How Religion Began

[Enterprise-D]

Confutatis:

You DO realise that your own argument can be used against you. That a theist will not recognise the symptoms of his own misguided judgement, unless he is not FULLY theist, that he is grounded by the logic of atheism. To illustrate:

Now the problem with the theist is that he doesn't recognize that fundamental problem. If you're a theist, chances are you won't recognize it. Because the fundamental characteristic of the theist is not that he does not have enough belief in himself, but that he has too much belief in a higher power (labelled God). The theist is, to put it boldly, on the verge of insanity. He may not be there already, but whatever it is that is preventing him from completely losing his common sense, it is definitely not his philosophy. The sane theist owes his sanity to the fact that he is not fully subscribed to theism.

Yes I've reworded your argument. This is why, by the way, this argument will NEVER end, because the REAL problem with humanity is that we cannot leave well enough alone, all of us would believe that we are RIGHT. (Actually that's just ONE problem, but those aren't for this forum).

Side point: insanity can be defined as the loss of ability to REASON (ignoring medical mental disorders for this discourse). How does this connect to atheism being insane? The answer is, it cannot.

I recall a post that I think you submitted. Maybe we should all give up, go have a beer and laugh at our silliness. I prefer vodka though

 

[usp8riot]

There's nothing wrong with the atheists' sanity, in general, I might add. If I didn't have my own religion, I wouldn't have any at all. You can't expect every sane, intelligent modern American to believe the bible as a whole as it is, or actually most of them. If you've read the bible, you would know what I mean. Same with the quran, that is really hard to believe and the same with Judaism, I might add. Or any religion with mysticism, seeming contradictions, and magic. I couldn't go to church most of the time for what little I did without feeling like I was in somewhat of a joke.

Atheists, atleast some, tend to be perfectionists and want full knowledge there is a God and what He stands for. One argument for christians is that they would rather take a chance dying believing in God than not to, that it would be safer. And doesn't your own God tell you not to gamble, and doing so without fully believing, you are gambling your soul and your life. If you were a child and lost your mother, would she rather have you be gullible to anyone who says they are your mom and accept that even though your life could be in danger? So is God. He loves the questioning of His children because He knows they are looking to find Him and being careful in their search. But you can question too much. If you were finally home with your mom after finding her all these years, and you kept questioning her if she really is, you will only take a peaceful situation and turn it for the worse. You will upset her and never find peace in your own self. If you believe she is who she is and aren't 100% sure since you've been away from the one who brung you into this world for so long, and she cares for you as her own son, then you can rest assured, you are in safe hands.

In a world of deciept, you can never be 100% sure of anything, even our mind tricks us on what reality really is, even though we just call it what is perceived by the individual and confirmed by the whole but the whole doesn't have all the answers. Therefore, I say, be the same. Question of God but don't expect to be satisfied with that last question because there will always be that last question and then some, we don't and won't ever will know all. There will always be questions and even atheists take a leap of faith to say there is no God, whether you agree or not. Theists take a leap of faith towards their God. So either way in life, you have to take a leap of faith. To believe something you can't confirm. You may be satisfied within your own self but others may not. Christians, Jews, and Muslims, rest assured, you are on the right path, but others are more skeptical of the your God but soon a man will come to show modern man the way to God. Everyone will have a chance to find the Father. The prophets weren't perfect, no man is perfect, nor his word. If the prophets' words were perfect, there would be no questions because every word would fill your soul with satisfaction. To make you a believer, and then there would be no doubt they of the true God and the perfect word, and the way to salvation. They would do perfect deeds and be peaceful to anyone and make no enemies.

But even nice people have enemies because of the ignorance of man, we all know this. To understand someone is to know them, and to know them is to love them. So be not ignorant. Life is more than black and white. Law is black and white, there is no love in it. It generalizes and in generalizations you can't speak of individual problems and sympathy. Sure, society does seemingly ok ruled by law, but where is the love? God's justice is individual, does the law care about your triumphs and troubles and judge you as an individual? God knows better than this. That is one difference in believing in a loving God and His rules rather than the cold, hard, god of justice we know today, which is our ignorant governments and in the ignorant masses who view other masses and not individuals.

But to bring it back on topic, well, nevermind, I was off topic anyhow. But when Christians put people down in the name of a man of God, Jesus, it seems to fight his cause, to see Christianity as a kind and forgiving religion and only provokes people when you fight for any religion. One can never be forced to believe, any religion that enforces it's religion is ignorant and only creates spite for it, which reduces belief. I have done it before on this forum and felt guilty of it ever since. I forgot how it was to be an atheist and since, I won't or don't like to make decisions when I am emotional, I'd rather use peaceful reason. But I commend my fellow theists, and I know God does too, that they are still doing a great job of helping the atheists to understand and you got to admit, they do take a lot of flack here on the forums.

 

[Confutatis]

You DO realise that your own argument can be used against you.

I do! That is what I meant when I said philosophy is nothing but sophistry.

That a theist will not recognise the symptoms of his own misguided judgement, unless he is not FULLY theist, that he is grounded by the logic of atheism.

Look, I agree with you that the world is full of insane theists. I never said it is theism that keeps a man sane; certainly the people who destroyed the World Trade Center were completely mad.

You have to really understand what I mean by insanity, otherwise my argument sounds insane. So please read on.

Yes I've reworded your argument. This is why, by the way, this argument will NEVER end, because the REAL problem with humanity is that we cannot leave well enough alone, all of us would believe that we are RIGHT. (Actually that's just ONE problem, but those aren't for this forum).

This is close to what I call insanity. We're almost there, but not quite.

Side point: insanity can be defined as the loss of ability to REASON (ignoring medical mental disorders for this discourse). How does this connect to atheism being insane? The answer is, it cannot.

I didn't say atheism is insanity, I said atheism brings a man to the verge of insanity. But even then, what I really meant was that the thing that leads men to atheism is the same thing that leads them to madness.

Your definition of insanity is accepted by many people, but it is false. If it were true, there would be no such thing as a mad genius. The fact is that reason cannot prevent madness anymore than it can prevent rheumatism. You have as much control over your brain as you have control over your intestine - and that is very little. But you can damage your intestine by swallowing unhealthy food, and you can damage your brain by absorbing unhealthy ideas.

Now this is the complex aspect of religion. From the beginning of time people have realized that they needed good thoughts, that they needed good philosophies. They have experimented with as many approaches as they could come up with, and have annotated the practical results of their experiments. Just like they have tried to eat all kinds of plants around them, and have annotated which ones can nourish and which ones can poison.

This is the mundane aspect of religion, and religion is complex precisely because it is mundane and sacred at the same time. Besides being a theory of the cosmos, religion is also the wisdom of our civilization, the annotated record of which ideas make a man mentally healthy and which ones make a man sick. When people say you must accept religion on faith, they are not asking you to deny your rationality, they are asking you to trust the rationality of the human race, even if you are not wise enough to understand it. The alternative is to follow their entire journey and face all the perils; no man is strong enough to do that.

The atheist is a man who rejects that wisdom. He thinks he can figure out things for himself better than the countless generations who lived before him. He thinks he can trace the entire history of civilization, fight all its battles, experiment all its ideas, and come up with a simple philosophy that he himself can understand.

I don't know if atheism is true or not. I know it has been tried countless times, and it has consistenly failed to prove itself a good philosophy. That is the only reason I reject it.

 

[Sarkus]

I didn't say atheism is insanity, I said atheism brings a man to the verge of insanity. But even then, what I really meant was that the thing that leads men to atheism is the same thing that leads them to madness.

So you see something leading people to atheism, and that this thing also leads people to insanity???
Where do you dig this drivel up from?

The fact is that reason cannot prevent madness anymore than it can prevent rheumatism. You have as much control over your brain as you have control over your intestine - and that is very little. But you can damage your intestine by swallowing unhealthy food, and you can damage your brain by absorbing unhealthy ideas.

Bollox. You can not physically damage your brain through absorbing ideas. To physically damage a brain requires physical stimuli.
Yes, you can "damage" a personality through reinforcing ideas, but that is not the same thing as damaging the person's brain.
The idea might lead to physical stimuli (e.g. the idea of taking drugs) but the then that is the physical stimuli - not the idea - causing the damage.

I can just see it now - a new terrorist weapon - an IDEA OF MASS DESTRUCTION!! LOL!

Besides being a theory of the cosmos, religion is also the wisdom of our civilization

How is it a theory of the cosmos? - the tennets of religion are unfalsifiable.

...the annotated record of which ideas make a man mentally healthy and which ones make a man sick.

And your evidence for this is...?

When people say you must accept religion on faith, they are not asking you to deny your rationality, they are asking you to trust the rationality of the human race, even if you are not wise enough to understand it.

Typical argument through Consensus. Logical Fallacy.

The alternative is to follow their entire journey and face all the perils;

Typical argument from Fear. Logical Fallacy.

...no man is strong enough to do that.

Typical argument from... er... something else. But it is another Logical Fallacy. Why is no man strong enough? What is telling you this? Where is the evidence?

The atheist is a man who rejects that wisdom.

Wisdom is not the same as Intelligence.
Wisdom is knowing how to use your Intelligence.
Wisdom is knowing when you don't have all the answers.
Wisdom is knowing when to go and look for the answers.
Wisdom is knowing when to question what your teachers are telling you!

Wisdom is NOT merely saying: "Oh, it's been this way for hundreds of years - so let's keep doing it - afterall they must have been right!"

He thinks he can figure out things for himself better than the countless generations who lived before him.

Typicl argument from Authority. Logical Fallacy.
It is irrelevant who the person is that is telling you the information. It is the information itself that is important!

Wisdom is ignoring who the teacher is and hearing the lesson.
Wisdom is analysing the lesson on its merits and not on who the teacher is.

He thinks he can trace the entire history of civilization, fight all its battles, experiment all its ideas, and come up with a simple philosophy that he himself can understand.

Typical Straw-Man argument. Logical Fallacy. Noone has stated that atheists do, or even try to do, all these things you say.

An atheist just doesn't have a belief in God.
That's it.
There's nothing more to it.

I don't know if atheism is true or not. I know it has been tried countless times, and it has consistenly failed to prove itself a good philosophy. That is the only reason I reject it.

You truly do not understand what atheism is.

It is not a question of whether "Atheism is true or not".
There is nothing to be "true" about it.

Atheism is merely a lack of belief in GOD.

And where has atheism been "tried countless times"?
Where has it consistently "failed to prove itself a good philosophy"?
Philosophy for who?
And good for who?

Atheism is not trying to be "good" or "bad".
It is just a lack of belief in God.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Wow...I don't think I can say anything after the "Sarkusm"

 

[wesmorris]

Pardon for butting in, just had a few comments:

So you see something leading people to atheism, and that this thing also leads people to insanity???
Where do you dig this drivel up from?

Athiesm would lead some people to insanity, don't you think? Many people have a propensity for answering the unknown with the mystical.

Many are otherwise intelligent people. They undertake the opportunity costs of embracing mysticism in certain contexts, as it allows them to maintain mental focus where their skills lie. What need does an actor have for comprehending the nature of probability?

Have you ever watched that show "deal or no deal"? 25 boxes which contain random amounts between $.01 and $1,000,000 dollars. Pick a box to start. You keep that one, having of course no clue what's inside it. Then you must pick 5 boxes. Each boxes is opened when picked, and the number inside is removed from play. Then the show makes the player an offer to buy the box they originally picked, based on the odds of what's left in play. It's fascinating to watch people's minds work on the problem of picking boxes that could make them a million dollars, or leave them with nothing. The mysticism kicks hard. "my sister is 11". "my grampa died when I was 18", all in a blind and fruitless hope that these numbers somehow have something to do with the content of the boxes.

It's very, very human to buy into mysticism when faced with looming unknowns. It's hope, and if for instance you pick a number because of that mysticism and it turns out to be good for you, the learning process in general lends itself to confirming your reasoning, even when your rational mind may or may not attempt to contradict it.

If for instance in the case of a very religious person, their entire mental structure has become rooted in such mysticism.. e.g., relying on "god" as a mental tool, and they are then faced with stark atheism.. well, insanity is a distinct possibility. This is because suddenly removing something that bridges a significant portion of their concepts together destabalizes the entire structure. It creates mental impasse.

Such individuals are however, unlikely to embrace atheism.

You can not physically damage your brain through absorbing ideas. To physically damage a brain requires physical stimuli.

Sorry but I have to disagree per the explanation above. While you might not see it as "physical damage", consider the repurcussions were such an event to occur (a zealot adopting atheism). It's possible that they could simply overcome it. It's also possible that all the nueronal interconnectivity would have a cascading failure to some extent, as each time a thought flits across it, the existing, strong relationship is suddenly weakened. *shrug* I'm just sayin I think it's quite possible indeed. The trick is accepting an idea that is so contradictory to the fundamental structure, and accepting it without doubt. That could trigger a cascading failure I'm quite sure.

Yes, you can "damage" a personality through reinforcing ideas, but that is not the same thing as damaging the person's brain.

It's not like removing a chunk of brain, no.. but it is like fucking with it really hard, which is well, damage.

The idea might lead to physical stimuli (e.g. the idea of taking drugs) but the then that is the physical stimuli - not the idea - causing the damage.

I just don't understand why you wouldn't think ideas could damage your mind. I suppose it depends on how you view "damage". Are you saying that no people who are insane have perfectly functional brains? I think there are a ton of people whose brains function well within "normal" parameters that are all fucked up from what it is they think about.

I can just see it now - a new terrorist weapon - an IDEA OF MASS DESTRUCTION!! LOL!

Can you say "fundamentalist islam"? How is that NOT exactly what you label the above? Propaganda is exactly geared towards motivating people to act a certain way... perhaps in very destructive way... perhaps in a self-destructive way. I don't see how that's in any way new, or why you think it so amusing when it happens all the time. It could be argued actually, that you're arguing against the validity of exactly "an idea of mass destruction": religion - again depending on how you define destruction.

 

[(Q)]

certainly the people who destroyed the World Trade Center were completely mad.

I didn't say atheism is insanity, I said atheism brings a man to the verge of insanity. But even then, what I really meant was that the thing that leads men to atheism is the same thing that leads them to madness.

Contradict much?

you can damage your brain by absorbing unhealthy ideas.

You show that consistently with religion.

Besides being a theory of the cosmos, religion is also the wisdom of our civilization, the annotated record of which ideas make a man mentally healthy and which ones make a man sick.

First of all, religion is NOT a theory, as theories are the result of observation and experimentation - those concepts do not apply to religion. Secondly, history has shown that religion is what make men sick and twisted, as you have also shown.

When people say you must accept religion on faith, they are not asking you to deny your rationality, they are asking you to trust the rationality of the human race, even if you are not wise enough to understand it. The alternative is to follow their entire journey and face all the perils; no man is strong enough to do that.

What utter crap! The rationality of the human race is changing as we speak, to that of atheism. The entire journey, as you say, is being trod to a different drummer, that of rationality.

The atheist is a man who rejects that wisdom. He thinks he can figure out things for himself better than the countless generations who lived before him. He thinks he can trace the entire history of civilization, fight all its battles, experiment all its ideas, and come up with a simple philosophy that he himself can understand.

That is so stupid a statement it hardly deserves a response. You appear to assume that cavemen knew something current science does not?

I don't know if atheism is true or not. I know it has been tried countless times, and it has consistenly failed to prove itself a good philosophy. That is the only reason I reject it.

It hasn't been tried, ever. But soon it will encompass the earth and your childrens children will be atheists. Too bad for you.

 

[baumgarten]

That's the exact same attitude that caused every holy war to date, only in this case, people will eventually kill not for the sake of a god but for nothing at all.

 

[(Q)]

That's the exact same attitude that caused every holy war to date, only in this case, people will eventually kill not for the sake of a god but for nothing at all.

So, with religion gone, and everyone using resources for the betterment of mankind, we are now killing for nothing?

Can you explain?

 

[Confutatis]

So, with religion gone, and everyone using resources for the betterment of mankind, we are now killing for nothing?

My impression was that we were actually killing precisely for those resources which provide the betterment of mankind. The specific portion of mankind that needs cheap gas for their SUVs.

I can almost hear Q replying only theists drive SUVs :m:

 

[baumgarten]

So, with religion gone, and everyone using resources for the betterment of mankind, we are now killing for nothing?

Can you explain?

Every crusader calls it "the betterment of mankind." Really, you want to see an idea that you disagree with destroyed. That is senseless destruction. Do you really believe that the idea of a god is what causes evil? Any violence perpetrated in the name of atheism is disproof of that belief.

 

[(Q)]

Any violence perpetrated in the name of atheism is disproof of that belief.

Can you explain that? What violence, in the name of atheism, do you refer?

 

[baumgarten]

http://www.christiantoday.com/news/...t.continues.clampdown.on.christianity/153.htm

 

[(Q)]

Atheism is used to drive communism, an ideology that has been shown to fail, miserably. Christians will be first ones to blame atheism in a communist society when in fact they should turn their attention to the ideology of communism as opposed to one of its driving mechanisms.

If anything, they are killing in the name of communism, that should be only too apparent.

 

[LeeDa]

Rationality confirms immortality.

 

[baumgarten]

Atheism is used to drive communism, an ideology that has been shown to fail, miserably. Christians will be first ones to blame atheism in a communist society when in fact they should turn their attention to the ideology of communism as opposed to one of its driving mechanisms.

If anything, they are killing in the name of communism, that should be only too apparent.

It is only apparent to me that they are persecuting Christians because they believe in God, and religion is the opiate of the masses. You *could* deny that this violence is in the name of atheism, but that would be irrationally denying evidence contrary to your beliefs, and this is not what you do, so you say. It is what it is.

More importantly, I want you to think about the possibility of someone commiting a violent act in the name of atheism much more than those that have already been committed. All it takes is one piece of evidence to send your assertions tumbling like a house of cards. Human nature is the cause of evil, not religion. Atheists (such as the Chinese government) are quite capable of it.

 

[(Q)]

It is only apparent to me that they are persecuting Christians because they believe in God, and religion is the opiate of the masses. You *could* deny that this violence is in the name of atheism, but that would be irrationally denying evidence contrary to your beliefs, and this is not what you do, so you say. It is what it is.

More importantly, I want you to think about the possibility of someone commiting a violent act in the name of atheism much more than those that have already been committed. All it takes is one piece of evidence to send your assertions tumbling like a house of cards. Human nature is the cause of evil, not religion. Atheists (such as the Chinese government) are quite capable of it.

Come now, there are 14 million Muslims and 7 million Christians amongst other religions in China - religious freedom is protected in their constitution.

Have you ever read Marx and Engels?

 

[baumgarten]

I think my point has become lost in the example I provided. Refer to the second paragraph of the post you just quoted, if you will.

 

[Confutatis]

Come now, there are 14 million Muslims and 7 million Christians amongst other religions in China - religious freedom is protected in their constitution.

Amazing how Q manages to make China go from an evil communist country to a benevolent free society in the matter of two posts...

 

[(Q)]

I think my point has become lost in the example I provided. Refer to the second paragraph of the post you just quoted, if you will.

"Human nature is the cause of evil, not religion. Atheists (such as the Chinese government) are quite capable of it."

Religion defines evil, hence it has no meaning to atheists. Is it your human nature to be such? Is it your human nature to do harm to others? What is your human nature and those of your acquaintance?

Communists are capable of it, but I doubt that has anything to do with atheism.