they were ignorant because I didn't believe in that "reality".

Also, you are once again taking "ignorance" to mean stupid, which is a red herring on your part.

quote:Allow me to redirect you a previous statement you made, when you said, "Ignorance is not an insult if you have no way of becoming educated." This implies that, if ignorance can be corrected by education, it was the lack of education that yielded ignorance. Thus, it follows that ignorance is a result of stupidity.

My statement therefore followed that many people, few of whom are stupid in any interpretation of the word, conducted the very act you deemed to be the result of "ignorance breeding answers" - they put credence in laws deriving from God.

I am not using the crude definition of ignorant, but merely following the train of thought you appeared to be on.

Your certainly not following my frame of thought, if you're following anything, it's of your own creation.

Ignorance: the lack of knowledge or education.

Stupid:

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.

2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.

3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.

Ignorance has absolutely nothing to do with stupidity, which is exactly why my frame of thought had nothing to do with it.

What I meant with what you quoted, is exactly what I said. If I call you ignorant, as in "you lack knowledge or education" that is not an insult in and of itself if you have no way of correcting that lack of knowledge or education. It remains at that point a statement of fact: 'they lacked knowledge'.

Since I'm speaking of the early humans who gave importance to natural phenomenons (such as thunder, rain, et cetera), humans who did not posses the means to correct that lack of knowledge or education, then I did not insult them, but merely stated a fact: they were ignorant. Thus, how "ignorance bred an answer", when the ignorance of those phenomenons bred the importance of those laws.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-27-2005).]

Rust:

Yet these movements have come and passed all while materialism not diminishing, but the opposite, increasing. Thus, you fail completely in connecting those effectively to man justifying his existence without a god; or at the very least, you reduced this "doom" couple of philosophical movements that are currently obsolete. Great.

This is a wretchedly Marxist view of mankind, and with a perspective that sees the value of a man as directly correlative to what he yields as an economic asset, communication and cooperation is impossible.

Moreover, if we look at this "history" we can find similar "existential doom" when man considered the logical inaccuracies of a supposedly benevolent god while contrasting that alleged virtue with the suffering they witnessed on Earth. As such, history also shows the opposite of your conclusion: the ponderings of the many interpretations of what god is, the qualities he may or may not posses, and the logical fallacies those qualities may bring about, have had similar effects on the psyche of man.

I doubt you could yield a single event that proves this.

Fruitless why? They are most certainly not fruitless, as they expose your question for what it really is: an irrelevant inquiry. Moreover, as a result of the question being irrelevant, I do not have to answer your question, which is yet again another result.

Fruitless? Hardly. Maybe not the fruits you wanted, but certainly not fruitless.

You: "A law stands on its own merits."

Me: "Why?"

You: "I have absolutely no burden to answer such a question, since it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. [My accusations of irrelevancy] are most certainly not fruitless, as they expose your question for what it really is: an irrelevant inquiry."

I certainly did not intend to yield the fruits of futility, so in that respect, you're right.

Who's being a baby? I want you to answer my question first, before I answer yours. How is that at all indicative of matureness or a lack of it?

Because I remember being coaxed as a kid by my friends to do something I was scared to do, and insisting they did it first before I did it, in an attempt to disguise my own fear.

Moreover, if you recall, you brought up "politeness" as an issue; accusing me of not being polite for not answering an irrelevant question (thus making your current attack a laughable one). It's certainly not absurd or ridiculous for me to the bring up how impolite it is for you to ask me such an irrelevant question, without expecting to do something in return.

You answer my question, I'll give you a blow job.

Yes. Accusing me of arguing "semantics" when you do not use correct words. Brilliant.

'Influencing something' and 'being responsible for the entire framework of something' are very different things, with varying degrees. If you meant something, say that something, but do not blame me for your poor choice of words.

WE OWE EVERY BRANCH OF OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY TO THE PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETIES THAT CAME BEFORE US.

Not necessarily, at least not all theists.

A Christian doesn't need to care about the Bible to be a Christian? That's like an ambassador to Mexico saying, "Fuck Spanish."

In any case, that is irrelevant as the main point is that you are twisting what I said to mean that I had called them stupid, which is not at all what I said.

Actually, it was wholesomely crucial to everything we're discussing.

More straw men. They are ignorant because they lack knowledge, as the very definition states. I never, not once, said they were ignorant because I didn't believe in that "reality".

You: "...they [Christians] are ignorant by definition, as they have faith, which is the belief in something without evidence; thus being ignorant of the reality or lack there of, of what they believe in."

You, by your own words, state that a person whose reality consists of something for which they have no evidence, they are being ignorant of that reality. How is this different.

Also, you are once again taking "ignorance" to mean stupid, which is a red herring on your part.

Nope. Actually, that never happened once in what I said. I quoted that to point out that you were arbitrarily judging the metaphysical reality of a theist as a product of their ignorance. Intelligence did not come into that point once in the entire course of the sentence.

Your certainly not following my frame of thought, if you're following anything, it's of your own creation

...

Ignorance has absolutely nothing to do with stupidity, which is exactly why my frame of thought had nothing to do with it.

What I mean with what you quoted, is exactly what I said. If I call you ignorant, as in "you lack knowledge or education" that is not an insult in and of itself if you have no way of correcting that lack of knowledge or education. It remains at that point a statement of fact: 'they lacked knowledge'.

I know the difference between ignorant and stupid. Ignorant = lack of education. I got it.

My point remains untouched.

If the only reason for a religious mentality to exist was the lack of understanding of certain phenomena, it should follow that removing that ignorance - by filling in the blanks with knowledge and education - removes the 'answer' ignorance bred.

This is why I stated earlier that, while we live in a technological age that is overflowing with an abundance of knowledge and education, religion still continues to exist and flourish in many people's minds. People still continue to give a near-unshakeable authority to religious creeds.

Thus we conclude that ignorance has no effect on the presence of religion or the severity of the creedence applied to its statutes.

Now, there remains only one point left to be discussed, which is the question of your categorical imperative:

By what justification does a law stand on its own merit?

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 08-27-2005).]

We'll assume that good of a society and the people in it is a worthy goal. Thus, a law that furthers these things would certainly stand on its own merit, without need for some bearded man in the sky to justify it.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

AngryFemme:

I'm confused as to why Christians going into other countries is seen as this anti-humanitarian rape-and-pillage invasion. Churches sponsor community service during missions trips, and if it's a really bad area, they bring food and medical supplies. They sponsor world-hunger associations and make enthusiastic commitments to improve the conditions of their communities.

And this world has continuously declined in quality since religion was separated from societal leadership, so I'm going to have to disagree here.

I think branding missionaries as a "rape and pillage invasion" is going a bit over the barrel, but here is my point:

The true Humanitarians are not those who INSIST you must accept their God in order to receive the fruits of their charity. They are willing to feed you, sure. Bring you supplies and medical assistance, of course. But only if you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior and go along with their ideals. In the face of hunger, strife and disease epidemic, people are willing to sell their souls and minds more quickly. Poverty tends to rip from society their sense of fortitude. And Christians prey on this weakness. Even homegrown not-for-profit organizations aimed at helping the weak such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and The Salvation Army demand that you "accept a higher power" before you can fully benefit from their "help".

Their true, underlying motive is to infect your mind with their dogmatic memes and convert you to their religion. The philanthropy and charity is secondary, and is a carrot-and-stick method to reap more followers. The Peace Corps, WhereverTheNeed.org and The Heifer Project have managed to help millions without it's sole purpose being full-blown conversion. Their motivation for helping others is not fueled by impressing their spiritual belief in others. It's about human beings helping other human beings, regardless of anything else.

I just refuse to believe that the world would be a better place if religion were more deeply imbedded in politics. Improving the conditions of one's community can be accomplished effectively without having to brainwash each other into believing that "My God Can Beat The Shit Out of Your God".

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



This is a wretchedly Marxist view of mankind, and with a perspective that sees the value of a man as directly correlative to what he yields as an economic asset, communication and cooperation is impossible.



What does my perspective have to do with you failing to connect these events to an increase in man justifying his existence without a god, when presented with the fact that materialism has increased, not decreased, since those movements you mention hit the hight of their popularity? Nothing.

If you want to debate my Marxist perspective or if you want to promote your anti-semitic and fascist perspective, then by all means, do so, but please do it in the right forum.

quote:



I doubt you could yield a single event that proves this.





Yes. Because philosophy, in specific metaphysics, has never debated the existential consequences of the illogical fallacies inherent in theist claims. Never.

quote:

You: "A law stands on its own merits."

Me: "Why?"

You: "I have absolutely no burden to answer such a question, since it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. [My accusations of irrelevancy] are most certainly not fruitless, as they expose your question for what it really is: an irrelevant inquiry."

I certainly did not intend to yield the fruits of futility, so in that respect, you're right.

Ahh, you've mastered the art of the strawman. Wonderful.

Must I really point out that you did not ask "Why?"? And to stifle your predictable knee-jerk response of "semantics", 'why a law stands on its own merits' and 'how I justify my world view' (which is what you did ask) are two very different things.

Also, it obviously had a fruit. Whether you like it or not is not really important.



quote:

Because I remember being coaxed as a kid by my friends to do something I was scared to do, and insisting they did it first before I did it, in an attempt to disguise my own fear.

Wonderful logic. Me wanting you to answer a question first is me "being afraid", and moreover, "being afraid" is obviously an emotion that only a child could feel.

quote:

You answer my question, I'll give you a blow job.

I'm not a homosexual, but thank you for the offer.

quote:

WE OWE EVERY BRANCH OF OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY TO THE PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETIES THAT CAME BEFORE US.

What a ridiculous truism that is. Of course. Without them we wouldn't be alive.

quote:

A Christian doesn't need to care about the Bible to be a Christian? That's like an ambassador to Mexico saying, "Fuck Spanish."



Did you not read the part where I said "at least not all theists"? Or is this just another pathetic attempt at a strawman?



quote:

Actually, it was wholesomely crucial to everything we're discussing.

What's crucial is the fact that I never said ignorant in the context of "stupidity". That's crucial. It it most certainly is not crucial to discuss me saying something which I never said. That's not only irrelevant, but idiotic.

quote:

You: "...they [Christians] are ignorant by definition, as they have faith, which is the belief in something without evidence; thus being ignorant of the reality or lack there of, of what they believe in."

You, by your own words, state that a person whose reality consists of something for which they have no evidence, they are being ignorant of that reality. How is this different.

Now this is semantics. You're making verbal gymnastics with the word "reality".

Reality: "The quality or state of being actual or true."

They are ignorant because they DO NOT accept reality, or at least, not one that is a fact (as the definition necessitates) but accept a belief based on faith.

quote:



Nope. Actually, that never happened once in what I said. I quoted that to point out that you were arbitrarily judging the metaphysical reality of a theist as a product of their ignorance. Intelligence did not come into that point once in the entire course of the sentence.



What I am to assume if you do interpret "ignorance" as "stupidity" in the following argument, and moreover, apparently cannot understand the simply concept of them lacking knowledge, since their beliefs are based on faith (which by definition is a belief that lacks knowledge in the manifestation of evidence).

quote:

If the only reason for a religious mentality to exist was the lack of understanding of certain phenomena, it should follow that removing that ignorance - by filling in the blanks with knowledge and education - removes the 'answer' ignorance bred.

Correct. It does.

quote:

This is why I stated earlier that, while we live in a technological age that is overflowing with an abundance of knowledge and education, religion still continues to exist and flourish in many people's minds. People still continue to give a near-unshakeable authority to religious creeds.

Thus we conclude that ignorance has no effect on the presence of religion or the severity of the creedence applied to its statutes.



And this is relevant how? Did I say that the severity of the credence applied to its (key word its, as in, pertaining to the religion) statutes, depended on the existence of ignorance? No I did not.



What I did say is that if the importance given to laws in a society, laws made by man, was the result of a god in turn giving them importance, then that is the result of ignorance.

Moreover, the existence of religion does nothing to refute my point, not only because of what I mentioned directly above, but because ignorance still exists, as proven by the existence of faith.

quote:

Now, there remains only one point left to be discussed, which is the question of your categorical imperative:

By what justification does a law stand on its own merit?



Yes, and consequently there remains a question for you to answer first. Do so, or stop pestering me incessantly with these trivial, impolite and irrelevant requests.

AngryFemme:

Have you ever met a Christian who's gone on a missions trip? They don't withhold food or medical care until the people in the country they visit willfully become baptized. That accusation is a load of bullshit from the first word.

Rust:

What does my perspective have to do with you failing to connect these events to an increase in man justifying his existence without a god, when presented with the fact that materialism has increased, not decreased, since those movementsyou mention hit the hight of their popularity? Nothing.

The amount of objects a man produces has -NOTHING- to do with his consideration of his place in the universe.

If you want to debate my Marxist perspective or if you want to promote your anti-semitic and fascist perspective, then by all means, do so, but please do it in the right forum.

Since neither anti-Semitism nor fascism have been expressed, hinted at, or mentioned at all, I would ignore this flagrant distraction and decline your offer.

Yes. Because philosophy, in specific metaphysics, has never debated the existential consequences of the illogical fallacies inherent in theist claims. Never.

A man who notices logical inconsistencies in a theist's claims doesn't hang himself or shoot random passerby; he stops going to church.

Must I really point out that you did not ask "Why?"? And to stifle your predictable knee-jerk response of "semantics", 'why a law stands on itsown merits' and 'how I justify my world view' (which is what you did ask) are two very different things.

You've still yet to answer either of them.

Wonderful logic. Me wanting you to answer a question first is me "being afraid", and moreover, "being afraid" is obviously an emotion that only a child could feel.

You want me to answer first because you fear revealing yourself to have holes in your own logic - a child's response.

What a ridiculous truism that is. Of course. Without them we wouldn't be alive.

Neither would the principle of society as we know it.

Did you not read the part where I said "at least not all theists"? Or is this just another pathetic attempt at a strawman?

All groundless patronizing aside, I will hasten to point out that referring specifically to a Christian is entirely incidental, and the allegory can be generalized to include any theist who, by virtue of his theism, gives creedence to a particular doctrine.

What's crucial is the fact that I never said ignorant in thhe context of "stupidity". That's crucial. It it most certainly is not crucial to discuss me saying something which I never said. That's not only irrelevant, but idiotic.

Since I've already agreed to this distinction, as I've addressed in my previous post, and I've already reminded you that making this distinction leaves the question unfettered, I will move on.

They are ignorant because they DO NOT accept reality, or at least, not one that is a fact (as the definition necessitates) but accept a belief based on faith.

Notwithstanding the delusions of the clinically insane, I've yet to hear of a Christian ignoring any factual reality, though I doubt they would be substantial enough in number to apply to the whole of every religion ever created.

What I am to assume if you do interpret "ignorance" as stupidity" in the following argument, and moreover, apparently cannot understand the simply concept of them lacking knowledge, since their beliefs are based on faith (which by definition is a belief that lacks knowledge in the manifestation of evidence).

I need not exercise redundancy and remind you that I never implied to confuse the two.

And this is relevant how? Did I say that the severity of the credence applied to its (key word its, as in, pertaining to the religion) statutes, depended on the existence of ignorance? No I did not.

What I did say is that if the importance given to laws in a society, laws made by man, was the result of a god in turn giving them importance, then that is the result of ignorance.

Moreover, the existence of religion does nothing to refute my point, not only because of what I mentioned directly above, but because ignorance still exists, as proven by the existence of faith.

I've already addressed this: people far more educated than you put authority in divine law.

Yes, and consequently there remains a question for you to answer first. Do so, or stop pestering me incessantly with these trivial, impolite and irrelevant requests.

You log on to a message board of your own free will, and are at liberty to stop posting at your leisure; I pester you with nothing, and hardly incessantly.

Nevertheless, I outright refuse to entertain such an absurd request, having recognized it for the evasion of conviction that it is. You will either confess the truth of your conviction or dutifully end this conversation.

quote:Have you ever met a Christian who's gone on a missions trip? They don't withhold food or medical care until the people in the country they visit willfully become baptized. That accusation is a load of bullshit from the first word.



Of course it's not an obvious Have Food/Will Baptize scenario. It's the carrot-on-the stick trick. Get their bellies full and reward them with supplies, then brainwash them into believing that God will provide for them from there on out as long as they follow the teachings.

Clinging to a religion seems to strip away any real self-reliance. Having faith that an invisible God will provide for the masses as He Sees Fit does not help poverty, does not further social growth, and does not, in the long run, help civilization move forward and become more self-reliant.

With often-quoted scripture such as:"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the world", how can it not be symbolized as a hearty stamp of approval and a campaign for the acceptance that generations AFTER them will suffer the same consequences as their predecessors? It promotes just laying down and accepting their fate (which is God's Plan). It instills in them a resignation of responsibility for all the positive change they could bring on themselves if they'd just get their heads out of the clouds and face the reality facing them NOW - not in the Afterlife.

A "mission" to feed and clothe the starving, displaced and downtrodden is truly a heartfelt gesture from one human being to another. And I support it and praise it, if that truly is their goal.

However, using the charity as bait to convert a non-believer into a Follower is just blatant trickery, sugarcoated by false philanthropy and hidden agendas.

It's the same principal as a government lobbyist "purchasing" votes by allowing the pee-ons and less affluent minority supporters to dine on their yacht for a day of luxury and pampering. The message: "Here's a taste of the good life. Support me and my party, and I assure you, there will be more days like this to come."

Why were gestures as these deemed unfair and against the law when used to campaign for votes? BECAUSE IT IS UNETHICAL. The missionaries are Christians acting as representatives of God, lobbying for his crusade and using charity as a tool to rack up supporters of their cause.

An underfed, poverty-stricken Jamaican community won't provide a goddamn thing, financially or otherwise, for a pack of high school kids and a 28-year-old pastor in north-eastern suburban America.

And a religion is not a crutch by itself; it's people that abuse it that way who should be reprimanded.

They don't have to provide anything, save for their minds - which will get a good washing over. Having won over a person's point-of-view can be considered a commodity.

Charity (True Humanitarianism), should be a zero-sum game, where the receiving party benefits and the giving party does not.

Christian charities are non-zero-sum games. Both parties benefit. One from the food/supplies/medicine, the other from having successfully spread a Mind Virus.

My point is exactly the same as it was in the beginning of this thread:

quote: The true Humanitarians are not those who INSIST you must accept their God in order to receive the fruits of their charity.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



The amount of objects a man produces has -NOTHING- to do with his consideration of his place in the universe.

Materialism:

"As the word itself signifies, Materialism is a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the conditions and activity of matter, and which thus denies the existence of God and the soul."

Like you correctly arrived at previously, it is a Marxist outlook. Why in the world you would think I was using a different definition of "materialism" is beyond me.

quote:

Since neither anti-Semitism nor fascism have been expressed, hinted at, or mentioned at all, I would ignore this flagrant distraction and decline your offer.



Perfect. May I assume you understood the implication that because Marxism was also neither expressed, hinted at, or mentioned at all in this thread, it was irrelevant to bring it up?

quote:

A man who notices logical inconsistencies in a theist's claims doesn't hang himself or shoot random passerby; he stops going to church.

All of which existed before man 'started justifying his existence without a god'.

For you to arrive at your outrageous conclusion, show me how you can correlate an increase in "man justifying his existence without a god" with the increase in the handful of literary and philosophical movements you mentioned. If you do not, then your claims remains unfounded as it was to begin with.

By the way, could you please tell me the difference between "stops going to Church" (and whatever conglomeration of actions that represents), and "justifying his existence without a god"?

quote:

You've still yet to answer either of them.



The reasons for which I have already given!

quote:

You want me to answer first because you fear revealing yourself to have holes in your own logic - a child's response.

More wonderful logic!

Not only do you know I'm afraid, not only do you know my logic has holes, but you also prove how this must be a child's response!

Brilliant!

quote:

Neither would the principle of society as we know it.

And which principle is that? A principle which you arbitrarily arrived at? A watered-down one which you decided to conjure up to justify your ridiculous allegations, thus rendering it meaningless just as the truism you previously uttered? Fantastic!

quote:

All groundless patronizing aside, I will hasten to point out that referring specifically to a Christian is entirely incidental, and the allegory can be generalized to include any theist who, by virtue of his theism, gives creedence to a particular doctrine.

That is now a tautology! You ignore that it does not apply to theists who do not, therefore supporting my initial argument. Hence the need for the allegedly "groundless patronizing" which points out how you ignored the rest of my statement... the part that makes me correct!

Hmmmm... It's "groundless patronizing" when you purposely ignore what I said to support your argument, of course(!) but the thought that I would be too stupid to notice, is not...

quote:

Notwithstanding the delusions of the clinically insane, I've yet to hear of a Christian ignoring any factual reality, though I doubt they would be substantial enough in number to apply to the whole of every religion ever created.



They all do; by definition.

If they have faith, then automatically they ignore a "reality", accepting something not supported by evidence at all.

quote:

I've already addressed this: people far more educated than you put authority in divine law.

And just exactly does this address anything? It doesn't!

Find me some one omniscient, and then you can substantiate your argument. Until then, you'll only be bringing me examples of people who will always lack knowledge and are therefore ignorant!

quote:

You log on to a message board of your own free will, and are at liberty to stop posting at your leisure; I pester you with nothing, and hardly incessantly.

Nevertheless, I outright refuse to entertain such an absurd request, having recognized it for the evasion of conviction that it is. You will either confess the truth of your conviction or dutifully end this conversation.

If you refuse to entertain my request, then please stop asking me to answer your question.

Again, either comply with what I requested, or kindly convince yourself that since your question is irrelevant to the argument at hand, I have absolutely no burden of answering the question and as such, I can answer it, or not answer it, out of my own volition, as well as put any and all requirements or conditions that my whim dictates.

Rust:

Materialism:

"As the word itself signifies, Materialism is a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the conditions and activity of matter, and which thus denies the existence of God and the soul."

Like you correctly arrived at previously. It is a Marxist outlook. Why in the world you would think I was using a different definition of "materialism" is beyond me.

Defining materialism and its correlation to Marxism doesn't change the fact that the amount of things a man produces is no reflection on his sense of psychological significance. Thus, you haven't addressed the point.

Perfect. May I assume you understood the implication that because Marxism was also neither expressed, hinted at, or mentioned at all in this thread, it was irrelevant to bring it up?

You suggested that a man's sense of esteem comes from his productivity - there cannot be a stronger implication of Marxist ideology. During the course of this conversation, neither the principle of force as the ruling element of a particular government, nor a prejudice against Semitic races, has found any relation or reference to the conversation. It is an erroneous point designed to divide attention from the point at hand.

All of which existed before man 'started justifying his existence without a god.

For you to arrive at your outrageous conclusion, show me how you can correlate an increase in "man justifying his existence without a god" with the increase in the handful of literary and philosophical movementsyou mentioned.

These events ARE the attempts of 'man justifying his existence without a god', which has resulted in little else than materialistic obsession and a degeneration of psychological health. That's what I've been saying since I first mentioned them.

By the way, could you please tell me the difference between "stops going to Church" (and whatever conglomeration of actions that represents), and "justifying his existence without a god"?

If you stop going to church, you still haven't made any attempt at justifying yourself without God; you've simply abandoned one particular path.

All of this has failed to discredit any of my claims, and I'm beginning to suspect that arguing concisely and logically for the purpose of vindicating a given claim was never your intention.

The reasons for which I have already given!

I thought that, by now, you would've witnessed enough basic parenting techniques to know that "I don't wanna!" does not qualify as an effective reason.

More wonderful logic!

Not only do you know I'm afraid, not only do you know my logic has holes, but you also prove how this must be a child's response!

Brilliant!

Directionless sarcasm is no more effective an argumentative technique than negligence. And your reasoning for not answering my question is nowhere to be found, which leaves me to use my imagination as to its whereabouts, condition, and reason for absence... unless you can step in and remedy the situation.

And which principle is that?

"...the principle of society as we know it."

See also:

"...the framework of our entire system of society."

"WE OWE EVERY BRANCH OF OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY TO THE PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETIES THAT CAME BEFORE US."

That is now a tautology! You ignore that it does not apply to theists who do not, therefore supporting my initial argument. Hence the need for the allegedly "groundless patronizing" which points how you ignored the rest of my statement... the part that makes me correct!

Hmmmm... It's "groundless patronizing" when you purposely ignore what I said to support your argument, of course(!) but the thought that I would be too stupid to notice, is not...

Name me a theism in the history of this planet that doesn't have a doctrine requiring credence to qualify as a believer.

They all do; by definition.

If they have faith, then automatically they ignore a "reality", accepting something not supported by evidence at all.

Nothing about any religion suggests that the being, essence, or hierarchy in which they so fervently believe can be interpreted by the five physical senses (save pantheism and its materialistic derivatives such as Scientology, but if you worship nature and its order, you worship the things you perceive with your senses, anyway). It is therefore not a matter of 'ignoring' anything, but accepting the existence of something in addition to, and not in conflict with, sensory reality (which, considering the limited scope of our brains and the existence of what psychology calls an 'absolute threshold', is hardly unscientific).

And just exactly does this address anything? It doesn't!

Find me some one omniscient, and then you can substantiate your argument. Until then, you'll only be bringing me examples of people who will always lack knowledge and are therefore ignorant!

This kind of an argument only exists if the presupposition that religion is a result of a lack of knowledge is accepted. You've yet to express any correlatory statistics or illustrative examples - verily, ANY evidence that could even hint at its validity - that suggest this is so.

If you refuse to entertain my request, then please stop asking me to answer your question.

Again, either comply with what I requested, or kindly convince yourself that since your question is irrelevant to the argument at hand, I have absolutely no burden of answering the question and as such, I can answer it, or not answer it, out of my own volition, as well as put any and all requirements or conditions that my whim dictates.

You made the claim of a law standing on its own merits. It's not my responsibility to explain why I question it; it's your responsibility to support it. It's the burden of conviction; be a man and take it up.

[EDIT: clarification]

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 09-02-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:



Defining materialism and its correlation to Marxism doesn't change the fact that the amount of things a man produces is no reflection on his sense of psychological significance. Thus, you haven't addressed the point.



Addressed what point? I never said what you're claiming I did so please enlighten me, what point is that?

In all of this, I thought you were mistaking "materialism" to have another meaning, which is why I provided the definition I was using. I never said anything remotely suggesting that 'a man's productions is what shows his worth'.

quote:

You suggested that a man's sense of esteem comes from his productivity - there cannot be a stronger implication of Marxist ideology. During the course of this conversation, neither the principle of force as the ruling element of a particular government, nor a prejudice against Semitic races, has found any relation or reference to the conversation. It is an erroneous point designed to divide attention from the point at hand.

Where did I suggest that at all? I'm honestly unaware, since to my knowledge I never uttered anything remotely close to that.

quote:

These events ARE the attempts of 'man justifying his existence without a god', which has resulted in little else than materialistic obsession and a degeneration of psychological health. That's what I've been saying since I first mentioned them.



I know what you've been saying, which is why I know that you haven't backed it up at all. You evaded the point completely. I'll repeat it again:

"For you to arrive at your outrageous conclusion, show me how you can correlate an increase in "man justifying his existence without a god" with the increase in the handful of literary and philosophical movements you mentioned"



quote:

I thought that, by now, you would've witnessed enough basic parenting techniques to know that "I don't wanna!" does not qualify as an effective reason.



Well you're in luck since that wasn't the reason I gave at all!

Or do you take figments of your own imagination as substitutes for the truth?

quote:

Directionless sarcasm is no more effective an argumentative technique than negligence. And your reasoning for not answering my question is nowhere to be found, which leaves me to use my imagination as to its whereabouts, condition, and reason for absence... unless you can step in and remedy the situation.



It's a perfectly good technique to show how baseless and ignorant your accusations are.



quote:

"...the principle of society as we know it."

See also:

"...the framework of our entire system of society."

"WE OWE EVERY BRANCH OF OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY TO THE PEOPLE IN THE SOCIETIES THAT CAME BEFORE US."

The "principle of society as we know it" is the "principle of society"? Brilliant!

The "framework of our entire system of society" is the principle of society"? Brilliant!

Answer the question, these vague and meaningless phrases do nothing but accentuate how you can't substantiate anything you've said.



quote:

Name me a theism in the history of this planet that doesn't have a doctrine requiring credence to qualify as a believer.

Here, I'll make one up. Fatuzeir-ism. It doesn't have a doctrine requiring credence to qualify as a believer.

quote:

Nothing about any religion suggests that the being, essence, or hierarchy in which they so fervently believe can be interpreted by the five physical senses (save pantheism and its materialistic derivatives such as Scientology, but if you worship nature and its order, you worship the things you perceive with your senses, anyway). It is therefore not a matter of 'ignoring' anything, but accepting the existence of something in addition to, and not in conflict with, sensory reality (which, considering the limited scope of our brains and the existence of what psychology calls an 'absolute threshold', is hardly unscientific).

Justify it all you want, the fact remains that I am correct, they all lack knowledge.

quote:

This kind of an argument only exists if the presupposition that religion is a result of a lack of knowledge is accepted. You've yet to express any correlatory statistics or illustrative examples - verily, ANY evidence that could even hint at its validity - that suggest this is so.



They do lack knowledge, since by definition, they have faith. I've already shown this. The argument stands.

quote:You made the claim of a law standing on its own merits. It's not my responsibility to explain why I question it; it's your responsibility to support it. It's the burden of conviction; be a man and take it up.

I have absolutely no burden to do anything if it's just to satisfy your curiosity as you already confessed. I have absolutely no reason to answer it.

But here, since you've whined, cried, pestered, and pouted so much, I will give the reason why I want you to answer my question:

There are two possible answers to my question; you either believe that I can justify it without god, or that I cannot.

If you believe I can, I have to explain nothing since my point stands. If you believe that I cannot, then no answer of mine will satisfy your trivial request, and thus I again have no reason to explain.

My question removes any possible need for an answer.

This, coupled with the fact that it remains irrelevant question of yours, product only of your own curiosity, means that I have absolutely no reason to answer; at all.

Rust:

Since your last point is the fundamental and crucial one in a sea of erroneous distractions that all stem from this one fundamental point, I'll address it and it alone.

This is a string of assumptions you've no reason to make. I am always in the mood for intelligent discussion on metaphysical truths, and when I came across the statement you made which inspired my initial post, I was honestly curious as to the thought process you made to arrive at this conclusion.

It's not a matter of me asking you because I already have a fixed mentality on whether or not you can justify it. I'm not inquiring because I'm either thinking, "I want to see if he agrees with me," or "This guy's got nothing." I honestly wanted to know your reason for believing that.

Let's focus on this point, and this point alone, shall we? I'm uninterested in continuing the post/reply/post/reply ad nauseum process we've been going down so far, and would much rather keep the mood in high spirits. Agreed?

quote:Originally posted by Dre Crabbe:

Of course it is being exploited. Terrorists, for example. The ones that actually commit the crime were mostly found to be peace loving, gentle people. They were simply twisted by the rich aristocracy. Twisted by the misinterpretation and/or misteaching of religion.

you miss the point entirely, if I see what he means. he's pointing out how YOU have been duped too, not just terrorists.

also, the idea that you can somehow 'misinterpret' devine ordnance, as comes from the mouth of your invisible friend who is everywhere and lives in the clouds (and does other pointless stupid shit) is laughable. religion is a social glue and whatever else you make of it- be it an instrument of terror (bin laden), a chain of command on building projects (egyptian pharohs) or an interpretive dance group (wiccan covens). the gods are always invisible, and only the details change.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Rust:

Since your last point is the fundamental and crucial one in a sea of erroneous distractions that all stem from this one fundamental point, I'll address it and it alone.

This is a string of assumptions you've no reason to make. I am always in the mood for intelligent discussion on metaphysical truths, and when I came across the statement you made which inspired my initial post, I was honestly curious as to the thought process you made to arrive at this conclusion.

It's not a matter of me asking you because I already have a fixed mentality on whether or not you can justify it. I'm not inquiring because I'm either thinking, "I want to see if he agrees with me," or "This guy's got nothing." I honestly wanted to know your reason for believing that.

Let's focus on this point, and this point alone, shall we? I'm uninterested in continuing the post/reply/post/reply ad nauseum process we've been going down so far, and would much rather keep the mood in high spirits. Agreed?

1. Not all of my points stemmed from that one, in fact, almost none of them did.

2.

You want me to assume your question was nothing but benign, the result of your genuine curiosity... but you cannot assume my question to you was the same? It was suddenly a ploy on my part to lure you into a never ending barrage replies; it was a "trick" of mine, one which I have apparently used before, certainly not curiosity at all - how could it be? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Well I will not be answering on the grounds that... "You've pulled this trick before on me. When I answer that question, you give a million and one reasons why you think my answer is unacceptable, no matter how insignificant it is to the purpose of the original question..."

Childish? As childish as saying that in the first place.

If you do not want to continue with what you call "the sea of erroneous distractions" (which is what your own original reply netted) then fine.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-02-2005).]

Whatever.

The Power of Myth

by Joseph Campbell, Bill Moyers "Why myths? Why should we care about myths?..." (http://tinyurl.com/7opld)

Better yet, get the DVD (http://tinyurl.com/brnvu)

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Whatever.

You sure showed him.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Whatever.

to this thread. Itz a stupid topic cos there is no 'complete' and defeating answer to opinion.

This whole forum falls into that category.