Are you atheist?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but my point is critical thinking should highlight the fact that whatever the belief, even non-belief, there is merit in a philosophy that advocates being kind to people in order to be kind to oneself; rather than dismiss, out of hand, any possibility of merit.

I got your point. I was not concerned with merit; merely attempting to put the subject matter in historical perspective. Mistermack is content that his explanation covers his criteria; you are content that your POV is represented; everyone is fine. 

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

ust because someone thought about (designed) how best to live a good life, that ultimately benefit's everyone, suggests it wasn't cynically designed to dupe, anyone...

That's totally irrelevant. My comments are about the core religious beliefs, not the accompanying "be good" message, which doesn't need an invisible friend to enforce it. Justifying the bad, with accompanying good bits, is like saying that HItler wasn't so bad, because he was good to children and abhorred animal cruelty, and was thoroughly anti-smoking. 

It's all irrelevant to the core message. 

Religions don't own "being good". Or deserve any credit for it. It's always been a strong component of human nature. 

If you want the credit for being good, then own up to the bad, because religion has loads of it. 

But for me, it's irrelevant. Using woo to dupe people is what religion is about. The accompanying good and bad are just part of human nature, and would happen anyway.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I got your point. I was not concerned with merit; merely attempting to put the subject matter in historical perspective. Mistermack is content that his explanation covers his criteria; you are content that your POV is represented; everyone is fine. 

If Mistermack were content/fine, why did he put me in the red, I just sought balance with my neg not revenge... 😇 

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's totally irrelevant. My comments are about the core religious beliefs, not the accompanying "be good" message, which doesn't need an invisible friend to enforce it.

Maybe it does, if you don't understand the "be good" message...

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

why did he put me in the red,

I didn't. Maybe the person who's + you removed objected? I certainly didn't anyway.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Religions don't own "being good". Or deserve any credit for it. It's always been a strong component of human nature. 

When taught correctly... 😉 🙏 😇 🧐 🤔 🙄

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I didn't. Maybe the person who's + you removed objected? I certainly didn't anyway.

Rito...

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

When taught correctly

You're not the pope by any chance???          That's the attitude of the catholic church. Don't think for yourselves, WE will tell you what to do. 

And think.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You're not the pope by any chance???          That's the attitude of the catholic church. Don't think for yourselves, WE will tell you what to do. 

And think.

Way to miss the point, yet again...

A good teacher tell's you how to think, not what to think; that's no more religious specific, than it is gender specific...

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Using woo to dupe people is what religion is about.

That's awfully cynical. It presupposes that the people woo'ing don't believe. Whether they are foolish to believe or not, if they do believe, then what they are doing is not about trying to dupe people; it is about enlightening people.

[mistermack]

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

A good teacher tell's you how to think, not what to think; 

What planet are you from? That's not how religious teachers operate. In fact, it's the exact opposite. 

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

That's awfully cynical. It presupposes that the people woo'ing don't believe. Whether they are foolish to believe or not, if they do believe, then what they are doing is not about trying to dupe people; it is about enlightening people.

I think there's a big difference between what people profess to believe, and what they actually believe. Priests in private often talk of their doubt, in private, to each other. But you would never know that, from what they say in public, to the punters. 

If you have doubts in private, and profess no doubt whatsoever in preaching the doctrine as truth in public, then you're lying. Maybe to yourself as well. 

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What planet are you from? That's not how religious teachers operate. In fact, it's the exact opposite. 

Just like with academic teachers, when you are young they teach you what to think, and as you age and progress they teach you how to think.

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Just like with academic teachers, when you are young they teach you what to think, and as you age and progress they teach you how to think.

I don't accept that that applies to religious teachers. None that I have ever heard anyway.

But in any case, that's a bit like feeding kids heroin when they are young, and then teaching them how to live with addiction when they get older. 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, mistermack said:

What planet are you from? That's not how religious teachers operate. In fact, it's the exact opposite. 

I think there's a big difference between what people profess to believe, and what they actually believe. Priests in private often talk of their doubt, in private, to each other. But you would never know that, from what they say in public, to the punters. 

If you have doubts in private, and profess no doubt whatsoever in preaching the doctrine as truth in public, then you're lying. Maybe to yourself as well. 

Since you clearly can't think beyond your biased view of Christianity, there's little point in trying to reason with you about religion in any of it's iterations.

I'd suggest you read 'the sermon on the mount' and ask yourself, honestly, what is Jesus trying to teach and how much he expects to earn from the punter's; it's the sort of question an atheist/scientist should ask, if he didn't want to be a believer. 😉 

21 hours ago, mistermack said:

But in any case, that's a bit like feeding kids heroin when they are young, and then teaching them how to live with addiction when they get older. 

This is what I mean 🙄, how could you possibly equate a teacher trying to teach the kids how to be nice too each other, with a drug dealer? Unless you're wearing a welders mask, for a bias...

No doubt mr anon will neg me for this post too... 🤞

Edited August 19, 2022 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Since you clearly can't think beyond your biased view of Christianity, there's little point in trying to reason with you about religion in any of it's iterations.

That's what I meant about the "design" theory. It meets his criteria.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

how could you possibly equate a teacher trying to teach the kids how to be nice too each other, with a drug dealer?

"Opiate of the people". Yes, religion is often used that way, and also as a banner under which to muster them for war, and also as club to enforce obedience, and a bribe to induce compliance, and as bait to con money out of them. All of these are true; all of these things are on the negative side of the enormous concept of sprituality, and endeavour of religious practice.

Whereas the parts of truth you present: instruction, social harmony, compassion, empathy, reaching out to the eternal and infinite, community, appeal to the benevolence in man, are on the positive side.

None of these things are the whole truth.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Peterkin

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'd suggest you read 'the sermon on the mount' and ask yourself, honestly, what is Jesus trying to teach and how much he expects to earn from the punter's; it's the sort of question an atheist/scientist should ask, if he didn't want to be a believer. 😉 

I'd suggest you stop taking what people say as the true picture. Every pedophile priest there has ever been has preached a similar message to Jesus, from the pulpit. It didn't reflect what they were up to behind the scenes. In any case, the religion, as I have said, doesn not have a monopoly on being good, nor does it deserve any credit for it. Humanity is responsible for all of the good and the bad.

The sermon on the mount had some good bits. Probably it was written by Matthew. It's doubtful that it ever happened, or that there was a real Jesus figure to preach it. But that doesn't matter. There are good bits and bad bits in it. It really doesn't matter. I meet good people, who say good things. I don't have to worship them, or pretend that they are supernatural beings. 

Jesus preached about hellfire, according to Matthew. What an asshole. Follow me, or you will burn for all eternity. Nice. And he concludes by warning against false prophets, when he (or Matthew) knew perfectly well that that is exactly what they were. 

There are some very nice, good people, and good messages in all religions. It doesn't justify the lies and woo. The good bits would still be there without it.

Edit to add :

What I meant about heroin to children is that teaching them the religious doctrine when they are young gets them hooked, and you can't justify that by saying that they are later taught "how to think". Once you are hooked by religion, the evidence shows that most are hooked for life. And the religious teachers know this perfectly well, that's why they like to start on the kids as soon as they can talk. 

And I certainly don't accept that religious teachers teach "how to think". 

Teachers of the academic study of religion might teach people to question, in some schools, but you can't count that as teachers of religion. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by mistermack

[Peterkin]

On 8/18/2022 at 8:51 AM, dimreepr said:

why did he put me in the red

Why do you care who put a red or green sticker on your post, or if anyone did? You don't get a prize at the end of the term, just as being told - and by whom - that you're going to heaven or hell after you die changes neither your behaviour nor the outcome of your demise. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Peterkin
those n's

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

"Opiate of the people". Yes, religion is often used that way, and also as a banner under which to muster them for war, and also as club to enforce obedience, and a bribe to induce compliance, and as bait to con money out of them. All of these are true; all of these things are on the negative side of the enormous concept of sprituality, and endeavour of religious practice.

Whereas the parts of truth you present: instruction, social harmony, compassion, empathy, reaching out to the eternal and infinite, community, appeal to the benevolence in man, are on the positive side.

None of these things are the whole truth.

Indeed, "It doesn't matter who I vote for, the government always win" - anon. 

Except, "drugs are bad... mkay" - can't remember the name... 

But I consider the "Opiate of the people" to be contentment and what better system of governance; almost every culture starts with a good idea and contains almost every type of human, which, scientifically, would mean the quality of the society (happiness etc.) depends on the starting conditions and we all know where the industrial revolution leads.

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Why do you care who put a red or green sticker on your post

I don't, I just thought it was funny/ironic; in a psuedo-religious thread, getting a revenge neg for a neg inspired by offence. 🧐 

21 hours ago, mistermack said:

The sermon on the mount had some good bits. Probably it was written by Matthew. It's doubtful that it ever happened, or that there was a real Jesus figure to preach it. But that doesn't matter. There are good bits and bad bits in it.

Well, some one clearly said it!!! Besides can you please explain what the bad bit's are?

21 hours ago, mistermack said:

I meet good people, who say good things. I don't have to worship them, or pretend that they are supernatural beings.

Indeed, but you could try listening to them; you do know I'm an atheist, right... 🤔

[MarlonSoto]

On 8/15/2022 at 5:30 AM, MarlonSoto said:

It is convenient to be an atheist if you are cynical and do not want to see the good surrounding us. It is much easier when you deny God and, therefore, the punishment for all your sins. 

However, everything is in your hands, including repentance, after which you can be free from your sins. This is what religion provides, so if you have lived a hard life, then a church I'm not allowed to advertise can help you. When I was 10 years younger, I too argued with the world about the existence of God. Still, after certain situations, I realized that religion gives much more than its absence. But I also enjoy discussing it as much as I used to, so I would like to debate with you.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Phi for All
No advertising, please.

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, mistermack said:

Jesus preached about hellfire, according to Matthew. What an asshole. Follow me, or you will burn for all eternity. Nice. And he concludes by warning against false prophets, when he (or Matthew) knew perfectly well that that is exactly what they were. 

There are some very nice, good people, and good messages in all religions. It doesn't justify the lies and woo. The good bits would still be there without it.

It's a ying yang thing, you can only see the good bits when you understand the bad bits; when your bias is born of a well fed family, you'll never understand the need for food.

2 hours ago, MarlonSoto said:

However, everything is in your hands, including repentance, after which you can be free from your sins. This is what religion provides, so if you have lived a hard life, then thanks for quoting the church's link can help you. When I was 10 years younger, I too argued with the world about the existence of God. Still, after certain situations, I realized that religion gives much more than its absence. But I also enjoy discussing it as much as I used to, so I would like to debate with you.

OK, so why do you need God?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

But I consider the "Opiate of the people" to be contentment and what better system of governance;

No, that's not what it means. It means stupefied compliance, because they're unable to think or respond.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

almost every culture starts with a good idea and contains almost every type of human,

No culture starts with an idea, any more religion starts with a design. Human culture grows out of chimpanzee culture and then branches out into whatever kinds of human culture best adapts a troop to its changing environment. Along the way, people generate and borrow all kinds of ideas, try out all kinds of organization; keep the ones that work for them, discard the ones that fail; tribes die out through natural calamity or aggression, are subsumed by bigger tribes, intermarry, mingle, form alliances and carry on feuds, converge and divide, explode and implode.  What kinds of human each group contains depend on what traits the group values, whom they allow to live, what kinds of person thrives and multiplies and what kind is cast out or subjugated, and what world-view they impart to the young. 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

which, scientifically, would mean the quality of the society (happiness etc.) depends on the starting conditions and we all know where the industrial revolution leads.

We know some of where it leads; it's not quite done yet. But that wasn't a "starting condition"; it was a stage in the history of several cultures, each of which brought its own set of attitudes and beliefs from previous tradition. 

We can each designate arbitrary beginnings and ends to a period we wish to examine or count on, but they're unlikely to be the same lines for any two of us, and they will all be arbitrary. (Even the final one that none of us will be there to draw.)

1 hour ago, MarlonSoto said:

However, everything is in your hands, including repentance, after which you can be free from your sins.

What are "sins"? Why do you want to be "free" from them? How would repentance cure them?

It's all quite nebulous and unreal, unless you build a conceptual framework to give those words meaning.

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

This is what religion provides,

Yes. Each religion provides a different framework. So does every philosophy. So does a nation's constitutions or a corporation's "mission statement" (there's a silly name!) a political party's platform or the agenda of a meeting. Each one satisfies a need to communicate the purpose of a shared undertaking.

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Still, after certain situations, I realized that religion gives much more than its absence.

Meaning, it provides you with a framework to lean on. Yes, that's what it's supposed to do. For some people, that's the best support structure, for others, it doesn't work, so they must find a different one. That's what atheists do.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

No, that's not what it means. It means stupefied compliance, because they're unable to think or respond.

That's what you think...

[Peterkin]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's what you think...

No, it's what Marx thought. And others, since, in various contexts. The reference is :

Quote

Writing in 1843, in a relatively obscure work about the philosophy of Hegel, Marx argued that religion was being used as a drug, an “illusory” source of happiness. If mankind abandoned religion, with its illusions, then they might have a real shot at happiness.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

https://politicaldictionary.com/words/opiate-of-the-people/

The article is worth reading.

 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No, it's what Marx thought. And others, since, in various contexts. The reference is :

Indeed, I was a little flippant (didn't really have time to post); I haven't read much of Marx but I think he got it fundamentally backward on this, I don't see a problem with a content society, for me it provides a stable platform (not a sheeple stable) to achieve anything. I think he's mistakingly assuming that sheeple can't be happy and are easily picked off by the wolves, but It's not a contented person that's vulnerable to fraud; if you've got enough, you're not going to pay a Nigerian prince to have more...

22 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What are "sins"? Why do you want to be "free" from them? How would repentance cure them?

It's all quite nebulous and unreal, unless you build a conceptual framework to give those words meaning.

I think "original sin" brings it into sharper focus, for me it's an acknowledgement of 'OUR' natural human habit of sometimes doing what we know to be wrong, either by mistake or in a fit of anger or etc., and as Socrates says any damage we do to other's, equally damage's our own soul/self/mind, then in comes Jesus "you're cured mate".

22 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Meaning, it provides you with a framework to lean on. Yes, that's what it's supposed to do. For some people, that's the best support structure, for others, it doesn't work, so they must find a different one. That's what atheists do.

All I'm saying is, all (excluding the fringe, nutter cults etc.) religion's have a means to forgive oneself, which leaves it open and legitimate for atheist's too.

Edited August 21, 2022 by dimreepr

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

ndeed, I was a little flippant (didn't really have time to post); I haven't read much of Marx but I think he got it fundamentally backward on this, I don't see a problem with a content society,

You didn't live in the 'content' society he was writing about, and evidently you're not having to live in any of the religion-dominated societies of today - or at least, you don't have to be at the bottom tier of one. 

The point is, tenant farmers, servants and slum-dwellers, miners and mill-workers were not content. They were, and millions still are, miserable, oppressed, repressed, poor, guilt-ridden and abused. 

You don't need to understand any of that, it's okay for you to see the positive side of religion, but when you call institutionalized exploitation, coercion and emotional blackmail "contentment", I take exception to that.

 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

if you've got enough,

This is very much the point you seem to be deliberately missing

Quote

In the world's poorest countries -- those with average per-capita incomes of $2,000 or lower -- the median proportion who say religion is important in their daily lives is 95%.https://news.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx

The sin question wasn't in response to you. I know what original sin is, and what's wrong with the concept, but don't really want to get mired in those philosophical or anthropological questions. As presented in the bible, 'original' sin is an obscene idea. On a personal level, the sense of soul and damage through breaches of integrity, OTH, is a legitimate psychological issue.   

[mistermack]

On 8/20/2022 at 12:37 PM, dimreepr said:

Besides can you please explain what the bad bit's are?

I have already mentioned some. But try telling the Ukrainians to turn the other cheek. Let's see how many negs you get for that.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You didn't live in the 'content' society he was writing about, and evidently you're not having to live in any of the religion-dominated societies of today - or at least, you don't have to be at the bottom tier of one. 

The point is, tenant farmers, servants and slum-dwellers, miners and mill-workers were not content. They were, and millions still are, miserable, oppressed, repressed, poor, guilt-ridden and abused. 

You don't need to understand any of that, it's okay for you to see the positive side of religion, but when you call institutionalized exploitation, coercion and emotional blackmail "contentment", I take exception to that.

In any given society you will find, the privileged and the, so called, oppressed (your words); when they're in balance the Lord builds a folly, so the oppresed can work for their bread and be satisfied with it's effort to provide for itself, and the Lord gets to keep its privilege; it's a ying yang/good v evil kind of thing, as explored in many a religious philosophy...

21 hours ago, mistermack said:

I have already mentioned some. But try telling the Ukrainians to turn the other cheek. Let's see how many negs you get for that.

WTF are you talking about? Did Putin blame religion for his invasion? Or was it him that keeps negging me?