Atheist = Closet theist

[mustafhakofi]

Why’s that? I'd have added useful as in having a practical, effective purpose , simply to avoid confusing you as core (you know, central, innermost, stuff like that) beliefs (values, opinions, what you consider true) would be what is considered essential until considered otherwise.

see my previous post.

Might have been more accurately stated as: History shows us hatred between religions. Or better yet: History records the deeds of the victorious. Now one betters ones odds by utilizing everything at ones disposal. You’d get a much richer reading experience if you learned to properly read between the lines. Not too much of course, as there lies conspiracies.

why is it "better yet" religions that mention " evil, killing, enemy, infidel, war, sacrifice, suffering, fear, death, etc.
are advocating violence in there very core.
religions core values are evil.

Do you have statistical data (or any other form of evidence, I’ll even accept Revelations) to support that first statement or are you inferring it from that second one? ‘Cause if that’s the case, it would make it rather circular... While we’re at it, are there types of violence we never have enough of?

LOL, do you, for any of your religious assertions?.
do come on, in the past people did'nt have the education they do today, and because of this education people are less likely to kill each other over religion, though it still goes on in the weak minded and uneducated.

Religious institutions are (from an empirical point of view) just that, institutions. Like all institutions, they hold a certain sway on the societal order (or lack there of) around them. Granted they’re generally the most stable (because of the fact that people will seek solace when faced with societal collapse). They too (within their framework) adapt to changes in that social order. If their framework doesn’t allow enough leeway, they are replaced.

Institutions are tools. They’ll turn out to be useful and be used, lacking and be reformed or useless and be dismantled. True, not everyone will agree, and it’ll often result in a blood bath, just like any institution.
It’s called progress.

Contrary to your ravings, organized religion has had many other historical uses then the gratuitous spread of violent disorder, riotous confusion and spilling of human blood. Chief amongst them (next to allowing humanity to cope with a hostile, senseless and indifferent environment) is overcoming blood-based hostility. The world is a much happier place when cultures start to extend their definition of person (in the legal sense) to other people beyond blood-relations as opposed to considering them two-legged prey.

yes but not much, if it's core values are violence.
http://www.holysmoke.org/haught/beast.html http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

Tell me, from what book are you studying history, for that matter, from what book are you studying philosophy?

same books as you but with out the propaganda.

Is anything you’ve written based on something more substantial then your own musings on Life, the Universe and Everything?

I dont muse with life, I speak for myself, i'm not religious, I dont have another controling my every thought and deed.

it's a open forum for debate we educate when we can and learn from our mistakes.
or do you think we come here, to preach someone elses gospels.

 

[mustafhakofi]

Wrong.

To the extent that a Buddhist believes this, a Buddhist believes that this is natural.

yes to a buddist it is, just as god exist, to the christian.
but outside, it's a supernatural thing.

You may find though that those who call themselves Buddhist argue amongst themselves about it. Buddhism as it appeals to me is not so much a statement of truth, more of a way for you to find it for yourself.

--- Ron.

I have nothing against buddism, if I was to be religious, this is the one I'd chose.
but it's not wrong, reincarnation is a supernatural thing.

 

[(Q)]

I don’t know much about how Abrahamic religions as a whole interpret the Book of Genesis. I know that Catholicism infers God as the efficient cause based on said book. It further states that this is an article of faith, meaning that it can’t be proved. That means it can’t be proved, ever. Meaning there is no proof to be found. Meaning no proof exists. This is dogma, it has been infallibly pronounced. To go against this in any way, shape or form is to evict oneself from the Roman Catholic Church until one retracts ones statement.

Well, it seems you've known all along how religious dogma controls the decision making process. BTW, much of what you said applies to the FSM.

The whole same-sex marriage is a really odd question. I know it’s to serve as an example, but still… again I can only write on Catholicism. The catholic marriage is entirely geared towards sanctifying the rearing of god-given children. It’s of course strictly monogamous. That’s almost a euphemism as catholic spouses are to strive to be of one flesh… incidentally, that’s also applies to Catholics as a whole in relation to every human being.

So, women are considered baby factories?

That being said, I’m at a lost as to why catholic gays would want a religious marriage as they can’t procreate by themselves and therefore don’t have anything to sanctify.

Marriage is an institution not entirely based on religion, perhaps its those rights gay couples seek.

It’s up to the secular governments (and other faiths who have another take on marriage) to enact civil unions entailing the same legal benefits as religious marriages, including adoption (and legalizing access to fertility treatments for lesbian life partners). Catholics, being held to help, respect, pray for and be just to others (that’s all others, as in the Other) couldn’t oppose that.

Yet, many Catholics do oppose gay marriage based on their religious beliefs.

Catholics are justified to sit back and wait for the end of the world, but since they must avoid from inadvertently causing their brother’s fall (be the cause of scandal), they should do their outmost to be efficiently helpful, just, brotherly and generally be great, selfless and happy people.

Are they really justified and do they really do their utmost to be selfless and happy people?

Since the prize is already received and there is no punishment, it might seem pointless, but hey… as long as they walk strait.

Another problem, they don't 'walk strait.' Most are hypocrites.

If it’s actually happening and they somehow hint at it, it would be okay?

I just want to figure out how far we agree on this. Please humor me.

I infer from this that you wouldn’t mind theist beliefs if they met your criteria on rationality in other fields. Based on the categorical nature and vehemence of your posts I surmise that you consider this condition practically impossible.

Is this where you stand?

The problem is it's not actually happening, hence it's not ok.

BTW - it is not MY criteria on rationality, it is simple rationality. The conditions aren't possible because what you've said above about Catholics is bollocks.

I was referring to his observations on the link between religion and violence. Especially how if it wasn’t religion, it would be race or in fact just about anything else.

That's the problem with theists, they only see the worst in humanity since those are the only traits their religion can function. Humans are compassionate and caring, traits that have evolved over generations. Religion continually reminds us we are not.

I also think everyone has a set of core beliefs.

If you are referring to any kind of beliefs in the supernatural, you're dead wrong.

 

[S.A.M.]

"People think humanity is innately compassionate, caring and for some reason rational.
I’d consider these to be irrational beliefs."

Especially lacking any evidence to support it.

 

[KennyJC]

"People think humanity is innately compassionate, caring and for some reason rational.
I’d consider these to be irrational beliefs."

Especially lacking any evidence to support it.

Compassion is just one evolutionary trait popular amongst many social animals. Society as we know it would not exist if we had not inherited these emotional traits. Our emotions are geared towards our very own survival as we are a very socially complexed species. So how is that irrational?

You can not however, compare emotions to superstitions. Just because emotions create superstition does not mean the emotions themselves are irrational. Religion and belief that sighting magpies (a variety of bird in the UK) gives you luck, are both emotionally generated, and both very irrational. A person only becomes irrational when they continue to believe something despite lack of and/or contrary evidence.

 

[(Q)]

I can see how just like any other logical frame it guides the decision making process. Euclidean geometry controls (or guides) the decision making process of one thinking along it.
Newtonian physics controls (or guides) the decision making process of one thinking along it.
I don’t see how dogma controls (or guides) the decision making process of one thinking along it in a fundamentally different way.

That's funny, geometry and physics being compared with dogma.

Only females can (in our specie) . A catholic married woman sorta is. It is sinful if she doesn’t try to conceive, but everyone still has to love her as god itself loves everyone.

How very unfortunate for Catholic women to be treated that way.

Indeed most are hypocrites who don’t follow their faith. And that faith might very well be bollocks, but it’s harmless (in the sense that faithfully following it doesn’t produce any harmful effects; if it isn’t faithfully followed, then it’s not followed at all and therefore can’t be blamed) and quite sound and amusing bollocks.

Is this more comedy? You just stated how badly Catholic women are treated and then go on to say "it doesn't produce any harmful effects."

I’m continually astounded by these two facts.
People can’t seem to conceive of religion as being an institution and therefore a tool that will be used as it is considered useful.
People think humanity is innately compassionate, caring and for some reason rational.
I’d consider these to be irrational beliefs.

Humanity hasn't had the chance to show itself as compassionate and caring ever since they were told they're sinners. Most people have been indoctrinated from childhood and are brainwashed to believe in such.

Do away with religion, wait a few generations and we'll see. Shouldn't we allow positive atheism a chance on a global scale, just to see if it works?

It doesn’t necessarily include beliefs in the supernatural and I can’t see how that needs be. Does that mean I can’t be dead wrong? Would that mean that I must at the least in part be right?

What beliefs do you refer, exactly?

 

[(Q)]

"People think humanity is innately compassionate, caring and for some reason rational.
I’d consider these to be irrational beliefs."

Especially lacking any evidence to support it.

Horsepucky! Are you saying there is no evidence to support compassion and caring in humans?

Are you so brainwashed from your religion, you spout nonsense like that?

 

[mustafhakofi]

No denial of and no beliefs in the religious would be much closer to agnosticism then atheism.

I think you misunderstood or your just being facetious. to deny a thing it must have first existed, so there is no denial as it is infantile to deny that which does not exist.
which was made clear in the next sentence quote"there is no denial of these aledged truths, theres no belief that the asserted thing/truths ever existed in the first place"

Incidentally, neither of those has core beliefs in the way everybody else then yourself is discussing as they aren’t people. Atheists, agnostics, theists and what-have-yous on the other hand do as they are people.

sorry you've completely lost me, what are you talking about here. can you try and clarify.

The only way this makes sense to me is that whatever mentions “evil, killing, enemy, infidel, war, sacrifice, suffering, fear, death, etc.” is advocating violence in there very core.

now your being stupid, if the holy books were taken as what they are fiction, then they are harmless, but as they are taken as truth then they are the basic foundation for the causes of evil.
I have not replied to the next few paragraphs as they are to inanely stupid for a response,

I’m afraid I don’t, as I haven’t asserted anything religious…

yes I'm sorry there, I was of the understanding you where religious, but I find your a fence sitter, a dont know, a not sure.

Funny how it actually seems that material wealth is the greatest deterrent to wanton violence.

?

History has shown us that the peasants and more recently civilians (generally considered to be weak minded and uneducated by those who orchestrate conflicts) are those who suffer the most from conflict as they are the one’s pressed into service, raped and pillaged and have their livelihoods torched or otherwise destroyed. Education has simply made all of this more efficient.

you must live in a completely different world to the rest of us, it seems your still in the dark ages, take of the blinkers.

 

[S.A.M.]

Horsepucky! Are you saying there is no evidence to support compassion and caring in humans?

Are you so brainwashed from your religion, you spout nonsense like that?

Human beings have to be taught to love. Children from dysfunctional families and those who grow up without parents (e.g. in orphanages), those who come from violent homes or war torn areas, grow up stunted in the ability to cherish and love. Not true for all, of course, some people have an endless ability to love, even when not reciprocated, but in general, children who receive no love do not know how to give it. Why do you think a functional family unit is the best atmosphere to bring up a healthy child?

PS This is from my course in Child Psychology not from Islam. From studies on feral children.
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/pager.php?df=plessis&pg=2

... qualities such as friendliness, thankfulness, honesty, truthfulness, unselfishness and respect for authority. All these skills and qualities — and many more — must be learnt for the child to eventually lead a happy and successful adult life.

Loving is hard to learn once the crucial stages have passed. Violence however is instinctive (fight or flight) and can be brought about by any feeling of danger or aggression in ALL individuals. It may even be inherent in some individuals who are violent by nature.

Religion is just a guide, not the Encyclopedia Britannica.
You still need an education to arrive at some conclusions about the world and the people in it.

btw, I LOVE your tone...so compassionate and caring!

 

[mustafhakofi]

Talk about lag...

more gobbledegook, does'nt clarify, your last bout of gobbledegook, sorry.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

Indeed most are hypocrites who don’t follow their faith. And that faith might very well be bollocks, but it’s harmless (in the sense that faithfully following it doesn’t produce any harmful effects; if it isn’t faithfully followed, then it’s not followed at all and therefore can’t be blamed) and quite sound and amusing bollocks

are you sure(being sarcastic)is not indoctrination, a form of child abuse.
no it's not harmful(being sarcastic again)are you just spamming or are you really trying to be serious.

No denial of and no beliefs in the religious would be much closer to agnosticism then atheism.
Incidentally, neither of those has core beliefs in the way everybody else then yourself is discussing as they aren’t people. Atheists, agnostics, theists and what-have-yous on the other hand do as they are people.

The only way this makes sense to me is that whatever mentions “evil, killing, enemy, infidel, war, sacrifice, suffering, fear, death, etc.” is advocating violence in there very core.
As you and I have mentioned these, you and I would be advocating violence in our very core. We would therefore be evil.

Is Sciforums also advocating violence in its very core as it has allowed us to mention “evil, killing, enemy, infidel, war, sacrifice, suffering, fear, death, etc.”?

What of all the infrastructure allowing the mention of “evil, killing, enemy, infidel, war, sacrifice, suffering, fear, death, etc.” to be relayed from Sciforums servers to the readers monitor?

Should all of this be revised as to forbid the mentioning of “evil, killing, enemy, infidel, war, sacrifice, suffering, fear, death, etc.”?

Is it the mentioning of “evil, killing, enemy, infidel, war, sacrifice, suffering, fear, death, etc.” in its entirety that’s advocating violence in the very core of whatever conveys it or does the mentioning of any of these terms suffice to demonstrate that the conveyor’s core values are evil?

all the above was complete gibberish, infact nothing you've said has any value, you must be spamming, could you stop please. it breaks up the flow in the thread. thank you.

 

[Sarkus]

Congratulations! It’s a hypothesis!
Now find a way to test it and share your study with us…

In the mean time I’ll continue considering compassion as an important virtue that people can forgo (and usually do).

So the fact that other animals show compassion?

Click

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I think compassion is innate but varies in severity from specimen to specimen.

My kids for example, my little boy always demonstrated natural compassionate qualities, whereas my daughter has to be taught them. Or they are less obvious in her.

The problem with studies on ferral children being basis for deciding what human qualities are innate is that there are so few cases to gleam knowledge from and more importantly, any innate quality if supressed due to lack of need to use it, may remain so, perhaps indeffinately so the lack of apparrant presence of compasion on discovery or after training does not help us to know what was present at birth.

I knew many children who were raised in care, they loved and were compassionate. They had love between other children. The problem was they rarely felt love from adults or had a single adult to identify with for a long period. Thus their understanding of what love is was distorted based on what they thought it means. Example, they thought that if you love someone, it means tolerating everything they do. Thus to test if someone loved them, they would push the boundaries of usual behaviour to see if the love remained true. What they did not understand was that first you must love yourself and thus you do not allow love for others to be at your own demise. Although it is often the reverse, we do allow ourselves to suffer for the love of others.

Anyway, kids in care may lack love for themselves.

Myself I was raised without physcial affection and never felt 'love' (although I was undoubtably loved) but I learned it in adult hood and I lavish love and physcial affection on my children.

My mother however also never had physical affection and was unable to develop it in adult hood as a mother. She managed with her dog though, which used to upset me greatly

Now she's a granny, she's better than she was, so it's never too late.

So there is no 'rule' here.

 

[perplexity]

...Thus to test if someone loved them, they would push the boundaries of usual behaviour to see if the love remained true.
..... Anyway, kids in care may lack love for themselves.

So how then do I know if I love myself?

Do we push the behaviour boundary to see if our love for ourselves remains true?

Or more to the point, whose behaviour boundary do we push?

--- Ron.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

So how then do I know if I love myself?

Do we push the behaviour boundary to see if our love for ourselves remains true?

Or more to the point, whose behaviour boundary do we push?

--- Ron.

you don't need to test whether you love yourself or not Ron, as we know whether we do or do not, it's other people's feelings we are not privvy to.

If soemone engages in self destructive practices and disrespects self, that would to me indicate lack of or reduced self love.

 

[perplexity]

you don't need to test whether you love yourself or not Ron, as we know whether we do or do not,...

But I don't. Really. I don't know what it means. I don't know to say if I do or do not.

To the contrary I suspect a subconscious urge to attract opposition to test my opinion of myself.

Love for others is of course at my own demise; that is what marriage and parenting is, isn't it? Sacrifice.

--- Ron.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

But I don't. Really. I don't know what it means. I don't know to say if I do or do not.

Love for others is of course at my own demise; that is what marriage and parenting is, isn't it? Sacrifice.

--- Ron.

then maybe you do not.

Marriage and parenting should not be at your own demise, there should be balance and harmony. And any self sacrfice you make on their behalf should give you some pleasure, thus the benefits are still two way.

If you feel burdeoned, taken advantage of, over streched, then I reccommend some you time, a holiday full of indulgences all for you.

Women may stay in violent relationships becuase they love the man, what they must try to establish is a love for themselves that is greater to ensure their own survival and quality of existance. We teach 'selflessness' but we should also teach self love.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think compassion is innate but varies in severity from specimen to specimen.

Hi ToR

Actually the difference I was trying to stress (unsucessfully it seems), is that love and compassion are "learned" abstract concepts while violence is an innate instinct. Its not just feral children (that was an extreme example to show that human qualities are learned and not innate, and are affected by language and communication skills). For example there have been studies in deafblind children.

http://www.sparkle.usu.edu/Topics/concept_development/index.asp

Studies on deafblind children have shown that

All concepts begin with relationships. A deaf-blind child will have difficulty developing accurate ideas about the world unless she has at least one trusting, significant, meaningful relationship to serve as a center from which to explore the world in gradually widening circles.

Love is necessary for the healthy growth of a child

For more than forty years, researchers have studied the effects of attachment deprivation and maternal deprivation on human infants, children, and adolescents. As early as 1965, John Bowlby, and other pioneers in the field of studying attachment disorders in children, showed that human infants raised in orphanages with little stimulation and human contact, developed failure to thrive, developed psychological disorders, and frequently died.

But it is not innate. It is learned through interaction and assimilation from the environment.

Here is a brief primer:
http://www.cdl.org/resource-library..."abstract concepts" in children love respect"

And some theories:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ren&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Hi ToR

Actually the difference I was trying to stress (unsucessfully it seems), is that love and compassion are "learned" abstract concepts while violence is an innate instinct. Its not just feral children (that was an extreme example to show that human qualities are learned and not innate, and are affected by language and communication skills). For example there have been studies in deafblind children.

http://www.sparkle.usu.edu/Topics/concept_development/index.asp

Studies on deafblind children have shown that


Love is necessary for the healthy growth of a child



But it is not innate. It is learned through interaction and assimilation from the environment.

Here is a brief primer:
http://www.cdl.org/resource-library..."abstract concepts" in children love respect"

And some theories:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ren&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

I will look at those links sam, but I disagree (in absence of doing so)

for these reasons:

Animals which require parental support from birth would not receive it were it not for the 'love'..parental instinct that attracts the adult to care for the new born. All new born pups/kittens/human babies etc etc would die if the parent did not possess the unique abiulty to love them and corresponding desire to care for them.

Animals that do need parental care after birth (most reptiles) demonstrate no 'loving' 'caring' social tendancies, none. Thus as you confirm love is a survival requirement for some species.

Also it is the old chicken and egg thing. If love had to be learned, how did the first man (lets go back further) primate ever survive in the absence of any parental care?

To say love had to be learned is to say at one time it never existed.
How did any animal requiring parental support/love survive before it existed?
You state yourself in your post, animals deprived of love, die.
Thus without innate love we would simply not be here.

Love did not come into being by itself, it existed. It is a requirement of survival.

 

[S.A.M.]

ToR:

Well let's just say not ALL kinds of love are learned. Some are just chemical reactions!

http://www.oxytocin.org/cuddle-hormone/

...oxytocin at the level of the brain plays a role in the expression of maternal, sexual, social, stress and feeding behaviors, as well as learning and memory.

Animal studies, from Witt’s lab and others, have shown that oxytocin can have dramatic effects on behavior. When the natural release of oxytocin is blocked, for instance, mothers - from sheep to rats - reject their own young.

Meanwhile, virgin female rats injected with oxytocin fawn over another female’s young, nuzzling the pups and protecting them as if they were their own.

In addition, studies show that oxytocin in females, as well as the closely related vasopressin in males, is key to pair bonding.

"You first meet him and he’s passable," Witt said of the phenomena. "The second time you go out with him, he’s OK. The third time you go out with him, you have sex. And from that point on you can’t imagine what life would be like without him."