(Religion=Delusion) = Delusion

[lightgigantic]

LG, I think you'll find most people who say what you claim they do will not deny doing so facetiously.

I think if you address the cultural/moral issues presented in the OP, it will be difficult to determine how they don't

Unfortunately, none of what you go on to say provides one iota of support for the truth of the tennets of religious faith.

That the majority of the world are religious? Irrelevant.
That it has inspired people? Irrelevant.

erm
did you go further than the first paragraph of the OP?

 

[lightgigantic]

I love your religious morals:

Its difficult to see how your contributions can be viewed as controversial unless you bear some support for the theistic contribution of equality, etc.

 

[Asguard]

the same place religious ethics came from, ie what is nessary to bind the tribe into a cohesive sociaty. no nessaty for god at all

 

[lightgigantic]

Nasor

Your problem here is that when you look at the specifics of the claims of all these people throughout history, then end up being mutually-contradictory. If there really was a divine being that was inspiring people to believe that he/she/it exists, I wouldn't expect such a diverse, contradictory set of beliefs. It seems unlikely to me that the Norse religion, Hinduism, Christianity, and the various native American religions were all inspired by the same truth.

I guess it depends whether you want to accept atheist hate sites or theological/linguistic/cultural studies as one's source for being informed.

Also, your attempts to claim that most societal morals come from religion is simply ignorant. MANY cultures throughout history separated their morals from their religion. The ancient Greeks and Romans, the Norse, and many other cultures justified their morals with philosophy, not religion.

and where did they get their philosophy from?
the backs of breakfast cereal packets?

If you take a look at the religion of any of those cultures, you'll see that they believed in gods that often behaved very badly and were NOT thought of as beacons of moral virtue that were to be emulated.

Well as for the norse, they are not celebrated as great upholders of moral virtue ... and neither are were their cultural achievements longstanding, so I'm not sure why you mention them. But regardless, whatever great things they achieved is certainly heavily steeped in metaphysical ideology.
As for the greeks, it was plato who launched an argument quite similar to yours, and he played a part in establishing something more in line with monotheistic accounts by focusing on the "chos" (or void) - the chos was explained as the cause of the greek pantheon - and so he goes on to talk about an absolute realm that houses absolute versions of what we find temporal examples of here etc etc

And by the way, exactly which set of religious-inspired morals were you talking about? Because again, if there really were some universal deity that was inspiring morality, I wouldn't expect different cultures to all use religion to justify such a diverse range of moral philosophies.

Just to speak in a very general sense, it might be convenient to talk of three general classes of theistic practices

• animism
• polytheism
• monotheism

anyway, there are very good reasons why you find practically no philosophy in animism, a little philosophy in polytheism and a lot of philosophy in monotheism, and also why quality of morals has a direct relationship with philosophy

Even just looking at Christianity, a single religion, you have inspired moral beliefs that have ranged from the crusades and witch burning to total "turn the other cheek" pacifism. So again, looking at the morals that have been inspired by religion throughout history - even just looking at the morals that have been inspired by a single religion - I don't see any signs that there was some universal truth that was guiding them.

well suppose you look at trees as they appear in visual arts
you can see how it is represented differently in different cultures

From an outsiders point of view you could say that these things have nothing in common but from the view of person actually educated and familiar with the phenomena of trees and certain cultural influences its quite clear that the subject is the same.

In the same way, i think you would be hard pressed to find any professional academic involved in the field of studying theology who advocates that the nature of god is some sort of multi-fractured cultural development that develops independently (even atheists in the field opt for arguments that god fulfills certain primal/psychological needs, since it is just plainly too ridiculous to deny the issues of similarity)

 

[lightgigantic]

Spidergoat

But the Greeks were very religious, and the bible talked about how one should treat their slaves.

so obviously not all religions are equal (in the moral sense) - In other words you can expect very different moral outputs between animism, polytheism and monotheism - and of course you can analyze the grade even more intensely within each category.

The focus of the Op however was on what is prized as the highest moral ground of current society - equality - and how it is a theistic contribution, which is not at all unlike many other theistic contributions for improving the cultural fabric of society (eg art, architecture, literature, etc)

 

[lightgigantic]

I think that qualifiers like "delusional", "insane", "idiotic" are mostly nothing but convenient at least partly socially acceptable expressions of anger and hatred. If there actually would be some rational basis for using those qualifiers, then the people who use them could justify them in each instance of use and could define "insane" as opposed to "sane", "knowing the truth about reality" as opposed to "delusional" and so on. But they cannot; they resent such a challenge; all they do is revert to "it is obvious, self-evident what the truth is" and "it is so because I said so" in various versions.

In the Buddhist tradition, there is the guideline that the Dharma should never be taught to someone who has not meditated yet. Before a talk, some Buddhist teachers go through a session of guided meditation with the audience first. In other traditions, the first activity at a religious meeting is the singing of songs or praying, and only then do they move to the philosophical part and discussion.
There is a good reason for this: they recognize the importance of stilling the mind, and that a mind in the grip of anger, hatred, jealousy, greed ... cannot think straight and isn't useful. And only someone who has experienced at least some true stillness of mind will be able to appreciate its importance and recognize how anger and hatred tend to go hand in hand with irrationality and low standards of cognition.

/takes a deep breath
:runaway:

 

[lightgigantic]

Assguard

the same place religious ethics came from, ie what is nessary to bind the tribe into a cohesive sociaty. no nessaty for god at all

yet there is no historical evidence for your claim of no necessity ....

(hence facetious ....etc etc)

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

I think that qualifiers like "delusional", "insane", "idiotic" are mostly nothing but convenient at least partly socially acceptable expressions of anger and hatred.

That would make them irrational, we can't have that.

JaN.

 

[lightgigantic]

Fahrenheit

Originally Posted by LG
]I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insane
”
Two points firstly which god are you referring too.

its a generic all-inclusive argument by atheism

And secondly people have had constant testimony on all sorts of strange creatures since the beginning of time would you say absolutely none of them were delusional. And one other point, deluding oneself just means your mistaken, not necessarily crazy.

so what are the great cultural contributions of mermaids?
“

Originally Posted by LG
it seems like these persons are trying very hard to avoid the subject of god.
”
Yes lol, the exact same way they would be avoiding the subject of Fairies, orks, unicorns, satars, etc...

you can add faeries, orks, unicorns and satyrs too if you think it bolsters your argument
“

Originally Posted by LG
Especially when you consider that the world’s best moral systems (if not all of the moral systems – one’s that actually stay in civilizations) come from religion.
”
Morals do not come from religion, we are social animals, the golden rule applies, most ancient books contain some form of morality, such as "Aesops fables" "A Thousand and One Nights(Arabian nights)" etc...

If we are social animals, its kind of ironic how that society always coalesces around theistic/metaphysical issues.
As for Aesops fables and Arabian nights, the theistic/cultural influences in them are more apparent and direct than the midday sun. (To say the least, I think you would have assigned yourself a very difficult task if you set out to explain how the morality/metaphysical concepts these works contain is somehow independent from the cultures they arose from ... ok maybe you could do it on sciforums, but amongst an educated forum, I doubt it)

“
Originally Posted by LG
The same with best architecture, best sculpture, best literature – all were inspired by metaphysical ideas like this ..
”
Yes the imagination of people has constructed some of the most beautiful and pleasant things, such as the books and fables above.

so what does that tell you about the truth?
Its boring, uneventful, uninspiring?
I guess that would make communist russia the high point of our civilization.
Would you want to live there?

“
Originally Posted by LG
so to say that the most plausible explanation is that these people were insane – when it has been the most culturally productive phenomena in the history of humanity – I mean ... seriously
”
Genius has always had it's links with madness, so to has the imagination, there is nothing wrong with being just a little mad, if we weren't there would be no Art, no Music, etc.. The imagination can Inspire anybody, just watch a child play.
everything inspire us, and I mean everything. Religion is just one small aspect in the vastness that is the Imagination.

So all that is universally valuable in life has its roots in delusion?
I see ....
:crazy:

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy Cat

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insane --- it seems like these persons are trying very hard to avoid the subject of god.
”
It's not insanity, it's good old fashioned natural anthropomorphism and it's part of a survival mechanism. It biologically doesn't matter if our thought process leads to truth or falsity... it only matters if it improves our chances of survival and persistence.

thats a different argument than what atheists address in the OP
I think we have been here before
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71536
feel free to rehash the thread, but not here, if you don't mind

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Especially when you consider that the world’s best moral systems (if not all of the moral systems – one’s that actually stay in civilizations) come from religion. The same with best architecture, best sculpture, best literature – all were inspired by metaphysical ideas like this .. so to say that the most plausible explanation is that these people were insane – when it has been the most culturally productive phenomena in the history of humanity – I mean ... seriously
”
Morals come from how we judge other people. There is one primary question and one secondary question that humans use to judge other humans:

1) Are you mean?
2) Are you valuable?

That's the basis for all human morality.

and you can't see how different value foundations (cultivated by philosophy of course) will greatly determine the response to these two question?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
one simple example

For many centuries – since the renaissance until recently - the pillar of education was classical civilization (Greek and roman) philosophy, art etc (until the technological/industrial revolution , which convinced people that more important than art, philosophy and morality is high tech consumer products) – but for many centuries it was the basis of western education ....
However, for all their advances in art and culture, the Greeks and Romans could never imagine that there could be anything as absurd as equality; that a rich person and a poor person are equal, or a free person and a slave. It’s ironic how Athenian society it is held up as the quintessential example of real democracy with all the Athenians actually going up on the hill to the acropolis and intensely debating issues .... of course the reason that they could afford to spend their time like this is because they had so many slaves at home ( someone to plant the crops, someone to harvest them, someone to do the pots ). Most people in Athens were actually slaves. So for all their hyper impressive architecture etc the notion of ultimate equality was completely alien (And what to speak of the Romans, who were more than happy to enslave large numbers of people). So interestingly enough, the notion of no matter how much money, power etc you are all equal, that actually came from religion (Jesus in the west).

So historically the highest moral substance has always come from religion. To write all that off as a massive delusion comes across as trying really hard to ignore a jumbo jet that has crashed into one’s dining room
”
Western (US specific) moraility was driven negatively by religion. The founders of the US judged their native country as being mean to them by hindering their religious freedom. They found the idea of equal religious freedom as far more valuable and formed America.

so where did they get the idea of freedom from?
Burger King?

My observation is that the healtheir a society is and longer it lasts, the more it will align towards individual equality simply due to how we judge each other.

Your observation of what exactly?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat

thats a different argument than what atheists address in the OP
I think we have been here before
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71536
feel free to rehash the thread, but not here, if you don't mind

Not many atheists hold the position that theists are just flat out crazy. I think many of them realize the behavior is quite natural. Anthropomorphics is a huge part of why that is.

and you can't see how different value foundations (cultivated by philosophy of course) will greatly determine the response to these two question?/

There is wiggle room for the answers and the questions remain the same. I think you would be surprised how ethically alike the majority of humans are.

so where did they get the idea of freedom from?
Burger King?

It's a natural concept that arises from our psychological needs.

Your observation of what exactly?

Human society.

 

[lightgigantic]

Not many atheists hold the position that theists are just flat out crazy. .

yes
rather that they are deluded, have fantastic beliefs with no grounding in reality, etc etc

 

[Myles]

yes
rather that they are deluded, have fantastic beliefs with no grounding in reality, etc etc

It is good to see you admitting your error.

 

[lightgigantic]

It is good to see you admitting your error.

well at least Myles succeeds in transgressing Crunchy Cat's estimations of atheism

 

[lightgigantic]

It's a natural concept that arises from our psychological needs.

what psychological need do you have to be equal with me?

 

[iceaura]

rather that they are deluded, have fantastic beliefs with no grounding in reality, etc etc

Aside from the "no grounding in reality" part (reality does have profound aspects, normally termed "spiritual", that many theisms are grounded in to some extent) that is true, of course - and theists usually share that opinion about at least some other people's theisms, of course.

That is a common and basically normal aspect of human psychology. It is not particularly insane, and most atheists do not regard it as insanity.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

yes
rather that they are deluded, have fantastic beliefs with no grounding in reality, etc etc

Why would you care? Everyone's deluded about something. Atheists aren't going to hate you for it, hurt you for it, or otherwise discriminate against you for it.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

what psychological need do you have to be equal with me?

We have identical needs. While we may differ in which ones are emphasized over others, we share the same list. A handful of them are:

* Security or safety.
* Effectiveness and control.
* Positive identity and self-esteem.
* Positive connection and esteem for and trust in others.
* Autonomy and self-trust.
* Comprehension of reality or world view.

 

[Asguard]

maslow's hierarchy

 

[lightgigantic]

We have identical needs. While we may differ in which ones are emphasized over others, we share the same list. A handful of them are:

* Security or safety.
* Effectiveness and control.
* Positive identity and self-esteem.
* Positive connection and esteem for and trust in others.
* Autonomy and self-trust.
* Comprehension of reality or world view.

so what psychological need do you have to be equal with me?

What need do you have that my level of security or safety is equal to yours
etc etc
?