Annual Religious Thread

[orathaic]

I think an important part of mainstream religion was that it set down a morality framework which can be used to guide decisions on right and wrong. While we may disagree with some of the decisions, it was well understood how these decisions were made. At least that was my experience with it.

Now morality decisions are being made at a much shallower level. Morality is being defined by a soundbite or a slogan. The promise of atheism was that we would have better reason based decisions but in some ways we appear to be making decisions with even less reason.

And because these ideas are understood in such a shallow way there is a rising intolerance of those that have different beliefs/values. How can you find common ground when your philosophy can be defined on a bumper sticker?

This is such utter garbage. Sorry but historically the religious justification for moral actions was 'listen to US because we have the authority of God backing us' an appeal to authority. It wasn't encouraging anyone to think deeply about the topic.

God as an answer to any question (like why the the rain fall) tends to be an end to enquiry.

Atheists are forced - by the very nature of their lack of an authority figure to turn to - to think more deeply about everything, morality in particular. It can be questioned by anyone and this ends up far more nuanced and while not necessarily more compassionate, a lack of compassion in the answers can be rejected by anyone.

Atheististic morality may seem to you to be less substantial because it lacks the solid certainly of your dogma. But it is precisely this certainty, this blind faith and devotion which has facilitated the worst crimes committed in the name of God (from Crusades to slavery to colonialism, all unjust acts justified in the name of God).

I find you reasoning both flawed and ignorant of the depth of philosophical thought which atheists have plumbed.

[Octavious]

So assuming your consciousness centered universe. Where does it appear in my many worlds interpretation of the maths?

My honest answer is that the many world's interpretation is utter bollocks, and should be used as an example in demonstrating the limitations of mathematics in much the same way as Schrodinger's cat was originally used to demonstrate how ludicrous the idea of quantum mechanics was.

The fun part of quantum mechanics is that it forces so many scientists to take things on board purely as a matter of faith. Some scientists are comfortable with this, to the extent they can stop seeing it as an act of faith at all. Some scientists hate it with a passion and actively avoid doing anything remotely quantum related in their careers. And some, or so rumour has it, actually understand quantum mechanics. I don't recall ever meeting any of the latter

[Jamiet99uk]

Quantum mechanics must be real to some degree because we have quantum noise random number generation.

[Octavious]

The power of Vril is real to some degree as people who drink Bovril gain some energy from it.

Physics gives us various ways of looking at the universe, all of which are useful, and all of which are wrong. Newtonian mechanics is both more useful and more wrong than most. Quantum mechanics is only useful for a small group of people, and the ways in which it's wrong are harder to pin down. Which makes it exceptionally annoying

[flash2015]

People who support their trans friends are not demanding unrestricted surgery upon children.

Way to blast a fake dog-whistle.

Religious morality used to be "kill all the gays". And you think that was better?

But they absolutely are trying to shut down all discussion on it. The big example from earlier this year was the activists protesting the NYT...because they had the temerity to publish even the mildest of criticisms. Activists try and get governments to change medical opinions when they say things they don't like. Activists are protesting journals if they try and present papers which they don't agree with.

You are proving my point by instantly by instantly going all extreme here. In no way, shape or form do I support extremists at the other end of the spectrum. You have an incredibly warped understanding of Christianity if you believe that "kill all the gays" is some mainstay of the religion.

[flash2015]

A moral code based on being nice to people and generally leaving people alone to live as they please if they are causing no harm (or which seeks to limit aggregate harm in cases where it is impossible to achieve zero harm) is surely better than obeying the instructions of a non-existent sky wizard.

If this was about "leaving people alone"(bumper sticker morality/ideology) there would be no problem. But this isn't what is happening. Certain ideology is trying to be imposed...but you understand this bumper sticker ideology so shallowly that you can't even recognize it as an ideology and the implicit assumptions which are behind it. You are proving my point.

If you believe that religion boils down to "obeying the instructions of a non-existent sky wizard" you are showing your ignorance. And I am saying that as someone as someone that isn't in any way, shape or form religious.

[Jamiet99uk]

A moral code based on being nice to people and generally leaving people alone to live as they please if they are causing no harm (or which seeks to limit aggregate harm in cases where it is impossible to achieve zero harm) is surely better than obeying the instructions of a non-existent sky wizard.

If this was about "leaving people alone"(bumper sticker morality/ideology) there would be no problem. But this isn't what is happening. Certain ideology is trying to be imposed...but you understand this bumper sticker ideology so shallowly that you can't even recognize it as an ideology and the implicit assumptions which are behind it. You are proving my point.

If you believe that religion boils down to "obeying the instructions of a non-existent sky wizard" you are showing your ignorance. And I am saying that as someone as someone that isn't in any way, shape or form religious.

I legitimately have no idea what you are talking about.

Try again.

You're making no sense. You're just rambling incoherently.

[flash2015]

This is such utter garbage. Sorry but historically the religious justification for moral actions was 'listen to US because we have the authority of God backing us' an appeal to authority. It wasn't encouraging anyone to think deeply about the topic.

God as an answer to any question (like why the the rain fall) tends to be an end to enquiry.

This is such ignorance of religion. Religious debates have been going on for millennia about morality.

Atheists are forced - by the very nature of their lack of an authority figure to turn to - to think more deeply about everything, morality in particular. It can be questioned by anyone and this ends up far more nuanced and while not necessarily more compassionate, a lack of compassion in the answers can be rejected by anyone.

That is the theory...and there are many atheist that do do that. But there are many that do not and can easily be swayed by bumper sticker morality/ideology. And many are just as hateful and nutty as the religious extremists which they claim to be better that.

Atheististic morality may seem to you to be less substantial because it lacks the solid certainly of your dogma. But it is precisely this certainty, this blind faith and devotion which has facilitated the worst crimes committed in the name of God (from Crusades to slavery to colonialism, all unjust acts justified in the name of God).

I find you reasoning both flawed and ignorant of the depth of philosophical thought which atheists have plumbed.

My dogma? You have no real argument so you have to setup a strawman/false dichotomy to attack me. I am not religious in ANY way shape or form. And I recognize the terrible things people have tried to justify through religion.

But I also recognize "atheism" isn't the panacea that I thought it was.

[flash2015]

A moral code based on being nice to people and generally leaving people alone to live as they please if they are causing no harm (or which seeks to limit aggregate harm in cases where it is impossible to achieve zero harm) is surely better than obeying the instructions of a non-existent sky wizard.

If this was about "leaving people alone"(bumper sticker morality/ideology) there would be no problem. But this isn't what is happening. Certain ideology is trying to be imposed...but you understand this bumper sticker ideology so shallowly that you can't even recognize it as an ideology and the implicit assumptions which are behind it. You are proving my point.

If you believe that religion boils down to "obeying the instructions of a non-existent sky wizard" you are showing your ignorance. And I am saying that as someone as someone that isn't in any way, shape or form religious.

I legitimately have no idea what you are talking about.

Try again.

You're making no sense. You're just rambling incoherently.

That you can't engage past your bumper sticker morality is proving my point.

[Jamiet99uk]

If this was about "leaving people alone"(bumper sticker morality/ideology) there would be no problem. But this isn't what is happening. Certain ideology is trying to be imposed...but you understand this bumper sticker ideology so shallowly that you can't even recognize it as an ideology and the implicit assumptions which are behind it. You are proving my point.

If you believe that religion boils down to "obeying the instructions of a non-existent sky wizard" you are showing your ignorance. And I am saying that as someone as someone that isn't in any way, shape or form religious.

I legitimately have no idea what you are talking about.

Try again.

You're making no sense. You're just rambling incoherently.

That you can't engage past your bumper sticker morality is proving my point.

No.

I don't understand you.

You don't know what my morality is. You're making assumptions and then judging me on the basis of the assumptions you have made.

That's deeply disingenuous. So screw you.

[CaptainFritz28]

One thing I've recently discovered is how quickly the New Atheist movement died out. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennet were heralded as the people who would shape culture and destroy religion, and now you basically hear nothing about them and even most modern atheists view them as completely shallow jerks.

But I think the most interesting part of them is they claimed removing religion would allow for a golden age of logic. But that didn't happen! I always rolled my eyes a little at religious arguments that "if you remove religion the framework of society crumbles" but we're kind of watching it in real time as our society is actively collapsing, and I wonder if the lack of religion is contributing to this.

Jamie's pfp and signature are a prime example of your concluding paragraph. It implies that he believes what Hamas is doing is good, and what Israel is doing is evil. What are Hamas and Israel doing?

Hamas is a terrorist organization which has forcefully overtaken Gaza and is now invading its neighbors, killing parents in full view of their children, murdering without cause, torturing and kidnapping, and overall pillaging, looting, etc. They also have a history of launching thousands upon thousands of missiles into Israeli cities, killing innocent civilians. They also hide themselves among their own people's neighborhoods, hospitals, etc., showing a disregard not only for Israeli lives, but for Palestinian lives as well. Speaking of hospitals, Hamas recently launched a missile which hit a hospital in Gaza, killing 500 people.

Israel is a nation whose people have inhabited the land for thousands of years, and is being invaded by Hamas. They have launched air attacks and missiles at Hamas targets, targeting Hamas militants and trying to avoid unnecessary Palestinian deaths. Israel is deploying ground forces to Gaza to launch a retaliatory strike to ensure that the aforementioned acts of Hamas are never done again.

Jamie is not alone in his views regarding this conflict. Many high level politicians, happening to be the ones who renounce the Christian faith as evil, support Hamas, as well as many students in high level universities. These students happen to be the same ones who renounce Christianity as evil.

The same people that would support Hamas, happening to be those who say that Christians are murderous and dangerous, would also support a phenomenon that has tolled over 60 million deaths since its widespread use in America. This phenomenon is the purposeful ending of a human life (what is generally considered murder) for the purpose of "convenience" for a soon to be mother. Whether that is a life at the moment of the killing is irrelevant; it would have become a life, and it has been ended. However, the scientific study put into the matter thus far shows that Babies in the womb can feel pain, have a heartbeat, and begin to develop a brain very early on.

The same people that support abortion, happening to be the same people who claim Christianity is restrictive, also claim that a child, years before they are trusted by society to drink alcohol, vote, have a job, drive, own a gun, or do really anything else, should be allowed to make a decision on a whim, without consultation from doctors or parents, that would surgically and genetically alter their life forever, often for the worse. They are lied to and told it is reversible, but when the process is attempted to be reversed, the child ends up a mangled version of their previous selves.

The same people that support transgenderism for children, happening to be the same people who claim that Christianity is anti-progress, would also claim that police forces should be defunded and law abiding citizens disarmed. Where it has been tested, this has led to both minor crimes like theft and major ones like murder shooting upwards off the charts. These people would also support rioting and looting as a part of protesting.

Let's take a look at this Christianity that is so dangerous, restrictive, anti-progress, and evil, shall we?
Christians founded America, and gave us the Bill of Rights.
Christians ended slavery.
Christians invented hospitals.
Christians led civil rights movements.
Christians opposed tyranny in 1930s Germany, at the cost of life and limb.
Christians opposed tyranny in the USSR, at the cost of life and limb.
Christians opposed tyranny in the Roman Empire, at the cost of life and limb.
Christians opposed tyranny in [insert any nation at any time in history], at the cost of life and limb.
Christians support the poor.
Christians aid the sick.
Christians defend those who are undefended.
Christians go around the Earth to share love and supply people with water, food, and other basic necessities, for no material benefit to themselves.
Christians invent cures for illnesses.
Christians take those cures to the people who need them.
Christians love sacrificially.
Christians love unconditionally.
Christians have been responsible for all the prosperity of the western world as we know it.
Christians have, for thousands of years, been the only voice in favor of rights for women.
Christians have, for thousands of years, been the only voice in favor of equal rights regardless of class.
Christians have, for thousands of years, been the only voice in favor of equal rights for all nationalities and races.

These are all things unique to Christians. Why do we do them? Because we are told to. Because the Bible, our ultimate moral guide, tells us to. No other religion, or lack thereof, has had even a fraction of the impact in any of the aforementioned areas of societal and personal well being. Christians are hated universally, by all classes, people groups, and religions. And yet, we love them all back. Certainly, there are many who do not do these things, there are many who are hypocrites. But these are pretenders of the faith, people who claim Christianity but do not follow the Bible. To truly have the benefits of Christianity, one must follow the Bible as a moral guide.

To lose Christianity is to lose all of that. You may say it is a slippery slope, but it has been proven before, and it is being proven now. When people stop acting morally under the standards of the Bible, we get the state of society as it is now: evil.

[orathaic]

Hamas is a terrorist organization which has forcefully overtaken Gaza and is now invading its neighbors

Correction: Hamas was democraticly elected. <Snip> continued in the correct thread.

[orathaic]

People who support their trans friends are not demanding unrestricted surgery upon children.

Way to blast a fake dog-whistle.

Religious morality used to be "kill all the gays". And you think that was better?

But they absolutely are trying to shut down all discussion on it. The big example from earlier this year was the activists protesting the NYT...because they had the temerity to publish even the mildest of criticisms. Activists try and get governments to change medical opinions when they say things they don't like. Activists are protesting journals if they try and present papers which they don't agree with.

You are proving my point by instantly by instantly going all extreme here. In no way, shape or form do I support extremists at the other end of the spectrum. You have an incredibly warped understanding of Christianity if you believe that "kill all the gays" is some mainstay of the religion.

Yeah, it is no surprise that Trans people want their human rights respected. And it is entirely correct that anyone who pose a threat to their existence is opposed openly.

You don't have to support the extreme position to find yourself supporting them, but once they have a small victory they will try to use the momentum to build on that. And their end goal is the compelte "eradication of trans ideology" - which amounts to genocide (because the "ideology" of accepting and supporting trans people, and respecting their human rights is literally keeping them alive, and eradication literally means taking away the right to present the way one would like in public - clear freedom of speech violation in the least - and implementing it requires constant gaslighting, bullying, vilification in the political sphere and recruiting parents of vulnerable trans youth to torture their children, isolate them from their friends and crush their self-esteem).

You may not support the extremists. But you have a simple choice, side with respecting other people or side with bullying them to the point where a large percentage will take their own lives.

[orathaic]

This is such utter garbage. Sorry but historically the religious justification for moral actions was 'listen to US because we have the authority of God backing us' an appeal to authority. It wasn't encouraging anyone to think deeply about the topic.

God as an answer to any question (like why the the rain fall) tends to be an end to enquiry.

This is such ignorance of religion. Religious debates have been going on for millennia about morality.

Atheists are forced - by the very nature of their lack of an authority figure to turn to - to think more deeply about everything, morality in particular. It can be questioned by anyone and this ends up far more nuanced and while not necessarily more compassionate, a lack of compassion in the answers can be rejected by anyone.

That is the theory...and there are many atheist that do do that. But there are many that do not and can easily be swayed by bumper sticker morality/ideology. And many are just as hateful and nutty as the religious extremists which they claim to be better that.

Atheististic morality may seem to you to be less substantial because it lacks the solid certainly of your dogma. But it is precisely this certainty, this blind faith and devotion which has facilitated the worst crimes committed in the name of God (from Crusades to slavery to colonialism, all unjust acts justified in the name of God).

I find you reasoning both flawed and ignorant of the depth of philosophical thought which atheists have plumbed.

My dogma? You have no real argument so you have to setup a strawman/false dichotomy to attack me. I am not religious in ANY way shape or form. And I recognize the terrible things people have tried to justify through religion.

But I also recognize "atheism" isn't the panacea that I thought it was.

I make no claims that atheism is a panacea, on its own it is merely the rejection of an established authority, it doesn't offer a replacement. And infact can (and has) been used for evil.

"Your dogma" may aswell be any religious groups, you may not hold one, but this 'strawman' is not some fantasy, many do hold these dogmas.

I also entirely acknowledge that within a very small percentage of elite religious thinkers there has been room for deep theological debate. However this has not really had relevance to the majority of people who were controlled by their local priest. Whose lives were ruled by "do as I say, because God" and who largely had to trust their local priest because the ceremonies were intentionally performed in Latin and the main religious text was compeltely inaccessible to the illiterate audience.

The existence of a small elite capable of debating theology and theological morality is not something which I am ignorant of, it is merely something is discount as irrelevant to the life's of the majority.

Look at Mother Theresa, her vile organisation promoted suffering among the poor as a way to guarantee their place in heaven, and let people die in Latin rather than provide the basic level of care - while portraying themselves as literal saints.

This isn't some historic wrong i am describing, it has happened within my lifetime.

[orathaic]

So assuming your consciousness centered universe. Where does it appear in my many worlds interpretation of the maths?

My honest answer is that the many world's interpretation is utter bollocks, and should be used as an example in demonstrating the limitations of mathematics in much the same way as Schrodinger's cat was originally used to demonstrate how ludicrous the idea of quantum mechanics was.

The fun part of quantum mechanics is that it forces so many scientists to take things on board purely as a matter of faith. Some scientists are comfortable with this, to the extent they can stop seeing it as an act of faith at all. Some scientists hate it with a passion and actively avoid doing anything remotely quantum related in their careers. And some, or so rumour has it, actually understand quantum mechanics. I don't recall ever meeting any of the latter

Well you do have an honest answer.

I will merely add that consciousness has no relevance to Quantum mechanical observation, and the metaphysics around it is mumbo-jumbo at best.

I don't claim to understand Quantum Mechanics, because i claim that the mathematics is entirely true while acknowledging I can't actually do the maths.

But it is correct the a Quantum view of the universe is merely one lenses toward understanding not some fundamental theory to explain all (even if it was complete, which it isn't - even if we had a Quantum theory of gravity, we would still need to actually simulate things to generate answer to complex questions, so actually running a universe in a box to come up with a useful description of reality.... Which is limited in the size of your box, and the conplexity of what you wish to simulate to the point where the entire universe must b'é put inside the box in order to answer all questions... Kinda defeating the purpose.

[CaptainFritz28]

Hamas is a terrorist organization which has forcefully overtaken Gaza and is now invading its neighbors

Correction: Hamas was democraticly elected. <Snip> continued in the correct thread.

Well, other than the murdering of their political opponents, sure, they were democratically elected.

[Jamiet99uk]

Jamie's pfp and signature are a prime example of your concluding paragraph. It implies that he believes what Hamas is doing is good, and what Israel is doing is evil. What are Hamas and Israel doing?

My profile picture and signature make no reference to Hamas whatsoever.

[Jamiet99uk]

What a freak.

[Fluminator]

Sorry I got sick, will catch up soon

[Jamiet99uk]

I hope you're feeling better, Flum.