Religion does not matter, God matters. Your body does not matter, only your mind matters.
Michael's core problem with religions: self righteousness..
- Thread starter scifes
- Start date
Religion does not matter, God matters. Your body does not matter, only your mind matters.
Two points here:
1) Yes, neo-Atheists (if such a creature exists) may indeed NEED to be educated to understand the simple fact that people are, at present, superstitious and many may need a belief in something.
2) There isn't any reason why some theisms shouldn't be able to exist peacefully in a multi "ideology" world. BUT, ideas like ONLY my race is best or ONLY my God is true or ONLY my book is perfect ... well, these aren't really helpful in the world we live in today.
Maybe in the future or maybe never again :shrug:
Michael
Last edited:
Why does God matter?
Many of your arguments ring of neo-atheism. You should try and understand that it is an ideology and not the default position of genetic perfection or something.
Clearly you have a problem not so much with theism but with persons advocating an aggressive meta-narrative, since all this my race stuff is completely compatible with atheism. As for the my god and my book stuff, that doesn't have to be necessarily aggressive since henological discourse enables one to respect the validity of other paths. Kind of like we might accept that the most perfect investigation of mathematics can be accomplished at specific universities. This doesn't mean that there is a good argument for closing down the study of maths in all other schools.
Aggression spurned by ignorance is not likely to go out of vogue anytime soon.
OK, paint a picture of Xianity and Islam set in a henological frame.
Atheism an ideology? Atheism is nothing... nothing at all
neo-atheists, sounds like communists....
to do that you would first need to offer an essential definition of what it means to be a xtian, etc.
yet for some funny reason they seem to have plenty to say .....Atheism an ideology? Atheism is nothing... nothing at all
I guess there's the argument that they were the first neo atheists... except that they did such a dreadful job of it that their contemporary practitioners prefer to distance themselves from them.
just try your best LG
dilemma manifests:
not one race is better and not one god is true and not one book is perfect?
an assertion of self-righteousness is not helpful only when it is not deserved, the thing about self-righteousness is that it's also claimed to be deserved, but that doesn't put all those who claim it in the same group, those who are self-righteous should be self righteous, if only one god is true then that's what should be said, if only one book is perfect then that's what should be said, if only one race is the best than that's what should be said, don't forget that possibility.
you mean they aren't helpful because non of them is true.
not one race is better and not one god is true and not one book is perfect?
an assertion of self-righteousness is not helpful only when it is not deserved, the thing about self-righteousness is that it's also claimed to be deserved, but that doesn't put all those who claim it in the same group, those who are self-righteous should be self righteous, if only one god is true then that's what should be said, if only one book is perfect then that's what should be said, if only one race is the best than that's what should be said, don't forget that possibility.
So are you saying this:
It is possible there is only one God.
It is possible there are two Gods.
It is possible there are multiple Gods.
It is possible there is a Japanese Goddess named Amaterasu.
It is possible there are no Gods.
It is possible there is an elected intergalactic Alien Overlord Bureaucrat named Xenu (or Xemu).
OK I agree. These things many be possible.
Define what you mean by race. Because I don't think it exists.
Define what you mean by Perfect Book. Because I don't think it exists either.
This isn't about self righteousness. How is teaching children not to be racist bigots self righteous? Jesus, I belong to the so called Master Race for Christ's sake and even I think racism is wrong. That something to think about. Because isn't it usually the opposite. It's people who belong to the Master Germanic Race - they love the idea of teaching racist ideals. You will not find too many Balcks who think it's just dandy to teach their kids that Whites are superior. Nope. Coincidentally it's usually a white person who teaches their kids whites are better than blacks. People who belong to a monotheistic religion - they love the idea of teaching their intolerant Only our One God is True world view to children. People who belong to a religion who thinks their Religious book is Perfect - they love to teach children this intolerant ideal.
What's good is when people stand up and say, you know, I do believe in Gods and I like my religious book, but, it's possible that I'm wrong and the other guy's Goddesses are real not my Gods or maybe both are real. And I like my book, but it's no more or less perfect than any other religious books.
100 years ago I would have been considered to be part of the Master Race but I don't think that's true. There is no such thing as a Master Race and people should be judged based on their merit not their skin, hair and eye color, nor the shape of their eyes or the type of hair they were born with. Don't you think it's much better to teach children living in multicultural nations this? Or would you prefer we teach non-Germanic children that it's possible they are from inferior stock and racially lesser than us of German heritage?
Come on scifes, that's not being self righteous, that's being tolerant of multiculturalism in a nation of various people.
It is possible there is only one God.
It is possible there are two Gods.
It is possible there are multiple Gods.
It is possible there is a Japanese Goddess named Amaterasu.
It is possible there are no Gods.
It is possible there is an elected intergalactic Alien Overlord Bureaucrat named Xenu (or Xemu).
OK I agree. These things many be possible.
Define what you mean by race. Because I don't think it exists.
Define what you mean by Perfect Book. Because I don't think it exists either.
This isn't about self righteousness. How is teaching children not to be racist bigots self righteous? Jesus, I belong to the so called Master Race for Christ's sake and even I think racism is wrong. That something to think about. Because isn't it usually the opposite. It's people who belong to the Master Germanic Race - they love the idea of teaching racist ideals. You will not find too many Balcks who think it's just dandy to teach their kids that Whites are superior. Nope. Coincidentally it's usually a white person who teaches their kids whites are better than blacks. People who belong to a monotheistic religion - they love the idea of teaching their intolerant Only our One God is True world view to children. People who belong to a religion who thinks their Religious book is Perfect - they love to teach children this intolerant ideal.
What's good is when people stand up and say, you know, I do believe in Gods and I like my religious book, but, it's possible that I'm wrong and the other guy's Goddesses are real not my Gods or maybe both are real. And I like my book, but it's no more or less perfect than any other religious books.
100 years ago I would have been considered to be part of the Master Race but I don't think that's true. There is no such thing as a Master Race and people should be judged based on their merit not their skin, hair and eye color, nor the shape of their eyes or the type of hair they were born with. Don't you think it's much better to teach children living in multicultural nations this? Or would you prefer we teach non-Germanic children that it's possible they are from inferior stock and racially lesser than us of German heritage?
Come on scifes, that's not being self righteous, that's being tolerant of multiculturalism in a nation of various people.
Last edited:
You've summed up in one sentence 2000+ years of religious war.
What do you mean by right?
In all likelihood Atheism is correct and their are no Gods or Goddess, there is no good evidence for Xemu, Xenu, Allah, YHWA, John Frum, Amaterasu, Zeus, Smurfs, etc... as a matter of fact, there's a lot of good evidence that these are all make believe. The scientific evidence is actually Equal for them all. Zero. None. Zilch. Nada.
Even though I'm an atheist I still think we should be tolerant of some aspects of superstition. It's what keeps many people going. People need superstition. As that's the case, I suppose you could say I am advocating a wrong we should be tolerant of - namely: superstitions. BUT, we should work to progress past the shiftier memes in favor of the more enlightened memes. No?
right shouldn't be tolerant of wrong.
Actually, if the person thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong, then this sentence sounds quintessentially self righteous.
Is the rule in bold above only a religious rule? I look around at the world today, and the wars of the 20th century and so far in this one, and it seems to me secular reasons to not tolerate what is considered wrong are very effective at leading to violence. In fact
we should not be tolerant of what is in the way
seems to be carried out with secular and religious excuses
on a small scale and on a large scale
all the time.
I'm not sure if I get your point.
Humans have been intolerant of what is in the way for... ever. We have never been a peace "with the land" and have always sought to bend it to our will. It's only now there are so many billions of us humans that we're running out of land to violate. Most of those people being religious/superstitious mind you.
There's a scale of religious self righteousness. With strict monotheism on the top end and Buddhist-like stuff near the bottom.
Michael....what do you think of someone with a college degree in theology or religious philosophy? Is there anyone more self-righteous? I mean if your going to be self-righteous then you need something to be right about. Is it possible to be right about beliefs?
Of this kind of intolerance for what is in the way some cultures are more aggressive than others. But what I was referring to was when other humans and other groups of humans get in the way. They live on the land. They have certain resources. They have certain property. Religions provide excuses, but secular reasons seem to be just as effective. Humans hurt other humans who get in the way. In a world where most people are religious it can seem somehow given that religion is the cause, but I havent seen anyone demonstrate this.
Thats a version of the scale of religious self righteousness, but the secular version goes along just as strong. When US corporations felt threatened by unions in South America their self-righteousness against other Christians was not religious in nature. So they called in the US army or the local armies or hired goon squads or had government leaders taken out.
They did not consult religious bibles to decide this. Their motivation was not religious. They felt entitled and viewed the ones in the way as less human.
Humans do that.
I mean we could have threads about how heterosexuals start wars or are self+righteous, but it would be kinda silly. Most people are heteros.
Suddenly when it comes to religious people, they are the self-righteous ones. With what group are we comparing them?
How scientific is this conclusion?
Just to make sure, you know I didn't start this thread about myself and I don't consider myself anymore or less "self righteous" than the next.
I have an opinion and with good evidence or argument it can be changed.
I take the stance that religion is pure myth. That there are no Gods, Goddesses, Smurfs, Alien Overlords named Xenu/Xemu or Prophets and Prophetesses who truly spoke with real Aliens, Gods, Smurfs, Goddesses, etc... and I view religion through a lens of: It's a necessary social construct and so what good and what bad does it provide for a set time period and people.
I'd have to meet the person with a degree in theology or religious philosophy to form an opinion on the individual. I wouldn't say they are self-righteous or have humility.
I do know Priests that are agnostic for example and I'd say they are not self-righteous.
Is it possible to be right about beliefs?
Yes it is possible.
Or are just more efficient at it?
Is religion the cause? Hmmmm good question. I'm guessing no. It's like asking if racism was the cause of Slavery? Or did it simply provide the excuse?
Regardless, should we tolerate racism?
OK, I see. although I'd say it wasn't US corporation that felt threatened rather, but, a few unscrupulous arse-wipes whose greed and ruthlessness led them to the top of said corporations.
Shogun, Lord, Samurai, farmer, merchant (aka: unscrupulous CEO). There's probably a Historical rational for why Japanese society was organized with the CEO as the lowest ranked class. Not outlawed mind you, but they knew their place and it was below that of the farmer. So, if a farmer came walking by, the CEO would bow much lower.
Weren't the Roman Senate restricted from owning businesses? But they could be money lenders if I remember correctly? The Plebeian assembly OTH could own a business, but, couldn't hold a seat in the Senate (if they came from a famous family). I'm sure there is a Historical rational for why the Romans tried to separate certain commercial activities from political activities?
RE: Human's do it.
Hey, I think we may agree here? I'm not sure? What do you think?
I think some humans do these sorts of things. I've often argued it's a small percentage of any population that we're discussing anyway. So? Why teach them intolerance?
Take the case of racism again. You could teach 1000 children to be good little peaceful racists. You could tell them that WASP means peace. They just want to protect their "race". 999 will live a normal peaceful life as a WASP bigot. Go to work, have kids, build a future, etc.... One or two will go out and kill a black person simply because they are nuts and see this as "defending their faith" ahhh I mean race. Given that race isn't real anyway. Why not teach them some other more useful meme? That's my point anyway. I don't see what goot the meme provides today in our multicultural societies. Sure, 500 years ago it was really good at crushing non White societies under the thumb of Europeans. Expansion and colonization was valued back then. So being a racist was good for the success and progress of their endeavors. Not now though.
Last edited:
Both. I mean, both can vary.
That was a bit of slippery illogic. I assume you can see how.
Yah, of course.
I would definitely try to reduce the revolving door between oversight and industry. I mean that is a joke. One year you are working of Union Carbide, another year you are making sure they are environmentally sound for the gov. Then two years later you are on their board again with nifty stock options.
Sure. I agree. I don't think demonization of others is a good thing, unless they are demons. That's one tricky issue. I mean I would be intolerant of Nazi groups, to choose an example most, but obviously not all, will agree on.
Well as I said above this analogy has problems. I mean you can believe in God without thinking that other people who have different beliefs are automatically crap. You can focus on your beliefs for what they do for you.
If the topic was eliminating belief systems that have some pattern of dividing people, rather than simply focusing on religions, I would think it was less facile.
The same critique could be aimed at republicans, communists, neocons, hell look how much the name of democracy is used to justify violence. Capitalism is used to justify violence. Nationalism certainly. I think corporations are the result/cause of an ideology that causes divisions. My profit is your loss.
I think it is hallucinatory to focus this on religions when non-theist ideologies seem radically effective in getting people to hurt and kill and suck the life energy out of other people.
That's all.
Open it up and I am with you. Keep it focused on religions - and the organized monotheism mostly as far as I can see - and it is misleading in the extreme.
You can also believe in maintaining a pure White race without thinking that other people's different races are automatically crapola. However, IMO "racism" tends to lend itself well towards being intolerant of other races and no only that but thinking lesser of other races. Which is why racists are usually thought of as bigots as well.
The Religious analogy could be monotheism. Which can not abide that any other Gods or Goddesses or Buddhas exist. This intolerance itself is inherent of monotheism. Monotheism lends itself very well towards ideas of superiority over other people's belief systems. It's therefor natural to see expressions of this intolerance evidenced by "Perfect Books" written in "God language".
Given there are no Gods et.al., why not make a better belief system. I'd say who/whomever made up Buddhism was leaning in a much better tolerant direction. Not perfect, but a good base. Perhaps because of the multitude of beliefs in early Indian subcontinent cultures? So, if we have to have a superstition, why not build on one that is more tolerant instead?
At the heart of it I think the best is to provide people with information and hopefully instruct them in ways that can utilize that information - but, allow them to form their own opinion.
Yes, I agree, we have a lot of problems that need to be addresses. Some of which it's really hard to say one way or the other. Don't let my disdain of monotheism be too much of a put off
I understand where you are coming from for sure.These memes are successful and so can we assume they are useful?
But, how they cut on the double side of their blade. Yea? Religion provides peace of mind in times or distraught. Nationalism can rally a nation. Democracy can express the will of a people. Capitalism, well, I'm sure it does something
I don't think this is true. A computer might be programmable to spit out assertions that matched this, but I have never seen, heard, read, met a person who wanted a pure white race who did not look down on the other races. They might say otherwise, but then they contradict this with further questioning or their own slip ups.
Paganism and polytheism have seemed to me more able to tolerate 'you having your gods and me having mine'.