Religious redline

God, the FSM, and everything else.
User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7936
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Religious redline

Postby landrew » Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:58 pm

So what's the religious mind think about the fact that humans are equipped with a mind capable of out-thinking the mental-hobbling of religion itself? If god's will is to stop thinking or asking questions, how does that square with religious self-denial of facts and evidence to the contrary of what's being passed down as "gospel?" Why would god allow us to see the difference between "word of man" and what's purported to be "word of god?" Perhaps god has the infinite patience required for us to finally realize that we have been deluding ourselves for thousands of years.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Religious redline

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:02 pm

Religion and logic don't mix. God stands apart from both.

.......Just have faith, give your 10 percent, and stfu and wait. You'll get your just reward ...... eventually.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8889
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Religious redline

Postby Aztexan » Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:59 pm

Allow me to demonstrate religious mindthink as applied in 21st century, modern day America:
























Hey look over there! Two men are holding hands!
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Religious redline

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:31 am

The problem with religion is that it is stuck in the mud. The teachings of goat herds 2500 years ago are still being preserved as if they were pearls. Things change. If religion has to have any value, it would also have to change, but no.

I was thinking along those lines in relation to environmental religion, as espoused by crackpot organisations such as Greenpeace. Genetic modification has been a practical reality for 20 years, and has proved itself. Yet the pseudo-religious approach will not permit change, and those organisations are still trying to stop it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Religious redline

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:34 am

Lance: why do you cloak a reasonable concern as a religious one?

Rather silly.

Note: reasonable does not mean they are correct...... just "a concern."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Religious redline

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:35 am

At the core, all Monotheists see the world as a prison and God at the center of a Panopticum: the believe that the only way order can be maintained is by never being sure when the Big Bad/Good Prison Guard is watching or not.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Religious redline

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:01 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Lance: why do you cloak a reasonable concern as a religious one?

Rather silly.

Note: reasonable does not mean they are correct...... just "a concern."


Bobbo

When the data clearly says one thing, and the person adheres to the fallaceus idea, that is thoroughly disproved, that is the same as religious faith. Rational people go with good data. Those who reject good data for an opinion are superstitious or religious. Same thing really.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Religious redline

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:27 pm

Lance: one of the early signs of a nutter is making up their own special vocabulary.....it comes after changing the definitions of words in common usage.

Let the dictionary provide some order for that mess you have.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Religious redline

Postby Lausten » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:34 pm

landrew wrote:So what's the religious mind think about the fact that humans are equipped with a mind capable of out-thinking the mental-hobbling of religion itself? If god's will is to stop thinking or asking questions, how does that square with religious self-denial of facts and evidence to the contrary of what's being passed down as "gospel?" Why would god allow us to see the difference between "word of man" and what's purported to be "word of god?" Perhaps god has the infinite patience required for us to finally realize that we have been deluding ourselves for thousands of years.

One of the better answers (there isn't much competition) is that God only reveals to us what we can handle. We are children, incapable of understanding the mind of God. So, slavery was okay for a while because there were more important things, like pro-creating and growing food. This argument leaves much to be desired. Besides needing to fix many of the things the Bible says about God being all knowing, it has to assume God does not know the future.

Another is revelation. If you just accept that you aren't a prophet or don't have the special connection to God that your priest has, it's pretty easy. If you ask questions, not so easy. If you study the Bible for years and do the rituals and still don't hear from God, that's a real problem for religion. Easy answers are; you didn't really believe, you wanted to sin, you didn't pray correctly, you read the wrong interpretation, wrong Bible, or wrong sermon, you aren't open to God's wisdom. Most of these are based on the "free will" argument, that God gave us free will so we could choose Him. That is, it would be wrong for Him to make us automatons or to just magically make us believe. Why he needs us to make this choice has never been explained to me.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Religious redline

Postby Lausten » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:38 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Lance: one of the early signs of a nutter is making up their own special vocabulary.....it comes after changing the definitions of words in common usage.

Let the dictionary provide some order for that mess you have.

Is the Oxford Dictionary good enough?

A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
‘consumerism is the new religion’
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Religious redline

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:56 pm

Lausten, on its face, you got me there...……..but I don't think this modern twist is what Lance is thinking. I could be wrong.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Religious redline

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:27 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Lance: one of the early signs of a nutter is making up their own special vocabulary.....it comes after changing the definitions of words in common usage.

Let the dictionary provide some order for that mess you have.


Not so much dictionary definitions as observations.

I have looked hard at religion trying to make sense of it. One estimate is that, counting schisms and sects, there are 20,000 human religions. Some are similar, but many are very different from other religions. Not all, for example, require a deity (like Theravada Buddhism). So what do they all have in common ? The only thing I have found is faith. A synonym for faith is gullibility, since both words have the same definition, " belief without evidence ".

But religions are not the only things taken on faith, with beliefs based on assertions instead of evidence. Bearing in mind that a deity is not needed for a religion, what do you call a belief system based on gullibility instead of evidence, that is not usually considered religious ? I think it is similar enough to at least call it pseudo-religious.

Many "isms" are in this category. They are all based on blind faith, and are all stooopid !

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Religious redline

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:41 am

Lance: many wrong conclusions can be "reasonably" reached by making deductions from general premises. So....much more pragmatic/productive to deal with specific examples.

Science: by definition NOT based on blind faith. Just because someone claims a scientific position does not make it one.

Ha, ha......I only read 3-4 posts back......is this post at all responsive?????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Religious redline

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:32 am

Bobbo

I think you and I agree on this. You just do not like my terminology.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Religious redline

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:15 pm

Lance: thats been true of many of our exchanges.

Buy a dictionary.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Religious redline

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Sticking to fixed references, like encyclopedias and dictionaries, is a way to avoid flexible thinking. Sometimes you have to realise that rigid definitions do not work.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Religious redline

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:12 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Sticking to fixed references, like encyclopedias and dictionaries, is a way to avoid flexible thinking. Sometimes you have to realise that rigid definitions do not work.

Sounds anecdotal to me, as in, only relevant 5% of the time. And usually...new flexible definitions are not flat out contradicted by the standard definition.

Carry on Word Warrior.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Religious redline

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:40 pm

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion

The Oxford definition fits my broader view of religion. It does not require a god. The third meaning in the Oxford writ is close to mine. I simply add the concept of faith (or gullibility) being belief without proper evidence.

Of course, all religion is superstition. So the pseudo religious beliefs are also superstitious. You can see this in the utterances of Gorgeous on this forum. Beliefs without proper evidence, or gullibility, can be called pseudo religious, or just superstition, if you prefer.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Religious redline

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:15 am

The problem/issue Lance is that you are making words more generalized whereas the whole process of actually identifying what you are thinking about "should be" more specific/precise. Course.....you have to be more specific/precise for that to matter.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Religious redline

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:59 am

I introduced a new definition for religion, which I think is more appropriate. Not more general. If you read the Oxford definition, you would be hard to find something more general. Mine is more specific. Religion is a system of belief based on faith (gullibility) instead of data. What could be simpler ?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Religious redline

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:18 am

Whats the difference between religion and gullibility?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28541
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Religious redline

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:25 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Whats the difference between religion and gullibility?


You generally get a tax deduction when you donate to a religion, but you don't get a tax deduction when you buy magic beanstalk beans from a con-artist.

Am I on the right track?
:D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Religious redline

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:39 am

Matt: you are "always" on the right track. Now....... all you have to do is pull Lance over. So far: he thinks they are both the same thing.....and doesn't see why they shouldn't be.....

............I know............
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest