How strongly do you agree or disagree?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:07:08 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  How strongly do you agree or disagree?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: "Religion poisons everything" scale 0-4 disagree 5 neutral 6-10 agree
#1
10 agree the most
 
#2
9 agree
 
#3
8 agree
 
#4
7 agree
 
#5
6 agree
 
#6
5 neutral
 
#7
4 disagree
 
#8
3 disagree
 
#9
2 disagree
 
#10
1 disagree
 
#11
0 strongly disagree
 
#12
write in or all other answers
 
#13
It depends on the religion
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 49

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: How strongly do you agree or disagree?  (Read 6735 times)
CapoteMonster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 486
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.49, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2015, 10:26:49 PM »

As a Theist (Christian) I recognize that religious writings are often misrepresented but religion by it's very nature says that humans have a immoral nature inside of them. The exception are utilitarian religions that believe man can become a God or attain nirvana.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2015, 09:56:36 AM »
« Edited: February 28, 2015, 09:58:23 AM by HockeyDude »


That's fine, but whether you like it or not, you are fundamentally connected to a particular cultural tradition. Of course you have the freedom to reject this tradition in favor of your own contrived identity, but that doesn't mean that it's destructive or ignorant to embrace those aspects of one's self that one is incapable of altering anyway.

People are incapable of altering whether or not they follow religious belief?  Well, sometimes they are (this is called brainwashing in all other instances, but it's "bigoted" to refer to it as such when religion is involved), and that is a reason why it is so poisonous.  And to those who have been exposed to different worldviews (and most importantly scientific research) it is absolutely destructive to embrace religion, for many reasons, but mostly because it contradicts in almost all instances what we've come to understand about reality.  And even the most fundamentally basic religion one could have, literally just someone who believes in a higher power and nothing beyond it, tends to legitimize the more radical faiths.  But is that even the overall question?  I think people are trying to argue that religion doesn't poison everything because it doesn't nevessarily have to.  But in reality it does, through the fundamental undermining of our critical faculties.  I mean come on.  Name one major breakthrough in human achievement that religious hordes didn't try to fight.  As one of my idols said, and I'm paraphrasing, "even moderately religious people need to step back and look at the price of their comfort".  Which is completely valid, because there is literally not one virtuous act that necessitates religious instruction, but thousands of horrible acts that require it.

I challenge you to name for this atheist ONE deed that I'm incapable of. 
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2015, 10:56:13 AM »
« Edited: February 28, 2015, 11:05:07 AM by Mopsus »

People are incapable of altering whether or not they follow religious belief?

I've already conceded that people are allowed to shape their own identities. What people can't change is who their ancestors are.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
 

One of my strongest beliefs is that people should look at their faith with an eye that's informed by the modern scientific understanding of the world. I just think that the wholesale replacement of metaphysics with nihilism is a cure that isn't much better than the disease.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
 

Even if the "religious hordes" resisted every "major breakthrough in human achievement", religion must not have had as strong a hold on society as you probably believe that it did; otherwise, the modern world wouldn't exist.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But living virtuously is much easier when one rejects the narrow view of human existence that materialism so often demands. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd say that the ultimate "goal" of human existence is to cultivate an inner peace that can't be disturbed by external events. That's a challenge that the materialist is particularly poorly equipped to deal with. 
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2015, 03:29:51 PM »

I'd say that the ultimate "goal" of human existence is to cultivate an inner peace that can't be disturbed by external events. That's a challenge that the materialist is particularly poorly equipped to deal with. 

Why do you distill people's systems of 'non-belief' into base materialism? If materialism is simply reliant on other people/selves, then why can a person not acquire an inner peace through being content with themselves and their friends?
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2015, 03:42:03 PM »

I'd say that the ultimate "goal" of human existence is to cultivate an inner peace that can't be disturbed by external events. That's a challenge that the materialist is particularly poorly equipped to deal with. 

Why do you distill people's systems of 'non-belief' into base materialism? If materialism is simply reliant on other people/selves, then why can a person not acquire an inner peace through being content with themselves and their friends?

Because this is the stigma placed upon atheists and backed up by religiouses across the board from the fundamentalists to the "only on Xmas/Easter" crowd.  We "don't believe in anything beyond ourselves" aka they seek nothing beyond their own personal satisfaction and pleasure. 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30/religious-people-do-not-believe-in-atheists-study/

Here's the link to the 2011 study that showed atheists on a level of trust with rapists. 
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2015, 03:47:06 PM »

I'd say that the ultimate "goal" of human existence is to cultivate an inner peace that can't be disturbed by external events. That's a challenge that the materialist is particularly poorly equipped to deal with. 

Why do you distill people's systems of 'non-belief' into base materialism? If materialism is simply reliant on other people/selves, then why can a person not acquire an inner peace through being content with themselves and their friends?

They can (though I would say that if your happiness is reliant upon your social circle, you haven't achieved true, lasting happiness, as your social circle is liable to change). However, my experience has been that many non-religious people (and many religious people) derive their happiness from things - which is a much less stable source of happiness than a relationship with one's deity, or something similarly intransitory.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2015, 03:57:18 PM »

I'd say that the ultimate "goal" of human existence is to cultivate an inner peace that can't be disturbed by external events. That's a challenge that the materialist is particularly poorly equipped to deal with. 

Why do you distill people's systems of 'non-belief' into base materialism? If materialism is simply reliant on other people/selves, then why can a person not acquire an inner peace through being content with themselves and their friends?

They can (though I would say that if your happiness is reliant upon your social circle, you haven't achieved true, lasting happiness, as your social circle is liable to change). However, my experience has been that many non-religious people (and many religious people) derive their happiness from things - which is a much less stable source of happiness than a relationship with one's deity, or something similarly intransitory.

A relationship with a deity is material; it is for the personal benefit and contentment of the believer. At worst it is a 'relationship' on egg shells, which psychologically may not be of any benefit to the believer at all. Whether such relationships benefit the deity is unknowable. Even the most transient and fleeting of human inter-personal relationships are more reciprocal.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2015, 04:07:19 PM »

I'd say that the ultimate "goal" of human existence is to cultivate an inner peace that can't be disturbed by external events. That's a challenge that the materialist is particularly poorly equipped to deal with. 

Why do you distill people's systems of 'non-belief' into base materialism? If materialism is simply reliant on other people/selves, then why can a person not acquire an inner peace through being content with themselves and their friends?

They can (though I would say that if your happiness is reliant upon your social circle, you haven't achieved true, lasting happiness, as your social circle is liable to change). However, my experience has been that many non-religious people (and many religious people) derive their happiness from things - which is a much less stable source of happiness than a relationship with one's deity, or something similarly intransitory.

That doesn't disprove my point.  You are saying in your experience irreligious people, who you incorrectly identify as materialists, (and then you even say some religiouses, as well) tend towards something.  I asked you to name a good deed that I as an atheist am incapable of.  I did't ask you what materialists struggle with. 
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2015, 04:23:47 PM »

A relationship with a deity is material

No, a relationship with a deity is noumenal.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps not. In that case, the believer should reevaluate the nature of his relationship.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Human relationships are more reciprocal, in that both parties get something out of them. But whether one's deity gets something out of one's relationship with him/her/it is irrelevant, IMO.

That doesn't disprove my point.  You are saying in your experience irreligious people, who you incorrectly identify as materialists,


I don't think that it's necessarily inaccurate to conflate irreligious people and materialists. Or are you saying that most irreligious people don't reject the existence of a realm outside of the material?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are no good deeds that an atheist is incapable of. What's your point?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2015, 04:46:19 PM »


Only if you are a Kantian. An object is not an object in itself. An object is always an object for a subject. The subject is man and man is material. His senses and thoughts are material. His relationship with anything that he postulates (because the postulation is an object of the conscious mind which is bound to the material) is material. A relationship with god is material because it is processed (whether it is reciprocal at all) within the mind.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2015, 05:57:23 PM »

A relationship with a deity is material

No, a relationship with a deity is noumenal.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps not. In that case, the believer should reevaluate the nature of his relationship.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Human relationships are more reciprocal, in that both parties get something out of them. But whether one's deity gets something out of one's relationship with him/her/it is irrelevant, IMO.

That doesn't disprove my point.  You are saying in your experience irreligious people, who you incorrectly identify as materialists,


I don't think that it's necessarily inaccurate to conflate irreligious people and materialists. Or are you saying that most irreligious people don't reject the existence of a realm outside of the material?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are no good deeds that an atheist is incapable of. What's your point?

1. I guess human relationships are material, then?

2. Religion is completely unnecessary.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2015, 06:11:16 PM »

A relationship with a deity is noumenal

Only if you are a Kantian. An object is not an object in itself. An object is always an object for a subject. The subject is man and man is material. His senses and thoughts are material. His relationship with anything that he postulates (because the postulation is an object of the conscious mind which is bound to the material) is material. A relationship with god is material because it is processed (whether it is reciprocal at all) within the mind.

I agree that the thoughts of men are bound by the constraints of man's mind (as are all his perceptions), but I disagree that a thought exists in the same way that Jupiter or the chair that I'm currently sitting in does. That's why I apply different standards of proof to claims made in the different realms: If you claim to have a personal relationship with Barack Obama, I'm going to ask for proof; If you claim to have a personal relationship with God, who am I to say that you don't?

1. I guess human relationships are material, then?

Yes, they are.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's necessary to some people's happiness.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2015, 06:37:15 PM »

That's why I apply different standards of proof to claims made in the different realms: If you claim to have a personal relationship with Barack Obama, I'm going to ask for proof; If you claim to have a personal relationship with God, who am I to say that you don't?

So essentially, you don't apply standard of proof to anything a person can imagine?
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2015, 06:51:57 PM »

That's why I apply different standards of proof to claims made in the different realms: If you claim to have a personal relationship with Barack Obama, I'm going to ask for proof; If you claim to have a personal relationship with God, who am I to say that you don't?

So essentially, you don't apply standard of proof to anything a person can imagine?

I suppose that I do expect the things that a person imagines to make some degree of logical sense, considering that logic itself is a product of the human mind.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2015, 07:28:17 PM »

That's why I apply different standards of proof to claims made in the different realms: If you claim to have a personal relationship with Barack Obama, I'm going to ask for proof; If you claim to have a personal relationship with God, who am I to say that you don't?

So essentially, you don't apply standard of proof to anything a person can imagine?

I suppose that I do expect the things that a person imagines to make some degree of logical sense, considering that logic itself is a product of the human mind.

Why should you expect that what a person imagines is by default, logical given that it is possible to conceive of illogical things? When asleep the mind mostly conceives of illogical things. Added to the illogical things that the mind infers while awake, you could argue that we spend more time engaging with illogical concepts that logical concepts given that most logical concepts, even if we do not fully understand the reasoning behind them are self evident (and often rooted in material experiences/sequelae/needs) and don't require much thought.

Logic is also inferred. If the inference is, to give two extreme examples based on fleeting or embedded schizotypal or autistic traits, then on what basis is one concept more logical or illogical than the other? They exist within their own fields of reference. If someone says 'the mountain does not move' then that is a logical statement. It is also an illogical statement as the mountain, in respect to say the Milky Way, just moves an almost inconceivable amount slower than a jet plane.

Why should logic have anything to do with what a person imagines? 'Logic' may infer a god (or no god); deism is not entirely outside of the realms of logical inference, but one would expect that logic would also infer one outcome from that, as opposed to so many competing notions of god that not only does every person hold a different notion from the next person, but may hold different, overlapping or competing notions of god within themselves.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2015, 07:48:18 PM »

Why should you expect that what a person imagines is by default, logical given that it is possible to conceive of illogical things? When asleep the mind mostly conceives of illogical things. Added to the illogical things that the mind infers while awake, you could argue that we spend more time engaging with illogical concepts that logical concepts given that most logical concepts, even if we do not fully understand the reasoning behind them are self evident (and often rooted in material experiences/sequelae/needs) and don't require much thought.

Thoughts can become illogical when they're transferred to the material realm. To claim that one could flap one's wings and fly (to use a trope commonly found in dreams) would indeed be an illogical statement, except that, in dreams, one really can. So to dream about flying is actually not illogical at all.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that a person ought to apply logic to his thoughts in order to distinguish between a mere phantasm, and something that he can build his philosophy on. When it comes to the nature of God, I would say that most religious people have allowed their thinking to become debased, which has resulted in widespread idolatry. If one were to apply logic critically and consistently, I'm sure that one could come up with a conception of the divine that is intellectually unassailable.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 14 queries.