Atheism's Thirteen Biggest Flaws (without dysfunctional link, modship pending)

[Anti-Flag]

the general principle behind reading scripture is to determine what are god's ideals.
The general principle behind making spiritual advancement is to accurately perceive where one's ideals are situated and determine the distance from god's

So it's just gods ideals? And we find these in scripture? So even cruelty is acceptable as gods ideals if the scripture says so? I'll leave the quoting to the better versed around here but it shouldn't take long to find something.

unsatisfactory according to scripture and saintly persons (the bonafide practitioners of scripture - italics included just in case the phrase brings to mind unbonafide practioners)

Nobody is perfect, even a saint, therefore is everyone not unsatisfactory?

regardless of what they identify themselves as, the point of religion is how god identifies a person

So if scripture states all you need is a belief in god and repentance for sins, and the scripture is from god, then that is how he identifies a person as a theist is it not?
Also is a belief in god relevant whether or not scripture is perfectly followed?

then it seems you are either fortunate enough to have met some well adjusted atheists or unfortunate enough to have met some maladjusted theists

A little from column 'A' and a little from column 'B'. The majority of people I meet(being in christian countries most of the time) will be theists, the majority of people I meet I'm less than impressed with, I admit there is crossover here but I find religion or lack of does little to influence anything.

there is more to religion than morality, namely transcendence. While being moral is certainly admirable, it is not sufficient to solve the problems of life (it is not through advancement of medicine that we will overcome disease, its not by leading a healthy lifestyle we will over come old age and its not through charity or other altruistic acts that we can over come death)

So transcendence is the only way to solve the problems of life? What makes you so sure they're all to be solved? We're born so we must decay and die, the bit in the middle is life, and our morality determines just how helpful we are at improving it's quality for us and those around us.
I'd say that's possibly the most important thing for us as a species to do right now. Or are you saying we should be heading towards transcendence and ignoring our ability to help things right now?

 

[Sarkus]

there is more to religion than morality, namely transcendence. While being moral is certainly admirable, it is not sufficient to solve the problems of life (it is not through advancement of medicine that we will overcome disease, its not by leading a healthy lifestyle we will over come old age and its not through charity or other altruistic acts that we can over come death)

"Problems of life".

Who are you to say (a) that life has "problems", and (b) what those problems are?!
Egotistical to the extreme!

Life has no "problems" - life just is!
The only "problems", if there are any, are those our mind produces for ourselves due to our inability to cope with the impacts.

To you, and presumably to your religion, death is seen as a "problem" that must be overcome.
To others death is an inevitability. Nothing to be feared and certainly not a problem.
Death and disease are only a seen as a "problem" due to our (selfish?) desire to keep on living, which is fuelled by our instinctive nature for survival.


Remove fear of death from the equation and religion suddenly loses most of its appeal.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Been away for a bit...so I'm late

i am extremely religious....
in fact i am a zelot.
yet... my faith is based on science.
all of you... who hate religion... you do so, due to your ignorance.
so sad.
-MT

Just in case no one asked...(i didn't notice anyone ask). What science do you base your faith on????

I am a devout christian and I too hate TV evangelists. Billy Graham is a brilliant man but besides that, its tough. Joel Osteen is ok. The rest are fake and are probably doing it for the money. Pat Robertson is giving us a bad name.

Please don't judge an entire religion, composed of millions, by a few dozen domesticated monkeys who somehow got on TV.

I DO judge the entire religion however, because it is the moderates that allow for brainless quacks like Pat to even make a living.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

Let us concentrate on those pray-ers that are sincere and undemanding. What is the percentage of those prayers that are answered?

Ask the people who pray, not me.

Suppose the person who studies the answer isn't the person who prays?

It begs the question; how does the person know whether or not a prayer has been answered.

You assume it is "explained away". If God exists, then He is entitled to have "mysterious ways", wouldn't you say.

Then you want to have your cake and eat it too.

No, that is the atheist position.
God does not exist.
God is a murderer.

You want to say God obviously exists,

"Obviously" is a word I have not chosen.

but can offer no testable hypothesis to prove or disprove.

The original (scriptoral) personality and character of God, is not a hypothesis as that would suggest it is an idea. As far as I know there is no time in known history where God hasn't been part of the pysche, nor has He been made up by a person or persons.
You must prove that He was made up.

That's like if I had an imaginary friend who I only see when I'm alone. Could I really expect anyone else to believe it?

That is a terrible analogy.
If you have an "imaginary friend" then I totally believe you have an "imaginary friend". Why should I believe any different?

Here's an example. Let's say I hypothesize that wearing my socks inside out makes me lucky. Suppose I happen to be wearing my socks inside out and I do win the lottery. Is that evidence that wearing my socks inside out caused me to win the lottery? ...Or was it just a coincidence?

At that stage it would be hard to say, although it would be reasonable to assume that it was a coincidence. But why would wearing socks inside out be the cause of winning the lottery?

There are already established ways to distinguish real effects from coincidence. So far, the effects of prayer are indistinguishable from mere random chance.

Not to the people for whom prayer has helped.
It boils down to BELIEF, either you believe or not.
The atheist position has to be one of belief.

Then so does the evidence of testimony. Why do you doubt it?

Because people can be tricked. They see what they want to see. They see magic tricks and believe them. They believe in good luck charms.
We fall for optical illusions, we hear voices, we have hallucinations. Basically, people are irrational, and my intent is to separate the rational from the irrational.

Still no reason to doubt, right across the board.
I doubt lots of people who say they have certain experiences, but why would I need to doubt the nature of the experience itself?

Testimony is enough to start the investigation, but it can't end there.

Then what do you suggest?

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

It begs the question; how does the person know whether or not a prayer has been answered.

If the "answer" is indistinguishable then that begs the question, how does anyone know prayer works at all?

"Mysterious ways" is a cop-out, a way to stay evasive while still maintaining His existence. This is one of Christianity's central mind viruses, a particular arrangement of ideas that seems like a justification but really means nothing.

As far as I know there is no time in known history where God hasn't been part of the pysche, nor has He been made up by a person or persons.

You could not be more wrong. I could list a dozen cultures with no God concept, most pre-dating monotheism, which began with Zoroastrianism.

You must prove that He was made up.

No it don't, only that the concept is about as likely as any other fairy tale.

If you have an "imaginary friend" then I totally believe you have an "imaginary friend". Why should I believe any different?

That would be irrational? How could you be do gullible? Religion is just like that. What if I asked you for money to get my invisible friend an operation, without which she would die? Would you give it to me?

At that stage it would be hard to say, although it would be reasonable to assume that it was a coincidence. But why would wearing socks inside out be the cause of winning the lottery?

Exactly. It is reasonable to conclude that the occaisional times prayer works, or a "miracle" occurs, it is just coincidence.

Why would the universe be ruled and created by a being that happened to have many of the same characteristics of a certain species of great ape we call human that only happened to evolve after 4 billion years of other life forms?

Isn't it more likely that humans invented a story to make themselves feel protected and central to the story of existence?

Not to the people for whom prayer has helped.
It boils down to BELIEF, either you believe or not.
The atheist position has to be one of belief.

That can be explained by selective attention. They believe because of the one time prayer worked, but they ignore all the times it didn't.

This is exactly the same psychology as a baseball player with their superstitious charms and rituals.

Still no reason to doubt, right across the board.
I doubt lots of people who say they have certain experiences, but why would I need to doubt the nature of the experience itself?

I think doubt is a reasonable position, but I'm willing to consider anything new. If you doubt people have certain experiences, then isn't the nature of the experience irrelevant? Perhaps not though, since the experiences seem specially crafted to meet a psychological need.

Then what do you suggest?

Craft a hypothesis about God that can be tested. Without this, it's just a strange and unlikely theory, like the Flat Earth.

 

[lightgigantic]

And who are you, or I, or anyone else to differentiate the valid claims from the invalid?

unless we have some qualification in the field, probably none

True, there are many claims that can easily be rejected. But some claims are not rejectable - as they can not be verified OR falsified.

of course for someone who rejects the processes by which something is verified it will appear unverifiable

And the same can be said of the theists - who DO claim a multitude of things - which give rise to the many differing flavours of theism.

so some things claimed by theists are false and some things claimed by theists are actually different characteristics of the same object (ie god) - an atheist, by dint of their lack of qualification in the field, cannot distinguish between the two and tend to write the whole lot off as unverifiable.

How is one to distil the valid from the invalid when there can be no tests done on the claims to show which is correct or not?

the position of the atheist, much like the position of the high school drop out, is that there are no valid processes to apply to determine the validity of a claim

Oh yes - for you it would be to listen to a person who has gone before, follow their process and experience for yourself. Happy drug-taking, then (to follow the analogy).

the high school drop out applies the same general principle to remain ignorant of physics

"Problems of life".

Who are you to say (a) that life has "problems", and (b) what those problems are?!
Egotistical to the extreme!

strange - I was always under the impression that death, old age and disease visited everyone equally and were not looked forward to with too much enthusiasm

Life has no "problems" - life just is!

in other words you have no solution to these problems

The only "problems", if there are any, are those our mind produces for ourselves due to our inability to cope with the impacts.

therefore overcoming the mind is part of the solution in dealing with these problems

BG 6.5: One must deliver himself with the help of his mind, and not degrade himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy as well.

BG 6.6: For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest enemy.

BG 6.7: For one who has conquered the mind, the Supersoul is already reached, for he has attained tranquillity. To such a man happiness and distress, heat and cold, honor and dishonor are all the same.

To you, and presumably to your religion, death is seen as a "problem" that must be overcome.

in your part of the world the notion of death doesn't bear any social influence?

To others death is an inevitability. Nothing to be feared and certainly not a problem.

I take it you don't have much experience in dealing with the dying

Death and disease are only a seen as a "problem" due to our (selfish?) desire to keep on living, which is fuelled by our instinctive nature for survival.

Does this thought spontaneously rush to your mind if you get accosted by a dark stranger with a gun in an alley?

Remove fear of death from the equation and religion suddenly loses most of its appeal.

And the lack of success in this department of atheism is what makes religion so popular

Anti flag

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the general principle behind reading scripture is to determine what are god's ideals.
The general principle behind making spiritual advancement is to accurately perceive where one's ideals are situated and determine the distance from god's
”
So it's just gods ideals? And we find these in scripture? So even cruelty is acceptable as gods ideals if the scripture says so? I'll leave the quoting to the better versed around here but it shouldn't take long to find something.

I can't seem to recall any great bonafide theists that exhibited the transcendental quality of cruelty - just as an amateur's foray into rocket science often yields interesting but askew results, so to does a non-practitioner's analysis of scripture

“
unsatisfactory according to scripture and saintly persons (the bonafide practitioners of scripture - italics included just in case the phrase brings to mind unbonafide practioners)
”
Nobody is perfect, even a saint, therefore is everyone not unsatisfactory?

I guess some are more unsatisfactory than others, which generally distinguishes between a pass and a fail

“
regardless of what they identify themselves as, the point of religion is how god identifies a person
”
So if scripture states all you need is a belief in god and repentance for sins, and the scripture is from god, then that is how he identifies a person as a theist is it not?

if they are enthusiastic to continue sinning it indicates they have a bit more work ahead of them

Also is a belief in god relevant whether or not scripture is perfectly followed?

since religious principles culminate in surrender to god I would say that the notion of god being an actual entity must be approached sometime before then

BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

“
then it seems you are either fortunate enough to have met some well adjusted atheists or unfortunate enough to have met some maladjusted theists
”
A little from column 'A' and a little from column 'B'. The majority of people I meet(being in christian countries most of the time) will be theists, the majority of people I meet I'm less than impressed with, I admit there is crossover here but I find religion or lack of does little to influence anything.

probably because people on the whole tend to be irreligious, particularly in circumstances of material opulence (ie western countries)

“
there is more to religion than morality, namely transcendence. While being moral is certainly admirable, it is not sufficient to solve the problems of life (it is not through advancement of medicine that we will overcome disease, its not by leading a healthy lifestyle we will over come old age and its not through charity or other altruistic acts that we can over come death)
”
So transcendence is the only way to solve the problems of life? What makes you so sure they're all to be solved?

since these problems pertain to the body and it is the bodily concept of life that one is transcending and since there are historic and current traditions of persons being successful in these fields, and since even a little bit of progress in this area bears tremendous results even in this life, it seems to have alot going for it, or at least a lot more than anything else

We're born so we must decay and die, the bit in the middle is life, and our morality determines just how helpful we are at improving it's quality for us and those around us.

the inevitable limits of improving quality of life do not extend into death, old age and disease

I'd say that's possibly the most important thing for us as a species to do right now. Or are you saying we should be heading towards transcendence and ignoring our ability to help things right now?

the point is that if as a society we do not cultivate transcendence (of the body) we will cultivate attachment (to the body) which gives rise to the current phenomena of societies that place incredible emphasis on gratifying the senses. This seems innocent enough on an individual level, but when carried out on a larger scale , the burdens of the world culminate to form problems that threaten the quality of life (clean water, clean air, natural food etc)
In other words the pursuit of sense gratification is self defeating for human civilization

 

[Sarkus]

the position of the atheist, much like the position of the high school drop out, is that there are no valid processes to apply to determine the validity of a claim

The position is that there are no RATIONAL or LOGICAL PROOFS of God's existence.
Any claim of proof is riddled with logical flaws - and the process you put forward in a thread was riddled with Appeals to Authority.

If you want to include Irrational arguments or Illogical ones then feel free - there are plenty of those flying around - and many more can be made up for anything else.

strange - I was always under the impression that death, old age and disease visited everyone equally and were not looked forward to with too much enthusiasm

An argument from Fear, LG.
This does not make those things a "problem" - just an inevitability that is not looked forward to.

in other words you have no solution to these problems

Begging the question, LG!
Start with the premise that there is NO PROBLEM.
Then provide proof that there IS a problem - and the proof has to be more than just an Appeal to Consensus or an Appeal to Authority.

therefore overcoming the mind is part of the solution in dealing with these problems

And you need religion for this???? LOL!
It just takes rational thought.
Not irrational promises of life-everlasting etc.

in your part of the world the notion of death doesn't bear any social influence?

Oh, it does. It does everywhere - but that is not evidence that it is a problem - just a part of life that we must all come across , so to speak.

I take it you don't have much experience in dealing with the dying

Firstly, what, to you, is "much experience"?
Is it watching one's mother die in pain from leukemia - or one's grand-parents suffer through dementia and old age before passing?
Is it being part of a community service that visits old-people's homes, providing them with company, and each time you turn up someone would no longer be there, someone with who you had been conversing and joking only the week before?

Please do explain what you mean by "much experience".
I am certain others have more.

Secondly, WTF does it have to do with the argument.
This is just another logical fallacy from you, LG - Appeal to Emotion.
LEARN TO AVOID THEM!!!
You might actually then appreciate things more.

Does this thought spontaneously rush to your mind if you get accosted by a dark stranger with a gun in an alley?

Of course not. At that stage I would forgo most rational and logical thought processes until I recover my wits, and probably act irrationally and illogically for a while before the instinct for survival kicks in.

Poor example from you, LG.

And the lack of success in this department of atheism is what makes religion so popular

Success or otherwise is irrelevant - Red Herring logical fallacy. Strawman, I think.

Also - religion is based on appeals to emotion, appeals to consensus, appeals to authority, arguments from fear etc.
THAT is why it is so popular - because most people - like you - can not identify that this is what they are - and even when they do realise they have become too comfortable in their religion, or are unable to think rationally and logically about their religion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the position of the atheist, much like the position of the high school drop out, is that there are no valid processes to apply to determine the validity of a claim
”
The position is that there are no RATIONAL or LOGICAL PROOFS of God's existence.
Any claim of proof is riddled with logical flaws - and the process you put forward in a thread was riddled with Appeals to Authority.

electrons certainly don't appear rational and logical to a high school drop out either

If you want to include Irrational arguments or Illogical ones then feel free - there are plenty of those flying around - and many more can be made up for anything else.

On the contrary I don't recommend that you rely on your rationality and logic in departments where what is required is a more generous fund of foundational knowledge

“
Originally Posted by LG
strange - I was always under the impression that death, old age and disease visited everyone equally and were not looked forward to with too much enthusiasm
”
An argument from Fear, LG.
This does not make those things a "problem" - just an inevitability that is not looked forward to.

hence a problem

“
Originally Posted by LG
in other words you have no solution to these problems
”
Begging the question, LG!
Start with the premise that there is NO PROBLEM.
Then provide proof that there IS a problem - and the proof has to be more than just an Appeal to Consensus or an Appeal to Authority.

Then why does a person avoid situations when death is an issue unless it is a problem (do I have to stipulate a sane person?)

“
Originally Posted by LG
therefore overcoming the mind is part of the solution in dealing with these problems
”
And you need religion for this???? LOL!
It just takes rational thought.
Not irrational promises of life-everlasting etc.

you can rationalize all you want till the cows come home, but it won't help diminish the attachment one inevitably cultivates towards one's body and things related to it

“
Originally Posted by LG
in your part of the world the notion of death doesn't bear any social influence?
”
Oh, it does. It does everywhere - but that is not evidence that it is a problem - just a part of life that we must all come across , so to speak.

so if over 99.999999% of the population view death as a problem, you don't feel you should explain a bit why you think it isn't (apart from the fact that you are currently alive, since inevitable time will deal with that in the near or distant future)

“
Originally Posted by LG
I take it you don't have much experience in dealing with the dying
”
Firstly, what, to you, is "much experience"?

Is it watching one's mother die in pain from leukemia - or one's grand-parents suffer through dementia and old age before passing?
Is it being part of a community service that visits old-people's homes, providing them with company, and each time you turn up someone would no longer be there, someone with who you had been conversing and joking only the week before?

Please do explain what you mean by "much experience".
I am certain others have more.

seeing people die
experiencing others die
seeing how they handle it

Secondly, WTF does it have to do with the argument.
This is just another logical fallacy from you, LG - Appeal to Emotion.
LEARN TO AVOID THEM!!!
You might actually then appreciate things more.

its just that your notion "death is not a problem" goes against the grain of virtually every philosopher and news line heading in history and rings of the emmotional bravado of a person young in experience

“
Originally Posted by LG
Does this thought spontaneously rush to your mind if you get accosted by a dark stranger with a gun in an alley?
”
Of course not. At that stage I would forgo most rational and logical thought processes until I recover my wits, and probably act irrationally and illogically for a while before the instinct for survival kicks in.

Poor example from you, LG.

if such a thing happened on your way to work, would you describe it as a "problem"?

“
Originally Posted by LG
And the lack of success in this department of atheism is what makes religion so popular
”
Success or otherwise is irrelevant - Red Herring logical fallacy. Strawman, I think.

you indicated that fear of death can be removed from the equation
I indicated that this is just as theory that finds not practical application, hence religion retains its popularity

Also - religion is based on appeals to emotion, appeals to consensus, appeals to authority, arguments from fear etc.

religion is based on god actually - the social adjustment to this may or may not involve the things you mention according to time place and circumstance

THAT is why it is so popular - because most people - like you - can not identify that this is what they are -

I think JamesR did a survey in one of the threads which revealed that it was the atheists and not the theists who were more likely to base their standpoint on emotions rather than rational thinking

and even when they do realise they have become too comfortable in their religion, or are unable to think rationally and logically about their religion.

okay that's a fine opinion
now can you back it up rationally?

First, I think it is interesting that most theists give rational reasons for their belief in God. Their beliefs, on the whole, are based in personal experience of their God, or in logical inference from the perceived order of the universe and/or life. The most common response to the poll (by a small margin) was that theists believe because of the apparent design of the universe. They look out at the beauty of the world and conclude that a God must be responsible. The second most common response is that they feel the direct influence of God in their lives.

In is interesting to contrast these responses with the common portrayal of theists by non-believers. Very often, atheists (in particular) label theists as weak-willed people who believe in fairy tales for purely emotional reasons. Alternatively, theists are often labelled as blind followers of authority, who never ask their own questions about the meaning of life.

I think the results show that this is not true. In general, theists <b>do</b> think about the big questions and come to logical conclusions based on their own thinking, rather than on authority handed down to them. I would encourage atheists on this forum to take note.

Turning to the atheists themselves, we find another somewhat surprising result - that atheists are perhaps not as supremely rational as they would have us believe. It seems that many of the atheists responses on this forum, at least, are emotional rather than rational. They are not based purely on available evidence, but rather on a reaction against the idea of God. There may be many reasons for this. People can react against a religious upbringing, or point to the perceived ills that religion causes in the world.

More worrying from the atheists is the number of people who dismiss the possibility of God on emotional grounds, without really considering why they are doing so. They label the religious as less intelligent, or authority driven, or simply mad, with no good justification. This seems to be largely a knee-jerk response against people who take an opposing view. Perhaps these people should consider the real reasons why they so despise the religious.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25051&page=8

 

[Sarkus]

electrons certainly don't appear rational and logical to a high school drop out either

This example of yours has been countered to death on a number of threads. I'm not going to go through it again.

Then why does a person avoid situations when death is an issue unless it is a problem (do I have to stipulate a sane person?)

Okay - step back a moment and define "problem".
And then define on what scale you are talking about - a personal level - or as a species - or something else? We may well be talking on different levels.

seeing people die
experiencing others die
seeing how they handle it

Then yes - I have plenty of "experience" of death, thanks. Your point is... ?

its just that your notion "death is not a problem" goes against the grain of virtually every philosopher and news line heading in history and rings of the emmotional bravado of a person young in experience

Riiight - because it counters your own notions you disparage. Good stuff.
As stated - plenty of experience, thanks.
Your point is... ?

Argue against the POINTS, LG - NOT THE PERSON!!!

if such a thing happened on your way to work, would you describe it as a "problem"?

There are many reasons why it would be a problem. I want to carry on living - and it is the lack of life, rather than death, that is the problem. Death itself is not a problem - after all I won't be here to see it.

you indicated that fear of death can be removed from the equation
I indicated that this is just as theory that finds not practical application, hence religion retains its popularity

Appeal to Emotion. 'Nuff said.

religion is based on god actually - the social adjustment to this may or may not involve the things you mention according to time place and circumstance

Yes - religion is based on God - as it is supposedly this God that offers everything the person seems to be looking for.
If God was KNOWN to be just some bloke who created the Universe and left it on its own to do as it wanted and could not, and had not, interracted - including after a person's death - then religion would probably not exist. But it is because religion helps people ease those fears that it is "successful". It is an appeal to emotion.
If this works for people - great - who am I to stand in the way of their easement of fears.
But it doesn't make the tennets of the religion correct - just because the majority follow it.
To think otherwise is an argument from consensus.

okay that's a fine opinion
now can you back it up rationally?

Rationally? You mean with evidence? Sure - my brother - he knows that belief is irrational - yet he believes. He knows he can't support anything about it - that it is mere faith. Yet he is so entrenched in what it offers him emotionally that he can't climb out of it. He knows that. He accepts it.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25051&page=8

Not to disparage James R, but his analysis is highly flawed.
The main point is that he takes the response at face value - and does not assess the underlying cause.

For example... A theist who put a "rational" response of "God answers my prayers" is actually an IRRATIONAL response - as there is NO EVIDENCE of prayers being answered that is different to background probability.
Likewise the "rational" answer of "God's plan is visible in the world" is NOT rational as it can not be supported.

Likewise the atheist supposedly "emotional" responses of "it is absurd to believe in god" or "there is no reason to believe in god" hides the likely rationale for coming to those conclusions.

Unless James R looked at the reasons one gave their face-value statements then the analysis is flawed - heavily flawed.

Please use something more to support your case.

 

[Enterprise-D]

For example... A theist who put a "rational" response of "God answers my prayers" is actually an IRRATIONAL response - as there is NO EVIDENCE of prayers being answered that is different to background probability.
Likewise the "rational" answer of "God's plan is visible in the world" is NOT rational as it can not be supported.

In support of this Sarkus, I think someone posted the milk jug answering prayers before...it bears repeating: the milk jug heard me!

 

[nova900]

The original (scriptoral) personality and character of God, is not a hypothesis as that would suggest it is an idea. As far as I know there is no time in known history where God hasn't been part of the pysche, nor has He been made up by a person or persons.
You must prove that He was made up.
.

The personality of god in the old and new testament is simply a reflection of the people who yes,did invent him. No different than all the other gods and goddesses who were created by various races and groups of people to reflect what they believed god or the divine to be. In Yahwehs' case he obviously reflects a lot of the ultra patriarchial,xenophobic qualities of the bronze age hebrews.

 

[Sock puppet path]

It is becoming clear to me why LG is so religious. Now I understand why he was so insistent that atheists must need poetry to deal with death.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Anti flag

I can't seem to recall any great bonafide theists that exhibited the transcendental quality of cruelty - just as an amateur's foray into rocket science often yields interesting but askew results, so to does a non-practitioner's analysis of scripture

Interesting, if we don't practice something we can't analyse or have any knowledge of it, what if we 'practice' the opposite?

I guess some are more unsatisfactory than others, which generally distinguishes between a pass and a fail

Seems to me there would be very few if any people in heaven. Does this contradict with the forgiveness most scripture writes about?

if they are enthusiastic to continue sinning it indicates they have a bit more work ahead of them

Quite probably, or they have interpreted the same scriptures entirely differently. Who's to say which is right?

since religious principles culminate in surrender to god I would say that the notion of god being an actual entity must be approached sometime before then

So it doesn't matter how 'good' or 'bad' someone is, or even if by some fluke they behave almost identically to scripture, at the least better than anybody else who has attempted such and faltered, if they don't believe in god they are out? Even if they did a better job of adhering to the rest of scripture? Sounds rather harsh to me.

BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

All varieties? Except this one obviously. But then, they all say that don't they? The next question is why does this one hold more sway?

probably because people on the whole tend to be irreligious, particularly in circumstances of material opulence (ie western countries)

Irreligious? I think you define this differently to most, you seem to be suggesting if they arn't a perfect model for following scripture they are irreligious, I'm not sure this applies, they merely interpret it differently to you. This leads me to moral questions, your views on gays etc? And why we should accept them.

since these problems pertain to the body and it is the bodily concept of life that one is transcending and since there are historic and current traditions of persons being successful in these fields, and since even a little bit of progress in this area bears tremendous results even in this life, it seems to have alot going for it, or at least a lot more than anything else

Could you give me a few examples of these transcending people? Do they all come from scripture?

the inevitable limits of improving quality of life do not extend into death, old age and disease

There's little evidence that quality of any kind continues after death, so why pin my hopes on it? Or anyone elses for that matter.

the point is that if as a society we do not cultivate transcendence (of the body) we will cultivate attachment (to the body) which gives rise to the current phenomena of societies that place incredible emphasis on gratifying the senses. This seems innocent enough on an individual level, but when carried out on a larger scale , the burdens of the world culminate to form problems that threaten the quality of life (clean water, clean air, natural food etc)
In other words the pursuit of sense gratification is self defeating for human civilization

Quite possibly it is self defeating, so why not stop it here and now? Or do you see the only solution to this as transcendence? Into where? and what? might I add.

 

[James R]

Not to disparage James R, but his analysis is highly flawed.

I'm not sure I'd analyse the data in exactly the same way if I was doing it now.

Certainly, I agree that my analysis in that thread is highly debateable.

 

[lightgigantic]

Antiflag

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Anti flag

I can't seem to recall any great bonafide theists that exhibited the transcendental quality of cruelty - just as an amateur's foray into rocket science often yields interesting but askew results, so to does a non-practitioner's analysis of scripture
”
Interesting, if we don't practice something we can't analyse or have any knowledge of it,

yes, that's generally why we buy fruits from a fruit vendor and medicine from a pharmacist (and not vice versa)

what if we 'practice' the opposite?

you mean what if atheism made a positive claim?

“
I guess some are more unsatisfactory than others, which generally distinguishes between a pass and a fail
”
Seems to me there would be very few if any people in heaven.

a person who has been in jail so long that they have lost the memory of the outside world would probably think that there are very few people outside jail (since his experience would be made up of persons who are criminally inclined)

Does this contradict with the forgiveness most scripture writes about?

no
forgiveness is the ability to put aside one's shady past. Attaining the eternal abode requires being fixed in spiritual values, which is something else

BG 6.15: Thus practicing constant control of the body, mind and activities, the mystic transcendentalist, his mind regulated, attains to the kingdom of God [or the abode of Kṛṣṇa] by cessation of material existence.

BG 15.5: Those who are free from false prestige, illusion and false association, who understand the eternal, who are done with material lust, who are freed from the dualities of happiness and distress, and who, unbewildered, know how to surrender unto the Supreme Person attain to that eternal kingdom.

etc etc

“
if they are enthusiastic to continue sinning it indicates they have a bit more work ahead of them
”
Quite probably, or they have interpreted the same scriptures entirely differently. Who's to say which is right?

sin is qualified by lust, envy, greed etc - the definitions of these states can be analyzed through scripture (ie what constitutes greed, what constitutes envy etc) and, much like a disease can be diagnosed and treated by the expert physician, the saintly person can treat such afflicted persons
“

since religious principles culminate in surrender to god I would say that the notion of god being an actual entity must be approached sometime before then
”
So it doesn't matter how 'good' or 'bad' someone is, or even if by some fluke they behave almost identically to scripture, at the least better than anybody else who has attempted such and faltered, if they don't believe in god they are out? Even if they did a better job of adhering to the rest of scripture? Sounds rather harsh to me.

such a person would get the results of mundane piety, which may include a higher grade of material existence (wealth, fame, knowledge etc) but because they are in ignorance of god they are not in the constitutional position to enter in to the kingdom of god

BG 4.9: One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.
“

BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.
”
All varieties? Except this one obviously. But then, they all say that don't they? The next question is why does this one hold more sway?

because it involves surrender to god (which BTW is a common theme that can be located in many scriptures and not just the Bhagavad-gita)

The issue is whether a person, even a person who claims to be following the BG (or any scripture) is actually surrendering to god or being religious to get a few material benefits on the side (which would rate as "other dharmas")

“
probably because people on the whole tend to be irreligious, particularly in circumstances of material opulence (ie western countries)
”
Irreligious? I think you define this differently to most, you seem to be suggesting if they arn't a perfect model for following scripture they are irreligious, I'm not sure this applies, they merely interpret it differently to you. This leads me to moral questions, your views on gays etc? And why we should accept them.

it is very difficult to approach god with sincerity if one feels materially satisfied

BG 2.44: In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.
“

since these problems pertain to the body and it is the bodily concept of life that one is transcending and since there are historic and current traditions of persons being successful in these fields, and since even a little bit of progress in this area bears tremendous results even in this life, it seems to have alot going for it, or at least a lot more than anything else
”
Could you give me a few examples of these transcending people? Do they all come from scripture?

by historic I mean referred to in scripture - by current I mean practitioners that one can make acquaintance with

“
the inevitable limits of improving quality of life do not extend into death, old age and disease
”
There's little evidence that quality of any kind continues after death, so why pin my hopes on it? Or anyone elses for that matter.

that is only according to your (and others like you) scope of knowledge - basically this issue boils down to whether all things can be expected to be verified empirically to everyone equally, to which the answer is "no" (since specialists in knowledge have a knack for working with information to yield results beyond the scope of the uneducated)

“

the point is that if as a society we do not cultivate transcendence (of the body) we will cultivate attachment (to the body) which gives rise to the current phenomena of societies that place incredible emphasis on gratifying the senses. This seems innocent enough on an individual level, but when carried out on a larger scale , the burdens of the world culminate to form problems that threaten the quality of life (clean water, clean air, natural food etc)
In other words the pursuit of sense gratification is self defeating for human civilization
”
Quite possibly it is self defeating, so why not stop it here and now?

I don't understand?
Stop what?
If you mean stop materialistic society, that would require everyone to be not so materialistic, which would require positive spiritual life (rather than negative material contrabands such "okay we are not allowed to use oil anymoe)

Or do you see the only solution to this as transcendence? Into where? and what? might I add.

well there is the transcendental abode, namely the direct abode of god (the material one being the indirect one)
But since attaining this requires the cessation of one's corporeal existence, I wasn't really suggesting this however.
I was suggesting the transcendence of the bodily concept of life by placing god in the centre of one's activities rather than oneself.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
electrons certainly don't appear rational and logical to a high school drop out either
”
This example of yours has been countered to death on a number of threads. I'm not going to go through it again.

should I accept your rebuking on faith or should I ask you for links where it has been successfully countered or a summary of such links?

“

Originally Posted by LG
Then why does a person avoid situations when death is an issue unless it is a problem (do I have to stipulate a sane person?)
”
Okay - step back a moment and define "problem".

And then define on what scale you are talking about - a personal level - or as a species - or something else? We may well be talking on different levels.

which of these things would you call a problem?

a) eating cake
b) a person allergic to sugar eating a cake
c) a group of people eating cake
d) a group of people allergic to sugar eating cake

(PS - the cake contains heaps of sugar and all the parties involved are eating huge mammoth slices of it)

“
Originally Posted by LG
seeing people die
experiencing others die
seeing how they handle it
”
Then yes - I have plenty of "experience" of death, thanks. Your point is... ?

your experiences are strange or your recollection of them is faulty if you don't recognize that death curtails virtually all of our desires in this world and is hence a problem

“
Originally Posted by LG
its just that your notion "death is not a problem" goes against the grain of virtually every philosopher and news line heading in history and rings of the emmotional bravado of a person young in experience
”
Riiight - because it counters your own notions you disparage. Good stuff.
As stated - plenty of experience, thanks.
Your point is... ?

can you name a culture or society that accepted a particular philosophical view that was oblivious to the problem of death (the only one that I can think of is perhaps a group of heroin addicts)

Argue against the POINTS, LG - NOT THE PERSON!!!

the point is that your personal view of death not being a problem is not shared by anyone in the world except the mad

“
Originally Posted by LG
if such a thing happened on your way to work, would you describe it as a "problem"?
”
There are many reasons why it would be a problem. I want to carry on living - and it is the lack of life, rather than death, that is the problem. Death itself is not a problem - after all I won't be here to see it.

so since death challenges your life it is a problem - when faced with the choice to die or live, a person in normal circumstances chooses to live, just like a person who is allergic to sugar would not under normal circumsatnces eat a mammoth piece of cake

“
Originally Posted by LG
you indicated that fear of death can be removed from the equation
I indicated that this is just as theory that finds not practical application, hence religion retains its popularity
”
Appeal to Emotion. 'Nuff said.

its not clear how claims for a solution to a problem are purely emotional
Like for instance a person may be happy to have their children immunized from polio, but obviously there are a few more issues than the persons happiness

“

Originally Posted by LG
religion is based on god actually - the social adjustment to this may or may not involve the things you mention according to time place and circumstance
”
Yes - religion is based on God - as it is supposedly this God that offers everything the person seems to be looking for.
If God was KNOWN to be just some bloke who created the Universe and left it on its own to do as it wanted and could not, and had not, interracted - including after a person's death - then religion would probably not exist. But it is because religion helps people ease those fears that it is "successful". It is an appeal to emotion.
If this works for people - great - who am I to stand in the way of their easement of fears.
But it doesn't make the tennets of the religion correct - just because the majority follow it.
To think otherwise is an argument from consensus.

Its still not clear how you would get from the observation that a person gets relief from material suffering to the notion that god doesn't exist, since you would expect an existing god to be fully capable of that

“
Originally Posted by LG
okay that's a fine opinion
now can you back it up rationally?
”
Rationally? You mean with evidence? Sure - my brother - he knows that belief is irrational - yet he believes. He knows he can't support anything about it - that it is mere faith. Yet he is so entrenched in what it offers him emotionally that he can't climb out of it. He knows that. He accepts it.

then you have just provided evidence (ore rather you have given witness to) that your brother is closer to a sentimental religious practitioner than a religious practitioner on an acceptable level of performance

Actually I was asking for the rational basis for determining that all religious claims are heavily vested in sentimentalism - Would you reject a cure for aids if the person claiming it was happy?

Originally Posted by LG
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25051&page=8

”
Not to disparage James R, but his analysis is highly flawed.
The main point is that he takes the response at face value - and does not assess the underlying cause.

the underlying cause being?
I hardly think you are in a position to correctly determine what the hosts of saintly persons across boundaries of language, culture, geography and time are "really" seeing when they lay claim to god or transcendence

For example... A theist who put a "rational" response of "God answers my prayers" is actually an IRRATIONAL response - as there is NO EVIDENCE of prayers being answered that is different to background probability.

its not clear why a person who claimed that god answered their prayer is being irrational, unless of course you assume that god doesn't exist, which is itself an irrational crux, since it relies on an absolute negative to be true
(that said one who is familiar with the existence of god can distinguish why, when and how god answers prayers)

Likewise the "rational" answer of "God's plan is visible in the world" is NOT rational as it can not be supported.

again its not clear how your statement is rational
at the very least the world seems to be well ordered (and if you want to clamor that the world is run by random interactive forces, it becomes a claim of faith since the empirical knowledge such a claims rests on is greatly insubstantial, or perhaps from the view of certain researchers, 'under-funded')

Likewise the atheist supposedly "emotional" responses of "it is absurd to believe in god" or "there is no reason to believe in god" hides the likely rationale for coming to those conclusions.

as evidenced by sites like these, a lot of atheists really hate the notion of god

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

ITS FUNNY.....

to watch atheists try so hard... so hard to justify their belief in NOTHING.

they have no belief... their belief... is a belief in a non-creation.

they want to believe there was no beginning.. and there is no end...
and that after we die... nothing happens.


atheists are comfortable with nothing.

and that is what they will get... its called purgatory.... nothingness.

makes me laugh.

-MT

 

[Sock puppet path]

ITS FUNNY.....

to watch atheists try so hard... so hard to justify their belief in NOTHING.

There is no belief, atheists never get together and declare "I believe in nothing" because it is a non issue.

they have no belief... their belief... is a belief in a non-creation.

The belief is in a creation (if you insist on using the term) by other means

that after we die... nothing happens.

Obviously the scariest idea there is for a theist

atheists are comfortable with nothing.

Yeah

and that is what they will get... its called purgatory.... nothingness.

There is no purgatory, non-issue, as for nothingness no problem

makes me laugh.

Nervously, judging from your posts.

 

[Sarkus]

which of these things would you call a problem?

Then we have been talking on differing scales.
Personal "problems", such as you are referring to, are purely subjective and thus irrelevant to the larger picture.

your experiences are strange or your recollection of them is faulty

And f**k you too to disparage my "experiences" in this regard! Thoughtless and insulting of you.

I merely choose not to let emotion rule over reason in my arguments. I try not to argue from fear (or emotion in general), from incredulity, from consensus. If only others would do the same.

can you name a culture or society that accepted a particular philosophical view that was oblivious to the problem of death

Death is not a problem - lack of life might be - but to the person who has died that suddenly becomes irrelevant.
And "dying" might be a problem - but that is distinct from "death".
The emotions of other people with regard to that death are also not "problems" to be overcome but merely something that has to be dealt with.

the point is that your personal view of death not being a problem is not shared by anyone in the world except the mad

It is because I separate "death" from the things associated with it - "loss", "dying" etc.

so since death challenges your life it is a problem - when faced with the choice to die or live, a person in normal circumstances chooses to live, just like a person who is allergic to sugar would not under normal circumsatnces eat a mammoth piece of cake

I also don't think we have the same understanding of "problem".

Why does "death" need a solution?
Please answer me that.

its not clear how claims for a solution to a problem are purely emotional

It is when one attributes "problem", as you seem to, to a fear. Death is to be feared - so religion comes along and says you shouldn't fear it - and comes up with any number of reasons not to (Heaven, reincarnation etc).

Its still not clear how you would get from the observation that a person gets relief from material suffering to the notion that god doesn't exist, since you would expect an existing god to be fully capable of that

I don't get to the notion that "god doesn't exist" - I just don't get to the notion that he does.
Stop trying to assign "I believe God doesn't exist" to me.

then you have just provided evidence (ore rather you have given witness to) that your brother is closer to a sentimental religious practitioner than a religious practitioner on an acceptable level of performance

No - he truly "believes". He just accepts the weakness of his rational position. He is not doing it for the emotional stability - he is doing it because he "believes". But he is intelligent enough to know the inherent irrationality of his beliefs.

Actually I was asking for the rational basis for determining that all religious claims are heavily vested in sentimentalism - Would you reject a cure for aids if the person claiming it was happy?

What??? What does this question have to do with anything?

As for rational basis that "ALL religious claims are heavily vested in sentimentalism" - I never said they were. Emotions - sure. But not ALL claims. Some claims are emotionally neutral - but the key ones of a number of religions are vested in swathes of appeals to emotion - mainly Fear (one must live in FEAR OF GOD etc. and religion offering a solution for those with a fear of death etc). These are rational and logical bases.

the underlying cause being?

I don't know - I didn't make all the responses - I would have to ask each and every person who voted in the poll.

I hardly think you are in a position to correctly determine what the hosts of saintly persons across boundaries of language, culture, geography and time are "really" seeing when they lay claim to god or transcendence

Once again you are putting words in my mouth that clearly I didn't say.
You have obviously misinterpreted my statement regarding the "underlying cause" (of the person's vote in the poll).
I suggest you revisit it.

its not clear why a person who claimed that god answered their prayer is being irrational...

Then I suggest you try and understand what being rational is - and understand Occam's Razor.
When you do that you might realise why a person claiming that god answered their prayers is irrational...

1. Is it more likely that the person just got lucky - and the world merely obeyed the laws of probability; or
2. Is it more likely that some being, for which there is currently no verifiable evidence of existence, decided to answer this person's prayer and go against the laws of probability?

Occam's Razor dictates the first.
To choose otherwise IS irrational.

again its not clear how your statement is rational
at the very least the world seems to be well ordered

No evidence for god in that. You (the voter) assert the existence of God and "God's plan is visible in the world" - prove it. If you can't prove it then the claim is irrational. If you come up with evidence but that evidence can be more easily explained WITHOUT the need for god then it is irrational to use it as evidence of God.
Again - you need to understand the process of rationality and irrationality.

(and if you want to clamor that the world is run by random interactive forces, it becomes a claim of faith since the empirical knowledge such a claims rests on is greatly insubstantial, or perhaps from the view of certain researchers, 'under-funded')

Lovel strawman logical fallacy, LG. Yet again putting words in my mouth.
I claim nothing but theories in such things. No "belief". No "faith".

 

[Sarkus]

and that is what they will get... its called purgatory.... nothingness.

Please tell me of your personal experiences several years before you were born? What were you thinking or doing?

Do you think being dead will be any different?

Are you frightened of that possibility?(not of the process of dying, but of being dead?)

Why?