The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

Yep.

Artists have had to maintain the delicate balance of criticizing those that they want and making a political statement while also being careful enough not to turn everyone against you.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

I don't understand how one reconciles the acknowledgement that your belief is not the "one truth" with the inherent doubt that must follow if you are intellectually honest about that realization.

edited 23rd Jan '15 8:06:30 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Idealism is not the opposite of cynicism, but of materialism (which, in turn, has nothing to do with consumerism or being a Gold Digger). And I have no issue with your happy skippity-hopping in the world of Forms. I used to indulge in that, back when I studied Mathematics.

At any rate, the belief that there is a world outside of ours to expand in places you squarely in the Idealist box.

It's a metaphor. Point is, faith is a tool, so are guns, so are swords, so are drugs, so is science. Some tools are more powerful than others, some are two-edged, some are more prone to hurting the wielder than others, and, in general, tools empower the wielder to hurt others more.

With faith, you can make people feel better, or you can make them go psycho. With science, you can eradicate smallpox and give feet to amputees and eyes to the blind... or you can nuke the planet into silence.

The question of whether having faith around is better than not...

But I'm confused by the choice to believe in something. What's out there is out there. Your belief or lack thereof won't change that. Your mind doesn't make it real.

edited 23rd Jan '15 8:13:33 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

There are many paths to faith and to enlightenment. For me to take the path that someone else does would be false because that's not what I am supposed to do. For him to take a different path would be false because that is his path.

Many faiths accept this as a personal connection and only through a personal truth can they truly be a faithful adherents.

Most of these are Asian or African faiths, but it is shared by many Indigenous faiths as well. Many Christians are also starting to adopt this: hence the rise of nondenominational groups and sects like the Unitarians.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

I don't know that I would ever trust my emotional reactions to provide an accurate model of reality, certainly not over observed facts. In fact, the more I learn about how humans work, the more obvious this insight becomes.

We are rather extraordinarily fallible, which makes the idea that we can arrive at fundamental truths through introspection absurd.

edited 23rd Jan '15 8:13:47 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Watch children.

Listen to how they come to their conclusions.

The younger the better.

We start out pretty good. We just are changed as we age.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Umm, no. I don't know which children you've seen, but they rarely arrive at accurate truths through emotional reactions. They are honest about their feelings — mostly — but that doesn't mean that they have some magical understanding that we grow out of.

Children have lots of unfiltered ideas, to be sure. The process of growing up means testing those ideas against reality. "Common sense" is not in any way an inborn thing; it requires lots of trial and error and getting hurt to learn that you shouldn't touch a hot stove or stick a fork in an electrical outlet.

Children are also in no way inherently "good", which should be obvious the first time you see a toddler steal another toddler's toy.

edited 23rd Jan '15 8:23:56 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I've had my moments of doubt and skepticism (I'd be daft not to be skeptical once in a while). Keep in mind that I was referring to the "one truth" in terms of "Hey, everyone, this is the one truth, there's no other way" (which is stupid, considering that there are many different ways to heaven or whatever, as some Chinese guy whose name I'm forgetting used to say). My own internal belief in one thing is another matter.

I know, I was just saying different kinds of ideas at random.

Fair point, I suppose. But, perhaps, at some point, I will abandon this box (or, even better, modify it to suit it only to myself - I don't want to be put in a box in sense of "You are X, and that's final, and I will consider your arguments solely through the X, without taking any bits of Y that you might take into account).

Of course it won't change. It won't change space, it won't change time, the world, the people, its actions and so forth. It won't make things real.

But the thing I believe in is about things which are not of this world and universe. You may not like it, you have the right to disagree with it, but it's my belief. I keep it to myself.

edited 23rd Jan '15 8:30:18 AM by Quag15

So basically, it is not religion to you unless they shout to all places that they have the one truth and unless they admit to having the one truth but not really then they are actually fucking liars and hypocrites?

Sounds like a harsh cathegory that forces them to be asshole hypocrites otherwise they are not really religious, cuz theologically speaking, again, reason and science are not separate, opposed forces, or contradicting to each other, nor is being wrong. hence the consequence of sin which is in abrahamic religions pinned on mankind itself, with there always being a rhyme and reason why you should wake up, dust yourself up and get back in the saddle, this reason being "this magical white robed wizard".

At no point does any religion allow your emotions to reign yourself in, as a manner of fact alcoholism is considered a sin because it hampers reason, and humans are by nature, a reasonable reature, and theft is a sin because it advocates against social behavior, and humans are naturally social creatures, if we wanna go back to natural law.

Like. Genesis is the very first story in the bible and it teaches us that humans are flawed. That is the concept of the original sin. If anyone else knows humans are fallible, that's the religious doctrines.

edited 23rd Jan '15 8:25:54 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Aszur: There's nothing "natural" — that is, inherent in the structure of reality — about property laws; we instituted them precisely because "natural" behavior is to hit your neighbor with a stick and take his stuff.

I have no doubt that many (most, even) religious folk are not consciously hypocritical about their belief. I would be an asshole to state otherwise. I believe, however, that they have constructed emotional walls around their beliefs that protect them from the intrusion of such accusations.

Conversely, they might say of me that I've constructed intellectual walls around my own beliefs that protect me from examining my innermost feelings and finding God. I can't deny that might be the case, of course.

But again, we come back to this problem that God, the infallible, perfect being, has set things up in such a way that the only evidence we have for his existence is the words passed down by fallible, venal human beings. Knowing myself to be easily capable of error, why should I trust anyone's claim to understand such a perfect being that does not derive from firsthand knowledge or reproducible experiment?

edited 23rd Jan '15 8:31:59 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Kids don't see skin color until they are taught to. Kids will play together and play with anything until they are taught otherwise. Kids are also most of the time inherently loving and accepting until taught otherwise.

Seems like they figured out a universal truth to me: humans are happier when they work together as humans in a natural way, not as a category or asinine projection.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Kids left together will most definitely not automatically share and play. They will fight, steal, and lie. Children are innately selfish creatures. I think you don't realize the degree to which adult supervision is required to socialize them.

Sure, they don't notice skin color unless we teach them our prejudices, but I don't see how that logically leads to the idea that they're better people by default. Anyway, we teach them about God, so how this relates to the idea of an inborn human spirituality is kind of mystifying.

edited 23rd Jan '15 8:36:12 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Dude, you need to get around more kids.

I've been around plenty, both those of average abilities and those who are incredibly disabled in various ways.

Very rarely did any of these children act repugnant or if they do, it can be traced to an adult in some form. You have the anomalies, some kids are natural douches. But they are rarer then people think.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

If they're so great, why do we expend so many resources teaching them to play nicely with each other? You can't blame every case of a kid being mean on their parents. And I've been around plenty of children, thanks.

edited 23rd Jan '15 8:43:29 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I said adults, not parents.

Relax your blood pressure man. Being that cynical all the time must be exhausting.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Natural laws are a name. In fact in jurisprudence and such Natural laws "exist", in the sense that they are "discovered" but not particularly "created". But laws are regardless of conscience or lack thereof for hwomever is judging them, intangible.

Ok, listen Fighteer I was never using natural law to prove the existence of god. I honestly give absolutely no fucks about the existence or lack thereof of a supernatural figure. Constantly hamfisting how lack of rationality or excess of it disprove the existence of this funny bearded fella has absolutely nothing to do with anything I want to get across.

Again, I am saying that the specific thoughts of "Sexism" and "Lack of Progress" and such are not inherent to any religious person because of the theological teachings.

So your dissertation on natural laws -> 1+1= NO GOD LAWL does not make any sense.

That said, why should I trust you for saying you are another person posting? Why are you not a robot? Let me go to a scientific site and click the very first article. Should I believe it just because they say they are a scientific news site? others have proven fallible in the past.

So again there is the same problem of refusing individuality, something quite enforced by the concept of original sin and responsibility in religious thoughts and yes, exploited shamelessly by some of their leaders.

No one is forcing you to accept any claim. That is up to you. And if you take it, that's your fucking business and no one else's.

Religions are fine with that. Hey we were talking about Dante earlier. This man put saladin in purgatory, not suffering anything. It says so again in Summa Theologica, that you know, we can't hold everyone to our same standards if they haven't even heard about this J.C dude, but so long as they live with "grace", they will be accepted into the kingdom of heaven and whatever.

Recently dead Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, founded a center in his name comprised of catholic, hindu, buddhist and islamic researchers. Dialogue between religions is always done with great pomp. The pope brofists the dalai all the time and all this sort of stuff does not cause nuclear reactions all over the globe. Cooperation and cohabitation is fully possible and part of religious beliefs.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Well done. Labels are tools, we shouldn't let ourselves be constrained by them. Certainly "Idealist" is a very big, comfy, fuzzy box to move in, though.

I don't see the point of holding a belief that makes no difference in how you act or how you expect events to unfold. Beliefs should be made to pay rent, I think. But that's just me.

Nothing personal against your belief, though.

edited 23rd Jan '15 8:46:53 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

@Gabrael: I'm actually an idealist, mind you, but a pragmatic one. You have to accept reality before you can change it. I'm definitely not an Idealist in the sense of "believes in a perfect external world", though.

Edit: There's also nothing about cynicism that automatically compels one to be an antisocial, stressed-out misanthrope.

@Aszur: At this point, I can't honestly figure out what we're arguing about. You seem to be saying, "Rational thought doesn't disprove God," and I am saying, "Neither does it prove God," so we are at an impasse. You seem to feel that there is an inherent validity to someone's personal emotional/spiritual experience that we should honor, and I am saying that it is a contradiction to believe that a perfect God could depend entirely on personal emotional/spiritual experiences to validate his existence.

You may "feel God in your soul", but to me that's not evidence of anything save that you, personally, had an experience that you've labeled in a particular way.

I was careful to distinguish lowercase-i idealism, the word in common usage, from uppercase-i Idealism, the philosophical concept.

edited 23rd Jan '15 8:59:42 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@Fighteer: Again, that's not idealism in the philosphical sense. I don't know how the semantic slide happened, but do have a look at the Wikipedia article. Idealism can be really out there.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I'm not telling you to believe in a perfect world.

I'm saying that humans are more innately able to be more cooperative and friendly until we are taught otherwise. Which means that if we change our teachings, we can encourage these aspects of our nature instead of suppressing them or warping them.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Then why do we spend such incredible amounts of effort — whole religious faiths devoted to the practice, for instance — teaching people to be cooperative and friendly instead of bashing each others' heads in with rocks? Why did we need Commandments reminding these "simple, honest folk of the Lord" not to kill each other or pork each others' wives?

I mean, heck, why don't you read a child psychology textbook or something?

edited 23rd Jan '15 9:11:11 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

There is an inherent validity in a person's beliefs.

An emotional validity. One of property. It does not deserve validation, much less scientific one, it only deserves a respect. (P.S: Before someone comes saying "Oh so we should beleive schizophrenic people?" lemme just hypothetically slap your hypothetical stupid face before you hypothetically ask this question: there is a difference between thoughts born out of disorders, and thoughts born out of cultural and intellectual disserations, and how people carry them on). That is, you admit that this is a thing of that person, probably not of yours, and you have no right to try and remove it, and not only that, this far from place the into the label of being "irrational" or the belief of being "useless".

Regarding the theological problem of the "perfection" of god then you are refering to problems like that of "Theodicy" and "The Problem of Evil". But what you are doing is an inconsistent triad to justify trying to mock or reduce other people's beliefs or just to justify confrontation for lulz' sake.

1. People are imperfect and believe a perfect creature made them 2. A perfect creature made imperfect creatures 3. This is a contradiction that disproves everything and lets me point it out all the time

Things like that such as "you cannot have a belief unless you can prove it" is just blatantly trying to get into people's mind and control them for no reason...they don't need any evidence to present to you. You're the one seeking this evidence and asking for it, sea lion style.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Who said I had any interest in surgically excising wrong beliefs from your mind?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

You assume that I haven't?

Again, chill. Why do you have to be so hateful all the time? It's draining.

Religion isn't made for kids. It's made for adults. It's made to shape children into the adults that need it in so many ways. Again, the younger the kid is the more you see this.

Take Race relations for example. It's somethign we have studied for a very long time. We have some really skilled people who focus on how children learn to be racist or anything even close to it. And most agree adults can help encourage children not to adapt these racist behaviors.

More studies on interracial friendships and children's development.

Even casual marketing people notice the differences between how young people see things vs. older in regards to gender roles and race.

People aren't evil little creatures who spawn and decide to be hateful to each other. We have a pretty good core and the more progressive our society can change to express the more positive core values we have in a healthy way, the easier it will be for everyone.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

I don't know about your experience with children, but mine was awful.

Children are conformist, dogmatic, have poor impulse control, and will ostracize or even actively beat down the weird and different. They're also world champions at the Seven Deadly Sins and wouldn't know restraint if it hit them with a ruler. They're extremely sensitive to (dis)approval by authority figures, but not always in a productive way.

As for children not being able to tell race, I'll tell you this much: the first time I saw a black kid wasn't in a movie or even in a comic; it was from the window of my dad's car, I quickly ducked inside, terrified. The kid wasn't just dark-skinned, he was as black as it gets, had those yellow sclera and big lips and puffy eyes and wooly hair and white-palmed hands and scared the wits out of me. As far as I was concerned, he might as well have been an alien.

As you pointed out, racism is easy to breed out of a child, but the point is, if left untouched, it's built-in, just like any other ingroup-outgroup dynamic. Remember the Robbers-Cave experiment?

edited 23rd Jan '15 9:26:33 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.