DieselDaisy Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I'm locked in a Kafka nightmare!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) ...and removed a lot of suffering. Black chattel slavery would not have been abolished as soon as it did without the protestant zealotry; protestant denominations such as those connected with the American evangelical 'Great Awakening' and Wesley's Methodist movement. They provided the abolition movement on both sides of the Atlantic with most of its rank and file - in fact it was the Quakers who were the first to condemn slavery in the 17th century. Evangelical philanthropy also had a lasting impact in other ways, ameliorating social conditions in factories and crowded tenement houses, helping establish foundling hospitals and institutes for 'fallen women'' as well as providing armies with their first modern field hospitals, etc. (more painful to my eyes, they also fueled the temperance movements!).And for every such instance, there's the Inquisition, witch hunts, Crusades, etc. Before you get your history books out and start lecturing about whether or not religion was the main reason behind historical instances of suffering it has been blamed for, ask yourself if these things would have happened if religion didn't exist. My point is that even one horrible instance of murder, torture and other types of suffering in the name of an imaginary deity is a completely pointless tragedy. Edited July 31, 2015 by Lithium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 ...and removed a lot of suffering. Black chattel slavery would not have been abolished as soon as it did without the protestant zealotry; protestant denominations such as those connected with the American evangelical 'Great Awakening' and Wesley's Methodist movement. They provided the abolition movement on both sides of the Atlantic with most of its rank and file - in fact it was the Quakers who were the first to condemn slavery in the 17th century. Evangelical philanthropy also had a lasting impact in other ways, ameliorating social conditions in factories and crowded tenement houses, helping establish foundling hospitals and institutes for 'fallen women'' as well as providing armies with their first modern field hospitals, etc. (more painful to my eyes, they also fueled the temperance movements!).And for every such instance, there's the Inquisition, witch hunts, Crusades, etc. Before you get your history books out and start lecturing about whether or not religion was the main reason behind historical instances of suffering it has been blamed for, ask yourself if these things would have happened if religion didn't exist. My point is that even one horrible instance of murder, torture and other types of suffering in the name of an imaginary deity is a completely pointless tragedy.I think you missed the part in which I said 'modern history'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Thanks for letting me know that faith is a personal thing All belief is personal.You're most welcome my dear What i was trying to explain is that the fact they are personal is why you can't expect broad justifications for them that fit all because reasons for believing are different from person to person.I have never said that anyone should proove their faith What I am saying is that a god that interacts with the material world must per definition leave traces that can be observed, measured, detected, quantified, etc. The fact that no such observations have ever been made, strongly suggest no such gods exist (reducing the types of potential gods to the deism type). And if you still believe in such gods, then that belief exists despite a lack of evidence. And per definition is another word for such unfounded beliefs "faith".Well explain their faith then. And yes it exists without evidence because if they had evidence then it wouldn't be faith, would it? I'm regurgitating what Dies' said here I have made my mind up? About what exactly?That you think people who believe in religions are cunts and you seek to cunt them off You don't approach these things with a kind of open mindedness to where you seek to understand the other party but rather just to give em one up the arse with your particular world-view, i think you understand full well the nature of the counter-argument you're being presented with, it's just what you want is for the other party to go 'yes Soulie, you're absolutely right!' When you refer to these things as 'mass delusion' and or with the assumption that people claim faith just so's they don't have to provide evidence, thats basically accusing all people of faith as being charlatans, to a person of faith i imagine thats quite insulting. It's you telling people what they are thinking and refusing to accept their explanations regarding their faith. This is why people fear your sort of worldview, because of their fascist tendency you have trying to tell people what they think and why they think that way. Now i know you to be a wonderful blunderful cuddley bunny underneath it all but I can see how you might be mite bit unnerved by your particular brand of reasoning I haven't expected any broad justifications of believing in god. I have just pointed out that if you want to demonstrate that gods exist outside of believers' minds, then you have to be able to show some objective evidence for that existence. That is all I have been arguing. But you don't seem to read my posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) ...and removed a lot of suffering. Black chattel slavery would not have been abolished as soon as it did without the protestant zealotry; protestant denominations such as those connected with the American evangelical 'Great Awakening' and Wesley's Methodist movement. They provided the abolition movement on both sides of the Atlantic with most of its rank and file - in fact it was the Quakers who were the first to condemn slavery in the 17th century. Evangelical philanthropy also had a lasting impact in other ways, ameliorating social conditions in factories and crowded tenement houses, helping establish foundling hospitals and institutes for 'fallen women'' as well as providing armies with their first modern field hospitals, etc. (more painful to my eyes, they also fueled the temperance movements!).And for every such instance, there's the Inquisition, witch hunts, Crusades, etc. Before you get your history books out and start lecturing about whether or not religion was the main reason behind historical instances of suffering it has been blamed for, ask yourself if these things would have happened if religion didn't exist. My point is that even one horrible instance of murder, torture and other types of suffering in the name of an imaginary deity is a completely pointless tragedy.I think you missed the part in which I said 'modern history'!You didn't mention modern history in the part of your post I quoted. Either way, I'm referring to history in general - human suffering certainly occurred before the 16th century and in other places that the West. As a matter of fact, it is happening right now in Iraq and Syria. Edited July 31, 2015 by Lithium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) No, I am not asking the wrong questions of religion. I am pointing out that a god that supposedly interacts with the material world must leave some traces of its existence (because, if not there wouldn't be any interaction), and if it doesn't then what we have is indistinguishable from a world without any such gods. That is not necessarily true though and numerous deistic and pantheistic beliefs render it more untrue.It is precisely true that a god that interacts with the material world would leave some traces of its existence, because interaction per definition means that this contact influences the material world and causes some kind of change. I am not saying that all kinds of interactions are measurable, today, nor that they would be necesarrily blatantly supernatural in characte, but the kind of interactions that is expected from a deity, would mostly, surely be both measurable and supernatural (like answering prayers, making miracles, flauting the laws of nature as we know them, distorting outcome probabilities, etc). A deistic god, on the other hand, does not interact with the world, per definition, and a pantheistic god is the world itself, so these two god types do not fit into what I refer to as a "interacting god".You seem to be changing the concept of religion to make your argument work.No, I am not talking about religion, never have, I am talking about a sub-set of deities that followers claim to interact with the world, and that no such interactions have never been objectivelly observed. Just look at the quote from my first post, it clearly says "a god that supposedly interacts with the material world". That is the premise for the rest I am saying. I can't make it much clearer than that, can I? Yet you continously try to bring in other types of gods.Because you never have given an example of what god you implied!The type of god I am talking about is the type of god that is alledged to interact with the material world. How many times do I need to type this out? If you want a specific example, if this all becomes too abstract and theoretical for you, then lets go with the Christian god who listens to prayers and heals people. If that god existed then the nmbers of healing would be higher for patients who are prayed for, which it isn't. So believing in that god would require a belief that is without any evidence. Or 'faith' as theists like to call it. Edited July 31, 2015 by SoulMonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Human suffering that you pertain solely to religion? You are not even willing to entertain the notion of the reverse, suffering being ameliorated by religion. You cannot even admit this! What about the connection between the Reformation and literacy rates and the establishment of vernacular traditions? A direct connection can certainly be made between the 16th century Humanists translating The Bible and the liberation of the western mind. What about the aesthetic genius of religion? Religion has created most of our greatest buildings (e.g. Pantheon, St Paul's) as well as much of our greatest music (e.g. Mozart's Requiem; Handel's Messiah). But still, ''religion is bad cos it created the Crusades like''. No, I am not asking the wrong questions of religion. I am pointing out that a god that supposedly interacts with the material world must leave some traces of its existence (because, if not there wouldn't be any interaction), and if it doesn't then what we have is indistinguishable from a world without any such gods. That is not necessarily true though and numerous deistic and pantheistic beliefs render it more untrue.It is precisely true that a god that interacts with the material world would leave some traces of its existence, because interaction per definition means that this contact influences the material world and causes some kind of change. I am not saying that all kinds of interactions are measurable, today, nor that they would be necesarrily blatantly supernatural in characte, but the kind of interactions that is expected from a deity, would mostly, surely be both measurable and supernatural (like answering prayers, making miracles, flauting the laws of nature as we know them, distorting outcome probabilities, etc). A deistic god, on the other hand, does not interact with the world, per definition, and a pantheistic god is the world itself, so these two god types do not fit into what I refer to as a "interacting god".You seem to be changing the concept of religion to make your argument work.No, I am not talking about religion, never have, I am talking about a sub-set of deities that followers claim to interact with the world, and that no such interactions have never been objectivelly observed. Just look at the quote from my first post, it clearly says "a god that supposedly interacts with the material world". That is the premise for the rest I am saying. I can't make it much clearer than that, can I? Yet you continously try to bring in other types of gods.Because you never have given an example of what god you implied!The type of god I am talking about is the type of god that is alledged to interact with the material world. How many times do I need to type this out? If you want a specific example, if this all becomes too abstract and theoretical for you, then lets go with the Christian god who listens to prayers and heals people. If that god existed then the nmbers of healing would be higher for patients who are prayed for, which it isn't. So believing in that god would require a belief that is without any evidence. Or 'faith' as theists like to call it.Quid pro quo reciprocity is central to Catholicism. The Catholic Church is built upon a foundation of saints, martyrs and interventions that are then determined as such by St Peters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Human suffering that you pertain solely to religion? You are not even willing to entertain the notion of the reverse, suffering being ameliorated by religion. You cannot even admit this! What about the connection between the Reformation and literacy rates and the establishment of vernacular traditions? A direct connection can certainly be made between the 16th century Humanists translating The Bible and the liberation of the western mind. What about the aesthetic genius of religion? Religion has created most of our greatest buildings (e.g. Pantheon, St Paul's) as well as much of our greatest music (e.g. Mozart's Requiem; Handel's Messiah). But still, ''religion is bad cos it created the Crusades like''. How the hell did you get that from my post? Do I need to spell it out for you? Yes, I am aware that religion also has caused a lot of good - my point is that despite of this fact, even one instance of religion causing suffering is an utter tragedy due to the unparalleled pointlessness of causing pain in the name of an imaginary deity. So that is your counter-argument? "Blimey! The burning, of witches, was simply a painstaking, chore; we do after all, have bona fide, majestic buildings, like St. Paul's cathedral! You lack decorum, dear, old chap, and your posts, are most certainly faux pas." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Human suffering that you pertain solely to religion? You are not even willing to entertain the notion of the reverse, suffering being ameliorated by religion. You cannot even admit this! What about the connection between the Reformation and literacy rates and the establishment of vernacular traditions? A direct connection can certainly be made between the 16th century Humanists translating The Bible and the liberation of the western mind. What about the aesthetic genius of religion? Religion has created most of our greatest buildings (e.g. Pantheon, St Paul's) as well as much of our greatest music (e.g. Mozart's Requiem; Handel's Messiah). But still, ''religion is bad cos it created the Crusades like''. How the hell did you get that from my post? Do I need to spell it out for you? Yes, I am aware that religion also has caused a lot of good - my point is that despite of this fact, even one instance of religion causing suffering is an utter tragedy due to the unparalleled pointlessness of causing pain in the name of an imaginary deity. So that is your counter-argument? "Blimey! The burning, of witches, was simply a painstaking, chore; we do after all, have bona fide, majestic buildings, like St. Paul's cathedral! You lack decorum, dear, old chap, and your posts, are most certainly faux pas."Again, we just go back to the subjective. If you look back on religious conflict - The Crusades if you will, The Reformation Era - the deity people killed or died for was certainly not considered imaginary by the protagonists. Your whole argument, and Soul's, is based on the smug conceited arrogance that ''atheism is the only true belief'' and to differ is some sort of crime. This is what it all goes back to: ''it is fake...leprechauns and unicorns...I'm right and you are wrong'' shouty shouty posturing.It is the argument of absolute intolerance, every bit as intolerant as some of the more extreme examples of religion such as today's young advocates for Sharia Law and the 17th century's Puritans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoSoRose Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 We also have this statue of a guy boning another guy in Birmingham, MI which is about 20 minutes from DetroitMaybe it's a statue about falling change, one guys reaching in his pocket to see if it's his and the other guys bending over to pick it up? You're just mucky minded ZoSo Are there a lot of bandits in Detroit then?No, Detroit often ranks as one of the most peaceful cities in the nation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 No, I am not asking the wrong questions of religion. I am pointing out that a god that supposedly interacts with the material world must leave some traces of its existence (because, if not there wouldn't be any interaction), and if it doesn't then what we have is indistinguishable from a world without any such gods. That is not necessarily true though and numerous deistic and pantheistic beliefs render it more untrue.It is precisely true that a god that interacts with the material world would leave some traces of its existence, because interaction per definition means that this contact influences the material world and causes some kind of change. I am not saying that all kinds of interactions are measurable, today, nor that they would be necesarrily blatantly supernatural in characte, but the kind of interactions that is expected from a deity, would mostly, surely be both measurable and supernatural (like answering prayers, making miracles, flauting the laws of nature as we know them, distorting outcome probabilities, etc). A deistic god, on the other hand, does not interact with the world, per definition, and a pantheistic god is the world itself, so these two god types do not fit into what I refer to as a "interacting god".You seem to be changing the concept of religion to make your argument work.No, I am not talking about religion, never have, I am talking about a sub-set of deities that followers claim to interact with the world, and that no such interactions have never been objectivelly observed. Just look at the quote from my first post, it clearly says "a god that supposedly interacts with the material world". That is the premise for the rest I am saying. I can't make it much clearer than that, can I? Yet you continously try to bring in other types of gods.Because you never have given an example of what god you implied!The type of god I am talking about is the type of god that is alledged to interact with the material world. How many times do I need to type this out? If you want a specific example, if this all becomes too abstract and theoretical for you, then lets go with the Christian god who listens to prayers and heals people. If that god existed then the nmbers of healing would be higher for patients who are prayed for, which it isn't. So believing in that god would require a belief that is without any evidence. Or 'faith' as theists like to call it.Quid pro quo reciprocity is central to Catholicism. The Catholic Church is built upon a foundation of saints, martyrs and interventions that are then determined as such by St Peters.I am not following how this is even closely connected to what I wrote Maybe it is just to early for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 That you think people who believe in religions are cunts and you seek to cunt them off You don't approach these things with a kind of open mindedness to where you seek to understand the other party but rather just to give em one up the arse with your particular world-view, i think you understand full well the nature of the counter-argument you're being presented with, it's just what you want is for the other party to go 'yes Soulie, you're absolutely right!' When you refer to these things as 'mass delusion' and or with the assumption that people claim faith just so's they don't have to provide evidence, thats basically accusing all people of faith as being charlatans, to a person of faith i imagine thats quite insulting. It's you telling people what they are thinking and refusing to accept their explanations regarding their faith. This is why people fear your sort of worldview, because of their fascist tendency you have trying to tell people what they think and why they think that way. Now i know you to be a wonderful blunderful cuddley bunny underneath it all but I can see how you might be mite bit unnerved by your particular brand of reasoning I forgot to comment on this. I think you are reading too much into my posts in this thread, Lenny. Or choose to focus on something I am not actually saying.My argument in this thread is to disagree with Dies' statement "To ask for ''concrete scientific evidence'' of religion is to ask the wrong things of religion" to which I pointed out that that is what we need to do to prove that gods exist outside of their minds (se post no. 99) and as such that is exactly what we should ask of some religions. Pointing out that any claims that gods interactions with the world can, in theory, be refuted (at least to the point of it being highly improbable) by documenting a lack of observations of such interactions, isn't really presenting a world-view, like you claim I am doing. It is more a little snippet of reductive reasoning that can be used to build up different world-views. Atheists love such reasoning, but that argument alone does no atheist make, she would still need to have arguments that makes all other kinds of deities highly improbably. Theists love it, too, well at least some of them, and is the reason why they are theists of the type of deism and similar, and not theists of the type who believes god is currently interacting with the material world. They realize they can't believe in a god who interacts with the world because they have no reason to believe in such a god, so they believe in a god that isn't activelly interacting with His Creation. It is the intellectually reasonable thing to do. It is a bit harder to reconcile for theists who still believe in an active god, and I believe most either don't give this much thought, and if they do, they realize that they won't go down that path because it threatens their religion which gives them so much or is so integral to who they are. I don't consider this a fault of theists, I believe this is a weakness of humans as a species. But the very fact that this threat to their faith lingers, is a large source for the phenomenon called "doubt" which is so typical for this type of theists and so atypical for atheists. Some theists go a bit further and try to escape the uncomfortable realization that the god they believe in probably doesn't exist through the intellectual suicide of claiming that "god is beyond logic" or some other inane drivel.Anyway, I am not presenting a world-view of anything in this argument, because it might as well apply to deists as to atheists. But it is an argument against a specific sub-set of deities, a sub-set that becomes less and less popular as the world gets more and more monitored leaving fewer places for an active god to work his magic without leaving objective evidence of his actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bran Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/27/for-one-night-devil-is-in-detroit/Anyone here attend this? *cant believe its been 11 pages and this hasnt been posted yet....... i had to do it* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Human suffering that you pertain solely to religion? You are not even willing to entertain the notion of the reverse, suffering being ameliorated by religion. You cannot even admit this! What about the connection between the Reformation and literacy rates and the establishment of vernacular traditions? A direct connection can certainly be made between the 16th century Humanists translating The Bible and the liberation of the western mind. What about the aesthetic genius of religion? Religion has created most of our greatest buildings (e.g. Pantheon, St Paul's) as well as much of our greatest music (e.g. Mozart's Requiem; Handel's Messiah). But still, ''religion is bad cos it created the Crusades like''. How the hell did you get that from my post? Do I need to spell it out for you? Yes, I am aware that religion also has caused a lot of good - my point is that despite of this fact, even one instance of religion causing suffering is an utter tragedy due to the unparalleled pointlessness of causing pain in the name of an imaginary deity. So that is your counter-argument? "Blimey! The burning, of witches, was simply a painstaking, chore; we do after all, have bona fide, majestic buildings, like St. Paul's cathedral! You lack decorum, dear, old chap, and your posts, are most certainly faux pas."Again, we just go back to the subjective. If you look back on religious conflict - The Crusades if you will, The Reformation Era - the deity people killed or died for was certainly not considered imaginary by the protagonists. Your whole argument, and Soul's, is based on the smug conceited arrogance that ''atheism is the only true belief''But I am not talking about an argument against theism (or in favour of atheism), but an argument against gods that interact with the material world. You still don't get it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 is based on the smug conceited arrogance that ''atheism is the only true belief'' and to differ is some sort of crime. This is what it all goes back to: ''it is fake...leprechauns and unicorns...I'm right and you are wrong'' shouty shouty posturing.Atheism isn't a belief, it is he absence of belief. Just like you don't have a belief in the non-existence of unicorn, I don't have a belief in the non-existence of gods. You have an absence of belief in unicorns, and I have an absence of belief in gods. Get it?As for what you say it goes back to, well, yes, leprechaus and unicorns are with very high probability not real. If you believe they are real then I will actually be so blunt as to say you are wrong and I am right. As for believing in gods that interact with the material world, I don't go quite that far, for various reasons (one of them not wanting to insult an actual widespread belief and one that you can at least theorize an active god that through stealth remains unseen), but suffice say that you are most likely wrong and I am most likely right, based on the very simple fact that you have no evidence supporting the belief in an active god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 It is the argument of absolute intolerance, every bit as intolerant as some of the more extreme examples of religion such as today's young advocates for Sharia Law and the 17th century's Puritans. The huge difference being that we don't want to force anyone to follows tenets from our absence of belief (largely because we are nice people and largely because there are none), whereas many from the extreme side of theism actually want to impose their beliefs and correlated laws on others. That difference is pretty crucial, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 It is the argument of absolute intolerance, every bit as intolerant as some of the more extreme examples of religion such as today's young advocates for Sharia Law and the 17th century's Puritans. The huge difference being that we don't want to force anyone to follows tenets from our absence of belief (largely because we are nice people and largely because there are none), whereas many from the extreme side of theism actually want to impose their beliefs and correlated laws on others. That difference is pretty crucial, don't you think? The posts here by three-four people are proof that this is blatantly untrue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/27/for-one-night-devil-is-in-detroit/Anyone here attend this? *cant believe its been 11 pages and this hasnt been posted yet....... i had to do it*I thought it was taken for granted that you were the statues sculptor. Quick, put a Misfits album on before i go Muslim-nuts and try to club you to death for heresy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Uggh, it is a Soul Monster smug fest. I'm going to read my book instead. PSNot the book you will be happy to know. Edited August 1, 2015 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 It is the argument of absolute intolerance, every bit as intolerant as some of the more extreme examples of religion such as today's young advocates for Sharia Law and the 17th century's Puritans. The huge difference being that we don't want to force anyone to follows tenets from our absence of belief (largely because we are nice people and largely because there are none), whereas many from the extreme side of theism actually want to impose their beliefs and correlated laws on others. That difference is pretty crucial, don't you think? The posts here by three-four people are proof that this is blatantly untrue.I dunno, I haven't seen anyone in this thread trying to force anyone to follow anything. I must have missed them. Which posts are you thinking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 For someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife Soulie you sometimes do a great job of making me thinking life is gonna go on...and on...and on...and on...and on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 You guys engage in the conversation with him, so you're only incrementally better than he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 In my defence, though i feel im excrementally beneath him, i did try and make this thread about American sports Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 One of these days enough people are going to call you out on your false modesty bullshit that you'll stop insulting our intelligence with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.