User Tag List

View Poll Results: What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

Voters
131. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm an atheist

    36 27.48%
  • I'm agnostic

    25 19.08%
  • Buddhism

    6 4.58%
  • Hinduism

    1 0.76%
  • Islam

    2 1.53%
  • Christianity

    39 29.77%
  • Other

    22 16.79%
First 7151617181927 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 590

  1. #161
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambling View Post
    That is indeed what he said or claimed, but part of this ideology in action was a definite and persistent attempt to remove and eradicate all religion; he closed churches and murdered church leaders with that deliberate aim. Looking at his actions, historically recorded, you are fudging the issue to deny the truth of his persecution and attempt to eradicate religion. It was part of his ideology in practice. What he *called* it is less important than what he *did* in my view. And your calling it something else certainly does not alter what happened, which is what I correctly referenced.
    Yes, I agree with you. Stalin was one of the world's great mass murderers. He was also an atheist who murdered believers wholesale. And he killed everyone from his own Officer Corps, to the peasants that fed him, to anyone who was the mildest threat to his power.

    But it is difficult to murder so many without a justification which was called scientific socialism which is part of the totalitarian ideology of International Communism.

  2. #162
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambling View Post
    Either there is a God or there isn't. That's a fact which has a particular truth value, regardless of what either of us decides to think about it or how each of us acts.

    If there is no God, then it becomes impossible to *logically* defend right as better than wrong, good as better than bad, patience as better than anger, peace as better than war, self control as better than rape, because each to his own selfishness and the strongest will win. There is no *moral* argument to prevent the man who says he judges that he enjoys killing and torturing people to death for his own pleasure, if morals are absent, and the presence of morals implies a common morality or common moral depth across many or all people; such *common* depth is where God is found, since it is not part of the physical world alone to assume that all people have by instinct or intuition the same moral standards.
    Yes, Dostoevski told us, If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted.

  3. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Yes, Dostoevski told us, If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted.
    Was it Voltaire who said that if God did not exist it would have been necessary to invent him(sic)?

  4. #164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Yes, I agree with you. Stalin was one of the world's great mass murderers. He was also an atheist who murdered believers wholesale. And he killed everyone from his own Officer Corps, to the peasants that fed him, to anyone who was the mildest threat to his power.

    But it is difficult to murder so many without a justification which was called scientific socialism which is part of the totalitarian ideology of International Communism.
    I'd have said it was to do with the norms and expectations of a country raised on Czarism to be honest but then there you go.

    There's an awesome comic online some place of Hitler and Stalin fighting the bit out with the occult powers of race and historical materialism making it all very like street fighter two, I think at the finish Hitler winds up in Hell as the Valkaries dont exist and Stalin disappears as he is an athiest, they are both killed anyway.

  5. #165
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Was it Voltaire who said that if God did not exist it would have been necessary to invent him(sic)?
    It seems to me that at first there was no doubt about God's existence because we literally heard God speak to us through our bicameral mind. But as the bicameral mind broke down and was replaced by our critical consciousness, the voice of God was no longer literally heard except by schizophrenics.

    And as God apparently withdrew from us we thought he had left us and risen above the clouds to heaven. And then we speculated on the nature of heaven. We populated heaven with whole hierarchies of angels and archangels, we matched heaven with hell, and even invented limbo for unbaptised babies.

    We also speculated as why God had left us. And we thought it was because of our original sin, that it was our fault God left us, so we made sacrifice so that God would forgive us and literally speak to us again. And christianity is based on the sacrifice of the cross in the vain hope God will literally speak to us again.

    So it looks as though Voltaire was right: when we stopped literally hearing God speak to us, it was necessary to invent the reason for the tragic loss, and to invent the cure.

    We are motherless children wondering why.

  6. #166
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Yes, Dostoevski told us, If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted.
    God doesn't actually need to exist when the mere question of it is enough to cause a ruckus. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that God debates are still a thing, as if nothing has changed in the past few thousand years.

    We cannot speak to the logical consequences of God existing or not because we haven't actually found God and proved anything so therefore that point is moot. It is quite obvious that mere belief is sufficient to cause radical behaviors regardless of the verifiable existential status of God.

    i.e. something being true is not nearly as effective as having people think that thing is true.
    Likes Cellmold liked this post

  7. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    It seems to me that at first there was no doubt about God's existence because we literally heard God speak to us through our bicameral mind. But as the bicameral mind broke down and was replaced by our critical consciousness, the voice of God was no longer literally heard except by schizophrenics.

    And as God apparently withdrew from us we thought he had left us and risen above the clouds to heaven. And then we speculated on the nature of heaven. We populated heaven with whole hierarchies of angels and archangels, we matched heaven with hell, and even invented limbo for unbaptised babies.

    We also speculated as why God had left us. And we thought it was because of our original sin, that it was our fault God left us, so we made sacrifice so that God would forgive us and literally speak to us again. And christianity is based on the sacrifice of the cross in the vain hope God will literally speak to us again.

    So it looks as though Voltaire was right: when we stopped literally hearing God speak to us, it was necessary to invent the reason for the tragic loss, and to invent the cure.

    We are motherless children wondering why.
    If you believe any of the bicameral mind stuff you should consider the criticisms of it on the rational optimist's web page, I'm not sure if he is an atheist, I think he is, he doesnt seem like a theist anyway but in any case he totally blasts those theories out of the water.

    I do think that there was a time that God was a greater part of the human mind that is the case today, the world is poorer for it if you ask me, but the bicameral mind theories are poorly conceived and even more poorly evidenced.

  8. #168
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    If you believe any of the bicameral mind stuff you should consider the criticisms of it on the rational optimist's web page, I'm not sure if he is an atheist, I think he is, he doesnt seem like a theist anyway but in any case he totally blasts those theories out of the water.

    I do think that there was a time that God was a greater part of the human mind that is the case today, the world is poorer for it if you ask me, but the bicameral mind theories are poorly conceived and even more poorly evidenced.
    It is certainly a shocking hypothesis. However it does have the advantage of being falsifiable.

    Do read the book The Origin of Consciousness by Julian Jaynes. And if I am any judge of the quality of your mind, I am sure you would enjoy reading it, whatever you may think of it.

    And here are some videos from the Julian Jaynes Society, https://www.youtube.com/user/julianjaynessociety . And if you look, you will find his book in PDF on the internet.

  9. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    It is certainly a shocking hypothesis. However it does have the advantage of being falsifiable.

    Do read the book The Origin of Consciousness by Julian Jaynes. And if I am any judge of the quality of your mind, I am sure you would enjoy reading it, whatever you may think of it.

    And here are some videos from the Julian Jaynes Society, https://www.youtube.com/user/julianjaynessociety . And if you look, you will find his book in PDF on the internet.
    Yeah, I've read it, I dont think its that good to be honest for the same reasons as the rational optimist didnt like it either, I read it after reading it refered to in The Fear of Life by Alexander Lowen, which is a good book too.

  10. #170
    Senior Member BlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    We can now have AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) without religion with Share! click on SHARE!

    And we can now have meditation without religion with Sam Harris' book Waking up: Spirituality Without Religion. To hear chapter one read by Sam Harris himself click on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP20eBfp2oM

    So we are starting to realize the riches of religion without the trappings of theology.
    What would you say to a religious person who found all spirituality and the group bonding of religion to be incredibly distasteful?
    Formerly Lion4!5

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-04-2016, 05:39 AM
  2. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 04-05-2016, 08:17 AM
  3. What magazines do you subscribe to and why?
    By fidelia in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 01:01 PM
  4. [ENTP] ENTPs, how often do you cry, [if ever] and why?
    By Spry in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 11:06 AM
  5. What direction do you see the USA going in, and where would you like it to go?
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 01:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO