“Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain.” -Einstein
I have been wondering about this for quite some time. Do people who live in the name of their god do better than people who have no faith? Rather, more applicable to me, do religious beliefs, religious group participations, spiritual orientation, and whatnot link to academic motivation, good academic standing, and time spent studying?
For people like me, an Atheist, what motivation is there? Learning about the Universe... Do we seek to educate ourselves because we simply love learning? Do we learn with an inquisitive mind, a yearning heart, the burning desire in our heart to better ourselves so we can make a positive impact on the world?
It seems to be much easier to use god as a motivation because it's just that simple. You don't have to find out for yourself what you really want to do, just do whatever the holy text tells you to (or your parents).
There are those that need to utilize a supreme being, or others, as a justification to do or accomplish certain things. Other people are able to see the value in doing those things themselves. There is nothing that religion or a god-like figure can provide that can't be provided by ourselves.
As an ignostic (not that it's necessary to point out), I find motivation in actions with (usually) tangible benefits for myself or my situation and those around me. Everything that we do as humans is motivated by our self-interest, some of which we aren't even able to acknowledge. For some people, whether fortunately or unfortunately, they utilize that self-interest in terms of a religion or god, rather than something else.
On February 19 2012 18:36 divito wrote: There are those that need to utilize a supreme being, or others, as a justification to do or accomplish certain things. Other people are able to see the value in doing those things themselves. There is nothing that religion or a god-like figure can provide that can't be provided by ourselves.
As an ignostic (not that it's necessary to point out), I find motivation in actions with (usually) tangible benefits for myself or my situation and those around me. Everything that we do as humans is motivated by our self-interest, some of which we aren't even able to acknowledge. For some people, whether fortunately or unfortunately, they utilize that self-interest in terms of a religion or god, rather than something else.
Very interesting input. What about those that can not be self-motivated?
people are better people when they believe in god, only in the eyes of other people who believe in god already. to those who dont believe in any kind of religion these people dont change.
some religious people might say "religion teaches us whats ment when it comes to moral", but thats wrong interpretation. moral is something that makes sense even when you skip the religion, so no reason for them to claim moral for religious purposes only.
same for beeing a good person and have good behaviour. you can be a nice person without any kind of religion and you also can be a total jerk with religion (as you can see in the news from time to time).
some people never took a close look at their "holy book" and just follow blind some old traditions. when you look closer at that book you find really scary stuff that should make all people who read it really concerned. not only in the old testament (its just more blood here) even in the new one (more psychological brutality) you find enough stuff. covering the whole package, from massmurdering to deny the love of parents and the request of hate.
In the end, most people are motivated by the basic desires.
We want to improve our own position in life. We want to improve the lives of people we care for.
Money is a good motivator for most people. Status is another. Some people just want to do something fun with their lives, rather than uneducated work, which is often reptitive.
The vast majority of religious people in the first world haven't even read their holy book from cover to cover. I think that shows how serious most people really take it.
People consider their religion part of their self-image. They don't do anything with it, but if people ask them about it, they give an automated reaction.
So does religion really work as a serious motivator?
No, it isn't tangible enough for most people. Those that are really motivated by religion tend to be on the crazy end of the spectrum.
i think that religion must be preserved as one of the core values of our society because you can see in our age most are forsaking those values that religion and tradition provide and become materialistic and self selving consumers without any thought of society and need to help those around them.then again there are those that have strong enough personalities to resisst this kind of materialistic mass culture that modern cosiety is propagandizing(i don't know if that's even a word :p ) to us while still being atheist by choise but those are really the minority. at least those are observation made on my country but i really believe that it applies for the rest of the world too
What does god or religion have to do with academics? If anything god is strictly against the pursuit of knowledge and emancipation. The forbidden fruit... the religious are a flock of sheep happily dependent on their shepherd for guidance and direction. I do however agree with your premise religion/god is easier. But you should recognise that that it is inferior to passion and curiosity as you described.
On February 19 2012 18:44 idrawinGSLjan wrote: i think that religion must be preserved as one of the core values of our society because you can see in our age most are forsaking those values that religion and tradition provide and become materialistic and self selving consumers without any thought of society and need to help those around them.then again there are those that have strong enough personalities to resisst this kind of materialistic mass culture that modern cosiety is propagandizing(i don't know if that's even a word :p ) to us while still being atheist by choise but those are really the minority. at least those are observation made on my country but i really believe that it applies for the rest of the world too
Materialistic mass culture.
How about you start by defining this. What is materialistic? What is too much?
Because many people would become unemployed and many technological innovations would never exist if people didn't buy them.
Sure, you are going to call people who buy an Ipad materialistic, that is an easy score. What about the first people that bought a TV? What about the people that first bought a model T?
What if nobody wants a ferrari? Do we fire everyone that works at the ferrari plant and tell them to be happy because the world is a little less materialistic?
This complaint about "materialism" is a hollow complaint. It is hollow because there is literally no thought behind what people mean by the word materialistic. It's like people complaining that pornograpy is corrupting society, but when asked what they mean by corrupting they shrug and just repeat what they said.
You want to learn because you find it interesting. That is just way the human brain functions IMO.
Imagine if you were put in a 2m^2 room. The walls are all white and you are fed the same single thing everyday. There is nothing in the room besides you and a black switch. You are told you can not touch the switch because that would make things change, so it is now up to you what to do. You need to be a really special case if you are put in a lonely room, fed the same thing everyday and does not have the urge to hit the switch to see what happens.
I think religion can add to reasons to learn about something, but I do not think religion in anyway is a core reason to the academic question you are asking. I think this is a question about social factors and self consciousness. You want to learn about things because it is interesting.
I will never mix up religion and other personal interests or let it be the reason for doing something. My parents used to do that, but at some point they realized that that was not the way to go for them and got kicked out of church for being to opposing. This made me quite clear about how I want to do things, and mixing religion up with other stuff, or using it as a reason for different things is not my way of doing things. I don't want to let some old book decide what is right or wrong for me to do. I can think for myself and I intend to do so. I learn because I want to learn, because I find things interesting. My motivator is people around me, and the will to do better.
I'm of Atheist/Agnostic disposition and I don't really care for religion tho..
I watched "The Vice Guide to Liberia" recently, where a group of guys with camera go into Liberia and interview people. Check it out, etc.. The place is a complete war zone. People kill each other, eat each other, torture rape, do drugs all at a young age like you name it. It's f insane. The only people that had any like shelter or any kind of good goals were the religious people. And before I saw that I never thought religion would be good for anyone, but in the case of people living in Liberia, it's an improvement on their quality of life/behavior. Even if it's just a slight improvement.
Not sure about motivation but the overwhelming majority of scientists doesn't believe in gods (generally 2/3 but so far I've only read about US studies, and we know that the US is much more religious on paper than Europe for example).
On February 19 2012 18:44 idrawinGSLjan wrote: i think that religion must be preserved as one of the core values of our society because you can see in our age most are forsaking those values that religion and tradition provide and become materialistic and self selving consumers without any thought of society and need to help those around them.then again there are those that have strong enough personalities to resisst this kind of materialistic mass culture that modern cosiety is propagandizing(i don't know if that's even a word :p ) to us while still being atheist by choise but those are really the minority. at least those are observation made on my country but i really believe that it applies for the rest of the world too
Materialistic mass culture.
How about you start by defining this. What is materialistic? What is too much?
Because many people would become unemployed and many technological innovations would never exist if people didn't buy them.
Sure, you are going to call people who buy an Ipad materialistic, that is an easy score. What about the first people that bought a TV? What about the people that first bought a model T?
What if nobody wants a ferrari? Do we fire everyone that works at the ferrari plant and tell them to be happy because the world is a little less materialistic?
This complaint about "materialism" is a hollow complaint. It is hollow because there is literally no thought behind what people mean by the word materialistic. It's like people complaining that pornograpy is corrupting society, but when asked what they mean by corrupting they shrug and just repeat what they said.
while i agree that many technological innovations would not exist but that's not what i mean materialism. as you may see (or may not see in the place you live) corporations rule the world,our goverments are directly under their influence and due to their advertizing their products are replacing values. now the ultimate values of most people are to hqave a well paid job, have a big house,a nice expensive car and all those goods that help fuel the modern capitalist system by giving those corporations power and money so they can govgern our lives. i mean where you live isn't the worth of people measured in the form of the money they have and their jobs instead of their knowledge or the help they have given to the community? also the situation is not just about about jobs. you also have to consider nature. in order to fuel the factories that produce all those things that we consume which are not really needed we have to burn millions of tones of fossil fuels that release dangerous gases and use tons of fertilizers that disrupt the nirtrogen balance which leads to aquatic habitats dying while also using non biodegradable pesticides that also disrupt the balance of nature and in the end 1 to 2 billion people can';t eat while the earth could sustain up to 9 billion people just because we westerners have the perception that we can throw away things like food,or non biodegradable plastic. also the cutting down of the major forests is another problem even though cyanophytes consume 80% percent of co2) that stems from our <<needs>> in furniture and other wooden products. you see co2 along with other more dangerous residues that derive from human activities having increased rates of introduction in the nvironment and decreased rates of consumption which leads to nature severily deteriorating.how long do you think that earth can sustain all those activities?well to end it are you really happy in the society which you live in? do you thinki everyone has the same selfless values as YOU do? freedom? family? society? progress? nation? education? or maybe money power and fame? think about it
while i agree that many technological innovations would not exist but that's not what i mean materialism. as you may see (or may not see in the place you live) corporations rule the world,our goverments are directly under their influence and due to their advertizing their products are replacing values.
How are they "replacing" values? Humans have always sought out status and wealth throughout the ages.
The Roman senators of old went on grand campaigns of war so that they could plunder the regions that they conquered, earning fame and mass fortunes.
One senator expressed a great deal of hapiness when a region in the empire decided to rebel, because now they could sent their armies and plunder the area again.
Replacing values? Before the enlightenment this world was a cruel and hopeless place. You think christianity has always been this lovey-dovey version?
Christianity in its current form has only existed for maybe 50-100 years. Before that it was mostly talk about how disgusting humans were and how we needed to be fixed and how hell was just around the corner.
Now the ultimate values of most people are to hqave a well paid job, have a big house,a nice expensive car and all those goods that help fuel the modern capitalist system by giving those corporations power and money so they can govgern our lives. i mean where you live isn't the worth of people measured in the form of the money they have and their jobs instead of their knowledge or the help they have given to the community?
What is the most respected proffession? It is not investment banker.
People are valued for a host of things, their wealth is one of them, but it is hardly the largest factor. In fact, in most first world countries, lavish displays of wealth are considered to be impolite.
If you are in Holland and you tell someone how much money you have in the bank, you just committed a social faux pas. Is that materialistic? Hardly.
Also the situation is not just about about jobs. you also have to consider nature. in order to fuel the factories that produce all those things that we consume which are not really needed we have to burn millions of tones of fossil fuels that release dangerous gases and use tons of fertilizers that disrupt the nirtrogen balance which leads to aquatic habitats dying while also using non biodegradable pesticides that also disrupt the balance of nature and in the end 1 to 2 billion people can';t eat while the earth could sustain up to 9 billion people just because we westerners have the perception that we can throw away things like food,or non biodegradable plastic. also the cutting down of the major forests is another problem even though cyanophytes consume 80% percent of co2) that stems from our <<needs>> in furniture and other wooden products. you see co2 along with other more dangerous residues that derive from human activities having increased rates of introduction in the nvironment and decreased rates of consumption which leads to nature severily deteriorating.how long do you think that earth can sustain all those activities?
So your version of paradise is one in which we return to a pre-industrial revolution age?
The industrial revoltion has raised the standard of living by such an insane degree. Do you understand what you are saying? You are suggesting that we should reduce the standard of living of every person by 90%.
As for people starving, how do you practically suggest to fix that? Considering your other suggestions, I fear something quite fanatical.
Do we just give them food? What about the farmers there that can't sell their crops because we are giving away free food? No farmers, no basis for an economy, eternally bound to handouts from the first world.
Well to end it are you really happy in the society which you live in? do you thinki everyone has the same selfless values as YOU do? freedom? family? society? progress? nation? education? or maybe money power and fame? think about it
Society can always improve, but I hope to see the standard of living continue to grow. I hope that I will see many technological miracles that will leave me speechless.
I don't hope that we return to some marxist-agricultural society that can't prevent polio.
On February 19 2012 19:10 Epoch wrote: I'm of Atheist/Agnostic disposition and I don't really care for religion tho..
I watched "The Vice Guide to Liberia" recently, where a group of guys with camera go into Liberia and interview people. Check it out, etc.. The place is a complete war zone. People kill each other, eat each other, torture rape, do drugs all at a young age like you name it. It's f insane. The only people that had any like shelter or any kind of good goals were the religious people. And before I saw that I never thought religion would be good for anyone, but in the case of people living in Liberia, it's an improvement on their quality of life/behavior. Even if it's just a slight improvement.
So I guess in their case, it's good motivation?
thank you for helping me make my point. you see people who are not religious or have an idealistic mindset(which is the majority of the population) don't have and concerns about the actions they commit. the only thing that can prevent them from commit acts of self interest which have negative impact in the society(stealing,raping,killing) is fear of the gun(the law) and in places that don't have clearly defined specific laws such as here in greece that the scumbags that consist the majority of the constitution make laws that help them steal millions from the state but while the general wnats them punished none has power over the laws that they made and there are also places like africa that can't enfoirce their laws which leads to amoralistic people commiting all those atrocities. you see european people brought their part of their civilization to africa so when order was removed there was nothing to stop those people from achieving their goals.knowledgeable muslims hate us most from bringing our civilization to them rather that anything else. as to what the op has asked well the only think i can right now think of which religion helps you with your academics is by giving you willpower but in the end it's your dedication to your goals that can drive you forward in your pursuit of knowledge(or a good job) or whatever your acdademics goals are. as for myself as a religious man and (at least i like to think of myself) as a thinking man i find that religion bolsters my image of the world and drives me to strive to get a better understanding of it
You should check out some debates by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens on youtube. Just search their names and watch whatever video's appeal to you. I could type some of my thoughts but they usually word it much better.
while i agree that many technological innovations would not exist but that's not what i mean materialism. as you may see (or may not see in the place you live) corporations rule the world,our goverments are directly under their influence and due to their advertizing their products are replacing values.
How are they "replacing" values? Humans have always sought out status and wealth throughout the ages.
The Roman senators of old went on grand campaigns of war so that they could plunder the regions that they conquered, earning fame and mass fortunes.
One senator expressed a great deal of hapiness when a region in the empire decided to rebel, because now they could sent their armies and plunder the area again.
Replacing values? Before the enlightenment this world was a cruel and hopeless place. You think christianity has always been this lovey-dovey version?
Christianity in its current form has only existed for maybe 50-100 years. Before that it was mostly talk about how disgusting humans were and how we needed to be fixed and how hell was just around the corner.
Now the ultimate values of most people are to hqave a well paid job, have a big house,a nice expensive car and all those goods that help fuel the modern capitalist system by giving those corporations power and money so they can govgern our lives. i mean where you live isn't the worth of people measured in the form of the money they have and their jobs instead of their knowledge or the help they have given to the community?
i am merely suggesting anything fanatical as returing to the stone age which you imply me to. what i want to see is just some more modesty in our consumer habits which is exactly the meaning of mass consuming that drives our society. you see the sustainability of the state and the corporations in our time is dependendent of money flowing in the form of products and taxes so that is what our society wants us and leads us to become. just workers without thinking ability to tell between the necessary and the unnecessary. do the adverticements in your country not present standards in the forms of beauty and wealth and fame or do you fail to see that(or are there regulating bodies that ban those kinds of ads like coca cola ads,or axe ads or ads that are pressuring women to buy products in order toi be beautiful,show love to their family and be good businesswomen)?what we also need is to evenly develop our productive capabilities and our protection of nature which we have not managed to do properly and has led to all these environmental problems.also about the farmers you say that you say that can't sell their food.really?there are millions of people every year who are starving to death and millions more who die form deseases.regardless of how pathetic your example is i agree with the general concept. as lao tzu the founder of taoism(a religion btw) said <give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime> the problem with third world countries won't be sold until we cannot give them the productive capabilities they need which apparently is not in the best interest of monsanto onje of the world's biggest biological corporations who has made the poison that is aspartame another poison that is high fructose corn syrup(i'm not sure if monsanto produced that) also biologically engineered plants that can accept unlimited quantities of pesticides(which are highly toxic) but you know society does not tell you these things cause they want you to be blind and not understand that pretty much everything is controlled by corporations such as monanto,coca cola,goldman sachs(?) and many other(lol i have really changed the conversation,sorry op :p )now you imight say that those are conspiracy theories but they are true as a matter of fact(just not every conspiracy theory because many of them are improbable and some plain stupid) and you are blind if you can't see that corporations run the govermnets. for the record many of the presidents and members of the governments of america and europe were associated with goldman sachs such as multiple american presidents and the now presidents of italy and europe who were also president and vice president of the bildenberg club in europe. to end this i'll say that most of the people who rise to power are the one that are capable who are in fact stiffled but those who are willing to do the bidding of a higher power and that applies to most levels of power
What is the most respected proffession? It is not investment banker.
People are valued for a host of things, their wealth is one of them, but it is hardly the largest factor. In fact, in most first world countries, lavish displays of wealth are considered to be impolite.
If you are in Holland and you tell someone how much money you have in the bank, you just committed a social faux pas. Is that materialistic? Hardly.
Also the situation is not just about about jobs. you also have to consider nature. in order to fuel the factories that produce all those things that we consume which are not really needed we have to burn millions of tones of fossil fuels that release dangerous gases and use tons of fertilizers that disrupt the nirtrogen balance which leads to aquatic habitats dying while also using non biodegradable pesticides that also disrupt the balance of nature and in the end 1 to 2 billion people can';t eat while the earth could sustain up to 9 billion people just because we westerners have the perception that we can throw away things like food,or non biodegradable plastic. also the cutting down of the major forests is another problem even though cyanophytes consume 80% percent of co2) that stems from our <<needs>> in furniture and other wooden products. you see co2 along with other more dangerous residues that derive from human activities having increased rates of introduction in the nvironment and decreased rates of consumption which leads to nature severily deteriorating.how long do you think that earth can sustain all those activities?
So your version of paradise is one in which we return to a pre-industrial revolution age?
The industrial revoltion has raised the standard of living by such an insane degree. Do you understand what you are saying? You are suggesting that we should reduce the standard of living of every person by 90%.
As for people starving, how do you practically suggest to fix that? Considering your other suggestions, I fear something quite fanatical.
Do we just give them food? What about the farmers there that can't sell their crops because we are giving away free food? No farmers, no basis for an economy, eternally bound to handouts from the first world.
Well to end it are you really happy in the society which you live in? do you thinki everyone has the same selfless values as YOU do? freedom? family? society? progress? nation? education? or maybe money power and fame? think about it
Society can always improve, but I hope to see the standard of living continue to grow. I hope that I will see many technological miracles that will leave me speechless.
I don't hope that we return to some marxist-agricultural society that can't prevent polio.
damn i guess the post was too long. what i was saying was this: i am merely suggesting anything fanatical as returing to the stone age which you imply me to. what i want to see is just some more modesty in our consumer habits which is exactly the meaning of mass consuming that drives our society. you see the sustainability of the state and the corporations in our time is dependendent of money flowing in the form of products and taxes so that is what our society wants us and leads us to become. just workers without thinking ability to tell between the necessary and the unnecessary. do the adverticements in your country not present standards in the forms of beauty and wealth and fame or do you fail to see that(or are there regulating bodies that ban those kinds of ads like coca cola ads,or axe ads or ads that are pressuring women to buy products in order toi be beautiful,show love to their family and be good businesswomen)?what we also need is to evenly develop our productive capabilities and our protection of nature which we have not managed to do properly and has led to all these environmental problems.also about the farmers you say that you say that can't sell their food.really?there are millions of people every year who are starving to death and millions more who die form deseases.regardless of how pathetic your example is i agree with the general concept. as lao tzu the founder of taoism(a religion btw) said <give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime> the problem with third world countries won't be sold until we cannot give them the productive capabilities they need which apparently is not in the best interest of monsanto onje of the world's biggest biological corporations who has made the poison that is aspartame another poison that is high fructose corn syrup(i'm not sure if monsanto produced that) also biologically engineered plants that can accept unlimited quantities of pesticides(which are highly toxic) but you know society does not tell you these things cause they want you to be blind and not understand that pretty much everything is controlled by corporations such as monanto,coca cola,goldman sachs(?) and many other(lol i have really changed the conversation,sorry op :p )also many members of the governments of europe and usa were affiliated with goldman sachs such as multiple usa presidents and now presidents of greece and italy who were also president and vice president of the bildenberg club in europe.to end i believe that there applies a rule that in all levels of power the one who rise are not the ones that are capable but the corrupt ones those who are willing to do the bidding of higher authorityand they do it because they have no trouble in selling their concience for money and fame.there were some other things that i said that i forgot but god my hands are tired.anyway i hope i have helped you op.i have been reading some of your blogs for some time and i have come to like you even though i can't form a complete opinion on someone over the internet.
Personally I feel like I have MORE to live for being an atheist rather than following a religion. I find enjoyment learning about how the universe works and being able to better myself and helping others.
Your grammar and post lay-out is just atrocious. It is by far the worst I have ever seen.
I won't reply to another post like that. It shouldn't be my job to decypher what you mean, or edit it to make it readable.
On February 19 2012 20:28 idrawinGSLjan wrote: damn i guess the post was too long. what i was saying was this: i am merely suggesting anything fanatical as returing to the stone age which you imply me to. what i want to see is just some more modesty in our consumer habits which is exactly the meaning of mass consuming that drives our society. you see the sustainability of the state and the corporations in our time is dependendent of money flowing in the form of products and taxes so that is what our society wants us and leads us to become.
The sustainability of the state is dependent on money flowing.
This is the only thing you said that is actually true. It is also the one thing you reject with a passion. You acknowledge that the state and companies cannot be sustained without the flow of money.
And you want to halt the flow of money. You want to abolish the sustainability of the state and companies.
Basically tank the entire economy and the state structure. But you live in a bit of a dishonest, self-deceiving mindset. For example, you admit to wanting to undermine the sustainability of the state and corporations, but, at the same time, you will refuse to admit that you will decrease the living standards of every human on the planet.
just workers without thinking ability to tell between the necessary and the unnecessary. do the adverticements in your country not present standards in the forms of beauty and wealth and fame or do you fail to see that(or are there regulating bodies that ban those kinds of ads like coca cola ads,or axe ads or ads that are pressuring women to buy products in order toi be beautiful,show love to their family and be good businesswomen)?
How arrogant must you be to believe that you have the right to declare what is and is not "necessary." There are only 2 truly necessary things: water and food.
Even a polio vacine is "luxury." Meanwhile you are sitting the internet, another "unncessary" invention. Feel free to cancel your subscription to the internet. The money you save will be enough to feed about 5 people in the 3rd world.
But you aren't going to do that. Just like how you bought Starcraft 2 instead of feeding an African child for an entire year.
Why is it always the things you don't like that are "unncessary?"
Arrogance, that is why. Only the most arrogant would truly believe that their values and feelings regarding certain products are so important, that others need to abide by their judgements on it. What if someone else calls videogames unncessary? Do we just abolish the videogame industry?
At this point you have supported the destruction of several industries, on the sole basis that you find them "unncessary." How many people do you intend to make unemployed for this utopia?
What we also need is to evenly develop our productive capabilities and our protection of nature which we have not managed to do properly and has led to all these environmental problems.
You are lying to yourself and everyone in this thread.
We need to up our production and reduce the damage that we deal to nature?
Yeah, and I need to drink more alcohol and not get drunk, but I don't think that is very likely. Protecting the environment is being done, but it should not go to such extreme lengths that it starts harming human prosperity.
also about the farmers you say that you say that can't sell their food.really?there are millions of people every year who are starving to death and millions more who die form deseases.regardless of how pathetic your example is i agree with the general concept. as lao tzu the founder of taoism(a religion btw) said <give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime>
You agree with the fact that people need to learn to carry their own weight.
The post before, you argued that we should feed the 3rd world.
Even in this very fragment, you argue that we should feed them, after which you instantly say that we shouldn't feed them.
And in the fragment below this one, you say that we need to give them factories, for free.
Do you even understand your own logic? Because you constantly argue against yourself.
the problem with third world countries won't be sold until we cannot give them the productive capabilities they need which apparently is not in the best interest of monsanto onje of the world's biggest biological corporations who has made the poison that is aspartame another poison that is high fructose corn syrup(i'm not sure if monsanto produced that) also biologically engineered plants that can accept unlimited quantities of pesticides(which are highly toxic) but you know society does not tell you these things cause they want you to be blind and not understand that pretty much everything is controlled by corporations such as monanto,coca cola,goldman sachs(?) and many other(lol i have really changed the conversation,sorry op :p )
Go read about a little thing called "The green revolution."
That is something you would have prevented, leading to insane shortages of food, because you dislike genetical engineering of crops for no real reason other then propaganda talk about how it isn't natural.
And no, corporations do not control the world. That sort of conspiracy nonesense won't fly.
also many members of the governments of europe and usa were affiliated with goldman sachs such as multiple usa presidents and now presidents of greece and italy who were also president and vice president of the bildenberg club in europe.
Bilderberg club...seriously?
There is no illuminati and the government runs the government, not corporations. Take that Alex Jones trash somewhere else.
to end i believe that there applies a rule that in all levels of power the one who rise are not the ones that are capable but the corrupt ones those who are willing to do the bidding of higher authorityand they do it because they have no trouble in selling their concience for money and fame.there were some other things that i said that i forgot but god my hands are tired.anyway i hope i have helped you op.i have been reading some of your blogs for some time and i have come to like you even though i can't form a complete opinion on someone over the internet.
People who are loyal tend to rise to the top.
The problem is that corruption and loyality tend to look the same when you owe favours to a thousand people.
Actuall corruption is actively fought in most first world countries. Does it still exist? Yes. Does it exist on a massive scale? No.
That is the thing with corruption. You can't kill it, just like you can't kill crime. You simply need to reduce it to such a degree that you can live with it. Corruption at this point, in most first world countries, is at a level where it does not negatively effect the economy to a serious degree. Aka, it can be lived with.
If it grows rampant, the free press and democracy will strike it down.
Your abusive use of paragraphs isn't that clear neither, Zalz.
To the OP : what drives people is not religion, it's spirituality. You speak of religion and science as two seperate things, but they are both avatars of human spirituality - which is, in essence, our questions about life, and the answers we find. Atheists are not people who have seen "the naked truth", they are simply people who follow another spiritual path - wether it's science, philosophy, a political ideology. Each ambitious man follows a certain light, for you need it to guide you and pull you through life.
Religion also holds many roles that can be assumed by other things in your life (a community, a code of conduct, a goal). A cult will organize your social life, for example. It was a strong, extended context which exploded in the last century, scattering its components left and right ; we no longer follow a single institution who leads our life. This is a good thing, and a bad thing too, especially now that cybercultures are shaking our very way of life. The family structure, social interaction, social hierarchy, everything is changing very fast. We're kind of lost in the midst of this accelerated evolution.
On February 19 2012 20:04 Pholon wrote: You should check out some debates by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens on youtube. Just search their names and watch whatever video's appeal to you. I could type some of my thoughts but they usually word it much better.
Definitely agree with Harris and Hitchens (although Hitchens usually comes off as caustic, that doesn't make him any less wrong ^^).
As an atheist, I have plenty to live for. Everything that makes me happy in this world, everything that makes others happy... are things I can look forward to. My family, friends, hobbies and passions, future ideas and motivations for what I want to do with my life... they're all reasons to live. And- for what it's worth- my girlfriend and my mother and my two brothers and the students I educate as a math teacher and tennis instructor are actually real beings. I don't need to believe in fake things to give me strength, although I understand- from a psychological perspective- why religion exists as a defense mechanism. I'm just stronger than that, although that's of course somewhere down the road, I may use a different temporary defense mechanism to hide away a tragedy or thought.
But actions are based on beliefs, and what you do affects others. So my beliefs are going to be as rational and fact-based as possible, so I don't go around hurting others because of my specific opinion. (I live in New Jersey, USA, and my governor just vetoed a bill to pass gay marriage because of his personal beliefs- despite the state legislature passing it. Pisses me off.)
Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
On February 19 2012 23:22 Kukaracha wrote: Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
I went to a catholic high school. They told me this too. It's not true. And yes sure happily dispute global warming and evolution but not gravity....
On February 19 2012 23:22 Kukaracha wrote: Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
You realize that science =/= atheism right? And to compare scientific theories with the colloquial theories (read as: allegories and outdated explanations) of creationism and religion is to completely equivocate between the scientific and layman definitions of Theory. You simply cannot say that science's explanation for X and religion's explanation for that same X are on equal grounds in terms of validity. So what if a group of people believe both sides (argument from popularity? logical fallacy.)... that doesn't make both of them equally true or even equally respectable. I can respect a person for other reasons, but I don't have to respect certain beliefs of theirs, especially if those beliefs are clearly nonsensical (let alone fly in the face of real, factual, logical, empirically-sound explanations).
The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927.
The biggest motivator of humankind in general isn't religion, it's overcoming challenges. Putting a man on the moon, eradicating smallpox, building the pyramids. A lot of things are accomplished not to show homage to our creator, but just to prove that we can do it. This is the main reason we play video games too, for the sheer challenge of it.
The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927.
On February 19 2012 23:22 Kukaracha wrote: Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
You realize that science =/= atheism right? And to compare scientific theories with the colloquial theories (read as: allegories and outdated explanations) of creationism and religion is to completely equivocate between the scientific and layman definitions of Theory. You simply cannot say that science's explanation for X and religion's explanation for that same X are on equal grounds in terms of validity. So what if a group of people believe both sides (argument from popularity? logical fallacy.)... that doesn't make both of them equally true or even equally respectable. I can respect a person for other reasons, but I don't have to respect certain beliefs of theirs, especially if those beliefs are clearly nonsensical (let alone fly in the face of real, factual, logical, empirically-sound explanations).
You misunderstood me, I'm talking about science in a spiritual level, which is what replaces religion for most atheists nowadays. The "questions" I'm talking about are questions of "life". I used the Big Bang theory simply as a way to compare a religious person to a scientific one, underlining the ignorance of both and their dependance on knowledgeable leaders who represent the authority.
However, I have to say that your entire post is, in my eyes, a logical fallacy. You deem religious beliefs nonsensical using the analytic tools of scientific beliefs. Of course you will come to this conclusion, how could they question what was created on top of them? You suppose the superiority of the scientific analysis before even asking the question "is it superior"!
Not only that, but both deists and theists seem to regard science as valuable tool, while they seek metaphysical answers elsewhere ; and while science does provide this kind of anwsers itself, its superiority in this domain is questionable, at the very least.
On February 19 2012 23:45 Azera wrote: I just love how TL just makes you think :D
Also, DarkPlasmaBall, you teach Math? What's the secret to getting good grades in Math? Constant practice? =)
Haha practice certainly helps, but having a good teacher (or study group for those at the university level) to explain things in certain ways is very important as well. Sometimes it's not so easy to simply understand the concepts by reading the pages, so having someone else relate it or apply it or break it down for you is fundamental towards success.
Once you understand how the concepts work, grinding out computations and possible extensions of problems to better understand the topic is very useful
The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927.
On February 19 2012 23:22 Kukaracha wrote: Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
I went to a catholic high school. They told me this too. It's not true. And yes sure happily dispute global warming and evolution but not gravity....
On February 19 2012 23:22 Kukaracha wrote: Do you truly believe that "religious people" are nothing but a cattle following the holy word of one man?
1) There are thousands of religions, each has its own answers, 2) Each religion is divided into different branches, 3) Theology (debates about that "book)
What religious people do is look in an allegoric book to find answers, it remains a search. A search led by priests who have the authority to question and interpret the message in their own way. Many think that religious people themselves believe they have it all figured out, and it is most likely true, but this can be said of everyone, atheists included. The Big Bang theory (built by a christian priest), the theory of evolution, global warming are all considered by a wide range of the population as things that have been "figured out" when they really have no clue of what those hypothetical phenomenons really are, completely dissmissing the fact that they are theories in the process.
Really, is it hard to imagine that religious people to often ask themselves questions like "why am I here" or "what am I supposed to do"?
You realize that science =/= atheism right? And to compare scientific theories with the colloquial theories (read as: allegories and outdated explanations) of creationism and religion is to completely equivocate between the scientific and layman definitions of Theory. You simply cannot say that science's explanation for X and religion's explanation for that same X are on equal grounds in terms of validity. So what if a group of people believe both sides (argument from popularity? logical fallacy.)... that doesn't make both of them equally true or even equally respectable. I can respect a person for other reasons, but I don't have to respect certain beliefs of theirs, especially if those beliefs are clearly nonsensical (let alone fly in the face of real, factual, logical, empirically-sound explanations).
You misunderstood me, I'm talking about science in a spiritual level, which is what replaces religion for most atheists nowadays. The "questions" I'm talking about are questions of "life". I used the Big Bang theory simply as a way to compare a religious person to a scientific one, underlining the ignorance of both and their dependance on knowledgeable leaders who represent the authority.
However, I have to say that your entire post is, in my eyes, a logical fallacy. You deem religious beliefs nonsensical using the analytic tools of scientific beliefs. Of course you will come to this conclusion, how could they question what was created on top of them? You suppose the superiority of the scientific analysis before even asking the question "is it superior"!
Not only that, but both deists and theists seem to regard science as valuable tool, while they seek metaphysical answers elsewhere ; and while science does provide this kind of anwsers itself, its superiority in this domain is questionable, at the very least.
Science at the spiritual level? What's an example of that? Can we propose falsifiable and testable claims and collect observational evidence refuting or defending those hypotheses? Do spiritual claims fit into the scientific method, or are they just personal experiences that are unverifiable?
And what other method is there to accurately describe the universe besides science? Wild guessing? We're apparently comparing the scientific method to something else... and I have the nerve to say that science is superior to this other method (and defending my position is the fact that the scientific process has brought us every advancement in the world- technology, medicine, etc.). But what is the other method? Faith? Well science uses evidence, so what does Faith use? *A feeling*? I don't understand what you're talking about, or how you can say that a different analytic system is superior to what science does for us. But by all means, tell me of this other system and how it blows science out of the water.
And many religious claims made by holy books are indeed ones that can be falsified through science (e.g. Creation and Destruction myths), which means they've already been directly refuted by actual data. I don't see how you can refute God talking to Person X, and other strictly supernatural claims ("This one time, 6000 years ago, an animal was taken over by God and it spoke to people") are irrefutable by the very definition of using God to intervene with the test (which means you need to assume God exists first- but that's a whole other can of worms)... but we have archaeological and other scientific evidence that defends the scientific theories over the religious alternatives. And- don't forget- that there's no reason to *automatically* accept supernatural claims in the first place; the onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence. You don't accept a claim as correct without there first being evidence for it; the default position is that things don't exist (or that claims are incorrect) until evidence defending them are found. That's Logic 101.
Science at the spiritual level? What's an example of that? Can we propose falsifiable and testable claims and collect observational evidence refuting or defending those hypotheses? Do spiritual claims fit into the scientific method, or are they just personal experiences that are unverifiable?
Positivism left important traces in our culture, which led people to confront science to ethics or metaphisics. Science can't and should not be applied to questions such as "is there a god". However, my point is that common people do make this sort of mistake, showing that science to them is not only an educated and precise analysis of reality, but a way of life.
Now, while I do agree again with you when you say that science is the best set of methods used to describe the world, I still think that your thought process is wrong. This claim can only be made outside of these methods, epistemologicaly, and not by using the criteria found withing scientific beliefs themselves.
And last, you've been adressing the Bible as a book of facts, but it is only a base for exegesis. Many, if not most, don't actually believe that there were burning bushes speaking to random peasants, but that it's an allegory or a metaphor. You wouldn't read Thus spake Zarathustra and say to yourself "dude, how could this fly kill the broken artist in the eyes of the superhuman child?". A few empty-headed followers who would sincerely believe that there was a deadly fly and very, very strong kid chillng with an agonizing artist do not invalidate the book as a whole.
No particular point in this case, simply answering to this :
But he was completly accurate in adressing your misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the word "theory."
Sure, a man cannot build a scientific theory on his own, nor can theories be built (but rather accepted) but the original impulse was indeed given by a religious man.
My main point being simply that the belief in god and the study of science don't contradict themselves.
On February 19 2012 18:25 Azera wrote: It seems to be much easier to use god as a motivation because it's just that simple. You don't have to find out for yourself what you really want to do, just do whatever the holy text tells you to (or your parents).
Perhaps. But what good is it if such motivation goes towards oppression? Take Christians in politics for example. The majority of Christians have been on the wrong side of every major social issue in the past 150 years. Is it any wonder that the Church has lost its place in society as a moral authority. Is it any wonder that fundamentalist Christians have become a laughing stock. Take the following examples:
* In the founding charter of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest protestant denomination in the United States, just prior to the civil war, the founding fathers took a firm stand in defense of slavery which they believed to be ordained by God and justified through the references to slavery in the scripture (Eph 6: 5-9, Col 3:22-4:1).
* Many Christians took a strong stand against women’s suffrage around the turn of the century. They argued that the Bible clearly specifies that women should have no place in the governance of men and that to give women the right to vote would be a clear violation of the laws of God (1 Tim 2:11 – 3:13; 1 Cor 14:33-35).
* In the early decades of the 20th Century, Christians took a strong stand favoring prohibition. This issue was so important to them that they violated their own doctrine of separation of Church and State to lend their full weight to the ratification of the 18th amendment. This too was done based on clear scriptural authority (Rom 14:21, 1 Cor 6-10, Eph 5:18), while ignoring scripture to the contrary (1 Tim 5:23, John 2:1-11). In standing for prohibition, the Church participated unwittingly in laying the foundations of organised crime in the United States. The structures and alliances which developed during prohibition for distribution of moonshine are now used to distribute drugs. As a result, prohibition may well have been the most socially destructive event in the nation's history.
* Christians took a strong stand against allowing divorced individuals full participation in Church life. This too was based on strong scriptural authority (Mark 10:1-12, Mat 19:1-12, Luke 16:18). For many years divorced individuals were not asked to teach Sunday School or hold office in the Churches.
* Christians took a strong stand against racial integration. Churches which accepted African-Americans as members were removed from fellowship in the local associations and censured in various ways.
* And of course, today that motivational energy is directed towards homosexuals.
No particular point in this case, simply answering to this :
But he was completly accurate in adressing your misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the word "theory."
Sure, a man cannot build a scientific theory on his own, nor can theories be built (but rather accepted) but the original impulse was indeed given by a religious man.
My main point being simply that the belief in god and the study of science don't contradict themselves.
But the study of science clearly shows that snakes cannot talk. So a belief in God (Genesis 3:1) contradicts science. The study of science shows that drinking poison will kill you. So a belief in God (Mark 16:18) contradicts science. The study of science shows that mountains cannot be commanded to move. So a belief in God (Matthew 17:20) contradicts science.
There are countless examples. I can easily provide many more if you have never read the Bible before. Feel free to try and refute the above by proving any of them but please do it via YouTube so we can see it rather than just take your word for it.
No particular point in this case, simply answering to this :
But he was completly accurate in adressing your misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the word "theory."
Sure, a man cannot build a scientific theory on his own, nor can theories be built (but rather accepted) but the original impulse was indeed given by a religious man.
My main point being simply that the belief in god and the study of science don't contradict themselves.
But the study of science clearly shows that snakes cannot talk. So a belief in God (Genesis 3:1) contradicts science. The study of science shows that drinking poison will kill you. So a belief in God (Mark 16:18) contradicts science. The study of science shows that mountains cannot be commanded to move. So a belief in God (Matthew 17:20) contradicts science.
There are countless examples. I can easily provide many more if you have never read the Bible before. Feel free to try and refute the above by proving any of them but please do it via YouTube so we can see it rather than just take your word for it.
On February 20 2012 01:05 Kukaracha wrote: And last, you've been adressing the Bible as a book of facts, but it is only a base for exegesis. Many, if not most, don't actually believe that there were burning bushes speaking to random peasants, but that it's an allegory or a metaphor. You wouldn't read Thus spake Zarathustra and say to yourself "dude, how could this fly kill the broken artist in the eyes of the superhuman child?". A few empty-headed followers who would sincerely believe that there was a deadly fly and a very, very strong kid chillng with an agonizing artist do not invalidate the book as a whole.
No particular point in this case, simply answering to this :
But he was completly accurate in adressing your misunderstanding of the scientific usage of the word "theory."
Sure, a man cannot build a scientific theory on his own, nor can theories be built (but rather accepted) but the original impulse was indeed given by a religious man.
My main point being simply that the belief in god and the study of science don't contradict themselves.
But the study of science clearly shows that snakes cannot talk. So a belief in God (Genesis 3:1) contradicts science. The study of science shows that drinking poison will kill you. So a belief in God (Mark 16:18) contradicts science. The study of science shows that mountains cannot be commanded to move. So a belief in God (Matthew 17:20) contradicts science.
There are countless examples. I can easily provide many more if you have never read the Bible before. Feel free to try and refute the above by proving any of them but please do it via YouTube so we can see it rather than just take your word for it.
On February 20 2012 01:05 Kukaracha wrote: And last, you've been adressing the Bible as a book of facts, but it is only a base for exegesis. Many, if not most, don't actually believe that there were burning bushes speaking to random peasants, but that it's an allegory or a metaphor. You wouldn't read Thus spake Zarathustra and say to yourself "dude, how could this fly kill the broken artist in the eyes of the superhuman child?". A few empty-headed followers who would sincerely believe that there was a deadly fly and a very, very strong kid chillng with an agonizing artist do not invalidate the book as a whole.
In that case, can you please clarify for me - are the following also metaphors?
- The existence of God. - Jesus being able to heal. - A virgin birth. - Ressurection. - Heaven and Hell.
Or are they also just as absurd as burning bushes speaking to random peasants? At the end of the day - a belief in the existence of the supernatural God of the Bible is equally as ridiculous as the belief in the existence of a supernatural burning bush, would you not agree?
Put it this way - you've basically called 90% of Christians who believe in the above empty-headed followers, because the majority of them believe they are not metaphors but facts, just as they believe that the existence of God is fact.
If the Bible is not a book of facts, then when you say it is not incompatible with science - well, that's like saying the belief in Zarathustra is not incompatible with science. Well, depends on whether you think Zarathustra is just a fictional character or not, and whether you think God is just a fictional character or not.
On February 19 2012 19:10 Epoch wrote: I'm of Atheist/Agnostic disposition and I don't really care for religion tho..
I watched "The Vice Guide to Liberia" recently, where a group of guys with camera go into Liberia and interview people. Check it out, etc.. The place is a complete war zone. People kill each other, eat each other, torture rape, do drugs all at a young age like you name it. It's f insane. The only people that had any like shelter or any kind of good goals were the religious people. And before I saw that I never thought religion would be good for anyone, but in the case of people living in Liberia, it's an improvement on their quality of life/behavior. Even if it's just a slight improvement.
The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927.
On February 20 2012 05:30 Sogo Otika wrote: In that case, can you please clarify for me - are the following also metaphors?
- The existence of God. - Jesus being able to heal. - A virgin birth. - Ressurection. - Heaven and Hell.
Or are they also just as absurd as burning bushes speaking to random peasants? At the end of the day - a belief in the existence of the supernatural God of the Bible is equally as ridiculous as the belief in the existence of a supernatural burning bush, would you not agree?
Put it this way - you've basically called 90% of Christians who believe in the above empty-headed followers, because the majority of them believe they are not metaphors but facts, just as they believe that the existence of God is fact.
If the Bible is not a book of facts, then when you say it is not incompatible with science - well, that's like saying the belief in Zarathustra is not incompatible with science. Well, depends on whether you think Zarathustra is just a fictional character or not, and whether you think God is just a fictional character or not.
Well of course they can be allegories. Jesus' healing powers could represent love, the virgin birth the christian virtue, a pure creation, resurrection as the new age of a christian world, etc, etc... There's no need to think much to find such ideas. Anyone who has read a bit of litterature should be quite familiar with abstract visions and their exegesis.
The "supernatural" God of the Bible is undefined. The words that qualify this concept go from "a burning flame" to "the first word", again very abstract ideas that could mean pretty much anything you want - it doesn't even need to be above nature, some believe it to be nature itself. God could be an idea, it's not necessarily a "guy". If not, why would people study theology all life?
Now, when I was talking about christians, it is true that I was thinking about French believers, who usually have a good level of education and automatically dismiss the idea that there was, in fact, a flying goat with bat wings dancing the macarena outside his house. However, if I take in count all christians - nearly 2 billions, then yes, the majority of them are empty-headed followers. People in general are empty-headed after all. However, what kind of logic leads you to think that their belief is foolish, even though you have no idea of what they believe in exactly, and believe yourself that this undefined thing doesn't exist? I am an atheist myself, but I have no illusions : my choice is intuitive, it's a belief and not an absolute truth.
PS: Zarathustra is actually not a "guy" but a character who impersonates Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch. Just like the idea of God, it does not contradict anything science says as long as it remains in a metaphysical level.
The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927.
Following this logic, Democritus discovered atoms and globalization started with the invention of caravellas in the 15th century. It depends of how you see it, but Edgar Allan Poe's work was everything but scientific.
On February 20 2012 08:45 Kukaracha wrote:However, what kind of logic leads you to think that their belief is foolish, even though you have no idea of what they believe in exactly, and believe yourself that this undefined thing doesn't exist? I am an atheist myself, but I have no illusions : my choice is intuitive, it's a belief and not an absolute truth.
The kind of logic that leads me to believe that their belief in God is foolish is the same kind of logic which says someone who bases their lives around believing in Thor, or Zeus, or any other similar fairytale.
If God is just an allegory, as you say, then their belief in God representing their ideals is pretty much the same as me thinking Batman is cool even though I know he is fictional. But then there's no point of me saying: "I am a Batmanian," the way they say: "I am a Christian," if they think God is fictional and just a metaphor, as you say.
On February 20 2012 08:45 Kukaracha wrote:However, what kind of logic leads you to think that their belief is foolish, even though you have no idea of what they believe in exactly, and believe yourself that this undefined thing doesn't exist? I am an atheist myself, but I have no illusions : my choice is intuitive, it's a belief and not an absolute truth.
The kind of logic that leads me to believe that their belief in God is foolish is the same kind of logic which says someone who bases their lives around believing in Thor, or Zeus, or any other similar fairytale.
It is not, because Zeus is a well-defined deity while God is a concept.
I see that you have a hard time understanding my point, so here are a few examples I can think of :
- God could be the first movement, the first impulse, the first form of existance. How do we go from 0 to 1? How could the universe have a beginning? In this case, god is the creator and NO it is not a white-bearded dude who does stuff, but maybe an energy, maybe a force. This requires, of course, a beginning. - God could be nature, it could be "life" itself. - God could be everything, and to worship god is to worship creation and existance. In this case, we are god, and by loving god, one loves everything.
Etc, etc. You're still opposing reality and fiction, and this is completely out of topic. I'm not talking about fiction, I'm talking about metaphysical concepts. In this case, god represents an idea. He has no face, no body, it's not someone, it's something. Think of the difference between saying "where is love?" and "where is Spiderman?"
On February 20 2012 08:45 Kukaracha wrote:However, what kind of logic leads you to think that their belief is foolish, even though you have no idea of what they believe in exactly, and believe yourself that this undefined thing doesn't exist? I am an atheist myself, but I have no illusions : my choice is intuitive, it's a belief and not an absolute truth.
The kind of logic that leads me to believe that their belief in God is foolish is the same kind of logic which says someone who bases their lives around believing in Thor, or Zeus, or any other similar fairytale.
It is not, because Zeus is a well-defined deity while God is a concept.
I see that you have a hard time understanding my point, so here are a few examples I can think of :
- God could be the first movement, the first impulse, the first form of existance. How do we go from 0 to 1? How could the universe have a beginning? In this case, god is the creator and NO it is not a white-bearded dude who does stuff, but maybe an energy, maybe a force. This requires, of course, a beginning. - God could be nature, it could be "life" itself. - God could be everything, and to worship god is to worship creation and existance. In this case, we are god, and by loving god, one loves everything.
Etc, etc. You're still opposing reality and fiction, and this is completely out of topic. I'm not talking about fiction, I'm talking about metaphysical concepts. In this case, god represents an idea. He has no face, no body, it's not someone, it's something. Think of the difference between saying "where is love?" and "where is Spiderman?"
Then why call these already defined concepts 'God'? Why not simply call existence 'existence', and life 'life'? Is 'shit' also God? Is 'cancer' also God? Why not just call shit shit and cancer cancer, and everything everything, and not give it the name God?
And what's the point of worshipping random things like creation or existence or shit or cancer... Although there are already many spiritualists that worship nature and Hindus that have a god for everything etc.
Anyway, the point is - you stopped talking about religion and started redefining the general definition of religion as the OP had intended, which was that certain religions, such as Christianity, motivate people because they believe in the fictional God character, who threw tantrums and burned down cities for having gay sex and gave people languages because they were working together to build a tower, as set out by the Bible.
On February 20 2012 11:38 Kukaracha wrote: It is not, because Zeus is a well-defined deity while God is a concept.
This is exactly right. The most sophisticated conceptions of God are those which would more popularly be understood as atheistic. The long tradition of theological dispute is not an argument about nothing - it's just philosophy under an older paradigm and vocabulary. There is a real "thing" that people were talking about when they were talking about God.
I highly recommend that you read the Analects of Confucius. It contains a highly sophisticated atheistic ethical philosophy.
If you are interested in God as the metaphysical primitive, you might find the Daodejing to be enlightening. I also recommend the Zhuangzi, which has a more epistemological focus, but it might offer some clarity as well.
These texts are a little enigmatic but once understood their significance is expressed very elegantly. I'm not unfortunately reading them in the original
edit:
Then why call these already defined concepts 'God'? Why not simply call existence 'existence', and life 'life'? Is 'shit' also God? Is 'cancer' also God? Why not just call shit shit and cancer cancer, and everything everything, and not give it the name God?
God is not everything (the term is even equivocal. Is it everything or every thing, and what is the difference?)
The Way that can be experienced is not true; The world that can be constructed is not true. The Way manifests all that happens and may happen; The world represents all that exists and may exist.
On February 19 2012 19:38 zalz wrote: I don't hope that we return to some marxist-agricultural society that can't prevent polio.
On February 19 2012 18:25 Azera wrote: For people like me, an Atheist, what motivation is there? Learning about the Universe... Do we seek to educate ourselves because we simply love learning? Do we learn with an inquisitive mind, a yearning heart, the burning desire in our heart to better ourselves so we can make a positive impact on the world?
It seems to be much easier to use god as a motivation because it's just that simple. You don't have to find out for yourself what you really want to do, just do whatever the holy text tells you to (or your parents).
My pastor spoke at one of my weekly Bible studies about "music being the speaking of the soul", but then he turned it around to talk about science. He said that the study of science is pursuing something that created a sense of awe inside of you. Sounds similar to your questioning of the Universe - it's utterly implausible, and yet it simply is! I believe this is the closest an atheist/agnostic can come to the concept of a higher power without a leap of faith.
I study catalysis as a grad student, and the more I learn and the deeper I go I get a feeling of great awe. Here are substances in nature specifically designed to facilitate alternate, more energy-efficient means of chemical reactions. They've existed longer than we can imagine and work in ways that researchers barely understand themselves. It is truly remarkable!
And yes, it is definitely easier to have a parent run your life. I don't think that's what holy texts do, though. I hear stories all the time about people who pray about it and feel as though it's something they should do, but it's not often I hear someone say "the book of Hosea told me I need to be an exterminator!". Sure, there are the establishment of ideals, though one doesn't have to follow them all to a "T" and there's certainly a lot of debate over which is right and wrong. No one can live up to the impossibly high ideals set in the Bible solely focusing on how well you maintain the various precepts will end up being nothing short of depressing.
One thing I've learned over the years, its that religion doesnt motivate you as much as it holds you prisoner with threats of eternal damnation if you dont do what it says. No wonder people would do good if the eternal skydaddy says if you dont you burn forever.
Moreover its pretty obvious you dont actually need any religion to be a good human being, infact its pretty obvious that even the believers themselves are good human beings without the aid of god or the bible, just look at how every single christian out there cherry picks things from the bible, picking and choosing what best represents their own innate morals.
If I could summarize religion into one sentance, it would be this: Religion is obsolete.
contemporary aetheism --> traditional secular humanist values --> scientific progress --> those shiny archologies from simcity --> highfives all around
Nah, working the land would work horrors on my back.
As for all these talks about how god isn't really an all powerfull deity, but a sort of abstract force, enjoy the discussion.
But please realise that the only reason you can even utter such thoughts is because secularists have secured that right for you. Don't even for a second believe that the church would not have you burn for such thoughts.
It also flies directly into the face of more or less all preachings that any of the abrahamic faiths have ever uttered. It is simply the by-product of this new form of christianity that is forming. The one where a ton of people haven't even read the bible, but still want to talk about it, and chime in on it. The result are a lot of theories which obviously are not cannon with theological doctrine.
In Islam there is even the thought called "occasionalism."
This belief makes the claim that literally everything in this world happens because god actively makes it happen. When I light a match, it does not burn as a result of the friction, the heat, the burnable material and the presence of air. It happens because god actively lighted it. If he ever decided to stop doing that, fire would not longer occur when striking a match.
Does that sound like a vague, new-age god? God is life?
God is a very real entity, human in form. We are shaped in HIS image. Last I checked, my form is human, not "nature."
So like I said, enjoy the discussion, made possible by secularism, but please realise that most of it is directly contradicting doctrine. Even deviating from the fact that god looks like us is obviously ignoring scripture.
On February 19 2012 19:10 Epoch wrote: I'm of Atheist/Agnostic disposition and I don't really care for religion tho..
I watched "The Vice Guide to Liberia" recently, where a group of guys with camera go into Liberia and interview people. Check it out, etc.. The place is a complete war zone. People kill each other, eat each other, torture rape, do drugs all at a young age like you name it. It's f insane. The only people that had any like shelter or any kind of good goals were the religious people. And before I saw that I never thought religion would be good for anyone, but in the case of people living in Liberia, it's an improvement on their quality of life/behavior. Even if it's just a slight improvement.
Liberia isn't exactly the land of non-religion. :|
I'm a baptised roman catholic that doesn't practice religion at all. If someone wants they can throw me into a demongraphic and say that I'm a catholic but I'm really not. The reality of people actually practicing the religion in Liberia is obviously much smaller then the estimated 85 percent cited on that website. Most people have nothing to do with practicing it whether they call themselves a christian or catholic or whatever, or not. So, I'm only referring to the ones that are truly practicing it. Which are the only true ones.
On February 19 2012 19:10 Epoch wrote: I'm of Atheist/Agnostic disposition and I don't really care for religion tho..
I watched "The Vice Guide to Liberia" recently, where a group of guys with camera go into Liberia and interview people. Check it out, etc.. The place is a complete war zone. People kill each other, eat each other, torture rape, do drugs all at a young age like you name it. It's f insane. The only people that had any like shelter or any kind of good goals were the religious people. And before I saw that I never thought religion would be good for anyone, but in the case of people living in Liberia, it's an improvement on their quality of life/behavior. Even if it's just a slight improvement.
Liberia isn't exactly the land of non-religion. :|
I'm a baptised roman catholic that doesn't practice religion at all. If someone wants they can throw me into a demongraphic and say that I'm a catholic but I'm really not. The reality of people actually practicing the religion in Liberia is obviously much smaller then the estimated 85 percent cited on that website. Most people have nothing to do with practicing it whether they call themselves a christian or catholic or whatever, or not. So, I'm only referring to the ones that are truly practicing it. Which are the only true ones.
Define "truly" practicing it.
That is so abstract that you can add anyone you like into that category, whilst bouncing everyone you don't like from that category.
Christianity, more so than the other two, can't actually make this distinction. At the core of christianity is that you can be forgiven for almost every sin (the only sin you cannot be forgiven for is denouncing god, whether out loud or even in thought).
So why would a warlord not be a christian? Committing sins, regardless of how many or how gruesome, does not stop you from being a christian. In fact, it makes it all the more important that you be a christian, how else could you confess the sins away?
(Disregarding how immoral the concept is, that a 3rd party could forgive you for something you did to me.)
On February 20 2012 17:39 zalz wrote: The one where a ton of people haven't even read the bible, but still want to talk about it, and chime in on it. The result are a lot of theories which obviously are not cannon with theological doctrine.
I've read the Bible. I've also read a number of the texts in the early Christian theological tradition, like Plotinus and Augustine. Have you read these? What was your point again?
also you spelled canon wrong, noob.
literally everything in this world happens because god actively makes it happen.
The dao is present in all things. Everything is one.