Yes
No
Other (please specify)
Results 41 to 60 of 77
Can we limit your freedom of speech too? We do after all have the democratic mandate (being the vast majority of the world's population) and we don't particularly want to hear to your false, fairy tale atheistic rantings
On the wings of green birds our martyrs fly..
Jesus thinks you're a jerk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcE2dq3YD0
I'll tell you why anthropomorphic monotheism/polytheism will never be compatible with human ethical principles and practices.
As long as people believe there is an agency (god) that distributes rewards and punishments to people, while those same people are engaged in ethical relations, and those ethical relations produce some amount of conflict (and they will), whatever the consequences pertaining to the results regarding the actions of those people involved in the conflict must be understood as ordained by that agency. In this case, people must inevitably reduce themselves to fatalists (submitting all responsibility and consequence to god's will) or they will forever battle with the sense of being cheated by god.
It would be impossible for two people engaged in a conflict to conclude that a disadvantage experienced by one of them, at the expense of the advantage of the other, was arbitrary and contingent- they would have to accept that somehow god had determined that the one should suffer while the other did not. If at the same time, the offended cannot comprehend why he deserved the disadvantage...he would become frustrated and confused.
You would have a world full of passive stoic cowards or madmen. There is absolutely no way the idea of this kind of god would "work" in the very real material relations of human beings.
This kind of scenario is analogous to two brothers fighting because mommy said one could have a piece of cake while the other could not.
Fagettaboutit.
It'll never work.
Be aware that the population of the religious is declining...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul...l07_index.html
Nothing more, you can all continue on with your discussion.
One thing: There are religion without a material hierarchy (no priest) and those who even have no supernatural (i.e. god, etc)-natural/man hierarchy. However, even out of these a hierarchy can possibly sometimes spontaneously arise.
"My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay
"if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm
"Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie
"The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus
Scientific reasoning also has a strong argument AGAINST freedom of choice/agency. It is something I personally struggle with, understanding Islamic thought to describe personal agency but finding it problematic to believe in it.
Regardless, whether or not one believes in personal agency does not negate a need to struggle or desire for it. The fact of the matter is that religious people are not (on the whole) a bunch of stoic cowards or madmen.
On the wings of green birds our martyrs fly..
To address your first sentence, whether or not the word "faith" pops up in a book is irrelevant - all religion is based upon faith. Likewise, Nazis may never actually mention 'reactionary,' but it doesn't mean they aren't such.
As for your question, probably all of them to a certain degree. If you attend any sort of worship temple/church/mosque then you certainly undergo a period of indoctrination/conditioning whereby you must repeat sentences ad-nauseum. Psychology has taught us that fear is the primary source of religious belief, so I'm sure that factors in somehow.
Let me ask you this: why else turn to a system of belief totally and completely lacking in evidence and reason?
Ok...
It may be construed as such, and over such a stale medium as the internet it may appear so, and many people may maintain these attitudes - but what I speak of is a simple analysis of religion.
Belief without reason/evidence must have some sort of cause. Since that cause cannot be rational thought, it must be something else. Given that fear, indoctrination, conditioning, etc... are historically the most common ways to suppress rational thought, this analysis makes the most sense.
Religion is a crutch. It is a crutch for existential anxiety.
No, this individual has merely substituted fear of god for fear of death. This is exactly what I mean. Instead of addressing his fear, understanding it, and working through it, he just throws the 'wrath of god' as a bigger, more dangerous, fear.
It's totally insane - literally.
Yes, but when you start throwing fairy tales into a simple discussion, it is pertinent to note that these are mere fairy tales.
- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
Maybe not, but they will always be a paranoid, suspicious and anxious bunch. There is something dangerously peculiar in the thought that there might be an intelligent being who hides out of sight, with a personality, who has moral preferences and who is also capable of reprimanding people.
Freud called religious belief "infantile helplessness" and "regression into primary narcissism".
This is compatible and complementary to Feuerbach's ideas regarding religious belief.
So, for me, despite the fact that atheism has remained, and will always remain unscathed by theology, the implications of this kind of belief, as they pertain to human psychology, are enough to convince me that I wouldn't want to believe in God even if he did exist.
I prefer atheism. I don't like to stress out. I'm easy like Sunday morning.
There is something dangerously arrogant about people who characterise everyone else 'paranoid, suspicious and anxious', especially when it seems atheists are the most anxious in trying to ram their point home.
Freud's contributions to Psychology were in making it popular.. and that is about it.
Unscathed by theology, but not by dogma.
Atheists base their arguments, naturally, upon the idea that God does not exist. Because of this, their explanations of religious belief are based upon this fact, seeing the calm and fearlessness that it can bring about in people as purely an example of a 'crutch', rather than the peace found in truth.
Without religion, faced with death, I did not fear it. I have never read anything conclusively linking religious faith to fear, nor have I read anything indicating that there is a primal fear in all of us of death. I guess I missed that Psych class? Someone is free to enlighten me with the conclusive, peer reviewed proof (that they DEMAND for everything) of such an assertion.
This belief is maybe founded upon their own fear? That deep inside insecurity that maybe their denial is folly. The religious people I know, those deeply within their din, are all wonderful people. Their faith gives them 'adab' (manners) and some degree of 'rahma' (mercy). The hardcore Atheists I know however are insecure, belligerent and rude. Those that are not are often agnostic or apathetic. There appears sometimes an arrogance in the manifestation of Atheist dogma, a deep condescending superiority... I know that was how I felt as an Atheist.
However that is all beside the point and off the topic at hand. We were talking about Hierarchy.
On the wings of green birds our martyrs fly..
Well, this demonstrates your abysmal knowledge of atheism.
Atheists base their arguments on material reality. What can be proven through the scientific method is true. Atheists base their arguments, at least intelligent atheists do, on two things:
1) Reason. No proof that god exists. No evidence that god exists. No reason to believe that god exists.
2) History. Almost all previous beliefs in supernatural deities have either been proven false, or abandoned. Why is yours any different?
For starters, check out Ernest Becker's work The Denial of Death. Quite interesting.
This isn't a logical argument. You are merely claiming that you see some things in some people, and others in other people, and hence one belief system is totally false and the other is true.
Atheism is simple: no proof, no evidence - no belief.
Theism is insane: no proof, no evidence - belief.
Why not believe in magical monkeys hiding in the walls? Volcanoes of ice cream? Unicorns with squid tentacles that attack bison in the milky way?
All as equally valid, from a logical standpoint, as religion....
- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
Well, you had derailed the thread claiming socialists would not grant "equality" for religious people. So, do you think religion can exist without class hierarchy? Do a separate class of priests or whatever you call them need to to exist in order for religion to exist? Most people here, including me, think not.
None of the arguments for the existence of gods have ever been even slightly rational or convincing, so people certainly don't believe in gods for those reasons.
Rather, belief in gods is more like a subtle neurosis, a psychological condition which remains into adulthood. The "god" idea is a symbolism of the authoritarian parent figure- the one who protects, awards, punishes, etc. This notion becomes rooted in the psyche during the formative years of childhood. Into adulthood, the crude intellectual belief in god is nothing but an expression of the original emotions experienced during childhood...except the idea takes refuge in a more advanced language. This is what prevents the adult from maturing properly- the misuse of language and/or utilization of nonsensical terms in the mediation of religious discourse.
Freud did exhibit a kind of intellectual fetish for psychology....much of his theory is untestable hypothesis that is not empirically valid. Ironically, though, I think much of Freud's psychoanalytical theory is more valid today than at the time he established it.....but we have to grant the fact that it remains more philosophical than scientific. I think a crucial component for better understanding Freud's ideas is the work of Lacan. In light of Lacan, in the post-industrial age of media advertisement and commodity fetishism, the ideological (what Marxists call "false consciousness") is expressed through these mediums. Because of this, new forms of obsession, depression, infatuation, and hysteria are present, I think, which, in a way, showcases many of Freud's theories. In other words, Freud was a bit posthumous.
If you imagine that the human being is basically a pathetic, agonizing creature which is at every point in its life trying to compensate for some kind of feeling of deprivation, lack, impotence, and powerlessness, and then suppose that capitalism/consumerism is the political/economic system that best accomodates a species in those conditions, everything begins to make sense suddenly. The best way to express our perverse desires and tolerate our inhibitions is through the free-market democratic system. A good analogy would be a cage of monkeys- just lock them up in the cage, give them complete freedom, and watch them through feces at each other.
There really isn't much more you can do with the human species as it is. Instead, there needs to be a radical change in the human being first, not the political system. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, if somebody snapped their fingers and poof.....we were socialists....we would be in far worse conditions than we were in before the change. The human being had been memetically engineered to be a dip-shit by industrial society.
In order to remove class hierarchy and eliminate classes, you would first have to eliminate religion, particularly the major Revelatory religions, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, which are inherently hierarchical classist systems (i.e. God is at the top, Prophet speaks for God, priests speak for Prophet and so on).
Mystical, self-experience based spiritualities may be able to survive, as people are most likely always going to fantasize about the effects of "supernatural entities" in their lives/the world, however without any sort of hierarchy or class structure, there will be no way in which such systems can achieve or maintain any sort of uniformity of thought or ideology, hence they will not be religion in the sense of an organized entity.
There is also no proof that anything beyond your perception exists, do you then deny that I do? It is ironic that many Atheists claim reason as a driving force, while simultaneously not taking reason to its logical absolute. If one is going to claim a sceptical position, one cannot use Empiricism to prove anything, as one must consistantly apply such scepticism, including to ones own reality. With the knowledge that all perception is subjective, no individual is capable of arguing anything based upon what they individually observe.
Following every revelation is entropy, it makes sense. A Messenger comes, monotheism gets dilluted to polytheism, the law is abandoned and eventually the religions now based on confused assumptions collapse.
That was not really what I was trying to get across, merely that one should begin to look at belief systems according to what they give to their followers.
No Proof of objective reality, yet believe that one can 'prove' things using said objective reality, sounds insane to me.
Considering the Islamic understanding of God, all existance is 'proof'. God is a paradigm, like quarks in science, without empirical proof but taken to exist because it explains many things. Science is full of paradigms like that.
Cause and effect is the basis of all things in this Universe, but it is logical that this cycle of cause and effect cannot exist eternally, therefore there must be something that is not 'caused' but is also a cause. That is the thing we call God.
I wish I did, magic monkeys and icecream volcanoes rock! However they are not an explanation for a question not answered by science.
Yes, religion can exist without a class heirarchy. The question was in response to someone else, claiming that the aim of socialism was equality, a claim which I do not believe is consistent with the actions of many on this forum (not saying that it does not mean that socialism does not have that aim, merely that those claiming it can be hypocritical).
I don't imagine 'the human being' as such, I guess that is why Freud appeals to you and not me. You are right, Freud was a philosopher, not a psychologist, his ideas are not verifiable, therefore they cannot be trusted as 'science'.
How does one 'eliminate religion'? Does hierarchy neccesitate class?
On the wings of green birds our martyrs fly..
Ok. But what if believers forgot to believe one day. If there were no priests around to remind them of the wrath of God, do you think those "believers" will believe again. If so, why?
I don't have a priest around to 'remind me of the wrath of God'. I converted not based on fear of God's wrath if I did not. I converted through my own logic and enquiry. Only in the last week before I became Muslim did I talk to a Sheikh, and the role of a Sheikh is not the same as the role of a priest.
Sheikh's are not conduits for God or the Prophet sws, they are simply people who know the source material. If someone has a question about the Sha'riah, they can go to a Sheikh for clarification, if they don't like the answer, they can go to another Sheikh. We are encouraged to follow a single school of juridicial reasoning, but otherwise there is no 'heirarchy of Sheikhs' as there is in Catholocism (speaking for Sunni Islam, the Shia-t-Ali are different).
On the wings of green birds our martyrs fly..
Ah, but even if you (as an idealist) tried to play the radical empiricism card as Berkeley did, you would still have to concede an objective reality existed...regardless of whether or not it was all "in your mind".
You could even push a complete skeptical position, such as Descartes, and propose that you could never have certainty about anything other than "doubt", but in this case, you are implying an objective reality which you can doubt....and the position collapses into itself.
Really man, comparing atheistic skepticism to metaphysical skepticism is hardly worthwhile. Atheism is by default not a position...rather, it is a counterpoint to the empty position of theism. A true atheist would never say "God does not exist", since that would mean that the term god meant anything at all. A true atheist would answer, when asked the question "do you believe in god" with "I don't understand the question".
What gives you the right to determine what others can and cannot listen to? Nobody's forcing you to listen. Turn off your TV, don't go to church.Originally Posted by InsertNameHere
The fact is, organized religion is a personal choice. Nobody has mentioned that most church's doctrines preach how you should live, and if we all lived by them it would be a better world. I've yet to see a church advocate capitalism. It also interests me how people can judge organized religion without ever seeing how it would behave in a true communist society. I find it fascinating.
Also, there is more evidence for religion than against. Take Christianity (my religion):
What we have: Eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ (The Bible, and people who have DIED, seen him, and been returned to life in hospitals. There are endless stories of that).
What atheists have: "It is ridiculous to believe there's a man in the sky watching us." Nice inference. Unfortunately, you're out-scienced.
By the way, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still NATIVE Africans AND native AFRICAN monkeys? People are our supposed ancestors?
-PC
^ ^ ^ Eugh. This is why I doubt that the number of religious people is falling; they might even call themselves atheists though they will believe the same or different superstitious crap.
By the way, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans have the same hominid ancestors.
What the fuck?
Thank you, Woland, for taking my statement out of context and trying to make me sound like a rascist. The original quote was:
I am saying that there are people native to Africa, and monkeys native to Africa, so if we are evolved from them, why are there still NATIVE AFRICAN MONKEYS in Africa, and I'll thank you to keep me in context from now on.Originally Posted by PCommie
-PC
But do you think the level of servitude toward an invisible being that you claim to have reached can be reached by everyone of their own accord?
So you are bringing up a strawman (that of hierarchy among sheiks) and at the same time justifying hierarchy. The hierarchy talked of here is believers < sheiks.
If there were no such things as sheiks, there wouldn't be any believers either. From the perspective of the believer, there is not much difference if an "intercessory" person calls themselves sheiks, mullahs, priests or grand wizards or whatever. If there is no such class division, there is no incentive for people of the non-priest class to believe the crap.
