Religion is for....

AnyOldIron said:
No you aren't likely to, unless you drink enough cherry beer! :)

You came over here for your honeymoon? Hope you came during the two weeks of our summer?
Click to expand...
We came for three weeks, the last two of July and the first of August. We traveled all through the nation, all the way up to Loch Ness and then back down pub-hopping and "ghost hunting"... Unfortunately no ghosts, but plenty of ale and tons of Guinness....

I'll always look back fondly on that time.
 
Damocles said:
We came for three weeks, the last two of July and the first of August. We traveled all through the nation, all the way up to Loch Ness and then back down pub-hopping and "ghost hunting"... Unfortunately no ghosts, but plenty of ale and tons of Guinness....

I'll always look back fondly on that time.
Click to expand...

Glad you enjoyed it. You got the season right. :)

Did you stop by Nottingham?
 
I can't believe it will be 10 years... This July is our 10th... What am I supposed to give her? Balsa Wood or something like that?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
for one thing, it wasn't backed up with reasoned argument....
Click to expand...


The reasoned argument followed:

On the contrary, atheism has increased in the US in the years from 1990 - 2008 from 14.3M to 34.2M. (http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/re...study-full.pdf).

Compare numbers of people with religious belief in, say the late C19th to today and there is no real comparison. In the late C19th, almost all Americans identified with religion. In fact in the late C19th, the vast majority of people in the world believed in some sort of religious faith.

As to why, hundreds of years after the enlightenment, religion still exists, you need to look at the roles religion plays. There are two main roles, god of the gaps and god the great comforter. God of the gaps is the use of 'god' to explain natural phenomenon which is not fully understood. For example the classic Greek attribution of storms to the god Zeus. Since the enlightenment god in this role has retreated at the speed of a French surrender. Modern concepts of god of the gaps have 'god' now acting as some vague 'first cause', the originator of evolution and physics etc. This role only exists because a gap in our epistemological outlook, we don't fully understand abiogenesis / big bang and so that is attributed to god.

The other, stronger, role of religion is god the great comforter. The provider of moral laws, the straight lines man seems to prefer to live by. The 'father in the sky' who looks down on us with paternal care.

This is where the weakness lies. Overcoming the nihilistic reality of existence is difficult, it is a traumatic experience that only the strong can endure. Accepting that we create our own morality, that the lines we live by are self-made is very difficult to accept, as is the idea that we are alone, there is no 'father in the sky' watching over us.

It is the provider of straight lines that exists today. The philosophy exists to show how this is unnecessary, however it is not as black and white as the conclusions science helps us come to with regard to the god of the gaps.

And that is the role of modern atheistic philosophers, to show the weakness in god the great comforter and how freeing accepting nihilistic reality can be.
 
totalitarians ultimately need religion for their mind control plans. The morality the social engineers espouse is an ideology of totalitarianism, and it's too hard to sell to people unless you have a crazy god story that keys into all the religious gobledygook implanted in us as children.
 
Anyold, morality is advantageous for cooperating individuals even without god.

Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.
 
Anyold, being nihilistic about reality is just hate. Wanting to live and valuing ourselves is just natural.

The survival instinct is a product of evolution. It's theocratic to demonize the desire to live.
 
AnyOldIron said:
The reasoned argument followed:

On the contrary, atheism has increased in the US in the years from 1990 - 2008 from 14.3M to 34.2M. (http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/re...study-full.pdf).

Compare numbers of people with religious belief in, say the late C19th to today and there is no real comparison. In the late C19th, almost all Americans identified with religion. In fact in the late C19th, the vast majority of people in the world believed in some sort of religious faith.

As to why, hundreds of years after the enlightenment, religion still exists, you need to look at the roles religion plays. There are two main roles, god of the gaps and god the great comforter. God of the gaps is the use of 'god' to explain natural phenomenon which is not fully understood. For example the classic Greek attribution of storms to the god Zeus. Since the enlightenment god in this role has retreated at the speed of a French surrender. Modern concepts of god of the gaps have 'god' now acting as some vague 'first cause', the originator of evolution and physics etc. This role only exists because a gap in our epistemological outlook, we don't fully understand abiogenesis / big bang and so that is attributed to god.

The other, stronger, role of religion is god the great comforter. The provider of moral laws, the straight lines man seems to prefer to live by. The 'father in the sky' who looks down on us with paternal care.

This is where the weakness lies. Overcoming the nihilistic reality of existence is difficult, it is a traumatic experience that only the strong can endure. Accepting that we create our own morality, that the lines we live by are self-made is very difficult to accept, as is the idea that we are alone, there is no 'father in the sky' watching over us.

It is the provider of straight lines that exists today. The philosophy exists to show how this is unnecessary, however it is not as black and white as the conclusions science helps us come to with regard to the god of the gaps.

And that is the role of modern atheistic philosophers, to show the weakness in god the great comforter and how freeing accepting nihilistic reality can be.
Click to expand...

I see nothing reasoned there.....how is "abiogenesis" superior to "deity" in filling the gap regarding the origin of life?.....how does the fact you make your own moral choices contradictory to a religion that actually teaches that we must make our own choices regarding a belief in deity?......and finally, how do you pretend there is a rational basis for the statement " nihilistic reality of existence".......
 
AssHatZombie said:
Anyold, morality is advantageous for cooperating individuals even without god.

Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But it is better to recognise that we create our own morality rather than drape the myth of the sky-law giver over it.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Anyold, being nihilistic about reality is just hate. Wanting to live and valuing ourselves is just natural.

The survival instinct is a product of evolution. It's theocratic to demonize the desire to live.
Click to expand...

Recognising that there is no innate meaning to existence isn't hate.

It is a very positive thing, it allows us to create our own meaning.

Its the difference between being a boy with a comfort blanket or a man!
 
I see nothing reasoned there.....how is "abiogenesis" superior to "deity" in filling the gap regarding the origin of life?.....

Abiogenesis is bringing life from something not living. The christian god making Adam from dust is abiogenesis.

How is a non-theist abiogenesis superior? Because a theist abiogenesis asks more questions that it answers. It is obscurum per obscurius. For instance, if life required a god to bring it into existence, what brought the god into existence.

You are, I presume, aware that the building blocks for life, complex proteins, have been recreated in a lab. Full, independent, life forms haven't yet, but then nature had millions of years, and few science tenures last that long.

how does the fact you make your own moral choices contradictory to a religion that actually teaches that we must make our own choices regarding a belief in deity?

Because making your own moral choices involves just that. Using a moral code supposedly created by a sky-lawgiver (although actually created by man many years ago) doesn't involve any personal moral decisions to be made, except one...do you accept the god's morality.

......and finally, how do you pretend there is a rational basis for the statement " nihilistic reality of existence".......

If there is no deity, then innately nihilism exists. Now, if you can provide evidence of a deity.... (beyond pretty sunsets or the complexity of organic things)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top