What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

[Mole]

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.

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[Lark]

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)?

 

[Lark]

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.

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[sprinkles]

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.

 

[Lark]

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.

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[Lark]

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.

 

[BlackDog]

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?

 

[Mole]

What would you say to a religious person who found all spirituality and the group bonding of religion to be incredibly distasteful?

First of all I would say I fully sympathise and then perhaps I would add the caveat that religio means binding together, so group bonding would seem to be inevitable.

On the other hand almost all religions have a mystical or spiritual wing. Islam for instance has Sufism. And it is in the mystical wing that the solitary individual may take wing, alone.

But there is now no need to join a religion to enjoy the spiritual or mystical life. The riches of religion are now available to us without the trappings of theology as we find in Waking Up: Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris.

 

[jamain]

I would say I'm an agnostic.

The concept of 'God' is the equivalent of saying that there is an invisible chair behind me, it is a statement that is neither provable or unprovable.

Based on the multitude of contradictions in most of the religious texts, and the reasons possible as to why religion would have existed (control, comfort, etc.), I find it highly likely that religions were built on lies or misinterpretations.

What are some of these contradictions that you mentioned. I am particularly interested in what contradictions you believe exist in the bible.

 

[Coriolis]

What would you say to a religious person who found all spirituality and the group bonding of religion to be incredibly distasteful?

Well, I do find much of the group bonding of religion to be distasteful. For that matter, I tend to find group bonding distasteful in general. Spirituality, on the other hand, is a worthy but largely solitary pursuit.

 

[BlackDog]

Well, I do find much of the group bonding of religion to be distasteful. For that matter, I tend to find group bonding distasteful in general. Spirituality, on the other hand, is a worthy but largely solitary pursuit.

And are you a religious person?

I was kind of wondering what basis a person might have to be religious if they personally had no use for either spirituality or group bonding rituals.

 

[Mole]

And are you a religious person?

I was kind of wondering what basis a person might have to be religious if they personally had no use for either spirituality or group bonding rituals.

It is probably wise to keep in mind that we don't understand someone until we understand their religion.

And the three main civilizations extant today, Western Civilization based on the Abrahamic faiths, the Indian Civilization based on the Hindu religion, and the Chinese civilization based on Confucianism and Buddhism, can't be understood without understanding their religion.

And it is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to understand another person or another civilization without first understanding one's own religion first.

 

[Passacaglia]

What are some of these contradictions that you mentioned. I am particularly interested in what contradictions you believe exist in the bible.

Though not unique to Chistianity due to coming from the Old Testament, the story of Adam and Eve would be great comedy if so many people didn't take it as literal fact:

Yahweh creates Adam and Eve, the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge, puts all of them in Eden together, and then tells A & E "Don't eat the apples." Thus Yahweh is either deliberately setting A & E up for the Fall, or he doesn't know what any halfway decent parent knows -- that putting a thing within arm's reach of a person, particularly a young/innocent person, and then telling them not to touch it is virtually a sure-fire way to get them to do exactly that. Afterward when Yahweh discovers that the apple is missing from the Tree of Knowledge, he searches for but can't find A & E because they're hiding behind a bush! Oh and IIRC, soon after leaving Eden, A & E discover preexisting cities full of people!

From an ancient Yawheh-is-arbitrary-and-capricious perspective, there might arguably not be any inherent contradiction. (At least until A & E discover those cities.) And I'm sure that modern believers have all kinds of ways to reconcile this stuff. (Heck, early Christian Gnostics had a rather elaborate and interesting explanation!) But from a modern God-is-benevolent-and-all-knowing perspective, the whole story is very contradictory at least on its surface.

See Also: Wiki Article on Biblical Consistency

 

[jamain]

Though not unique to Chistianity due to coming from the Old Testament, the story of Adam and Eve would be great comedy if so many people didn't take it as literal fact:

Yahweh creates Adam and Eve, the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge, puts all of them in Eden together, and then tells A & E "Don't eat the apples." Thus Yahweh is either deliberately setting A & E up for the Fall, or he doesn't know what any halfway decent parent knows -- that putting a thing within arm's reach of a person, particularly a young/innocent person, and then telling them not to touch it is virtually a sure-fire way to get them to do exactly that. Afterward when Yahweh discovers that the apple is missing from the Tree of Knowledge, he searches for but can't find A & E because they're hiding behind a bush! Oh and IIRC, soon after leaving Eden, A & E discover preexisting cities full of people!

From an ancient Yawheh-is-arbitrary-and-capricious perspective, there might arguably not be any inherent contradiction. (At least until A & E discover those cities.) And I'm sure that modern believers have all kinds of ways to reconcile this stuff. (Heck, early Christian Gnostics had a rather elaborate and interesting explanation!) But from a modern God-is-benevolent-and-all-knowing perspective, the whole story is very contradictory at least on its surface.

See Also: Wiki Article on Biblical Consistency

Can you please give me the verse that indicates they found preexisting cities full of people?

Thank you!

 

[Coriolis]

And are you a religious person?

I was kind of wondering what basis a person might have to be religious if they personally had no use for either spirituality or group bonding rituals.

I consider myself spiritual (at least I try to be), but not religious, for these reasons.

Can you please give me the verse that indicates they found preexisting cities full of people?

Thank you!

Where did Cain and Abel get wives?

 

[jamain]

Where did Cain and Abel get wives?

Cain and Abel married a female sibling.

You didn't answer my question?

 

[Coriolis]

Cain and Abel married a female sibling.

You didn't answer my question?

So then the human race was originally propagated through an incestuous case of polyandry?

There are already several posts on the forum delineating the many contradictions in the Bible. When I have more time, I will try to find and link some for you to review. Of course, people who view the Bible with blinders on will play all sorts of mental and causal gymnastics to try to make them go away, but I will leave you to judge for yourself.