It is inevitable that religion will become extinct. The question is, how long will it take? Will there be just one religion, or will everyone be atheist?

So why exactly would religion disappear?

So why exactly would religion disappear?

Not a reason, an observation.

All the ancient religions faded into prehistory, we can assume the rest will too. The question is, will newer religion cover the old ones, like "Scientology".

The ancient religions did not all fade away into obscurity.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Taoism and probably many others have all been around for thousands of years.

Humanity will die out before religion and superstition does. Magical thinking is in our nature and sadly not all of us are strong enough to live life without a metaphysical safety blanket.

There may come a time when religion is finally regarded as the fairy tale that it is by most of humanity, but there will always be a few fuckasses out there playing make believe. It will never completely go away.

are you saying that in the future kids in 7th grade will do little nativity scenes and all that, only to kind of laugh about it? just what we do with the roman gods today, possibly.

There may come a time when religion is finally regarded as the fairy tale that it is by most of humanity, but there will always be a few fuckasses out there playing make believe. It will never completely go away.

True, as make-believing is so cathartic for so many people. I personally would rather play with finger-puppets. But that's neither here nor there.

OP:
Obliteration is a pipe dream, but mass awareness is attainable. Don't give up on the human race as a whole.

Unless we are subject to cyclic cultural collapses (which I think we most likely are), then I could see religion eventually blossoming out of lies and misconception into something that actually helps us understand the nature of reality.

I could also see it going the other way, in which belief structures fade away, and nobody has a clue towards the true nature of reality...but I think even then we would eventually figure it out, since its just another way of cleansing the system of the dogma.

But since I think we are subject to a collapse of some kind eventually, I think we will pretty much keep this hazy view of the nature of reality, where most people are wrong, and few are on the right track.

So what makes you think we'll figure it out? That's quite the assumption, even worse than the whole religion disappearing despite all the reasons people have to keep it going (sense of security and power mostly)

In the 2nd scenario I mentioned, I think we would eventually figure out the nature of reality through science, and even later eventually understand it on a higher level.

And yes, thats another scenario. Without cultural collapses, we might stay in the haze because of greedy leaders. I just hope we can eventually move past the whole greed thing, and better improve ourselves as a species.

But I personally think we aren't exempt from cultural collapse.

Even if I could explain the universe to you, you wouldn't have the brain power to understand it, no one does. Universe is incredibly vast and difficult to understand for our puny minds. God is easy, that's why it's so popular

But yeah, several hundred years to the future excavators will discover 21st century medical equipment and compare it with their own, being amazed how advanced we were. Remind you of anything?

Religion will die, not because other religions will rise, but because humanity will awaken to the fact that man is blinded and lied to by the myth-tellers who seek to keep Humanity enchained and enslaved. Man will arise like a phoenix and he will see the delusions and the lies, and swiftly will the liars fall.

Don't believe in bullshit excuses like "human nature". Human nature is taught. If we can TEACH gorillas to talk, than we can definitely teach our children and our childrens children to not let the popes and the kings of the world blind them and bind them. We can take back our minds.

Old religions, as it has been said, didn't die out. They were conquered, the many magical cults and rites replaced by ONE god and ONE prayer. Likewise, those of ONE will be conquered by those of NONE, the pure, simple truth of the universe.

Hmm, it would suck to have lived as a devout priest or monk all your life and then realise that everything you had devoted your life's work to was a fallacy.

Meh, I'll probably be dead long before any of the religions start to fade.. I'm not sure if I'll be alive in the 'afterlife' or just being skull-fucked by maggots but I guess I'll find out when I get there.

Hmm, it would suck to have lived as a devout priest or monk all your life and then realise that everything you had devoted your life's work to was a fallacy.


You don't understand how these things work.

Religion can not, by definition, be obliterated. That is stupid to think so.

You don't understand how these things work.

Religion can not, by definition, be obliterated. That is stupid to think so.

I contend that faith-based religion can disappear. Religion, all together, cannot. Lost minds will find direction in anything they can grab on to. I mean...look at the US right after 9/11. Instead of impeaching the guy who let it happen, WE FOLLOWED HIS PLANS.

I contend that faith-based religion can disappear. Religion, all together, cannot. Lost minds will find direction in anything they can grab on to. I mean...look at the US right after 9/11. Instead of impeaching the guy who let it happen, WE FOLLOWED HIS PLANS.

Well, IIRC, "religion" means "returning to the source", which is what I was referring to.

Man-made institutions? They come and go like the wind. Pure and noble ideas? They carry on to eternity.

Well, IIRC, "religion" means "returning to the source", which is what I was referring to.

Man-made institutions? They come and go like the wind. Pure and noble ideas? They carry on to eternity.

Ah, I figured you were going off of time-construed definitions found in dictionaries, not the idea of long past that's been mucked through linguistic adaptations.

Ah, I figured you were going off of time-construed definitions found in dictionaries, not the idea of long past that's been mucked through linguistic adaptations.

Assume the unexpected.

Assume the unexpected.

We're tiny, we're toony, we're all a little loony...

We're tiny, we're toony, we're all a little loony...

and in this cartoony we're invading your TV?

That "things we still dont know" post in IFIOTW makes the statement that atheists must make a leap of faith to accept the rather unscientific assumption that there are multiple universes in order to explain natural constants. And people said atheism isnt a religion. :p

If the lack of belief in gods is a religion, then bald is a hair colour and off is a TV station.

That "things we still dont know" post in IFIOTW makes the statement that atheists must make a leap of faith to accept the rather unscientific assumption that there are multiple universes in order to explain natural constants. And people said atheism isnt a religion. :p

Show me a religion that admits it can be wrong. Show me a religion that can be completely rewritten if someone comes up with a better theory, a religion constantly changing in an effort to make it better

Yeah, worshipping a magic man is the same as theorizing and testing whether it works- Yawn

Why do you always view god as a magic man?

Because that's what the people I associate with view him as, a bearded old guy. Don't pretend you don't know the stereotype. Regardless, it serves it's purpose by accurately describing the most popular version of the concept and at the same time belittling it. What more can I want?

Show me a religion that admits it can be wrong. Show me a religion that can be completely rewritten if someone comes up with a better theory, a religion constantly changing in an effort to make it better

Yeah, worshipping a magic man is the same as theorizing and testing whether it works- Yawn

I admit that my religion could very well be wrong. There are many atheists that claim they cannot be wrong. Admitting fallability is not a litmus for religion.

Regardless, at present we have absolutely no fucking clue of where to begin in trying to contact another universe, much less reach the end of our own. Thus, the notion of multiverses is infallable, and will be for many, many years, if not centuries. As it is far beyond our scope of being, it is as infallable as the notion of God existing.

Because that's what the people I associate with view him as, a bearded old guy. Don't pretend you don't know the stereotype. Regardless, it serves it's purpose by accurately describing the most popular version of the concept and at the same time belittling it. What more can I want?

How about...the truth :eek:

How about...the truth :eek:

Ding Ding Ding!

You win the prize!

As it is far beyond our scope of being, it is as infallable as the notion of God existing.

Yet it quite fails to be as ridiculous as a magic man that loves us all, surely you can see that. It's a guess but at least it's based on something. God is based on nothing but old texts and people perpetuating the idea so they can have power over the populace. That and our inability to understand the big picture and the desire to smack in an infallible band-aid to cover the wound. Atheists so sure God isn't around are about the equivalent of you being so sure unicorns don't exist. Can you really blame them for not believing? Wouldn't take much proof to break their ego but it's nowhere to be found

Yeah Rizzo, I'll waste time on handful of people that think wind is God or the like instead of focusing on the millions and their magic man. Please. Shove that buzzword where the sun don't shine. If you want your own view accommodated, do it yourself

Yet it quite fails to be as ridiculous as a magic man that loves us all, surely you can see that.

Thats subjective. The explanations of ultimate origins for atheists is just as fantastic as for deistic explanation at this stage of the game.

God is based on nothing but old texts and people perpetuating the idea so they can have power over the populace. That and our inability to understand the big picture and the desire to smack in an infallible band-aid to cover the wound.

Yet you ignore the entire reason for many religions existing at all. It is that someone said that a divine being announced itself to them in some form or another; which IS evidence, albeit not the best.

It is speculative as to whether alien being exist and whether they would have been responsible for life on earth. If one were to show himself to a primitive human a few thousand years ago, you find the common link between ateism and theism, and the reason for perpetuating religion. The same goes for a definitively divine being.

To simply say that a diety does not exist in any form is ridiculous.

Wouldn't take much proof to break their ego but it's nowhere to be found

And it wouldnt take monumental proof to break religion, but neither side has any proof whatsoever they they are right or the other wrong. Its still all in assumsions and belief.

Thats subjective. The explanations of ultimate origins for atheists is just as fantastic as for deistic explanation at this stage of the game.

Yet there is progress to be made and no real scientist will put his fingers in his ears and yell LALALALALALA if he's presented a theory that fits better. Religion tends to demand you to believe in something infallible and that in itself is ridiculous

Yet you ignore the entire reason for many religions existing at all. It is that someone said that a divine being announced itself to them in some form or another; which IS evidence, albeit not the best.

I wouldn't count thousands of years old revelations as credible. If someone came to you telling he saw a burning bush talk, would you take him seriously? I really doubt that. Almost everyone ignores the people calling themselves resurrected Jesus yet an old book is somehow credible. You just believe it because everyone else does

To simply say that a diety does not exist in any form is ridiculous.

There is absolutely zilch observable evidence of the deity so it's not really ridiculous at all. It would be ridiculous to ignore evidence on the contrary but there is none

And it wouldnt take monumental proof to break religion, but neither side has any proof whatsoever they they are right or the other wrong. Its still all in assumsions and belief.

It's logical to assume something doesn't exist if it doesn't affect anything and it's not observable. You're saying it could so why don't you say unicorns could exist? Why do you say there is a God if you mean there might be? Since that's how it is, you don't know yet you claim there is one without anything to back you up other than emotions

How would you prove an intangible invisible thing doesn't exist? It's impossible. Proving it does is much more simple, you just need to be able to sense it, with your own senses or by machinery. I can't feel magnetic fields but there's plenty of reason to believe they in fact are there from the effects they have on other things. I've yet to see God actually do anything. It's easy to claim he influenced something when the influence itself is intangible. Just going around in circles

As long as I've been on this forum, I've found not a single atheist who can answer this question for me:

If religion is such an unnatural state of mind ("religion" in the actual meaning of the term, not the synonym to Christianity all Totseans reflexively assume it is), why does the root of every culture connect itself to it?

Every culture, from the clans of the Americas, to the empires of Eurasia, to aboriginal tribes on remote islands of fucking Papua New Guinea all have gods and systematic religious systems as the basis of their civilization. In many instances, civilization is determined to be a direct product of the elements of their faith.

If this is ubiquitous to every civilization on the planet, why are we to assume it's either (A) possible; or (B) a good idea to get rid of it altogether?

As long as I've been on this forum, I've found not a single atheist who can answer this question for me:

If religion is such an unnatural state of mind ("religion" in the actual meaning of the term, not the synonym to Christianity all Totseans reflexively assume it is), why does the root of every culture connect itself to it?

Every culture, from the clans of the Americas, to the empires of Eurasia, to aboriginal tribes on remote islands of fucking Papua New Guinea all have gods and systematic religious systems as the basis of their civilization. In many instances, civilization is determined to be a direct product of the elements of their faith.

If this is ubiquitous to every civilization on the planet, why are we to assume it's either (A) possible; or (B) a good idea to get rid of it altogether?

Were you reading my posts a couple weeks ago?

If religion is such an unnatural state of mind, why does the root of every culture connect itself to it?

I think long ago religions were all very similar, and also similar to my concept of it all.

But I'm also the guy who thinks that aliens then came and used it to manipulate society. GOD DAMN ALIENS.

I think long ago religions were all very similar, and also similar to my concept of it all.

But I'm also the guy who thinks that aliens then came and used it to manipulate society. GOD DAMN ALIENS.

Why introduce aliens? Humans aren't entirely retarded. I'm sure some noticed how powerful a force faith can be, and then decided to try to convert people away from the source beliefs in order to gain control.

The first religions didn't have temples and leaders...it wasn't about power structure, it was a genuine faith in a spiritual side of the physical world. Claiming to be a representative of this spiritual world could prove very useful for government risings, as can be seen in the last several thousand years of human history. Nearly every nation that rose by military power had leaders that were 'living gods'.

Just because of things like the deserts of green glass (perhaps from ancient atomic warfare?), certain similarities in ancient tales around the world, lots of things said by M. Tsarion and the likes...

But I actually think the past might work just like the future. Just as there are many many alternative ways the future could unfold, there are many alternative ways we could have got to where we are now.

Humans are greedy, the scenario you introduced could work perfectly as well.

"As long as I've been on this forum, I've found not a single atheist who can answer this question for me:

If religion is such an unnatural state of mind ("religion" in the actual meaning of the term, not the synonym to Christianity all Totseans reflexively assume it is), why does the root of every culture connect itself to it?

Every culture, from the clans of the Americas, to the empires of Eurasia, to aboriginal tribes on remote islands of fucking Papua New Guinea all have gods and systematic religious systems as the basis of their civilization. In many instances, civilization is determined to be a direct product of the elements of their faith.

If this is ubiquitous to every civilization on the planet, why are we to assume it's either (A) possible; or (B) a good idea to get rid of it altogether?"

People are emotional, generally very stupid creatures. It stands to reason that in ancient times, before we even knew about the scientific method, much less even basic things about our universe (i.e: the Earth being round, the sun being a star, etc.) that people would attempt to think up explanations based on what they felt made sense. Unfortunately, that meant whenever it thundered out they thought it was a super powered dude in the sky named Zeus, or what have you.

As it stands, it will be impossible to "get rid" of religion; stupidity is not something you can rob people of, especially when that stupidity acts as a childish security blanket, shielding their minds to the reality of their situations. It's something that must slowly weeded out through education and time. It must also be said that many cultures have hero myths, many are very similar; that does not mean those heroes exist anywhere but in reader's minds.

Yet there is progress to be made and no real scientist will put his fingers in his ears and yell LALALALALALA if he's presented a theory that fits better. Religion tends to demand you to believe in something infallible and that in itself is ridiculous

And science does not? The idea of multiple universes is completely infallable. In order to explain ultimate beginnings, an atheist must believe this.


I wouldn't count thousands of years old revelations as credible. If someone came to you telling he saw a burning bush talk, would you take him seriously? I really doubt that. Almost everyone ignores the people calling themselves resurrected Jesus yet an old book is somehow credible. You just believe it because everyone else does

Probably not, but cultures between this and the culture of thousands of years ago are very different.

If your brother told you he saw a burning bush and it spoke to him and that he was completely drug free, you might be so inclined to believe him, would you not?

There is absolutely zilch observable evidence of the deity so it's not really ridiculous at all. It would be ridiculous to ignore evidence on the contrary but there is none

Likewise for multiple universes. Hell, its not even a hypothesis, it is simply a generalization. There is not tangible evidence for multiple universes, but it is the assumed slution to ultimate origin. What evidence is there to the contrary of a diety? Well except maybe the ones that live in the clouds or in the earth or whatever the hell Scientologists belive in....


It's logical to assume something doesn't exist if it doesn't affect anything and it's not observable. You're saying it could so why don't you say unicorns could exist? Why do you say there is a God if you mean there might be? Since that's how it is, you don't know yet you claim there is one without anything to back you up other than emotions

It is not logical at all, but rather folly. It is logical to believe such, but it is mistake to assume.

Also, it would do you well to not be a moron because I always approach this topic with stating my beliefs, not beligerently stating assumptions as fact as you have just done.

How would you prove an intangible invisible thing doesn't exist? It's impossible. Proving it does is much more simple, you just need to be able to sense it, with your own senses or by machinery. I can't feel magnetic fields but there's plenty of reason to believe they in fact are there from the effects they have on other things. I've yet to see God actually do anything. It's easy to claim he influenced something when the influence itself is intangible. Just going around in circles

Multiple universes is not applicable to the same thing? There is much anecdotal evidence, but why should you have experienced anything relating to divine intervention when you dont even believe in it? Many religions say you must believe, and such a proof would void religion altogether. Supposing such a diety exists, he knows this, so why show yourself too soon?

I should say that my fuel pump going out going up a hill just before a car appears in my lane is not "intangeble". I would have hit that dumbass if it didnt go out. And guess what? It hasnt stopped working again since then.

Kinda like that 1:E^120 universal constant, huh?

"And science does not? The idea of multiple universes is completely infallable. In order to explain ultimate beginnings, an atheist must believe this."

I think you need to go find out what the word "infallable" means and then go back and read what you just wrote.

The only thing an atheist "must" have by definition is a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.

"If your brother told you he saw a burning bush and it spoke to him and that he was completely drug free, you might be so inclined to believe him, would you not?"

I'd take him to see a mental health professional, since mentally healthy people don't generally see talking burning flora.

"Likewise for multiple universes. Hell, its not even a hypothesis, it is simply a generalization. There is not tangible evidence for multiple universes, but it is the assumed slution to ultimate origin."

I don't know anyone who believes this. I don't claim to have a theory on how the universe began (if it indeed had a beginning) or why it exists. "Goddidit" however is not an acceptable solution.

"What evidence is there to the contrary of a diety?"

The concept is self-contradictory and logically impossible to exist in reality, therefore there is very little reason to believe it exists. It is of course, up to those that claim it exists to prove that it does.

"Well except maybe the ones that live in the clouds or in the earth or whatever the hell Scientologists belive in...."

Or the one in the Bible.

I think you need to go find out what the word "infallable" means and then go back and read what you just wrote.

The only thing an atheist "must" have by definition is a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.

At present, there is nothing else in the scientific community to explain ultimate origin. To believe in anything else really does border on religion, and it is ridiculous, using your own vernacular of course.

I'd take him to see a mental health professional, since mentally healthy people don't generally see talking burning flora.

And if doc says he is perfectly sane? Ohh but there MUST be something wrong with him because his sayings do not match wth my preconceived notions, correct?

I don't know anyone who believes this. I don't claim to have a theory on how the universe began (if it indeed had a beginning) or why it exists. "Goddidit" however is not an acceptable solution.

You must be some atheist heretic.

Why is it not acceptable? Atheists assume the multiverse explanation for ultimate origin in light of crazy shit like this without having any real proof or theory to substantially back it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Of course disregard the comment about inverse gambler's fallacy as the notion of multiverse assumes an infinite number of universes, thus all states are satisfied by definition.

The concept is self-contradictory and logically impossible to exist in reality, therefore there is very little reason to believe it exists. It is of course, up to those that claim it exists to prove that it does.

.... I can at least accept Rust's claim of weak atheist because his head is at least not so far into his ass as yours is.

I am going to make an assumption that your head is indeed not in your ass for sake of arguement and forgive your horrible use of pronouns:

" therefore there is very little reason to believe it exists"

To believe in god or evidence that a diety does not exist? I dont understand what you are talking about as you have not declared a standard subject.

Or the one in the Bible.

Ohh you have explored the entire universe and what lies beyond? Ohh wait... :rolleyes:

I was referring to claims of religions that dieties reside in the clouds or in the earth, which we know to be false under terms of all known physics.

But as I am wont to do, it went screaming over your clueless head in your feeble attempt to make a childish claim. Good job.

religion is the most over-villianized thing in the modern world.

At present, there is nothing else in the scientific community to explain ultimate origin. To believe in anything else really does border on religion, and it is ridiculous, using your own vernacular of course.

Scientists tenatively accept what they feel is the most correct theory, and this theory may (and I hope will) be overturned. There are other explanations for the 1 in 10^120 cosmological constant, namely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#Naturalistic_possibilities. Some asshole removed the anthropic principle from this (which was my favorite), but again, the spirit of science is to research and observe and hypothesize, and loosely accept theories until more proof/a different theory comes along. Read into the spirit of science, nothing is accepted forever, not even gravity. If legitimate, empirical, evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe was farted out of a giant chicken's ass, I'll believe that too, because I am an empiricist and evidence is key.
And if doc says he is perfectly sane? Ohh but there MUST be something wrong with him because his sayings do not match wth my preconceived notions, correct?
This is perhaps the most fundamental difference between you and most atheists, we don't just believe something bc/ somebody says so, we need evidence. You obviously don't, but I don't trust other people unless they provide (legitimate) evidence. If my brother saw Jesus speak to him via his alphabet soup, I'd ask him to show me the soup and I wouldn't believe him until I had seen it, again, because I'm an empiricist and I question the world around me.

You must be some atheist heretic.

Why is it not acceptable? Atheists assume the multiverse explanation for ultimate origin in light of crazy shit like this without having any real proof or theory to substantially back it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Of course disregard the comment about inverse gambler's fallacy as the notion of multiverse assumes an infinite number of universes, thus all states are satisfied by definition.
Go make a poll and ask what claims about the universe most atheists support, you'll find that not all believe in multiverses, pursuant to my previous link (which you should definitely read seeing as I've used it at least 5 times on this forum and received great results).


.... I can at least accept Rust's claim of weak atheist because his head is at least not so far into his ass as yours is.

I am going to make an assumption that your head is indeed not in your ass for sake of arguement and forgive your horrible use of pronouns:

" therefore there is very little reason to believe it exists"

To believe in god or evidence that a diety does not exist? I dont understand what you are talking about as you have not declared a standard subject.

I'll let the person you were arguing with do this one.


Ohh you have explored the entire universe and what lies beyond? Ohh wait... :rolleyes:

I was referring to claims of religions that dieties reside in the clouds or in the earth, which we know to be false under terms of all known physics.

But as I am wont to do, it went screaming over your clueless head in your feeble attempt to make a childish claim. Good job.
I find it ironic how you accept basic physics, yet you probably (disclaimer: this is an assumption and I am not treating it as fact) believe in miracles (c.f. burning flora that speaks), which are a blatant violation of physics. It's also ironic how you would accept anectdotal evidence from your brother (let alone a 3.5 thousand year old Jewish "messiah") about a burning bush (disclaimer: this is an implication on your part and I am not treating it as fact), yet not anectdotal evidence (the shittiest of evidence) for a multiverse. Humans are fallible, greedy, gullible, and prone to exaggeration and fabrication. Scientists observe the world around them and make predictions. Which evidence is more acceptable in modern culture? Empirical evidence, or anectodtal (hint, it's the one that didn't start the witch burnings)?

Summary: The spirit of science is to work towards a solution and LOOSELY accept the current theories, and not all atheists accept the multiverse theory.

.... I can at least accept Rust's claim of weak atheist because his head is at least not so far into his ass as yours is.


I'd appreciate it if you would not mention my name in your posts. Specially when you're making such an utter fool out of yourself.

Thank you.

As long as I've been on this forum, I've found not a single atheist who can answer this question for me:

If religion is such an unnatural state of mind ("religion" in the actual meaning of the term, not the synonym to Christianity all Totseans reflexively assume it is), why does the root of every culture connect itself to it?

Every culture, from the clans of the Americas, to the empires of Eurasia, to aboriginal tribes on remote islands of fucking Papua New Guinea all have gods and systematic religious systems as the basis of their civilization. In many instances, civilization is determined to be a direct product of the elements of their faith.

If this is ubiquitous to every civilization on the planet, why are we to assume it's either (A) possible; or (B) a good idea to get rid of it altogether?
Religion is part of culture, and will grow out of spirituality regardless (because that's how religion started). I'm okay with religion that doesn't infringe on science, force beliefs down the throats of others, builds multimillion dollar churches instead of feeding the poor, and builds creationist museums in Tenesee. In response to your post, I'll give you this fact from Wikipedia. My father had the exact same opinion as you, IIRC, "If religion is wrong, why is it everywhere, what inclines people to believe it?" I responded with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

I don't like that article, but Wiki's reliable, so you could just as easily Google it.

I should say that my fuel pump going out going up a hill just before a car appears in my lane is not "intangeble". I would have hit that dumbass if it didnt go out. And guess what? It hasnt stopped working again since then.

You just effectively claimed coincidence does not exist. Lightning from clear sky is a miracle, gas pump going out the one time it doesn't end you in a river could be but there's no real reason to believe it is one unless you are already religious. You said it, you have to be religious to see miracles around and I don't think that's a coincidence. You see what you want to see. Mundane things turn into extraordinary when you wish it

If only your "miracles" weren't so mundane so there'd be a real reason to consider an intervention for once. People claim miracles of about everything from surgeons doing their job well to kids losing their limbs but not dying. It's ridiculous

I'd appreciate it if you would not mention my name in your posts. Specially when you're making such an utter fool out of yourself.

Thank you.

You're projecting.

You just effectively claimed coincidence does not exist. Lightning from clear sky is a miracle, gas pump going out the one time it doesn't end you in a river could be but there's no real reason to believe it is one unless you are already religious. You said it, you have to be religious to see miracles around and I don't think that's a coincidence. You see what you want to see. Mundane things turn into extraordinary when you wish it

If only your "miracles" weren't so mundane so there'd be a real reason to consider an intervention for once. People claim miracles of about everything from surgeons doing their job well to kids losing their limbs but not dying. It's ridiculous

The mundane becoming sacred is one of the very tenets of an enlightened/spiritual outlook. Of course he wants to see miracles. Do you NOT want to?

I want to see real miracles, not luck. It's not a fucking miracle to get lucky, saying it is doesn't make it so. Real "enlightened" to see things where there is none because you want to. It's like kids getting "drunk" by drinking non-alcoholic beer

You're projecting.


Certainly, how else would you have read what I said?

I want to see real miracles, not luck. It's not a fucking miracle to get lucky, saying it is doesn't make it so. Real "enlightened" to see things where there is none because you want to. It's like kids getting "drunk" by drinking non-alcoholic beer

On the grand scale of this universe, there is infinite room for both skepticism and faith. You can both open and blind your eyes to anything...all you have to do is change the size and shape of the frame you've put the bigger picture into.

Coincidences and miracles are one in the same...it's not so much delusion that creates the separation between the two, but the scale of the world around you that you've chosen to view. The more personal and experiential views lend to 'miracles', whereas the impersonal and empirical views lend to coincidences. We experience miracles, we observe coincidence. We experience when the frame is set upon our immediate world. We observe when it is set upon Creation itself.

It's sort of like jumping out of a painting and then noticing how all the things that mean so much to you and comprise your entire image are just neat little arrangements of color.

The root is control.

Theism, authoritarianism, hell, even free vs. open source software, its all a debate about control.

In one system, there is none. The individual chooses his or her own path and can change anything and everything. They can make their own destinies and their own lives.

in the other, there is a preset PATH that one must follow. In this, there is no escape, there is no room for innovation or for creativity. There's a neat little pyramid so that the people on top can just pick up the people on the bottom like a person picking up a shopping bag. There is no individuality, only class and caste systems. There is no self-determination, only the determination of your caste.

To Argon: It is utterly useless that you try to apply the control you hold so dear to our freedom. We don't have leaders stuffing dogma down our throats, and we don't have to believe anything. We just think what we want. I'm happy to say that really, I dont' know how the universe came into being, and I don't really mind. I'm in it, aren't I? I'm sure there are communities that do know or have good ideas, and I'm sure their ideas are better than a man on a mountain or a chaos-turtle or whatever it is you theists think the world spawned out of.

I think Kant also said something about this. Civilizations don't know things, so they, being weak I suppose, blame god. Then, civilizations start to harness nature and grow out of some of gods and religions, but still have some beliefs. Eventually, man has total understanding, and there is no reason to believe.


No, we dont' know everything, but give us time. Hell, we may never know everything. That doesn't mean we need to exploit ourselves.

Don't think that this is "anti-organized religion". Don't think that anything with the idea of a god is exempt. The ideas of gods are placeholders for real ones, and its utterly stupid to cling to them for traditions sake. And any god can send messengers. Any god can appoint leaders. Thus any god-based system is exploitable.

I read Snow Crash recently; that book had very nice concepts about religion and about linguistics. Religion is pretty much one guy on the top sending orders to his next tier, and things trickle down. Everyone is wired to take the commands directly and without hesitation. There isn't any choice. There isn't any individual. There is only control.

Its interesting, rizzo, that you called religion a return to the source. What that brings to my mind is the matrix; a return to the source code of life, of everything. Little neat, user-friendly manifests, with comments and everything else. But though most people don't realize it, software can be disassembled. You can get the source code of anything pretty easily; it'll just be a bitch to read.

There's no need to return to anything. The answers are here, and they're right in front of you. If you refuse to look because you think you'll return eventually, you might be right, but its a lot more likely that you're wrong. There are infinite varieties of nothing, but there are only a few versions of being punted into some afterlife. And even then, its even odds that all the catholics or protestants are going to hell because for all we know, Charles Manson got it right, and some nine cultists or so are all thats in "heaven".

Religion has always, in my mind, been the answer to all of the things we don't know or understand about the world. The Mayans and whatnot didn't know what caused rain, wind, floods, the sun, and on and on, so they attributed it to some higher being. Now, we know they were wrong, and we have fairly complete understandings of what really causes those things. We still have a ways to go, though. It is possible we may someday understand the world and the universe in such a complete way that we no longer need to imagine some higher being controlling it. The one thing, I think, that will keep religion alive is people's fear of death. Some people just need to believe in heaven to sleep at night.

I don't like that article, but Wiki's reliable, so you could just as easily Google it.

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Spell:_Religion_as_a_Natural_Phenomen on) is also a great read on the subject, full of valid retorts to "why religion is everywhere" statement.

On the grand scale of this universe, there is infinite room for both skepticism and faith. You can both open and blind your eyes to anything...all you have to do is change the size and shape of the frame you've put the bigger picture into.

Coincidences and miracles are one in the same...it's not so much delusion that creates the separation between the two, but the scale of the world around you that you've chosen to view. The more personal and experiential views lend to 'miracles', whereas the impersonal and empirical views lend to coincidences. We experience miracles, we observe coincidence. We experience when the frame is set upon our immediate world. We observe when it is set upon Creation itself.

So if I roll a dice, guess I'll get a one and proceed to do so, I can turn that into a miracle just by "opening my eyes" as you put it and thinking it was a miracle instead of boring old coincidence?

What the hell am I supposed to say to that? It's like watching someone eat packing foam

Religion is part of culture, and will grow out of spirituality regardless (because that's how religion started). I'm okay with religion that doesn't infringe on science, force beliefs down the throats of others, builds multimillion dollar churches instead of feeding the poor, and builds creationist museums in Tenesee. In response to your post, I'll give you this fact from Wikipedia. My father had the exact same opinion as you, IIRC, "If religion is wrong, why is it everywhere, what inclines people to believe it?" I responded with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

I don't like that article, but Wiki's reliable, so you could just as easily Google it.

That's a pretty interesting article; I'll have to do more research on this gene.

However, whether this does or does not correlate to spirituality doesn't change the question at hand.

If this gene is not the "God Gene," then there still needs to be an explanation of the ubiquity of spirituality throughout human history.

If this gene is the "God Gene," there's obviously a reason for it to exist; a gene that connects a person to invisible realms, often inhabited by anthropomorphic commanders of natural phenomena, needs to have a better explanation than "God makes me feel good."

Especially since he often doesn't.

That's a pretty interesting article; I'll have to do more research on this gene.

However, whether this does or does not correlate to spirituality doesn't change the question at hand.

If this gene is not the "God Gene," then there still needs to be an explanation of the ubiquity of spirituality throughout human history.

If this gene is the "God Gene," there's obviously a reason for it to exist; a gene that connects a person to invisible realms, often inhabited by anthropomorphic commanders of natural phenomena, needs to have a better explanation than "God makes me feel good."

Especially since he often doesn't.

Read The God Delusion, he goes into detail on this one. Or search for religion and memes.

So if I roll a dice, guess I'll get a one and proceed to do so, I can turn that into a miracle just by "opening my eyes" as you put it and thinking it was a miracle instead of boring old coincidence?

What the hell am I supposed to say to that? It's like watching someone eat packing foam

You misunderstand. While living your life, events will happen that will be extremely powerful, extremely personal, extremely weird, and extremely hard to understand...some will be traumatic, some uplifting. If you keep your frame on yourself you'll be able to make it through the traumatic events, and ride the uplifting events with ease - with this, however, comes a common idea that these events in life were tailored for you, and you were tailored for them. If you jump out of the frame for a minute, you'll see that while these events are most definitely powerful and personal, they are anything BUT unique...that YOU are anything but unique. It's a duality that exists solely due to perception.

Complete Opinion:
I think it's ignorant for a person who has chosen one frame to ridicule another for their choice. There are ups and downs to any viewpoint you take in life...there's no need to cause conflict by attempting to hide the downsides of your perception while making every attempt to expose the downsides of other perceptions.

Ah the ignorance of mocking people who claim a magic man who has never manifested himself arranges happy coincidences for them

Everyone also ignores the opposite. All the good shit is thanks to God but no one ever says that God was a prick of making/letting my car break and smash through the railing into a river

Ah the ignorance of mocking people who claim a magic man who has never manifested himself arranges happy coincidences for them

Everyone also ignores the opposite. All the good shit is thanks to God but no one ever says that God was a prick of making/letting my car break and smash through the railing into a river

It all comes down to attitudes and perceptions. Take those two away, and all that's happened is a driver lost control of their car and went into the river. The bad, the good, the coincidence, the miracles...those are all results of attitudes and perceptions. As noble as it is to seek out only that objective truth, perceptive truths make a much more apparent and useful impact on the individual. Any frame you place your perception into can be useful...but as I opined in my last post, treating your subjective frame as either useless or flawless is ignorance epitomized.

And on your very sarcastic first point, I'll say this: The mockery is a product of the presiding ignorance, not the ignorance embodied.

Ignorance is what fuels the mockery:
As you continue to jump out of old subjective frames, you observe them with your new subjective frame and see the progresses you've made. You notice the advantages you have now that you didn't before, and you can even see the people that lack these advantages. Now, of course, you have a better understanding of YOUR subjective frames (past ideals, beliefs, actions, mistakes, successes, and so on...experience, so to speak ;))...but your subjective perception is only yours...it is based upon your own attitudes and aspirations. It's a particular attitude that brings ignorance into the whole issue: That your subjective experience is superior or more beneficial to another person than THEIR VERY OWN EXPERIENCE.

^
That's pretty much why I don't go around telling people they're wrong for believing (or not believing) in things like love, gods, community, government, and so on. My experiences are very, very much different TO ME...but as to the objective experience I have, it's the same as everyone else: Birth and then the shit we call life (and someday, death).

I tried to keep that as simple as I could. If you have any questions or comments, I'll respond when I see 'em.

If you tell me a floating hunk of cheese is responsible for all the good that has ever happened to you, I don't think I'm "ignorant" to call you silly and deluded. Oh right, it makes sense if you call it God but cheese doesn't. How foolish of me, I shall immediately stop calling the cheesetologists stupid

So what kind of advantage would I get for taking these people seriously? That's what you're trying to spew, like I'd gain something if I assumed for a second the cheese God exists

You know who else has strong subjective view of the world? Schizophreniacs. I doubt you take them seriously either, no matter how they percieve their "subjective reality". There's no difference between delusion and belief. Oh wait, there is one difference, people are tolerant of beliefs, no matter how inane they are. And believers really like to spread their ridiculous subjective reality so I'd say THEY are the ignorant ones

If you tell me a floating hunk of cheese is responsible for all the good that has ever happened to you, I don't think I'm "ignorant" to call you silly and deluded. Oh right, it makes sense if you call it God but cheese doesn't. How foolish of me, I shall immediately stop calling the cheesetologists stupid

So what kind of advantage would I get for taking these people seriously? That's what you're trying to spew, like I'd gain something if I assumed for a second the cheese God exists

You know who else has strong subjective view of the world? Schizophreniacs. I doubt you take them seriously either, no matter how they percieve their "subjective reality". There's no difference between delusion and belief. Oh wait, there is one difference, people are tolerant of beliefs, no matter how inane they are. And believers really like to spread their ridiculous subjective reality so I'd say THEY are the ignorant ones

I'm not telling you to do anything. Nor am I making any argument for the validity of a single belief. I'm saying it's ignorant for you to think your experiences in life are anything more than yours. And this doesn't just apply to you, this is something universal. Attempting to transpose an individual from their path onto a point in yours through helping them 'see the light' requires two things: Pride in your journey, pity for theirs.

Looking back at my own journey, I've noticed that the advancements I have made didn't come from people telling me I was right or wrong...or from people trying to convince me of one thing or another, it came from my own desire to continuously improve. It just so happens that as I kept improving myself, I was able to find traits in other folks' journeys, without them ever having to push themselves onto me, that I thought to be admirable and worth seeking. It has never once brought benefit to myself or the object of ridicule to sit still in my own journey to waste my time mocking people who 'strayed' down the wrong paths.

Parched, Perched, and Plentiful:

There are three conjoined areas. First, is a desert. Next, a forest. Last, a river. Suppose you and three others are in this desert and you lose contact with each other in a sandstorm. One of your party finds his way to the forest. Another to the river. You and the last are stuck in the desert, still trying to find your way. The man who reached the river drinks his water, and then heads back towards the desert. Upon finding you, he ridicules you for how long it is taking you to find your way out, and then mentions that there is a river and provides a map written in a language you do not understand. He then seeks out the fourth person to mock his poor navigation, giving him a map of the same property as yours. After this, he seeks out the river again, but has wasted so much of his time and water from the massive effort it took to trek back into the desert, argue and ridicule, and then head back towards the river, that he collapsed.

The man that made it to the forest rejoiced; there was food, small pools of water, and shade from the powerful sun. He thought to himself, "What a joy it is to be here. I should help my comrades find this place...but woe, I would likely collapse going back into the desert to find them all, leaving us all doomed." Upon this realization, he set a fire and used a leafed branch to send smoke signals into the air.

You and the other desert wanderer see the smoke. The two of you rejoice. You see that your comrade still has his life, and even the energy needed to make fire and signal it out. You want your life to continue, so you follow the example left in those clouds of smoke and make your journey towards the forest.

I'm gonna go take a shit, have a cigarette, and eat lunch. Peace out.

I don't really get this. We shouldn't rely on actual contact to spread the "word' (whatever that is), but we should just stay in our good surroundings and passively signal that we're in a better place?

There's a misconception about the paradox of atheists attacking the crusades, but threads like this one and like Militant Atheists look like we're the same thing.

There isn't a we, so to speak. There is an affiliation of uncontrolled minds who have realized they have the same goal. Compare that to a crusade, which is one leader dictating the "voice of god" unto his minions, who, without any freedom or thought, attack what they are told to.

The root is control. Theism is based on control, atheism lacks the control structure on which theism is based on. The root of all of this is control and resistance to control.

Read The God Delusion, he goes into detail on this one. Or search for religion and memes.

After reading the Wikipedia article on memes, all I have to say is: "So?"

So religious interpretation evolves over extended periods of time. Big deal; language does the same thing. Should this imply that, since religious perspectives vary across space, time, and culture, the impulse to communicate to the supernatural unseen is misdirected? That's like saying that, since language is fluid and not a constant, atemporal fact invincible to the flow of time, that the urge to communicate to one another has always been a misguided instinct that ultimately serves no purpose.

After reading the Wikipedia article on memes, all I have to say is: "So?"

For the love of Mary, don't rely on Wikipedia for even the most rudimentary glimpse of a subject that is very multi-faceted, complicated and still in "research" phase, if you will. Oxford University Press has some of the best papers out about it, and a simple google search would provide you with a whole wealth of educational, scientific studies regarding memetics and the refutations of it.

So religious interpretation evolves over extended periods of time. Big deal; language does the same thing. Should this imply that, since religious perspectives vary across space, time, and culture, the impulse to communicate to the supernatural unseen is misdirected?

No, it doesn't imply that at all. You've misunderstood the whole meat of Dawkin's point in The God Delusion if that is all you've taken from it. He doesn't imply that it's misdirected as much as he implies that it is unecessary. The misdirection is just a byproduct of the the simple human condition of being vulnerable to things that appease our emotions, like Religion. He makes an effort to draw upon findings by others like Daniel Dennett, who like Dawkins, finds it valuable to ascertain why exactly our emotions - or rather, the prime instigator of our emotions - take on such a "life" of their own (which is where the memetics fit in)

That's like saying that, since language is fluid and not a constant, atemporal fact invincible to the flow of time, that the urge to communicate to one another has always been a misguided instinct that ultimately serves no purpose.

But you shouldn't really have much need TO say that, for language has proven to serve a purpose, a real bonafide purpose! It increased our fitness, put us at the top of the food chain, and allowed us to grow to such heights in intellect as to even be discussing things like this on a technologically advanced messageboard such as this that our great minds, coupled with the use of language and communication, invented!!

What has religion proven to accomplish, that couldn't be replaced easily with just a little bit of emotional baggage pruning and a dose or two of cold, hard reality?

I think it will be when scientists come up with conclusive evidence of how the universe came to be. It will be the greatest day in the history of mankind.

Firstly, I don't buy the "emotional crutch" explanation of religion because only a handful of religions really appeal to emotions - mostly the Semitic ones. You couldn't possibly convince me that Zen or Spartan warrior cults existed only to appease weak, emotional people who couldn't deal with reality.

Secondly, religion puts everything beyond scientific causality into a hierarchy of perspective, and places every element of ethical propriety into alignment. Science, in turn, has done everything it possibly could to neuter this process.

as long as we don't understand why and how we're here, there will be religion, and you don't seem to understand, people are called to god, and feel god touch them on a daily basis, maybe just because you ignore god, or push him away to where you dont feel his presence and dont believe in any religion, there will never stop being religion. that's a fact.

"as long as we don't understand why and how we're here, there will be religion,"

Yes, because people are stupid fucksticks and will gladly make up an explaination for something they don't understand instead of trying to figure it out or just going "I don't know" in order to feel better about themselves.

"and you don't seem to understand, people are called to god, and feel god touch them on a daily basis,"

People see ghosts and are abducted by aliens on a daily basis. Or rather, they think those things are happening to them... humans are generally weak-minded creatures; every half-seen shadow in the corner of our eyes becomes a shadowperson from beyond the grave, or some god trying to tell us something.

"maybe just because you ignore god, or push him away to where you dont feel his presence and dont believe in any religion,"

Or maybe, and perhaps I'm going out on a limb here with this thought... just maybe, I keep my emotions in check, and don't pretend every unexplainable event in the universe is due to some self-contradictory being for which there exists no evidence. Maybe I'm not a stupid motherfucker that pretends that all the wacky shit I hear about is real.

Just maybe.

"there will never stop being religion. that's a fact."

This is likely, however it's also possible that the religious part of the population will be whittled down to a point where they can have no effect on humanity at large with their retarded bullshit. That is a desirable and acceptable outcome.

Now, for the second dumbfuck:

"Firstly, I don't buy the "emotional crutch" explanation of religion because only a handful of religions really appeal to emotions - mostly the Semitic ones. You couldn't possibly convince me that Zen or Spartan warrior cults existed only to appease weak, emotional people who couldn't deal with reality."

It's a different kind of appeal, but it's still there. Religions serve as an explaination -any explaination- to questions that people can't easily answer. There are people out there (stupid people that have likely never so much as picked up a knife in anger in their lives before) that think dying and going to Valhalla is fucking awesome.

"Secondly, religion puts everything beyond scientific causality into a hierarchy of perspective, and places every element of ethical propriety into alignment. Science, in turn, has done everything it possibly could to neuter this process."

Science seeks to do nothing but to help us better understand the world around us by explaining things. There is the entire study of Ethics that can be and is separate from various religious trappings.

Religion too, tries to explain the world around us, but it does a piss poor job as it's just a collection of bronze-age fairy tales.

surak, i think your just dumb, arrogant, ignorant, rash, and very stubborn. that about sums you up.
anyone disagree?

surak, i think your just dumb, arrogant, ignorant, rash, and very stubborn. that about sums you up.
anyone disagree?

Fundie. GTFO my totse. I didn't like the argument either, total shit.

It's a different kind of appeal, but it's still there. Religions serve as an explaination -any explaination- to questions that people can't easily answer. There are people out there (stupid people that have likely never so much as picked up a knife in anger in their lives before) that think dying and going to Valhalla is fucking awesome.

A warrior fighting in battle to attain cosmic esteem is not using religion as a crutch, dude - it's coordinating physical action with spiritual improvement. HUGE difference.

Science seeks to do nothing but to help us better understand the world around us by explaining things. There is the entire study of Ethics that can be and is separate from various religious trappings.

Science ruins ethics. A purely biological understanding of a fight tells an organism to run and hide to procreate and propagate the species. A higher ethic guided by intangibles outlined by spiritual knowledge tells a man to fight and conquer.

Religion too, tries to explain the world around us, but it does a piss poor job as it's just a collection of bronze-age fairy tales.

It may be because you've never read a fairy tale with a truly understanding eye before, but fairy tales were never meant for literal interpretation. No one reads Goldilocks thinking that bears actually have cabins in the woods.

Then again, you overlooked the fact that religion is a lot older than the Bronze Age.

Firstly, I don't buy the "emotional crutch" explanation of religion because only a handful of religions really appeal to emotions - mostly the Semitic ones...

That doesn't help your case. If we're going to look at possible purposes for religion, then the amount of religions that fit a certain purpose is meaningless information, in and of itself; I could create a billion different religions in a day, all fitting whatever "purpose" I desire to argue in favor of. What would be meaningful is the number of adherents. Clearly, the Semitic religions are way fucking up there in that department. That doesn't help you.


Secondly, religion puts everything beyond scientific causality into a hierarchy of perspective, and places every element of ethical propriety into alignment. Science, in turn, has done everything it possibly could to neuter this process.Exactly what do you think is "beyond scientific causality" and how has science done everything possible to neuter the process you mention?


A purely biological understanding of a fight tells an organism to run and hide to procreate and propagate the species. A higher ethic guided by intangibles outlined by spiritual knowledge tells a man to fight and conquer."Conquering" increaces chances to procreate and propagate the species. A "biological understanding of a fight" could (or rather would!), therefore, tell man to fight and conquer.

P.S. Weren't you arguing a few months ago that everything, even the lack of religion, is a religion? If you still hold that position, then your comments are pretty absurd.

"A warrior fighting in battle to attain cosmic esteem is not using religion as a crutch, dude - it's coordinating physical action with spiritual improvement. HUGE difference."

New package, same product.

"Science ruins ethics. A purely biological understanding of a fight tells an organism to run and hide to procreate and propagate the species. A higher ethic guided by intangibles outlined by spiritual knowledge tells a man to fight and conquer."

This suggests that you're an idiot that doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I would suggest that you learn a little bit about ethics before you ramble on like a retard. Yes, it is possible and easy to be ethical without the need for supernatural bullshit.

"It may be because you've never read a fairy tale with a truly understanding eye before, but fairy tales were never meant for literal interpretation. No one reads Goldilocks thinking that bears actually have cabins in the woods."

Bullshit, religions were written to at the time be taken literally. People believed (and still do) that Jesus died on the cross and was reborn, they believe that really happened. This "you're interpreting it wrong!" crap came later.

"Then again, you overlooked the fact that religion is a lot older than the Bronze Age."

It doesn't get any less pathetic the farther back you go.

Rust:

1. The quantity of believers does nothing to validate or invalidate a religion or its authority any more than the number of people who watch "I Love New York" proves that any participant on that show should not be gassed with Zyklon and plowed into ditches.

Not to mention the quantity of believers in a particular religion changes over time, due either to an increase in believers in one religion or the slaughter of adherents to another. So that number becomes worthless, anyway.

What validates a religion for our purpose is whether it emerges with the birth or fusion of cultures.

2. Science cannot quantify the realm of principles and ethics that has its root in religion. All science can do is relate everything to the realm of animals and molecular reactions.

3. That option only occurs in the few willing to assert alpha-male dominance - and even in those animals, they have to ignore their initial impulses to run and hide in order to stand and fight.

4. To clarify, atheists replace conventional religion with absolute worship of science, all the while ignoring a basic fundamental aspect of culture, namely religion.

Surak

1. Not the same product at all. A Viking or a Samurai uses his religion to better himself physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. A Christian or a Jain who cowers before the heavens is a worthless maggot who uses his religion to mask his fear as piety.

2. What doctrine of science demands that a person speak with honesty? What principle of causality requires a man to have honor? Where, in the realm of physics and geology and chemistry and biology and all other manners of equations, necessitates things like pride and loyalty? Explain that, and I'll concede.

3. You DO understand that there's an entire globe's worth of infinitely more authentic religions, right?

And for the record, Jews believe that "birth," "death," and "rebirth" are all synonymous with one's proximity to Judaic teachings. "Rebirth" as it is referenced in the Bible (especially in regards to Lazarus) is intended to mean an initiation ritual into an inner cult of Judaism.

Judaism/Christianity has existed since the creation of the Earth and will continue to exist for all eternity.

Rust:

1. The quantity of believers does nothing to validate or invalidate a religion or its authority any more than the number of people who watch "I Love New York" proves that any participant on that show should not be gassed with Zyklon and plowed into ditches.

Not to mention the quantity of believers in a particular religion changes over time, due either to an increase in believers in one religion or the slaughter of adherents to another. So that number becomes worthless, anyway.


It certainly does "invalidate it", or at least lower it's importance, if we are trying to arrive at the possible reasons for why people are religious in the first place. The popularity of a religion is at the center of the issue of why people adhere to religions in the first place. If the vast majority of the world adhere to religions which you yourself admit serve as "emotional crutches" then that's a point in favor of those who believe that religions are emotional crutches, certainly not a point in favor of those who don't.

That there are countless other religions that may not serve as emotional crutches (in your opinion I should add) means nothing. Could I create a billion different religions in a day, make them all be "sexual crutches" and then claim victory on the issue, even though barely anybody follows them? Of course not; the number of adherents allows us to know which religions are popular, and then in turn to investigate why those religions are popular.


2. Science cannot quantify the realm of principles and ethics that has its root in religion. All science can do is relate everything to the realm of animals and molecular reactions.

Are you claiming that one cannot be ethical or principled without religion?


3. That option only occurs in the few willing to assert alpha-male dominance - and even in those animals, they have to ignore their initial impulses to run and hide in order to stand and fight.

What does this have to do with Science - a method of describing the natural world - at all? How is this Science's fault if that so happens to be the case?

Again, you said "A higher ethic guided by intangibles outlined by spiritual knowledge tells a man to fight and conquer". I'm telling you that "fighting and conquering" can be seen as an evolutionary advantage, and thus, that too would tell a man to conquer.


4. To clarify, atheists replace conventional religion with absolute worship of science, all the while ignoring a basic fundamental aspect of culture, namely religion.

Any more unsubstantiated bullshit claims you want to drop into the conversation? How about more hastily generalizations? Feel free..

These outrageous comments of yours clarify nothing: You called even the lack of religion, a religion. Thus, "absolute worship of science" would be a religion, according to what you've said in the past. Either you have gone back on what you said in the past, or atheist's don't ignore religion. Which is it? That's what I want to know.

"1. Not the same product at all. A Viking or a Samurai uses his religion to better himself physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. A Christian or a Jain who cowers before the heavens is a worthless maggot who uses his religion to mask his fear as piety."

Can you provide evidence that this "Spirituality" isn't anything more than self-delusion? There are many people who have no need of this apparent "spirituality" in their lives, and they live well. Your comment about Christians does seem to hold true to many bible-thumpers, though.

"2. What doctrine of science demands that a person speak with honesty?"

Do you understand how the scientific method works? Are you aware of what a social contract is? Do you understand how that contract is arrived at? The answer to these questions sadly seems to be an emphatic "no."

"What principle of causality requires a man to have honor? Where, in the realm of physics and geology and chemistry and biology and all other manners of equations, necessitates things like pride and loyalty? Explain that, and I'll concede."

You really seem understand *nothing* at all about how the human creature has evolved. Next you'll be asking me why love is so highly regarded, or some such nonsense.

Again, I urge you to actually read a little about secular ethics, and how there are logical justifications for not prancing around raping and pillaging people. Books and websites about Humanism would be a good place to start looking. Frankly, I don't have the patience to sit here all night and try to explain the origin and nature of simple concepts such as "Don't kill people and they won't kill you", but I honestly do hope you'll look up some other sources on the subject and educate yourself.

There are logical explanations for human social behaviour with regards to how we treat ourselves and each other justly; I highly suggest you talk to the folks at these boards: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php for more information, because they're much better at explaining all this crap than I am.

"3. You DO understand that there's an entire globe's worth of infinitely more authentic religions, right?"

"More authentic?" Can you provide solid proof that ANY religion is more than a collection of superstitious mythology? If you can, I suggest you present it to various scientific publications for peer review, there'll probably be a Nobel Prize in it for you.

"And for the record, Jews believe that "birth," "death," and "rebirth" are all synonymous with one's proximity to Judaic teachings. "Rebirth" as it is referenced in the Bible (especially in regards to Lazarus) is intended to mean an initiation ritual into an inner cult of Judaism."

That's very interesting, now go try and read some things so you don't come off like a douchefuck, please.

Judaism/Christianity has existed since the creation of the Earth and will continue to exist for all eternity.

If thats what you beleive.....

Trouble is, there is a lot of evidence suggesting otherwise, and not one bit supporting your case.

Judaism/Christianity has existed since the creation of the Earth and will continue to exist for all eternity.

You are a fool.

I think once we have the One True Thinking Machine up and running, it will answer that religion is illogical and should be eliminated.

Rust:

1. We are not concerned with the quantity of modern believers in modern religions; there is already a multitude of contemporary perversions at work that separate modern man and his "religious" motivation from primordial man and his.

We are, however, concerned with the advent of religions and its influences on the people of that time, when faith was a state of existence that commanded social order, not the politicized ghost it is now.

And for the record, just so we can put this to bed, the faiths of the Semites have been so prevalent because they've piggybacked the most powerful empires of the world, from Rome to Byzantium, across Europe to England and off to the Americas and, subsequently, the US.

2. I am claiming that ethics and principles require a non-human characteristic to be considered absolute, and ascribing authority to beyond-human elements is the form, if not the definition, of religion.

3. The realm of science and instinct - biological drives, chemical reactions, and electrical signals - does not have the kind of foresight to say, "I may die here, but if I start swinging now, I'll plant my flag and assert myself as the alpha male." That's a higher, abstract brain function, and ultimately the realm of social theorists and anthropologists, not physical science.

4. Go back and reread my response to your misunderstanding of my claim; I've no interest in obfuscating the issue here by going down that path again.

Surak:

1. As I've said many times before, there is not a civilization on this planet that has been born without religion. For your statement to be true, you would have to accept, in light of this ubiquity, that humans have a compulsion or drive to self-delusion. I can hardly imagine any kind of evolutionary advantage to this.

2. As I alluded to in my response to Rust, social contracts are abstract, higher brain functions, and thus the realm of sociology and anthropology, not the physical sciences.

3. Logical justifications, sure - unless you want to apply this type of ethic globally, which I've already addressed with Rust, it demands a non-human characteristic, and thus cannot be innocent of religious presupposition.

Rust:
We are not concerned with the quantity of modern believers in modern religions; there is already a multitude of contemporary perversions at work that separate modern man and his "religious" motivation from primordial man and his.

So? That perversions exists today that didn't exist in the beginning of human history does not make it impossible for us to investigate the reasons why the religious follow their respective religions - be it for modern man or for primordial man.

Where the Semitic religions somehow without these "perversions"? (Ignoring the inherently foolishness in any of us claiming to know what these "perversions" are/were in the first place).

If we can neither trust the quantity of followers (to take your argument as true for the sake of argument) nor the quantity of religions (since I can create any arbitrary number of religions I need to help my argument - you should at least agree with this I hope ) then how does this help your case? I would help my initial point, which was that saying "the Semitic religions are a minority" is a meaningless statement. It neither helps or hurts your argument.


And for the record, just so we can put this to bed, the faiths of the Semites have been so prevalent because they've piggybacked the most powerful empires of the world, from Rome to Byzantium, across Europe to England and off to the Americas and, subsequently, the US.

That's a very important reason, but to say that as the only one is ridiculous. If you aren't saying that, then you haven't invalidated my point: the number of adherents religion is still a good indication of why religions are popular. Hell, one could say that since the Semitic religions proved to be so successful in piggybacking onto the most powerful empires, then they can serve (among other things) as a means of those in power retaining and/or increasing that power; another common characterization of religions!

You may disagree with that characterization as well, but that would still show how the popularity of a religion is inherently related to why the religious follow their religion.


2. I am claiming that ethics and principles require a non-human characteristic to be considered absolute, and ascribing authority to beyond-human elements is the form, if not the definition, of religion.

1. That's a definition of "religion" I obviously disagree with. So does the vast majority of the English speaking community (or that of other languages for that matter) I would say.

2. You still haven't really answered my question. Do you believe that one can be principled and ethical without religion?

If you believe that one cannot, then please substantiate that. If you believe that one can, then what exactly do you mean by "Science has done everything it possibly could to neuter this process"?

3. How would "non-human characteristic" make ethics or principles absolute? Absolute according to who?


3. The realm of science and instinct - biological drives, chemical reactions, and electrical signals - does not have the kind of foresight to say, "I may die here, but if I start swinging now, I'll plant my flag and assert myself as the alpha male." That's a higher, abstract brain function, and ultimately the realm of social theorists and anthropologists, not physical science.

So now you're redefining Science to exclude the Social Sciences? Care to clue me in before you decide to arbitrarily remove a slew of different fields from the category of Science?

Anyway.... natural selection doesn't have to possess such foresight . If fighting and conquering prove to be evolutionary advantages, then humankind will be naturally selected to follow such routes - to have 'higher brain functions' that promote such actions. No foresight needed.

Not to mention that arguably the brain functions can be described entirely by biology, chemistry and physics.


4. Go back and reread my response to your misunderstanding of my claim; I've no interest in obfuscating the issue here by going down that path again.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. To quote you in that other thread in question:

"No matter how many gods, buildings, commandments, or devotions it has, if one dedicates their life to a specific purpose, it is because his perspective on his purpose requires him to do so. It is therefore his or her religion."

" When you speak of a "lack of religion," you are referring specifically to an organized form of religion..."

Did you did not say that a lack of a religion is a religion? That Scientists are in fact religious? That those who worship Science have a religion?

If you did, then either you have gone back on what you said in the past, or atheist's don't ignore religion (since they would in fact be religious by your own definition). Which is it?

You can answer this in a simple sentence. None of this paranoid "obfuscating" you refer to, is required.

1. Exclusively studying butterflies will not yield information about caterpillars. Same principle applies here with your discrepancy.

Studying a Chinese man who is a Christian by virtue of environment does not explain why China, in addition to every other culture on the planet, has their own primordial religion. Semitic religions - though doing quite well in numbers, for one reason or another - still only count as a few religions.

2. An ethic, in order for it to be an ethic worth following, needs to be objective and impervious to the assumptions and explanations of the believer. A man with one set of ethics judging a second man for betraying that ethic, foreign to the latter, cannot stand as a lasting judgment unless there is something above both of them to which they can both refer - a super-human authority - to validate it. Without a belief in a superhuman authority, ethics cannot stand; the ground immediately gives way.

3. Social sciences are vaguely scientific in nature. There are no direct formulae to consult in anthropology or behavioral psychology. It requires no redefinition.

And I have yet to find a biological or chemical explanation for attempted martyrdom or self-sacrifice. Those have always come from outside influences and sources, especially spiritual ones.

4. Semantic confusion and little else. I am saying for the final time...

There is no such thing as a lack of religion. History has always shown an impulse for man to believe in what is beyond and superior to himself. You are confusing what you know of religion - church, priests, medicine men, mythologies and scriptures - to what I know can serve in religion's place - immovable faiths, unquestioning authority to principle, an organization of one's life to satellite around this principle.

Understand this confusion, and you will understand my point.

An ethic, in order for it to be an ethic worth following, needs to be objective and impervious to the assumptions and explanations of the believer.

Says you. What justification is there for this definition?

If an ethic is subject to the assumptions of the believer or the whims of temporal politics, then it's not an ethic; it's an opinion.

1. Exclusively studying butterflies will not yield information about caterpillars. Same principle applies here with your discrepancy.

Studying a Chinese man who is a Christian by virtue of environment does not explain why China, in addition to every other culture on the planet, has their own primordial religion. Semitic religions - though doing quite well in numbers, for one reason or another - still only count as a few religions.


Not only does your analogy already establish it's own solution (it already assumes the Chinese man is Christian because of environment when that's exactly what we're trying to determine; whether he is actually Christian because of environment or because he needs an emotional crutch that Christianity can fulfill, or ...) but your analogy also ignores my point:

If we can neither trust the number or religions (considering I can create any arbitrary number of religions I want to fit my purpose), nor their size (to take your objections as valid) then how does that make the statement "the Semitic religions are a minority" any more meaningful? It doesn't.

That's my point. I'd like for you to answer it, and not ignore it.


2. An ethic, in order for it to be an ethic worth following, needs to be objective and impervious to the assumptions and explanations of the believer. A man with one set of ethics judging a second man for betraying that ethic, foreign to the latter, cannot stand as a lasting judgment unless there is something above both of them to which they can both refer - a super-human authority - to validate it. Without a belief in a superhuman authority, ethics cannot stand; the ground immediately gives way.

a. The very statement "in order for it to be an ethic worth following" is already subjective! Judging which ethic is better - whether it be an ethic that rests on an objective reference point or one that does not - is already a subjective endeavour.

b. You can only really state that the religious may think or claim their ethics are tied to something objective. Can they really prove it? If not, we only have their claim of objectivity and nothing else. Anyone can claim, or think, that their ethics rest on something objective... I hardly find that compelling.


3. Social sciences are vaguely scientific in nature. There are no direct formulae to consult in anthropology or behavioral psychology. It requires no redefinition.

And I have yet to find a biological or chemical explanation for attempted martyrdom or self-sacrifice. Those have always come from outside influences and sources, especially spiritual ones.

They are called sciences for a reason. Complex "formulae" aren't necessary for science; measurement is, whether that be through large mathematical equations and formulas, or simple arithmetic. The social sciences are sciences because they generally follow the scientific method; they have hypothesis, experiments and theories just like the "natural sciences".

In any case, what do you think those "outside influences" are? Material! Whether they be oral or written, or imagined by the martyr himself, they are material. Unless of course, you've proven something immaterial exists...

4. Semantic confusion and little else. I am saying for the final time...

There is no fucking "semantic confusion" here, only your poor reading skills it seems. I already know your definition of religion. I know you believe that there is no such thing as a lack of religion. It is precisely because I understand that you believe there is no such thing as a lack of religion, that I find it ridiculous when you stated "[atheists ignore] a basic fundamental aspect of culture... religion".

Get it? If atheists are religious according to you.... they don't ignore religion then!

1. The religions you invent in your room have nothing to do with the world stage of religions, and therefore have no place in our discussion. On the world stage, Semitic faiths are only three religions, each of which come from their own respective regions and cultures within Semitic peoples.

My point is that, even if we postulated the absence of empires and Christian crusades, cultures would still emerge with their indigenous religions, as any study of comparative cultures can affirm. It can therefore not be solely the fault of those empires that religion is impossible to separate from the birth of a culture.

That last point is a refutation to which I'm seeking an answer.

2. You've ultimately proven my point. Because of the belief that ethics are subjective to the interpreter - foreign to those of religious mindset - there is nothing to demand a person to obey it. Only by some kind of objective authority can an ethic be tolerable and logical, and objective authority is precisely what science seeks to squander.

3. Semantics aside, these "outside influences" are undeniably a fundamental facet and fact of culture. It is not just the illusions of a single martyr, or the fanciful predictions of an intoxicated medicine man, but a basic fact of the study of culture. It is much more logical to assume that cultures have a religious predisposition than to pretend it is the result of the delusions of the psychotic few.

4. Perhaps I haven't explained it as well, since I've used "religion" to be synonymous with both "tradition" and "faith-based weltanschauung." So, let's retry:

There is no such thing as a lack of (faith-based worldview). History has always shown an impulse for man to believe in what is beyond and superior to himself. You are confusing what you know of (tradition) - church, priests, medicine men, mythologies, and scriptures - to what I know can serve in (tradition)'s place - immovable faiths, unquestioning authority to principle, an organization of one's life to satellite around this principle (= faith-based worldview).

I'd prefer to cut the post-response-post-response method, and ask you the same question I've yet to receive an answer to:

Why does religion exist across ALL new cultures, without exception, if it is assumed to be a delusion and a psychological farce?

1. The religions you invent in your room have nothing to do with the world stage of religions, and therefore have no place in our discussion. On the world stage, Semitic faiths are only three religions, each of which come from their own respective regions and cultures within Semitic peoples.


And just who the hell decides what religions have nothing to do with the world stage of religions? You do? If you're going to convince anyone that "Emotional Crutch" isn't a proper explanation of the popularity of religions, then you're going to have to do a lot better than that.

If you know how to objectively determine how a important a religion is in the world stage, then please do tell. Until then, however, me and the countless religions I've invented are looking quite graceful in the world stage of religions.


My point is that, even if we postulated the absence of empires and Christian crusades, cultures would still emerge with their indigenous religions, as any study of comparative cultures can affirm. It can therefore not be solely the fault of those empires that religion is impossible to separate from the birth of a culture.

I agree. Where have I said that religion is solely the result of powerful empires? I'm here to discuss all the possible reasons for why religions are popular. Without a doubt, their almost parasitic attachment to powerful empires is a valid explanation; certainly not the only one, but one nonetheless.


2. You've ultimately proven my point. Because of the belief that ethics are subjective to the interpreter - foreign to those of religious mindset - there is nothing to demand a person to obey it. Only by some kind of objective authority can an ethic be tolerable and logical, and objective authority is precisely what science seeks to squander.

a. Objectivity does not automatically mean obedience. An ethic could be objective yet still be without followers. One doesn't necessarily mean the other.

b. If those claiming to have an objective ethic cannot prove it, then their objective ethic is meaningless; their would be absolutely no difference between that supposedly objective faith and a subjective one in practice.

c. What is "tolerable" depends entirely on the observer as well. I could believe that for an ethic to be "tolerable" it must not be as rigid as objective ethics would be.


3. Semantics aside, these "outside influences" are undeniably a fundamental facet and fact of culture. It is not just the illusions of a single martyr, or the fanciful predictions of an intoxicated medicine man, but a basic fact of the study of culture. It is much more logical to assume that cultures have a religious predisposition than to pretend it is the result of the delusions of the psychotic few.

Again I ask, who has said otherwise? Where have I said that it is impossible for people to have a predisposition to religion? That is a hypothesis that science has been working on for years now.

Humans having a disposition to religion does not anoint religion with any superiority, nor does it mean religion cannot be explained, in part, by some innate emotional need of humans to have such systems of emotional support (i.e. an emotional crutch).


You are confusing what you know of (tradition) - church, priests, medicine men, mythologies, and scriptures - to what I know can serve in (tradition)'s place - immovable faiths, unquestioning authority to principle, an organization of one's life to satellite around this principle (= faith-based worldview).


You repeating your definition of religion, when I understand it quite well, is getting tiresome.

Either explain just how the atheist ignores religion even though according to you he is religious, or spare me your broken record. You could say the atheists doesn't refer to his worldview as a religion, but to say that he ignores it when that's precisely what he practices is ridiculous.


Why does religion exist across ALL new cultures, without exception, if it is assumed to be a delusion and a psychological farce?

1. You haven't gotten an answer to that, because it's a strawman. I haven't once said that religion is a delusion or a psychological farce!

So just how the fuck am I supposed to answer that?

2. Even though I haven't said it's a delusion and a psychological farce, I feel obligated to point out that if it were, it wouldn't mean it couldn't exist in all cultures without exception. It could exist in all cultures without exception yet still be a delusion and a psychological farce - specially since you've left the definition of "psychological farce" pretty open.

1. A religion on the world stage is not invented; it is born the same way culture and language is. That's how a religion earns credibility on the world stage.

2. An ethic that says not to eat children is not something Albert Fish can sit down and say, "Well, that's dependent on the observer, and I'm hungry, so I won't obey that one." An ethic must stand above the observers in question because the observers are made of flesh and blood and appetites. These qualities make up instincts, but not ethics.

3. The topic heading is entitled, "The Obliteration of Religion." My stance is, millennia of spiritual predisposition serves humanity in some way beyond the emotional crutch perspective, since only three of the planet's spectrum of religions contain that quality. Therefore, to discard its utility because of the lack of necessity of that quality alone is an unfair and irrational generalization, especially considering its intimate partnership with human culture since the beginning of whenever.

4. An atheist ignores traditional forms of religion and is ignorant of the fact that his devout atheism becomes what traditional religions have done for mankind before the possibility of his rejecting it.

5. If religion is a delusion and a psychological farce, it would be specific to isolated incidents and circumstances. But since it is universal in all eras, except for a spattering of Western-influenced civilization over the past 500 years, it is neither delusion nor psychological farce, but a fact of the human condition.

Theres no such thing as an Athiest in a Foxhole..... so NO Religion will never go away.


Also according to the Supreme Court .... Secular Humanism(Athiesm) is a religion.

Theres no such thing as an Athiest in a Foxhole..... so NO Religion will never go away.
You have proof of that?

I've been in life threatening situations and never resorted to believing in God/gods.

http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/


Secular Humanism(Athiesm)
Nice try, but atheism is not synonymous with Secular humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism). Any atheist need not have all (or any) of the qualities that would define one as a Secular humanist.

Also according to the Supreme Court .... Secular Humanism(Athiesm) is a religion.

If the Supreme Court is your authority on what a religion is, you should be strangled.

Also according to the Supreme Court .... Secular Humanism(Athiesm) is a religion.
Not true. (http://candst.tripod.com/sec-hum.htm)

...nothing else to add, Rust?

...nothing else to add, Rust?

I'm not as active on Totse as before, so I apologize for my late replies. They'll be coming, slowly but surely.

1. A religion on the world stage is not invented; it is born the same way culture and language is. That's how a religion earns credibility on the world stage.Says you. You're not the arbiter of how religions get their credibility or importance. That is entirely subjective. For example, one could believe that only new religions deserve credibility because they represent contemporary culture, ethics and beliefs, not ones that have come and passed.

You can't preach the importance of objectivity in ethics and then try to dress up your opinion as the only means of judging credibility in religion.



2. An ethic that says not to eat children is not something Albert Fish can sit down and say, "Well, that's dependent on the observer, and I'm hungry, so I won't obey that one." An ethic must stand above the observers in question because the observers are made of flesh and blood and appetites. These qualities make up instincts, but not ethics.And exactly which ethics "stand above the observer"? Name one. Keep in mind that you're going to have to prove that the ethic is objective in the first place.

Lots of religions and ethics consider dining on baby flesh to be objectively unethical, but that obviously hasn't stopped a whole slew of murderers from deciding not to pay attention to them. So please, show me one that is objectively ethical, and would prevent any human being from deciding not to obey it.


3. The topic heading is entitled, "The Obliteration of Religion." My stance is, millennia of spiritual predisposition serves humanity in some way beyond the emotional crutch perspective, since only three of the planet's spectrum of religions contain that quality. Therefore, to discard its utility because of the lack of necessity of that quality alone is an unfair and irrational generalization, especially considering its intimate partnership with human culture since the beginning of whenever.I'd agree that to disregard it based solely on the idea that it's an emotional crutch would be silly; there are many other things involved here. However, it would also be silly to say that only three religions serve as emotional crutches (or 'contain that quality'). Even the warrior cults you reverse so much can serve as emotional crutches - that depends on the emotional needs of the person longing for that religion.


4. An atheist ignores traditional forms of religion and is ignorant of the fact that his devout atheism becomes what traditional religions have done for mankind before the possibility of his rejecting it.Oh, it's "traditional forms of religion"...

So, how does he ignore "traditional forms of religion"? Moreover, how does that even matter? Those who follow "traditional forms of religion" would ignore all other, non-traditional, forms then, would they not? Are you claiming to know which one is preferable?


5. If religion is a delusion and a psychological farce, it would be specific to isolated incidents and circumstances. But since it is universal in all eras, except for a spattering of Western-influenced civilization over the past 500 years, it is neither delusion nor psychological farce, but a fact of the human condition.Define "delusion and psychological farce", because until you do, I don't see how you could say it coudn't present itself in all of human history.

1. I'm only trying to draw the line that separates "world religion" as it pertains to our discussion from "sketch for Dungeons & Dragons character religion."

2. A baby eater does not have his own private set of ethics; he betrays the one that separates humans from animals. Keep in mind that an ethic is not a barrier between a person and an evil deed, but it is an incentive to strive towards right. And in taking all our human components and orienting them in a manner that promotes utmost health, we are acting in right.

3. Using a religion to place oneself into a cosmic hierarchy according to his position and talents, and using a religion to exempt oneself from that selection, are two different things.

4. Yes: it's much similar to the difference between "world religion" and "sketch for Dungeons & Dragons character religion."

5. "Delusion and psychological farce" in the context most often used here: that religion is wholly a symptom of ignorance, bewilderment, confusion, and internal devastation, and serves no purpose but to feed the material appetites of the aristocratic few.

1. I'm only trying to draw the line that separates "world religion" as it pertains to our discussion from "sketch for Dungeons & Dragons character religion."

And I'm trying to tell you that that is arbitrary. There is no law that describes "world religions" as better or more important than the ones I make up in my spare time, or any other religions that don't manage to fall into that neat (convenient) category of yours.

Some prefer Jesus H. Christ, others prefer Olidammara - Dimber Damber extraordinaire. They are opinions. If you claim yours is not an opinion, but an objective fact, prove it. Amazingly witty allusions to fantasy games in an attempt to belittle other religions is not proof of objectivity in your claims.


2. A baby eater does not have his own private set of ethics; he betrays the one that separates humans from animals. Keep in mind that an ethic is not a barrier between a person and an evil deed, but it is an incentive to strive towards right. And in taking all our human components and orienting them in a manner that promotes utmost health, we are acting in right.Again... according to you.

Those who dine on baby flesh would disagree, thus the problem: You have yet to show how anything you've said is objective, and until you do, you have no point.

Since you agree that ethics are not a barrier preventing a person from doing an evil deed, exactly why can't Albert sit down and say, "Well, that's dependent on the observer, and I'm hungry, so I won't obey that one"? He can... he did! Unless you can somehow prove that "Thou shall not dine on baby flesh" is objective - we have absolutely no reason to believe that it is, given that it can be broken just as easily as any "subjective" ethic. What is left is your claim of objectivity, which is utterly worthless to us. I imagine those who eat baby flesh competitively would claim their ethic is objective as well...



3. Using a religion to place oneself into a cosmic hierarchy according to his position and talents, and using a religion to exempt oneself from that selection, are two different things.Are you now implying not only to know exactly why every single person who followed a warrior cult did so, but also that those who follow(ed) the Semitic religions do(did) so to exempt themselves from that "selection"? :rolleyes:

Either you possess intimate knowledge of why everyone else believes in a certain religion, or you do not. Which is it? I'm guessing you don't, which means you cannot rule out "emotional crutch" as a possible reason. Please don't pretend to know why people - people that lived hundreds/thousands of years ago - believed in their respective religions. Such inanity is a waste of our time.


4. Yes: it's much similar to the difference between "world religion" and "sketch for Dungeons & Dragons character religion."You "know" this as a matter of fact? You possess absolute, objective knowledge of which is preferable? Then by all means, post it! I'm dying to know!



5. "Delusion and psychological farce" in the context most often used here: that religion is wholly a symptom of ignorance, bewilderment, confusion, and internal devastation, and serves no purpose but to feed the material appetites of the aristocratic few.That's hardly the context most often used here. That reads like a stereotypical misrepresentation, and a convenient one (for you) at that.

I don't know of any person on totse that actually believes religion "serves no purpose but to feed the material appetites of the aristocratic few".

The ancient religions did not all fade away into obscurity.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Taoism and probably many others have all been around for thousands of years.


May Zues take your eyes for such a comment!!

May Set sup upon your.....you get the point.

Ancient religions are called mythology now. They were practice runs. They made shit too easy to disprove. In short it was a failed meme complex.

But the new religions will be around forever right? I mean it's not like the christain church had an answer for everything and science has slowly but surely beat the shit out of them is it?

What exists NOW is a God of the gaps. God only attempts to answer what science cannot at this time. Didn't use to be that way in the good ol days. When you could burn and murder scientists for disproving church dogma.

bye bye goes mysticism.

Bump.

Not a reason, an observation.

All the ancient religions faded into prehistory, we can assume the rest will too. The question is, will newer religion cover the old ones, like "Scientology".

Christianity/Judaism has been around since the dawn of man in the garden of Eden and will be here until Jesus comes back.

The question you need to worry about is not whether or not "religion" will fade away, but whether you will.

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Christianity/Judaism has been around since the dawn of man in the garden of Eden and will be here until Jesus comes back.

The question you need to worry about is not whether or not "religion" will fade away, but whether you will.

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

...and which God is John referring to? The Jewish or the Christian one? I think you know where I'm going with this.

...and which God is John referring to? The Jewish or the Christian one? I think you know where I'm going with this.

It's the same God. :rolleyes:

It's the same God. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: It's quite sad that you actually believe that; when does NT God strike down entire cities and instruct on violence? And when does OT God show compassion to his enemies and love toward those of other religions? It's obvious the Bible talks about two completely different Gods (gods?) in the two halves of the book.

:rolleyes: It's quite sad that you actually believe that; when does NT God strike down entire cities and instruct on violence? And when does OT God show compassion to his enemies and love toward those of other religions? It's obvious the Bible talks about two completely different Gods (gods?) in the two halves of the book.

If you'd actually read the bible, instead of atheist prophaganda, you'd see that it is one God. You'd also figure out how you can avoid going to hell for your sins.

If you'd actually read the bible, instead of atheist prophaganda, you'd see that it is one God. You'd also figure out how you can avoid going to hell for your sins.

Lol atheist propaganda; it's all one big conspiracy, isn't it?:rolleyes:

Perhaps if you learned to spell, stopped using worthless ad hominems, and attacked my argument directly instead of claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, then you could perhaps pass as a logical Christian, but until that time, you still cannot defend your position at all.

All of the OT (with the exception of proverbs) is full of violence and bloodshed; yes I have read the Bible; I was a Christian once.

I have read the Bible; it gives various ways of how one might achieve salvation: faith alone? Good works? God's mercy? Sinlessness? There's Scripture to back up every one.

nshanin, if you choose to go to hell by rejecting Jesus Christ, God isn't going to stop you!

nshanin, if you choose to go to hell by rejecting Jesus Christ, God isn't going to stop you!

Ah, you're completely correct; but that has nothing to do with my point. I don't think I have rejected Jesus Christ yet (at least not in this thread :o).

If the Jews worship the same God as the Christians (as you stated earlier), and belief in God (as well as his mercy) grants salvation, then why are all Jews going to Hell? Why must one believe in a man on a cross to attain salvation; is not belief and humbleness before God enough?

There is a fire breathing dragon in my garage.

Can I see It?

Um...no b/c he is invisible.

Well....can't i feel the heat from the fire?

Um....no b/c it is magical cold fire.

I know I will take a bag of flour and throw it on the dragon and then I can see its outline.

That is a very clever idea but unfortunately, he is also intangible and the flour goes right through him..




This is every argument that anyone can ever have with a christain about god. I challenge anyone to disprove my garage dragon's existence.