The very idea that one can transfer responsibility for transgressions because of a human sacrifice is repugnant. The idea that we are broken via original sin over an apple is just as tragic. The notion that faith is the trait we are to be judged on to determine our place for eternity is idiotic. The concept that you must drink the savior's blood and eat his flesh is barbaric. The fact that a President was told by the creator of the universe to attack Iraq is horseshit.
Your thoughts on these concepts?
agreed
Quote from: Cassia on July 04, 2020, 05:58:54 PM
The very idea that one can transfer responsibility for transgressions because of a human sacrifice is repugnant. The idea that we are broken via original sin over an apple is just as tragic. The notion that faith is the trait we are to be judged on to determine our place for eternity is idiotic. The concept that you must drink the savior's blood and eat his flesh is barbaric. The fact that a President was told by the creator of the universe to attack Iraq is horseshit.
Your thoughts on these concepts?
All, total and complete bullshit! And that is only scratching the surface of what is just plain idiotic about religion(s).
Christianity is basically an effort to avoid responsibility for your actions and thoughts. That's the whole grift of the human sacrifice. This childish thinking is even praised and lauded in the Bible.
The whole concept of sin is basically judging people on thoughts "crimes", when only actions have a visible impact in the world.
Faith is a watered down replacement for thinking and reasoning, when they were sufficient in the first place. Faith is when you decide to skip thinking altogether.
Communion is retarded. If you think about it for longer than a minute you realize how folly a replacement cracker and some wine is supposed to be a (symbolic) representation of a human sacrifice for remembering someone.
That a leader, or anyone for that matter, thinks the creator of the universe speaks to them is the absolute height of hubris and applied schizophrenia.
To ancient people, there was individual and collective guilt. And this guilt was to individuals and to the collective. And then again, there was religious guilt (which is a transcendental version of individual/collective guilt to the collective). Very few ancient people were secular or atheist or scientific, they were poetic and romantic in nature. Jewish law is a subset of Near Eastern law from Babylon, Egypt and Canaan. Violation of ritual brings bad magic on the individual and the community both.
So the Torah, tries to address these questions of guilt .. as expanded on by "tradition" aka Talmud ...
1. Individual guilt to an individual - you need to apologize and make recompense
2. Individual guilt to the collective (Jewish tribe typically) - you need to apologize and make recompense
3. Collective guilt to the individual - not much remarked upon, individual rights weren't recognized at that time
4. Collective guilt to the collective (Jewish tribe typically) - peace making between groups, with apology and recompense (usually mutual)
5. Individual guilt to the transcendent (see #2 but recompense is different)
6. Collective guilt to the transcendent (see #4 but recompense is different)
The NT has to be seen in the context of the OT, plus contemporary culture of 2000 years ago. It makes no sense to Gentiles or to moderns of course!
1. Make recompense by Lex Talonis ... an eye for an eye, per the law code of Hammurabi of Babylon (1200 years before the Bible was first written). This was an improvement on vendetta.
2. Make recompense by physical punishment ... more general than #1.
3. Make recompense by execution ... only in limited cases.
4. Make recompense by animal sacrifice ... different kinds for different purposes ... from parched grain to a bull
In post-Biblical times, rabbis made the procedural law so tight, given that the only evidence was usually one person's word against another (see Solomon vs the two contending mothers). There had to be religious sanction specifically against malicious accusation and false witness. There was no lie detector (and those don't work with sociopaths anyway). It was very hard to secure a capital punishment (and this was banned when Judah was a Greek/Roman colony). Often the physical punishments (reciprocal or otherwise) was commuted to a fine.
So what about the animal sacrifices? These were done in all early culture in a religious fashion. Same as with Native Americans. There was a taboo against taking an animal life (in paganism in particular) because it was on offense against the god/goddess who was in charge of that part of nature. Artemis/Diana was an extreme bitch you didn't want to offend. Yahweh was a bastard regarding any shedding of blood, human or animal. You may not shed blood except under ritual conditions (kosher or halal butchers). You must treat meat so as to remove the blood. No blood pudding, sorry Brits. Originally these animal sacrifices would be done by the father of the family (aka Abraham). Later this was partially centralized in Shiloh (Judges), Jerusalem (Judah), Bethel and Dan (Israel). The sacrifice of animals etc at a cult center, was the way that Levites/Kohanim got fed. They were not allowed any land (agriculture). The peculiar tribal constitution of Israel/Judah was the reason why. Probably originally made up of three groups ... Levites/Kohanim from Egypt, first class citizens from Midian, and second class citizens (forced labor) from Canaanites. The idea of one law for all people of all classes was not invented yet.
So what can you do if you commit a crime and there is no way to apologize or provide compensation? Give it to G-d. So what can you do if you commit a sin (theological crime) ... who do you apologize to or to whom do you compensate? The religious ritual system provided for that, one that was increasingly centered in Jerusalem (or Mt Gerezim for the Samaritans). Also there was tithing for Diaspora Jews/Samaritans. This was the system in place 2000 years ago. Pagan religion was similar, just polytheistic. From the Jewish POV, the pagan religion was less concerned with morality, more concerned with hurting your enemies and helping yourself or your friends. There is some justification to this anti-pagan view.
So how do you apologize and compensate for a community sin against G-d? The High Priest once a year, goes into the Holy of Holies, and takes the collective sin of the Jewish people upon himself (all that sin not otherwise apologized for or compensated). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus is described as a transcendental High Priest. He is immortal, and he does this apology and compensation on the Cross (Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do). Why death on a cross? Because he is the Paschal Lamb. The Paschal Lamb is a special sacrifice for Passover, the evening before the start of the Exodus. But the Exodus isn't from Egypt to Canaan, but from Earth to Heaven.
It all makes sense within its own culture, though Rabbinic culture isn't the same as Hellenistic Jewish/Gentile culture (taking Pauline theology as the standard).
Y'all demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge and understanding, much like a European colonist looking down their nose at the primitives you are about to colonize. Or in this case, anti-Semites looking to colonize Jews and other monotheists. Reminds me of the Soviet Union behavior in Africa before, or the behavior of Red China in Africa today.
Do I accept this theology? No I don't. I consider justice to be BS. There is no need to apologize to anyone, or to provide compensation for anyone. And if there is nothing sacred, then that angle is unnecessary also.
I can appreciate how limiting oral tradition is. Illiteracy renders a person vulnerable to nonsense. Not an excuse anymore. Yet magical thinking all around us, yearning for a 2000 year late rapture like a five year old waiting for jolly old St Nick. Grown men with grey hair yammering about virgin births and talking snakes. Spewing hate and judgement on other people. These fools would be purely entertaining if they were not so malicious. I live and let live and pick my associations carefully. Life is too short to suffer believers with that 1000 yard stare.
Quote from: Cassia on July 05, 2020, 08:02:55 AM
I can appreciate how limiting oral tradition is. Illiteracy renders a person vulnerable to nonsense. Not an excuse anymore. Yet magical thinking all around us, yearning for a 2000 year late rapture like a five year old waiting for jolly old St Nick. Grown men with grey hair yammering about virgin births and talking snakes. Spewing hate and judgement on other people. These fools would be purely entertaining if they were not so malicious. I live and let live and pick my associations carefully. Life is too short to suffer believers with that 1000 yard stare.
Correct in dealing with modern Gentiles. They are either political reptiles like Alcibiades or mumbling pagan priests. Educated clergy aren't like this. Of course one can object, if one is a Vulcan, to poetic/romantic articulation. Some must have it numerically, in the old time religion of Pythagoras.
Modernity is based on the methods of Sir Francis Bacon, who conceived of the New World as the New Atlantis, based on empirical science (not all that super French rationalism of Descartes).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method
Please note Idols of the Mind/Cognitive Bias.
Idols of the Tribe = Identity politics
Idols of the Cave = Ideology
Idols of the Market = Predatory capitalism
Idols of the Theatre = Main stream media
America is the New Atlantis, but it isn't as fun as Sir Francis Bacon imagined. Bacon actually died from a cold he got while trying to invent the refrigerator.
All the sacrificing of your best sheep or first born son is just to prove to the others that you are just as 'all in' (and idiotic) as they are. Rooting out skeptics is important so that they do not enjoy any group benefits such as the raping and pillaging of the enemy sect. Eventually this led to indulgences, aka a bribes to stay in the good graces.
I would guess about 90% of the bible boils down to separating the wheat from the chafe. From the torture of Job to the traitor apostle. So witches and gays, Jews and Muslims and the protestant to the catholic have all been separated out and persecuted under the pretense of 'holiness'.
And all because of the assumption that a mind can exist without a brain.
Quote from: Cassia on July 05, 2020, 12:37:30 PM
All the sacrificing of your best sheep or first born son is just to prove to the others that you are just as 'all in' (and idiotic) as they are. Rooting out skeptics is important so that they do not enjoy any group benefits such as the raping and pillaging of the enemy sect. Eventually this led to indulgences, aka a bribes to stay in the good graces.
I would guess about 90% of the bible boils down to separating the wheat from the chafe. From the torture of Job to the traitor apostle. So witches and gays, Jews and Muslims and the protestant to the catholic have all been separated out and persecuted under the pretense of 'holiness'.
And all because of the assumption that a mind can exist without a brain.
One sacrifices a sheep, because one needs meat more than wool. For Bedouin they run sheep and goats together, because they behave better as a group that way. The children are assigned this job (hence the analogy to the value of children by Jesus). And when they are back at camp, the sheep and goats are separated. Usually the goats get eaten (they don't provide wool). Hence the analogy to the fate of the righteous and unrighteous. In sacred culture there is no butchery of an animal, it is always a religious ritual, a sacrifice.
Of course in many cultures (see Aztecs) there is a notion of human sacrifice. We practice this also, with criminals, with police, with soldiers, with protestors. People die as consequence of their situation, that they get into because of their actions. For Aztecs, they believed that the Sun wouldn't come up each morning, that the World would end, unless they sacrificed a fellow human being. In WW II, millions of lives were sacrificed, because States believed that their very existence was threatened. This was voluntarily religious, that is why there are military chaplains. Of course vegetarians, pacifists or atheists don't get this.
Or are you bringing to notice, that individuals and groups are corrupt? Happens in any system. The only way to avoid human corruption, is to extinguish the human race (see Noah).
One sacrifices a sheep, because one needs meat more than wool.
I disagree. You are giving up your family's best sheep to the whole congregation. Just the same type of proving loyalty and trust as sacrificing a bit of your child's genitals. And then there is this whole fake family association. Everyone (stranger or not) is a brother, a sister (nuns, LOL), a father (priest) to really rope you in. The church is called a 'house'. No it isn't. It is empty every night. Children don't need to plead or make sacrifice to a good father. It gives me chills.
Must congregate regularly to administer guilt to the innocents about nothing. It's like a spy ring/competition to be the most whatever. Many human associations besides religion can be creepy and disastrous, yes. But no one serves the kool-aide with a smile like religion.
You can say that Judaism aka Old Testament isn't real, because that was ancient times, so who knows what anybody actually did. But I don't think any of those people were thinking like a SJW. Certainly people living traditionally today (aka Bedouin) aren't SJW.
You seem to be so individual, that extended family/clan/tribe is an incomprehensible concept. That isn't true with my Native American neighbors. You combined a lot of different ideas though, that applied to some groups at some times. Of course every society is sensitive to the sociopaths among them, or toward outsiders.
Originally synagogues were men's clubs for business (which was sacred action too). Churches were in people's homes, because it was illegal to form any association that wasn't approved by the Roman authorities (including local hoodlums).
Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2020, 03:10:00 PM
One sacrifices a sheep, because one needs meat more than wool. For Bedouin they run sheep and goats together, because they behave better as a group that way. The children are assigned this job (hence the analogy to the value of children by Jesus). And when they are back at camp, the sheep and goats are separated. Usually the goats get eaten (they don't provide wool). Hence the analogy to the fate of the righteous and unrighteous. In sacred culture there is no butchery of an animal, it is always a religious ritual, a sacrifice.
It is then, also, used as a means to an end in religious doctrine.
It is not surprising that in NT the doctrine of human sacrifice isn't condemned given their equivocation of the two.
Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2020, 03:10:00 PM
Of course in many cultures (see Aztecs) there is a notion of human sacrifice. We practice this also, with criminals, with police, with soldiers, with protestors. People die as consequence of their situation, that they get into because of their actions. For Aztecs, they believed that the Sun wouldn't come up each morning, that the World would end, unless they sacrificed a fellow human being. In WW II, millions of lives were sacrificed, because States believed that their very existence was threatened. This was voluntarily religious, that is why there are military chaplains. Of course vegetarians, pacifists or atheists don't get this.
In the former it was due to faith, the latter has to do with political convictions of the importance of the state.
Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2020, 03:10:00 PM
Or are you bringing to notice, that individuals and groups are corrupt? Happens in any system. The only way to avoid human corruption, is to extinguish the human race (see Noah).
That's quite a broad brush.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 05, 2020, 05:58:15 PM
It is then, also, used as a means to an end in religious doctrine.
It is not surprising that in NT the doctrine of human sacrifice isn't condemned given their equivocation of the two.
In the former it was due to faith, the latter has to do with political convictions of the importance of the state.
That's quite a broad brush.
Religious people, don't consider religion to be indoctrination. They consider secularism etc to be indoctrination. Particularly if it has a political angle to it.
I don't condemn human sacrifice (in the modern sense). I am not an Aztec. But I do approve of Americans fighting for their country, if necessary, and that entails injury and death (as well as injury and death of their opponents). For many, this is a religious act, because they happen to be religious. For Soviets in WW II or Afghanistan, they were dying for Socialism (an ideology not a theology). Human sacrifice either way. The Afghans certainly were dying for their religion, not for secularism. A nationalist speech, not a religious speech, because General Patton was a pretty profane guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCA6uxQE-bw
Slavery isn't condemned in the NT, or the invasion of reptilian shape shifters either ;-) What was recommended 2000 years ago, is for Jewish communities to purchase Jewish slaves, and manumit them. The god-fearers in Jewish synagogues were Gentile former slaves who had been manumitted by their Jewish masters.
It's surprising that such a violent book about a cruel and vengeful god should be the basis of a religion. Well, not surprising. Look at Islam. More surprising is that Christians turn Biblical atrocities into virtue, and act as if the Bible is all about love, which it is most definitely not.
Quote from: SGOS on July 06, 2020, 08:11:10 AM
It's surprising that such a violent book about a cruel and vengeful god should be the basis of a religion. Well, not surprising. Look at Islam. More surprising is that Christians turn Biblical atrocities into virtue, and act as if the Bible is all about love, which it is most definitely not.
If you don't support violence, then you will bend the knee to your drug pusher?
You want a religion of love? Does that include reefers?
If you don't support violence...
Excessive physical violence is for those with no imagination. For children who think we live forever. I much prefer to take you down before you even know I am your enemy. I expect something similar from my enlightened government. Instead we have glorious wars like Viet Nam and Iraq as we sit and just watch the CCP and Putin play us for fools in our own facebook backyard. Squeezing the CCP is the single concept that the Rump in office (or should I say Bannon) gets right. It is imperative that we get our manufacturing base back no matter how much it hurts in the short term. Our corporate boards have sold us out. Kim, Putin, CCP and the Ayatollah all need to feel the economic wrath of united democracies until they crumble and are replaced with reasonable systems. Will they change on their own without our help? It rarely happens but as they weaken there is an opportunity. Just like when the USSR crumbled. Unfortunately we didn't work together with the new glasnost Russia and they regressed.
Yes, Nixon said we shouldn't demonize Russia if they reformed. They went thru collapse hell, reformed, but we supported Europe's ambition to castrate Russia all the way thru 2017, under three Presidents, with multiple color-revolutions. This was bipartisan. As was the "Turn To China" policy going on since Nixon was in office. Russia reasonably felt let down, and faced with a militant enemy, while its rival grew and grew. In Russian style they reverted to authoritarianism.
Quote from: Cassia on July 04, 2020, 05:58:54 PMThe fact that a President was told by the creator of the universe to attack Iraq is horseshit.
That was the best part.
Quote from: Paolo on July 07, 2020, 06:44:48 PM
That was the best part.
George W is now Michelle's best friend ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on July 07, 2020, 07:17:25 PM
George W is now Michelle's best friend ;-)
I always have trouble understanding your posts. Can I say that? Sure I don't want to hurt your feelings.
Quote from: Paolo on July 07, 2020, 07:39:05 PM
I always have trouble understanding your posts. Can I say that? Sure I don't want to hurt your feelings.
Paolo--not a problem. At one time Baruch was a fount of interesting and salient facts and ideas. Now, he makes no sense to anybody, not even himself. He simply likes to ramble and babble on......and on......and on. The best thing to do now is just skip his posts. Like Trump--apparently his idol--he likes to just say whatever he wants with no care of the truth or of facts.
Quote from: Paolo on July 07, 2020, 07:39:05 PM
I always have trouble understanding your posts. Can I say that? Sure I don't want to hurt your feelings.
There are styles in forums. Some are fully indented. You have all the previous entries layed down vertically but with structure. So my post was against the one just prior, which referenced yet another prior post. One could, and I sometimes, arrange things to be fully indented like footnotes, but not always. Specifically ...
you quoted the OP (entry 0) in your entry 17. My entry quoted (what I don’t always do) your entry, as part of my entry 18). Though often I am commenting on the post just above, without directly quoting it. The sum of all the entries in a string is like an inverted tree.
MikeCL has fits about my content, not the mechanics of how the entries work together.
Quote from: Baruch on July 07, 2020, 09:57:08 PM
There are styles in forums. Some are fully indented. You have all the previous entries layed down vertically but with structure. So my post was against the one just prior, which referenced yet another prior post. One could, and I sometimes, arrange things to be fully indented like footnotes, but not always. Specifically ...
you quoted the OP (entry 0) in your entry 17. My entry quoted (what I don’t always do) your entry, as part of my entry 18). Though often I am commenting on the post just above, without directly quoting it. The sum of all the entries in a string is like an inverted tree.
MikeCL has fits about my content, not the mechanics of how the entries work together.
That was a very convoluted way of saying how the structure of the forum works. You could have said it with far less words and much more simply. I even made a fool of myself and read the post 3 times to understand it. Good for you that I have the time. And for now, I will say that I also have issues with your content, not just MikeCL, and I have absolutely no issues with ''how the entries work together''.
Still, kudos for the imaginative writing. You remind me of another user on another atheistic blog, curiously named ''Leprechaun''. ;)
Quote from: Paolo on July 07, 2020, 11:23:52 PM
That was a very convoluted way of saying how the stucture of the forum works. You could have said it with far less words and much more simply.
Why use few word when
Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2020, 06:27:05 PM
Religious people, don't consider religion to be indoctrination. They consider secularism etc to be indoctrination. Particularly if it has a political angle to it.
Sometimes I forget that you're a god-botherer, but then I remember. religion can only exist
with the tool of indoctrination. Secularism is merely the act of making distinctions between the religious and other political/ideological stances on things, separating religious convictions from political ones.
That the god-botherers are unable to see this distinction says a lot, methinks. And that god-botherers have a way to see anything that challenges their views in the same light they see their own convictions (i.e. as faiths), unable to entertain the world without their religious lense. It is a failing of intelligence, a result of indoctrination.
Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2020, 06:27:05 PM
I don't condemn human sacrifice (in the modern sense). I am not an Aztec. But I do approve of Americans fighting for their country, if necessary, and that entails injury and death (as well as injury and death of their opponents). For many, this is a religious act, because they happen to be religious. For Soviets in WW II or Afghanistan, they were dying for Socialism (an ideology not a theology). Human sacrifice either way. The Afghans certainly were dying for their religion, not for secularism. A nationalist speech, not a religious speech, because General Patton was a pretty profane guy.
This isn't secularism. Someone might subscribe to a political ideology with the same fervor a theist does to his faith. Secularism is simply the stance of separation of the two. But I guess you're using the colloquial sense of secularism as an opponent to religious convictions, which is why a god-botherer is unable to distinguish their own faith in terms that are strictly areligious. It's like being convinced there only exists 2 dimensions and when someone argues for a 3 dimensional world, they are unable to imagine objects in that frame, because they are tidal-locked in 2 dimensional thinking.
Atheism, by induction, in many ways frees people of the theistic thinking model (or dimension if you will) of religious convictions. It's taking a step back and seeing every religious conviction, each different from one another, to a new perspective; a perspective free of the opaque walls made into transparent glass, where the same errors in their thinking been made apparent: faith is unworkable.
The same failing exists in political ideologies, except there's a substantial qualitative difference between religion and politics, the former is based on faith, the latter on method.
Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2020, 06:27:05 PM
Slavery isn't condemned in the NT, or the invasion of reptilian shape shifters either ;-) What was recommended 2000 years ago, is for Jewish communities to purchase Jewish slaves, and manumit them. The god-fearers in Jewish synagogues were Gentile former slaves who had been manumitted by their Jewish masters.
There is very little wiggle-room for growth when you don't improve upon, or better yet, correct mistakes in a book - any book - be it political or religious. Our zeitgeists sensibilities towards slavery is an example of that.
Quote from: Paolo on July 07, 2020, 11:23:52 PM
That was a very convoluted way of saying how the structure of the forum works. You could have said it with far less words and much more simply. I even made a fool of myself and read the post 3 times to understand it. Good for you that I have the time. And for now, I will say that I also have issues with your content, not just MikeCL, and I have absolutely no issues with ''how the entries work together''.
Still, kudos for the imaginative writing. You remind me of another user on another atheistic blog, curiously named ''Leprechaun''. ;)
I don't think you did anything wrong, or have any reason to be embarrassed. I try to explain, but I wasn't talking down to. If you object to my content, well that is open to anyone. In the Religion section I mostly try to clarify, not argue. I am retired, so yes, I have the time. Not as a comparison, as I don't visit other forums these days, but Vulcan who rarely posts here but more often at "atheistforums.org" (totally unrelated to this forum) is a really smart fellow. Just saying.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 08, 2020, 01:57:54 AM
Sometimes I forget that you're a god-botherer, but then I remember. religion can only exist with the tool of indoctrination. Secularism is merely the act of making distinctions between the religious and other political/ideological stances on things, separating religious convictions from political ones.
That the god-botherers are unable to see this distinction says a lot, methinks. And that god-botherers have a way to see anything that challenges their views in the same light they see their own convictions (i.e. as faiths), unable to entertain the world without their religious lense. It is a failing of intelligence, a result of indoctrination.
This isn't secularism. Someone might subscribe to a political ideology with the same fervor a theist does to his faith. Secularism is simply the stance of separation of the two. But I guess you're using the colloquial sense of secularism as an opponent to religious convictions, which is why a god-botherer is unable to distinguish their own faith in terms that are strictly areligious. It's like being convinced there only exists 2 dimensions and when someone argues for a 3 dimensional world, they are unable to imagine objects in that frame, because they are tidal-locked in 2 dimensional thinking.
Atheism, by induction, in many ways frees people of the theistic thinking model (or dimension if you will) of religious convictions. It's taking a step back and seeing every religious conviction, each different from one another, to a new perspective; a perspective free of the opaque walls made into transparent glass, where the same errors in their thinking been made apparent: faith is unworkable.
The same failing exists in political ideologies, except there's a substantial qualitative difference between religion and politics, the former is based on faith, the latter on method.
There is very little wiggle-room for growth when you don't improve upon, or better yet, correct mistakes in a book - any book - be it political or religious. Our zeitgeists sensibilities towards slavery is an example of that.
Illustrated by many, is the difficulty or absurdity of separating religion from politics. My POV is psychology, not theology. Anthropology not Marxist historical revisionism. I take religiosity as cultural not as epistemological (which is typically were atheists go).
It has been argued both ways, whether politics is a religion or atheism is a secular theism. I don't see any possibility of resolving those, because they are ultimately about "feels" not reason (why pick those axioms vs was the deduction valid given the axioms). Human beings have IQ and EQ.
Can things be improved? Not really, we are pushing a rope. The way the collective gets better is mostly thru individuals getting better ... which usually happens with cultivation and time. The opposite, of changing the system and expecting people of whatever state of development, to toe the line, won't work.
Everyone eventually has to choose a "hill to die on". For some this is theology or philosophy or ideology. I choose psychology.
Eastern Orthodox culture ... St George has another bad day at the office, but the virgin is saved ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vYFFx4whoE
Quote from: Baruch on July 08, 2020, 11:40:03 AM
I don't think you did anything wrong, or have any reason to be embarrassed. I try to explain, but I wasn't talking down to. If you object to my content, well that is open to anyone. In the Religion section I mostly try to clarify, not argue. I am retired, so yes, I have the time. Not as a comparison, as I don't visit other forums these days, but Vulcan who rarely posts here but more often at "atheistforums.org" (totally unrelated to this forum) is a really smart fellow. Just saying.
Lol, ok...
Can things be improved? Not really, we are pushing a rope.
You seem to grasp history pretty well for a bigtime R (who might be ironically living on SOCIALism Security and TAX FUNDED pensions as so many do.) Do you not think that the following aspects of human life have improved over the last few centuries as we left the medieval max-xtian times?
-Progress towards agreement on and adoption of basic human rights
-Less violence per capita, big picture-wise
-Literacy
-Lifespan/Medicine
-Communication
-Food/Clean water availability
-Leisure time and options
-So many micro brews, excellent whiskeys and Rock and Roll
-and my favorite... Scientific Knowledge
Certainly not all shared in the benefits equally and there have been plenty of setbacks, but I think our very successfulness is now what brings us to a crossroad.
Card carrying Stalinist mam ;-) Careful about projecting opinions on others, that is a lame rhetorical mistake. Also distinguish between rhetorical postures vs real views. But emoticons can help with that.
The fact that one has a smart phone isn't progress. You didn't build it, you didn't invent it. That is like saying cattle are smart if a college professor has a hobby farm.
This is an epistemological canard made by every collectivist, whether trying to get credit for things you didn't do, or trying to avoid blame for things you didn't do.
Goes back to the Middle Ages ... philosophical realism vs philosophical nominalism. Though philosophical realism goes back to Plato's "forms". For example:
Is "red" a category independent of any particular that has the property of "red"? Plato says yes, and it is an ideal perfect red. Nominalism says that "red" is only a property of the items in the set of things we aggregate on the basis of being categorized by the property "red". Philosophical realism is the basis of the claim that real communism has never been tried. It was never the ideal perfect "form" but the LARPing of real communism by states that aren't real communist. That Communism wasn't a property of the set of countries like the Soviet Union etc. who could be characterized by the property "communist".
Quote from: Baruch on July 09, 2020, 09:13:57 AM
Card carrying Stalinist mam ;-) Careful about projecting opinions on others, that is a lame rhetorical mistake. Also distinguish between rhetorical postures vs real views. But emoticons can help with that.
The fact that one has a smart phone isn't progress. You didn't build it, you didn't invent it. That is like saying cattle are smart if a college professor has a hobby farm.
This is an epistemological canard made by every collectivist, whether trying to get credit for things you didn't do, or trying to avoid blame for things you didn't do.
Goes back to the Middle Ages ... philosophical realism vs philosophical nominalism. Though philosophical realism goes back to Plato's "forms". For example:
Is "red" a category independent of any particular that has the property of "red"? Plato says yes, and it is an ideal perfect red. Nominalism says that "red" is only a property of the items in the set of things we aggregate on the basis of being categorized by the property "red". Philosophical realism is the basis of the claim that real communism has never been tried. It was never the ideal perfect "form" but the LARPing of real communism by states that aren't real communist. That Communism wasn't a property of the set of countries like the Soviet Union etc. who could be characterized by the property "communist".
Yep I have noticed so many vocal anti-liberals get their socialist entitlement checks mailed directly to their Plato's cave. Now that is some ironic shit.
As design team member I understand very well that people work must together to accomplish things impossible for individuals to do. Thus your claims about "getting credit" are irrelevant to defending your 'pushing the rope' statement. Most of us atheists are used to the haphazard arguments delivered by apologists so we just stay on track really. It's easy really. Apologists get into a mindset to never have a direct answer. It's all about restating the questions incorrectly; don't you know?
Getting things done for betterment on this planet is another irrelevancy to so many theists who live for the next world. They are the ones pushing a rope up to some fantasy place called heaven. The concept of heaven is idiotic. I think it would fun fodder for a future post.
Quote from: Baruch on July 08, 2020, 11:51:53 AM
Illustrated by many, is the difficulty or absurdity of separating religion from politics. My POV is psychology, not theology. Anthropology not Marxist historical revisionism. I take religiosity as cultural not as epistemological (which is typically were atheists go).
You're correct. I look at religion as an epistemic attempt at understanding the world. It was the old attempt. Culturally, coming from a country in the middle of the North Atlantic ocean, I see culture as more than ideology of a particular religion or a particular political party. It's the pattern in which we live our daily lives, religion and politics are shards of that, but not the whole picture.
Quote from: Baruch on July 08, 2020, 11:51:53 AM
It has been argued both ways, whether politics is a religion or atheism is a secular theism. I don't see any possibility of resolving those, because they are ultimately about "feels" not reason (why pick those axioms vs was the deduction valid given the axioms). Human beings have IQ and EQ.
I am of the conviction that politics, in any useful sense anyways, is about methodology (i.e. how to do something). Whereas religion is about attempting to understand something, the alpha version of science, if you will, which was revisioned in the Enlightenment. Those are just my definitions of those general terms.
Quote from: Baruch on July 08, 2020, 11:51:53 AM
Can things be improved? Not really, we are pushing a rope. The way the collective gets better is mostly thru individuals getting better ... which usually happens with cultivation and time. The opposite, of changing the system and expecting people of whatever state of development, to toe the line, won't work.
Real change is education and personal growth - I don't believe in any overarching system of governance or outright collectivism. That stinks of ideological conformity, of just parroting ideas without forming your own thoughts and tracing your own thinking.
Quote from: Baruch on July 08, 2020, 11:51:53 AM
Everyone eventually has to choose a "hill to die on". For some this is theology or philosophy or ideology. I choose psychology.
I haven't made my mind up yet on philosophy and ideology. I'm still young. Maybe never solidify my beliefs. Right now I think I'm both philosophically and ideologically fluid enough to change my mind given good enough reasoning to rethink a conclusion. I'm not constantly re-evaluating convictions, just that I want to see good enough reasons to believe x when I think y. Since my apostasy I've outright given up on theology, nothing short of brain damage will convince me to reconsider trusting faith. I consider psychology the precursor field to neuroscience, the same way I think theology was the precursor to the natural sciences, but since neuroscience is so basic now, psychology will do for now - it's not something I think about from day to day, though, I just live according to my basic needs and desires in the cultural framework of today. In that regard I'm a simple man.
Quote from: Baruch on July 08, 2020, 11:51:53 AM
Eastern Orthodox culture ... St George has another bad day at the office, but the virgin is saved ...
Hope is for suckers, but also dreamers. I'd rather be realistic, because I've abandoned hope.
Quote from: Cassia on July 09, 2020, 09:59:53 AM
Yep I have noticed so many vocal anti-liberals get their socialist entitlement checks mailed directly to their Plato's cave. Now that is some ironic shit.
As design team member I understand very well that people work must together to accomplish things impossible for individuals to do. Thus your claims about "getting credit" are irrelevant to defending your 'pushing the rope' statement. Most of us atheists are used to the haphazard arguments delivered by apologists so we just stay on track really. It's easy really. Apologists get into a mindset to never have a direct answer. It's all about restating the questions incorrectly; don't you know?
Getting things done for betterment on this planet is another irrelevancy to so many theists who live for the next world. They are the ones pushing a rope up to some fantasy place called heaven. The concept of heaven is idiotic. I think it would fun fodder for a future post.
It is OK to be a progressive, however you want to define that. When I was young, I hoped for incremental (not revolutionary) improvements in the human condition. I thought very highly of NASA. Over time, it has been very hard to sustain that naivety. But I don't want to deny younger adults their own naivety. They have to develop on their own schedule.
Religion per se, is very naive. And educated, studious or experienced people are right to question it. One ideal for collegians is to "deny everything". Then having done that, they eventually find out that their parents aren't the morons they thought they were. Usually after 30 years old. Which is a good reason why Logan's Run isn't real ;-) I went thru an "atheist" period myself in my 20s. But I got more mature and came back to a mature theism eventually (by 56).
@Sal1981 ... it is hard in this world to hold onto "hope". But there are two interpretations of the Pandora myth. That while only thing that didn't escape her wedding gift box was "hope" ... was that a blessing or a curse? Some say a blessing, because "hope" is all people can hold onto if they can. Some say a curse, because "hope" is in vain.
There is a battle between realism and idealism ... is it really necessary to treat that as a Black/White situation? A totally idealist person is Shrek or Donkey (joke). A totally realist person is Prince Farquar (eew)!
Quote from: Baruch on July 09, 2020, 12:09:56 PM
@Sal1981 ... it is hard in this world to hold onto "hope". But there are two interpretations of the Pandora myth. That while only thing that didn't escape her wedding gift box was "hope" ... was that a blessing or a curse? Some say a blessing, because "hope" is all people can hold onto if they can. Some say a curse, because "hope" is in vain.
Hope is a motivator, for sure. All too human, if you ask me.
When I think about it, the concept of "hope" is a cousin to faith, but with a stark contrast to faith; hope is about things you want or want to do, but (presently) cannot get or able to do, where faith is blind acceptance and blind conviction that something is true. Hope is then a wish for something you want or want to do.
Quote from: Baruch on July 09, 2020, 12:09:56 PM
There is a battle between realism and idealism ... is it really necessary to treat that as a Black/White situation? A totally idealist person is Shrek or Donkey (joke). A totally realist person is Prince Farquar (eew)!
Can you even have one without the other? If you take Lord Farquaad out of the Shrek movie, you're left with no story and no ambition, the whole narrative falls apart. It's like science without philosophy is without any probing question on why you're even doing science in the first place. And philosophy without science is merely masturbation of ideas, with no reality checks and balances.
You can leave the monastery when you are ready, Grasshopper ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on July 09, 2020, 12:48:18 PM
You can leave the monastery when you are ready, Grasshopper ;-)
Why? I'm not a slave to morality, unlike you.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 10, 2020, 06:41:26 AM
Why? I'm not a slave to morality, unlike you.
I saw what you did there ;-). Virtue signaling doesn't work when you are stopped on the side of the freeway with a flat tire.
I'm just fucking with you.
Maybe wave at passer-bys, hoping (snicker) for some samaritan to help change the flat tire, if you're unable to change it yourself.
I forget which book it is..duet or numbers, but there are several, even more chapters on how one is to pay the priests. For a reasonable person, that should stop you in your tracks as just a little self serving piece of work.
“Let’s start a religionâ€
“Good idea, but how will we make any money?â€
“ Let’s make it part of gods planâ€
“Well...duhâ€
“LOLâ€
Quote from: aitm on July 10, 2020, 08:58:03 AM
I forget which book it is..duet or numbers, but there are several, even more chapters on how one is to pay the priests. For a reasonable person, that should stop you in your tracks as just a little self serving piece of work.
“Let’s start a religionâ€
“Good idea, but how will we make any money?â€
“ Let’s make it part of gods planâ€
“Well...duhâ€
“LOLâ€
You work for free, consider money to be un-kosher?
In that context, the priests didn't get paid, there was no money. They got paid "in kind" with first fruits, part of the animal sacrifice. Today, we have money. Of course, just like in The Book of Judges, with Eli, the priest and his sons at Shiloh, we can have unrighteous clergy.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 10, 2020, 07:34:21 AM
I'm just fucking with you.
Maybe wave at passer-bys, hoping (snicker) for some samaritan to help change the flat tire, if you're unable to change it yourself.
Munch would know how ... flex his big muscles, not show a little ankle ;-)
Quote from: Cassia on July 04, 2020, 05:58:54 PM
The very idea that one can transfer responsibility for transgressions because of a human sacrifice is repugnant. The idea that we are broken via original sin over an apple is just as tragic. The notion that faith is the trait we are to be judged on to determine our place for eternity is idiotic. The concept that you must drink the savior's blood and eat his flesh is barbaric. The fact that a President was told by the creator of the universe to attack Iraq is horseshit.
Your thoughts on these concepts?
Well, that's a lot of territory to cover, but I think that you are saying you are befuddled over the strange notions inherent in Christianity. In a twisted way it all makes sense if you see it as people using myths and rhetoric to control other people. If we can get others to believe the unbelievable, then we can get them to believe what benefits us. For example, if I can convince people that I speak for a god, then I can convince them to give me money--it's what the god wants, after all. Of course, no real god would want or need money, but if I can get those people to stop thinking ("have faith"), then they are less likely to see through my trick. Politicians in particular find religion to be of great value because they can use it as a ploy to fool the masses into thinking that what's good for the politician is what the god wants.
"a ploy to fool the masses into thinking that what's good for the politician is what the god wants" ... Emperor Constantine agrees.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 04, 2020, 07:35:34 PMCommunion is retarded. If you think about it for longer than a minute you realize how folly a replacement cracker and some wine is supposed to be a (symbolic) representation of a human sacrifice for remembering someone.
I think part of the reason the gospel story has Jesus instituting ritual cannibalism and vampirism is to separate the true believers from the "lukewarm." Jesus is essentially using shock to see who will stay with him and who will turn away. The early Christians wanted followers so devoted that the sickest talk would not dissuade them. Christ was then the "Alice Cooper" of first-century Jewish preachers.
Quote from: Jagella on July 11, 2020, 10:14:40 PM
I think part of the reason the gospel story has Jesus instituting ritual cannibalism and vampirism is to separate the true believers from the "lukewarm." Jesus is essentially using shock to see who will stay with him and who will turn away. The early Christians wanted followers so devoted that the sickest talk would not dissuade them. Christ was then the "Alice Cooper" of first-century Jewish preachers.
Correct. Rabbis were quick to note, at the time of the early church (regardless if Jesus was historical or not) that the figure of Jesus was non-kosher. Also non-kohen, non-levite ... though the Church tradition tried to tie Jesus to the Priesthood, thru John the Baptist's mother being related to Mary, and John the Apostle, all being related to same priestly family. The Epistle to the Hebrews makes it mythical, with Jesus as the eternal High Priest. None of that is likely to be attractive to regular Jewish people neither then nor now (see Jews for Jesus).
Of course, this wasn't attractive to pagan Gentiles either, who expected certain kind of demi-god/characteristics. That Jesus was crucified, was Jewish, wasn't royal (except for the made up genealogy) were definite turn offs for Gentiles. Apollonius of Tyana was a more palatable miracle worker ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana
If you think of Jesus being a composite figure, this neo-pythagorean and the false Egyptian prophet are likely sources.
NULL
"STATUES OF THE VIRGIN MARY SET ON FIRE AND VANDALIZED, THREE CHURCHES IN ONE DAY ARE TORCHED" ... bring back the Spanish Inquisition. Arrest violent anti-Christians, burn them at the stake ;-) This is how you win the hearts and minds of Hispanics, Polish Americans etc.
Please burn down all the synagogues while you are at it. Proclaim it is non-violent. Make sure that Palestinian flags are prominently displayed ... bwahaha.
Quote from: Rosycheeked_rebel on July 13, 2020, 02:23:03 PM
.....God’s plan, free will, and prayer all contradict each other.....
LOL. I have watched videos and read articles presented by the wisest men from Jewish, Christian, and Islamic pulpits all working very hard to rationalize these contradictions. It is rather amusing. In the end it is always the same: god works in mysterious ways. Who are we to question it? How dare we question it? These preachers usually have robes, sashes, impressive beards, scepters, and serious hats. I guess they knew what they are talking about.
That old time politics ... Marxism? All they got is big beards, no hats ;-)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/66/e4/5b/66e45b414764d5203f53b6a5cdff2816.jpg)
NULL
Religions have power because psychology has power. In theological, philosophical or ideological terms. It is part of the "will" behind "people" power.
Got difficult questions? Well they are difficult for a reason (no answers available). In spite of the facile explanations offered in the previous sentence.
Of course Christianity is part of a greater carpet bazaar, with the usual haggling and sharp dealing. Remember the opening to the Disney Aladdin movie?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inzkJ34VMfk
Dead Sea Tupperware ;-)) "It is what is inside that counts"
If the carpet you buy, doesn't fly ... please examine the fine print ... no returns!
NULL
Quote from: Rosycheeked_rebel on July 13, 2020, 11:29:13 PM
Why do some people do thatâ€"rely on such unreliable, fallacious thinking instead of accepting the painful reality and working through it?
The reason is partly, not entirely, the same reason people take drugs. It's easier to pop a few Oxycontin than work through feelings of depression. It's also easier to believe the fantasy that there is a spirit that loves you and knows your heart than feel profound existential isolation and loneliness. The idea that life has meaning and souls endure is soothing compared to accepting nothing any human has ever done or will do matters over time, that everything in the universe is impermanent. Humans have created all kinds of strategies to avoid psychological suffering and religion and intoxication are strategies that are persistent and pervasive, showing up in every culture I'm aware of.
Yay, new people, younger people, smart people ;-) Us long term folk (been here 5 years, many longer) are burned out. You would be burned out too if you had posted over 40,000 responses (not counting multiple content posts and likes). This place is a sweat shop, I tell yah!
@Rosycheeked_rebel ... what can I say? Sometimes the intuition is hot, that is what produced that Aladdin post. That and 64 years of preparation ;-) It is like photography, take lots of shots because most will be average but a few will be great. The idea that you can simply pull a great photo out of your bum is egomania (there goes psychology again). Is human behavior worth studying? What, are you an aardvark or what? How else do you expect to understand yourself, to understand other people?
Sorry for the Glee star that died, a mother died! People get "transcendentally" involved in the lives of people they don't even know, like Trump! Freud called this "Transference". Counter-transference is where the counselor projects onto the patient, his own problems ;-(
"Transference, first described by Sigmund Freud, is a phenomenon in psychotherapy in which there is an unconscious redirection of feelings from one person to another. In his later writings, Freud learned that understanding the transference was an important piece of the psychotherapeutic work."
Transference is an interesting behavior we all do. There is a certain Scottish MP, and every time he speaks, I want to punch him in the face! Totally irrational on my part. A girl sees a comely boy, she wants him to be interested in her. Gender insanity along with narcissism! One good thing about psychology ... you want to treat people more like patients that you can have sympathy for (hard sometimes). Not superior like a doctor, because psychs have to have annual analysis themselves. Nobody crazier than a psych.
I'll take intoxication over religion any day! LOL
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 14, 2020, 03:35:18 PM
I'll take intoxication over religion any day! LOL
Best to drink the solution, than propose a solution ;-)