The effect of religion
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Ummmm....You just said his parents made him go to church. Also, why would a Christian quote the Koran, as you said? Why would a Christian claim that Jesus "raped his soul"? Why would he admire the Columbine kids, who were noted atheists?
Why would an athiest go to a presbyterian church?
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
73Zeppelin wrote:
Why would an athiest go to a presbyterian church?
Because his parents made him?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Why would an athiest go to a presbyterian church?
Because his parents made him?
Red Stateler wrote:
Because his parents made him?
Because he was religious.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Does that sound like a Christian to you? It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
I guess he was upset with the Lord. Still not an athiest...athiests don't distain Jesus.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
73Zeppelin wrote:
athiests don't distain Jesus
Not by definition, but they certainly can. In fact many seem to resent Christians and therefore probably Jesus by proxy. By contrast, it would be completely against Christian beliefs to have disdain for Jesus and doing so would make you decidedly unchristian.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Because his parents made him?
Because he was religious.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
73Zeppelin wrote:
Because he was religious.
Yeah...So religiously Christian that he quoted the Koran, expressed disdain for Jesus and revered the atheistic Columbine kids! :rolleyes:
-
So that one instance invalidates all the other instances where god's chosen people will either die or be slaves?
Last modified: 10hrs 43mins after originally posted --
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
You have to pick and choose the bits of the Bible you want to believe in. It's the only way to keep it consistent. :rolleyes:
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Oh, and here's another quote from him: "Jesus loved crucifying me. He loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart and raping my soul all this time." Does that sound like a Christian to you? It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
Red Stateler wrote:
It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
Ah, but it also sounds like he believes in Jesus, and therefore cannot be atheist. The way he talks about him is very different to how an atheist would. Sounds to me like he was twisted enough to believe Jesus had caused him grievance. That is impossible for an atheist.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
Patrick Sears wrote:
The concept of enlightened self interest comes to mind. Even if one were to accept your premise that atheism itself leads to hedonism, there is still enlightened self interest to contend with, and an even simply intelligent mind will have some sense of enlightened self interest (that is, looking out for their better long term interest rather than their short term whims).
And therein lies the problem. Atheism requires personal promotion, usually at the expense of others, over all things. There will come a time when you cease to exist and all your accomplishments and depravities become absolutely meaningless as, even if they persist in others, there's no way you can conceive of them or their worth. Consequently, what does it matter whether you're a hedonist or dedicate your life to charity? As you say, some might forego instant gratification for long-term comfort, but ultimately either are maximizing your personal gain. It's effects on others shouldn't be of concern so long as they don't directly interfere with you and your goals. The modern world makes that all too easy.
Patrick Sears wrote:
1. Sleep with another man's wife, you're likely to get yourself a whole heap 'o trouble. 2. Killing people without merit is probably going to get YOU killed. 3. Refusing to share and refusing to help is probably going to leave you without any support group, and very, very few individuals are capable of surviving alone - or ever were. Not only that, humans have a very, very strong instinctive drive to group together. Few people are willing to jeopardize their social support group. 4. Stealing is probably going to get you either beaten or killed, or at the very least, locked up or banished (going back to point 3).
The problem with this list is that, when applied to atheism, it actually reduces humanity to the lowest possible level of moral development...pre-conventional morality[^] whereby consequences need only be a concern if you're caught. Perhaps this is why liberals are so concerned with "privacy"? After all, why would adultery be a problem so long as the woman's husband didn't catch you? That would apparently be the only deterrent of immoral acts.
Red Stateler wrote:
Atheism requires personal promotion, usually at the expense of others, over all things
Please do explain this conclusion.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
73Zeppelin wrote:
Because he was religious.
Yeah...So religiously Christian that he quoted the Koran, expressed disdain for Jesus and revered the atheistic Columbine kids! :rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
he quoted the Koran
I didn't say quoted, I said referenced. That supports my claim that he was religious. He revered the Columbine kids for their actions, not their beliefs. So, still religious.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
athiests don't distain Jesus
Not by definition, but they certainly can. In fact many seem to resent Christians and therefore probably Jesus by proxy. By contrast, it would be completely against Christian beliefs to have disdain for Jesus and doing so would make you decidedly unchristian.
Red Stateler wrote:
Not by definition, but they certainly can. In fact many seem to resent Christians and therefore probably Jesus by proxy. By contrast, it would be completely against Christian beliefs to have disdain for Jesus and doing so would make you decidedly unchristian.
That's all besides the point. The point is that we know he attended church and accepted Jesus in a religious sense of being divine (an athiest would not). He may not have "loved Jesus" but his interpretation of him was decidedly non-athiest. He was religious and attended a Presbyterian church where he worshipped the lord. That makes him Christian.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Seems obvious to me. I'd suggest that there is a degree to which the same results would show if they chose another way in which to study parents who have a wide social network of people of all ages and are united in their approach to parenting, with those who do not.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
I have to admit that you're the first atheist on here who is well-reasoned and tempered regarding your position. I've known one other (a friend from college) who based his reasoning on rather sound classical greek philosophy. Unfortunately, I think you're the exception to the rule as most atheists are strictly materialistic and completely disregard the concepts of virtues for their own sake. Without that rare sense of higher order that you apparently have, I believe hedonism and nihilism is a common result.
Red Stateler wrote:
I've known one other (a friend from college) who based his reasoning on rather sound classical greek philosophy.
I don't know if you've noticed how many times I have quoted Aristotle in the past couple of days - it is also a major influence in my thinking. I'm also deeply interested in the human capacity to abstract concepts, so I tend to look at a great many things through that particular lens.
Red Stateler wrote:
Unfortunately, I think you're the exception to the rule as most atheists are strictly materialistic and completely disregard the concepts of virtues for their own sake. Without that rare sense of higher order that you apparently have, I believe hedonism and nihilism is a common result.
I have been lucky enough to find a few very good people who look at things as I do, so I don't feel entirely alone. But there are days... I've often wondered the answer to that question, though. I'm an introspective atheist in that I do wonder about the natural outcome of atheism, just as I wonder about the natural outcome of religious belief. I've not come to any conclusions about it, though, because it's much harder to observe. So much of atheism is a direct response to religion, rather than behavior independent of outside motivation. So at the moment, it's rather unprovable to claim how atheists act, I think. I was once a deeply devout Christian so I think I have a somewhat unique perspective.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Seems obvious to me. I'd suggest that there is a degree to which the same results would show if they chose another way in which to study parents who have a wide social network of people of all ages and are united in their approach to parenting, with those who do not.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
Seems obvious to me. I'd suggest that there is a degree to which the same results would show if they chose another way in which to study parents who have a wide social network of people of all ages and are united in their approach to parenting, with those who do not.
Agreed. It seems to me the key factor is the social network, and less the particular content of belief. People who grow up in strong social networks learn to respect them.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Seems obvious to me. I'd suggest that there is a degree to which the same results would show if they chose another way in which to study parents who have a wide social network of people of all ages and are united in their approach to parenting, with those who do not.
Agreed. It seems to me the key factor is the social network, and less the particular content of belief. People who grow up in strong social networks learn to respect them.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
It seems to me the key factor is the social network, and less the particular content of belief. People who grow up in strong social networks learn to respect them.
It seems to me that you're both rationalizing.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
It seems to me the key factor is the social network, and less the particular content of belief. People who grow up in strong social networks learn to respect them.
It seems to me that you're both rationalizing.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
It seems to me that idea bothers you enough to refuse to consider it. Merely considering an idea doesn't constitute acceptance. And we were both thinking out loud, as well.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
My rationale is that if existence (all forms) truly end for "you" when you die there is little or no reason to live a moral life.
The unspoken assumption here seems to be that the purpose of living a moral life is finally realized at the END of life - that is, the afterlife. If one accepts, however, that what we do here on earth, to each other, matters (and certainly it does, else we wouldn't bother to define morality in the first place) then there is still a place for morality even for those who don't believe in divine reward or punishment. Morality tells us how to live with each other. I should think that to be very, very important during a lifetime.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
The unspoken assumption here seems to be that the purpose of living a moral life is finally realized at the END of life - that is, the afterlife.
no, that is your assumption. My contention is there is a higher power that should be respected and it is that repect, in my case anyway, that has an effect on how I chose to live my life. If I have any respect for the balancw of humanity it is a function of my belief in a higher power, a deep respect and admiration for what that higher power has created. If there were no higher power that I respected I'd wallow in debauchery, I'd steal from you if I thought I could get away with it, I'd lie if it would serve a purpose, etc.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Morality tells us how to live with each other. I should think that to be very, very important during a lifetime.
why? simply to have a circle of friends? I'm a loner by nature, a circle of friends is meaningless to me. I'm also conservative and believe in self reliance, it melds nicely with my nature.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
It seems to me that idea bothers you enough to refuse to consider it. Merely considering an idea doesn't constitute acceptance. And we were both thinking out loud, as well.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
It seems to me that idea bothers you enough to refuse to consider it. Merely considering an idea doesn't constitute acceptance. And we were both thinking out loud, as well.
no I didn't refuse to consider it, see my post above (loner, etc.). But to the point of a social network, a church does in fact provide that. Actually it is much more, it provides a sense of community with interaction between folks who have the same general approach to life. I'm not aware of nor am I familiar with parents relying on that community for other than emotional support, but since I'm well past the age where I have children that I'm worried about raising I may be missing something.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Oh, and here's another quote from him: "Jesus loved crucifying me. He loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart and raping my soul all this time." Does that sound like a Christian to you? It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
I hate to say it, but he can't be an atheist if he believes Jesus raped his soul. First off, he's believing in Jesus, just not in the Christian way, secondly, he believes he has a soul. Now, I wouldn't claim he's a Christian, but he is not atheist.
This statement was never false.
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
No it's not it's a plant, you can't grip bits of metal with it. I've yet to meet anyone whose life has been adversely affected, can't same say the same for alcohol. How exactly do you think it "hurts" people? or are you thinking of people putting their fingers in a vice?
That's the ironic part. I've never seen anybody actually ruin their life through alcohol. Maybe because it takes quite a bit more to become a raging alcoholic than a pothead. Poison Ivy is a plant too, btw.
You haven't seen alcohol ruin people's lives, but you have with cannabis. heh. That must be why so many deaths are attributed to alcohol and none to cannabis.
This statement was never false.
-
David Wulff wrote:
What about other people, and your children?
Why would I care about other people in this context? The concept of others would be meaningless and I would adopt the most hedonistic approach to life I could find. I might work to cause no pain but I certainly wouldn't work to be moral. That would give me the latitude to steal, maybe not everything somone has but certainly I could convince myself that it was okay to liberate the excess. Ditto diddling someone's wife. etc.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
So then why do animals in nature protect their young? Are they focused on an afterlife?
This statement was never false.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
It seems to me that idea bothers you enough to refuse to consider it. Merely considering an idea doesn't constitute acceptance. And we were both thinking out loud, as well.
no I didn't refuse to consider it, see my post above (loner, etc.). But to the point of a social network, a church does in fact provide that. Actually it is much more, it provides a sense of community with interaction between folks who have the same general approach to life. I'm not aware of nor am I familiar with parents relying on that community for other than emotional support, but since I'm well past the age where I have children that I'm worried about raising I may be missing something.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
But to the point of a social network, a church does in fact provide that. Actually it is much more, it provides a sense of community with interaction between folks who have the same general approach to life.
What you're describing is a tribe, a social entity hundreds of thousands of years older than a church, a social entity based not only on agreement on how to live but also on how to make a living - both ideological and functional. But since we consider tribes to be savage now, and have seen fit to do away with the most successful of our social constructs, we instead replace them with churches.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I'm not aware of nor am I familiar with parents relying on that community for other than emotional support
Essentially the only kind that matters. Physical sustenance is easy, at least these days; emotional support isn't.
------------ Cheers, Patrick