Real Religion

Rum, beer, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: Real Religion

Postby Ralteria on Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:31 am

Eh, I get the funny there, but there are certain inscrutable sociological norms that get passes down through time. That's just the nature of humanity as a species. As the "face" of a deity is generally representative of a society as a whole, when an individual is not represented by that "face" either the "face" changes or the individual looks elsewhere. The brain has a hard time coping with things it cannot or does not understand. If it was indeed hereditary, then the characteristics of a deity would be static. Judging by both the number of religions and the sects of those religions, I would say no.
Hold tight your buns, if buns you do hold dear!!!! For time has come to wake and run and not give way to fear!!!!
User avatar
Ralteria
Wuji
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:22 pm

Re: Real Religion

Postby rob2 on Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:28 am

I meant hereditory in the sense that the vast majority of religious people are raised in/by religious families.
User avatar
rob2
Anjing
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:43 am
Location: UK

Re: Real Religion

Postby allen2saint on Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:39 am

shawnsegler wrote:I would ask of you who feel religious connection to watch the first episode of this show if you want some sort of understanding of what people who DON'T believe what you believe..."believe" as it were...




I stopped at 9 minutes in, because anyone who wants to start a documentary about atheism with 9/11 has shown his cards from the start. It is such a pat and shallow approach.

11 guys, disobeying the rules of their faith, fly planes into those buildings.

Over 300 first responders from this "religious Christian country" are killed saving lives, climbing into buildings that they know, from their own training, are likely to collapse. So, when your host sits there, laughably, pondering 9/11 he should probably have reconsidered his point of view when he waxed philosophically about the "dangers" of religion.

The idea that religious people have no understanding of the complexities of the world or that we all consider God some cosmic babysitter is the cliche you are willing to believe and it shows how little you have even looked into the topic. I personally am a shitty apologist for religion because I lose my patience with things like this. I suppose a corollary would be if I asked you to watch some video about how all atheists are smug, unethical soul-less pseudo-intellectuals, showing the attrocities of communism( organized atheism) where thousands of Christians have been persecuted and sent to their deaths? If I bothered to watch stuff like that...but I don't.
allen2saint
Wuji
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:43 pm

Re: Real Religion

Postby shawnsegler on Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:41 am

Ah, the tolerance of the religious. That documentary happened to be made right after 9/11 and as he said was one of the reasons he felt the need to "establish his disbelief"

The fact of the matter is the suicide bombing community is 100 percent faith based.

If you want to believe in an invisible sky daddy, that's fine but when you do you've already thrown in your cards with fundamentalism. It's in the nature of having to backup belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Bye science!

Sad really.

S
Last edited by shawnsegler on Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
I prefer
You behind the wheel
And me the passenger
User avatar
shawnsegler
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6423
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: The center of things.

Re: Real Religion

Postby klonk on Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:58 am

Science? Shawn, you may be pleasantly annoyed to consider the relationship of science to religion. Start here:

Science versus religion is a phony issue


By Kendal Black


All this does not mean that scientists may not criticize religion, only that they are speaking nonsense when they do.


Some people suppose that science trumps religion, that a modern understanding of the world through science renders religious understandings obsolete. Some others suppose that religious understanding can be used to refute science. Both views are wrong.

Science is rooted in philosophical naturalism. That is the stance that says we will explain what we see without reference to supernatural agencies. Science describes what happens without recourse to explanations involving angels, demons, gods, fairy godmothers, humors, vapors or ghosts.

Acting on this basis, science has done a great deal of good. It has gotten rid of superstitions about what causes disease, where insects come from and a good many other misunderstandings.


Read more: http://subversiveunity.blogspot.com/201 ... issue.html
I define internal martial art as unusual muscle recruitment and leave it at that. If my definition is incomplete, at least it is correct so far as it goes.
User avatar
klonk
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6776
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:46 am

Re: Real Religion

Postby allen2saint on Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:08 am

You think I'm a fundamentalist because I won't take shit from you? That is the epitome of prejudice.

If your grasp of your own position is so fucking shallow and infantile that you need to use tropes like "sky daddy" and pull out some meaningless sentence about suicide bombing then I implore you to find a smarter, more educated atheist to champion your cause, because you aren't up to the job.
Last edited by allen2saint on Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
allen2saint
Wuji
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:43 pm

Re: Real Religion

Postby Steve James on Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:21 am

Neither science nor religion is a game, but let us think of them as if they were, and speak of them as games with different rulebooks. That will explain my point more easily and clearly than anything else. The rules of the science game say that supernatural causality is not to be considered. Playing by its own rules, then, science cannot critique religion on religion's own terms; it cannot say anything about it good or ill.


Starts from a false premise: "science" doesn't criticize anything. Scientists may; but some scientists also practice a religion. Also, if the conclusion were valid that "science cannot critique religion on [an unspecified] religion's own terms", the corollary is that "religion cannot critique science" on science's terms. "It cannot say anything about it good or ill."

But, I agree that the science v religion issue is phony, and far too imprecise and unspecific to lend to a logical argument. Not that such arguments ever prove anything.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Real Religion

Postby Dajenarit on Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:27 am

I watched half, gonna watch the other half later but from what I've seen so far the documentary was good, thoughtful and dare I day respectful to believers in explaining disbelief which sometimes comes down to that inexplicable feeling of rightness just as believing does even if non believers have more science and logic to work with. I especially like the term disbeliever even though I don't have anything against 'atheist'. Like the man in the vid, its not something I think about much. People will still be intolerant when that particular information is divulged no matter the label. If you want an entire room to stop whats they're doing and stare at you literally slack jawed mouths gaping mention, you don't believe in god. Fun times. Atheists face their own kind of discrimination which was another point of the video. But they got into alot of heady stuff. Like I said it was thoughtful.

In the video most people tried with religion but for infinitely different and yes logical (which most religions can't ever argue for) reasons they chose to leave it behind. Alot of times at a very young age. I decided I was a disbeliever after what seems like multiple lifetimes in a church and being raised by a deeply religious family, at around 7 or 8 long before I could articulate why. Then I struggled with it being o.k. not to be Christian for another 9 or 10 or so. Fear of hell and damnation, social disapproval which is very real and all that. Leaving the programming behind so to speak. We'll have a Mormon, Buddhist or Muslim president long before an atheist which says alot more than people want to admit and its not because atheists walk around like self righteous know-it-alls. I and most atheists I know just don't talk about religion let alone their beliefs or lack there of. Why would we when its not part of our lives? Its not worth the frustration. Honestly I think Christians are more concerned and bothered by atheists and what they don't believe than the other way around. Reading a few anti religious shmucks arguing on the web are not representative of millions of people and their millions of reasons for choosing disbelief. Give the same courtesy about not generalizing as you expect from others. I for one have members of every major faith in my family. We all manage to respect each others choices. Doesn't mean disbelievers have an inherent dislike for religion or can't speak about it intelligently. Give things a chance before the chicken little routine Allen.

Lets be real though, The relationship most people want to have with god is as their personal cosmic babysitter,
Dajenarit
Wuji
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:34 pm

Re: Real Religion

Postby allen2saint on Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:08 am

Dajenarit wrote:
Lets be real though, The relationship most people want to have with god is as their personal cosmic babysitter,


How does it feel to have just just exposed your own bias?

Please. Like I said, I hang out with academics of all religions all day long, because my university employs Muslim and Jewish professors as well. They're the most thoughtful peope I know. I did not join this discussion because I take issue with atheists or atheism. I did not join to promote my own religion. What I did do was join the discussion to make it known that people here operate out of bias that they believe is fact and that they do so out of intolerance....which, by coincidence, is exactly what you accuse us of. What Ido I often hear? "Well, religious people are mean to me!" And to treat them the same way is what? A demonstratin of your superior morality or intelligence?
allen2saint
Wuji
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:43 pm

Re: Real Religion

Postby klonk on Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:16 am

Steve James wrote:
Neither science nor religion is a game, but let us think of them as if they were, and speak of them as games with different rulebooks. That will explain my point more easily and clearly than anything else. The rules of the science game say that supernatural causality is not to be considered. Playing by its own rules, then, science cannot critique religion on religion's own terms; it cannot say anything about it good or ill.


Starts from a false premise: "science" doesn't criticize anything. Scientists may; but some scientists also practice a religion. Also, if the conclusion were valid that "science cannot critique religion on [an unspecified] religion's own terms", the corollary is that "religion cannot critique science" on science's terms. "It cannot say anything about it good or ill."

But, I agree that the science v religion issue is phony, and far too imprecise and unspecific to lend to a logical argument. Not that such arguments ever prove anything.


Haha. Skim, much?

All this does not mean that scientists may not criticize religion, only that they are speaking nonsense when they do. They have not kept the two rulebooks straight. In exactly the like manner, the religious person who supposes that his Bible tells him that science has it all wrong has broken the rules of the science game. He needs to do the experiments, or dig into the strata, or measure creation's timeline, in ways scientists will acknowledge as complying with their rules. Otherwise they will pay no attention to him, and rightly so.

I've made a bit of an oversimplification here, for the sake of producing a clear explanation. I will correct that now. There are many fine scientists who are also deeply religious. They can be both because they have two rulebooks, both of them useful in understanding the world, but useful in understanding the world in different aspects.



If there is a false premise here it is taken over bodily from the scientists offering it: Saying, in so many words, I'm Joe The Great Scientist and religion is bunk... because science!

Seriously. Some of them get on the New York Times Best Sellers list. Must be a lotta people who want to hear that kind of thing. :-\

But there is a nuance of meaning between critique and criticize, which you overlook. I think that relieves the charge of a false premise. Critiquing is forming a careful (perhaps critical, perhaps only careful) evaluation, while criticizing connotes finding fault or belittling. I leave it to you which is more common in science against religion diatribes.
I define internal martial art as unusual muscle recruitment and leave it at that. If my definition is incomplete, at least it is correct so far as it goes.
User avatar
klonk
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6776
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:46 am

Re: Real Religion

Postby Steve James on Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:31 am

I think that relieves the charge of a false premise.


It wasn't a charge; it was a fact. Ultimately, if he says that scientists can't talk about religion, he has no basis for criticizing "science." Or, he should accept that "scientists" are as free to criticize religion as "religion" (:)) is to criticize science. Even then, there are many "religions" and either they all can't be correct or they are all correct. Otoh, there is only one "science"; so, criticizing it in relation to the many religions is fruitless. That is, unless one is promoting one's own personal religion --and that is generally what people are defending when they compare religion to science.

Yeah, there are lots of books by atheists who use or refer to scientific theories to disprove specific religious ideas --like angels and demons. But, as I said, there are also scientists of faith, and always have been. Most scientists do not (and indeed would argue that they cannot) try to disprove religions. That's just not what they are interested in doing. They search for extraterrestrials, ok. They don't try to disprove the existence of a supreme being. Of course, many of them would scoff at the idea; but they'd never argue that it could be disproven scientifically. They just go along with their work. I won't go into the moral implications of science, such as in warfare, because people with religions have always come up with the best, deadliest weapons.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 21137
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Real Religion

Postby shawnsegler on Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:38 am

allen2saint wrote:You think I'm a fundamentalist because I won't take shit from you? That is the epitome of prejudice.

If your grasp of your own position is so fucking shallow and infantile that you need to use tropes like "sky daddy" and pull out some meaningless sentence about suicide bombing then I implore you to find a smarter, more educated atheist to champion your cause, because you aren't up to the job.


LOL!

Better put on your big boy pants if you wanna dance with me, chuckles.

And better yet, learn to read English. I said being a "true believer" hitches your cart to fundamentalism...and it does. As to the other stuff, no...the epitome of prejudice is when I show you something that might enlighten you about the atheist viewpoint and you throw it out because you're too weak and close minded to get through something that bothers you..even when it's correct. Typical "believer" can't face up to evidence and so out comes the rage and refutation of facts.

My ex and my son are moving out here today so I don't have a lot of time but I'll come back and have words with you over the next day or two.

You fucking people. Sad...really sad. ::)
I prefer
You behind the wheel
And me the passenger
User avatar
shawnsegler
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6423
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: The center of things.

Re: Real Religion

Postby shawnsegler on Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:42 am

Science? Shawn, you may be pleasantly annoyed to consider the relationship of science to religion.


Same to you Klonk. I'll come back and give you some facts when I have some time, although from past experience I know you to just ignore facts and keep on keeping on with your viewpoint even when it's proved wrong.

Was Fox New the Chicken egg of Bias or the Chicken? We may never know.
I prefer
You behind the wheel
And me the passenger
User avatar
shawnsegler
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6423
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: The center of things.

Re: Real Religion

Postby Dajenarit on Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:16 pm

allen2saint wrote:
Dajenarit wrote:
Lets be real though, The relationship most people want to have with god is as their personal cosmic babysitter,


How does it feel to have just just exposed your own bias?

Please. Like I said, I hang out with academics of all religions all day long, because my university employs Muslim and Jewish professors as well. They're the most thoughtful peope I know. I did not join this discussion because I take issue with atheists or atheism. I did not join to promote my own religion. What I did do was join the discussion to make it known that people here operate out of bias that they believe is fact and that they do so out of intolerance....which, by coincidence, is exactly what you accuse us of. What Ido I often hear? "Well, religious people are mean to me!" And to treat them the same way is what? A demonstratin of your superior morality or intelligence?


Oh please Allen. If you don't admit that much, you're fooling yourself. People want a god that cures terminal illness, makes them wealthy, gives them a b/f or g/f, a home, gives them children, or to keep those same kids out of prison and basically remedy any and all problems in their lives. I've seen a person in all seriousness pray for a car or a new gaming console. As if we aren't personally responsible for all these things. So Cosmic Santa Claus I guess would me more apt. ;D

That's one of the few criticisms I have about religions though. That the belief of divine intervention alot of the times take personal responsibility out the equation in exactly those situations when its vitally important. I've heard people praying about solutions to climate change for example. Just won't work. Human activity caused it and human solutions have to solve it. If god does exist from what we can observe in life hes not much of a hand holder.

I actually think atheists or disbelievers should have some, I guess you could say spirituality to keep centered, or belief in some kind of higher principle, to build some kind of connection with the ineffable or to feel one with the universe as they say, idk how to exactly describe it. I definitely wouldn't put a name or face on it with obviously man made rules attached. We should and can live by our own moral reality without all the baggage. If we accept that we're really the ones making the rules, instead of supposedly the unchangeable word of God through some guy calling himself a prophet, then those moral laws, should or would become more adaptable to the times. Religions would be more serviceable to humanity and less outmoded if most people admitted that much. This is a mad world and it'll make you the same way if all you have to focus on is the brutal drudgery of every day life, the senseless misery and violence. I think every one needs that something to put it all into context and not end up cynical and sociopathic from the every day 365 circus that is living on this planet.
Last edited by Dajenarit on Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Dajenarit
Wuji
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:34 pm

Re: Real Religion

Postby Doc Stier on Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:20 pm

Wow! These absurd religion threads always get nasty in a hurry, don't they? In the end, no one is right if everyone is wrong! :-\ :o

Several people on this thread would do well to heed the advice of Abraham Lincoln, namely...."sometimes it is better for a man to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open his mouth and remove all doubt." ::)

Nonetheless, in any case.....

Image
Last edited by Doc Stier on Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"First in the Mind and then in the Body."
User avatar
Doc Stier
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:04 pm
Location: Woodcreek, TX

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests