I know that this is a newly resurrected thread, but it’s new to me, so I’ll comment.
I couldn't find the old thread that asked what it would take to convince me that religion was true, but I came up with this test.
The Meme test
If all of the books and all of the memories of something could be destroyed and it could then be rebuilt, rediscovered, reinvented as it was, then it is something that truly represents reality.
If all of the books and all of the memories of a religion disappeared it would never be recovered in the same form. If all of the books and all of the memories of a scientific fact disappeared, it would only require our freedom to think to be recovered.
Examples of scientific facts being lost and re-discovered or being discovered in two disparate places actually exist. Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad only exist where someone has been told of those stories.
Neither of these can be truly tested because you need at least one person holding the books and memories while everyone else forgets or dies off. And how long should you wait before it is considered proven? Fortunately we have historical examples for scientific discoveries. There is no verified example of a visitation from Jesus anywhere outside the community of Jerusalem. He wouldn’t have needed to explain anything, simply appear, say some words that translate accurately into a Bible passage, and move on. He could still do this today to the remote tribes in South America. I'm not requiring any hard evidence, only a report from a person that shows some piece of religious data was independently discovered in two places.
That there are “spiritual" truths that are universal is not the same. I would be happy if all the religions in the world got together and decided what was really important, what they agreed was "truly godly", and started teaching it. I’m pretty sure it would look a lot like humanism.
I think this is totally true.
The knowledge of reality is available to anyone at any time everywhere, if you have the right tools.
The ideas that make-up religion are based on handed-down tradition that originated prior to most knowledge about reality.
By definition, 'reality' can be rediscovered exactly the same way, independently, an infinite amount of times.
By definition, 'religion' will always be unique each time one comes into existence (except by sheer, incredible, coincidence).
----------------------------------------------------
And now my opinion on an idea brought up by Write4U
Let me present a variation on the thought experiment.
I wonder what would happen to religion if we erased only the memories of religion and mythology from all theists and deists in all parts of the world, but kept our current knowledge of the sciences.
Would we reinvent a God?
The origin of religions are myths used to explain reality. When there's an explanation for something, a myth has a hard time starting. So if we eliminated religion, it wouldn't come back in anything resembling the form it takes now. (I'm not counting CAM or other 'alternative' thinking, because those are merely irrational, not religious.)
P.S. - "There is no verified example of a visitation from Jesus anywhere outside the community of Jerusalem." Is there even one for him visiting Jerusalem?
By definition, 'reality' can be rediscovered exactly the same way, independently, an infinite amount of times.
By definition, 'religion' will always be unique each time one comes into existence (except by sheer, incredible, coincidence).
Yeaah! I like that. And the religion coming into existence is very open to interpretation.
I read it as: each new "member" or adherent makes their own unique interpretation of religion/existence/reality...
I don't know if you saw my "church on a street corner" post though in another thread.
It dealt with what we consider to be rational.
"Memes" is just another name for ideas.
Thus the implication of the OP is that there is no value in ideas.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The purpose of the term "memes" is point out the similarities which ideas have with genes. It is an idea which I think has more validity that many of its users realize. They only use it in a negative way to compare ideas to a virus. But genes are the building blocks of all life on this planet. Viruses wouldn't even exist unless there were other living organisms to take advantage of. Therefore, it is most natural question in the world to ask what corresponds to the rest of living organisms in this idea of memes? Why only look at ideas in this negative manner and yet ignore everything else. It is the typical tactic of rhetoric for a dishonest ideology.
Genes are the repository of an inheritance of what has been learned to the next generation of living things. Memes/ideas do the same thing in a different communication media. What then do they build? All the structures of human civilization and not only that but I think they are the building blocks of the human mind itself. Living organisms are self-organizing structures in the medium of chemical interactions and material transport. I would suggest the the mind is also a living organism in the same manner but in the medium of the ideas of human communication -- a self-organizing structure of concepts and ideas by which we perceive, understand and react to the world around us. It think some of those ideas are what make us human.
Thus the "meme test" may not only sacrifice things like history as another contributor suggested but also quite likely our very humanity as well.
Memes and genes are incredibly similar. Pretty much the only difference is that one is physical and one exists in our consciousness. They're a cool meme in themselves.
But I don't know why or how we would be sacrificing our humanity if we deleted religion from our collective minds. If no one had blond hair or we all had four toes, we wouldn't lose our humanity, so why would losing the ideas of religion cause any loss in our humanity? Religion is merely a collection of stories and myths - there isn't one positive aspect of religion that can't come out of a religion-free mind.
I believe that if a large group of infants were to be raised and educated completely religion-free (not even our religious history was taught), they would have a great religion-free society. Not a perfect society, but better than our current one.
By definition, 'reality' can be rediscovered exactly the same way, independently, an infinite amount of times.
By definition, 'religion' will always be unique each time one comes into existence (except by sheer, incredible, coincidence).
Yeaah! I like that. And the religion coming into existence is very open to interpretation.
I read it as: each new "member" or adherent makes their own unique interpretation of religion/existence/reality...
I don't know if you saw my "church on a street corner" post though in another thread.
It dealt with what we consider to be rational.Thanks. I don't know lots about religion, but I think about 'thinking' a lot, so this topic is kinda always on my mind.
Your "each new "member" or adherent makes their own unique interpretation of religion/existence/reality..." is also exactly what I think. Minds are more different than fingerprints, so dumping the ideas of religion into them results in every mind having a different version, however slight.
-------------------------
I think this is your “church on a street corner" post...
Well it’s not rational on some levels.
But there’s lot’s of things that aren’t rational on some or many levels. Yet are accepted as rational.
A powerful rationale is the concept of the majority.
If an overwhelming majority of people believe something in faith, then despite the faith being irrational, the fact that millions believe it is a form of rationality.
After all a church on a street corner isn’t irrational.
The idea behind the church being a place where a god can be convened with is irrational.
But the view from an objective observer finds no irrationality in the church being on the street corner.
It’s rational the church is there.
I'll comment on a few parts.
"A powerful rationale is the concept of the majority." Your use of 'rationale' sounds like 'rational' but they're different words. A rationale can be irrational, so your example is not right. The rationale of "the majority believing something so it's right" is not a form of rationality (it's a logical fallacy).
"After all a church on a street corner isn’t irrational." If a church is a group of people worshiping together, then no, a church on a street corner is rational.
"The idea behind the church being a place where a god can be convened with is irrational." It's only irrational if you don't believe in god. But the church on a street corner would be irrational by that standard, so if the street corner example is rational, then so must the "church being a place where a god can be convened with" example.
"But the view from an objective observer finds no irrationality in the church being on the street corner.
It’s rational the church is there." Any observer would find it rational if they consider the beliefs of the people that make up the church. I think all churches are based on the irrational, but I accept them as rational to those who attend. And they are a reality, so they are rational to believe in (that they exist, not that what they teach is correct.)
-------------------------
I don't often put my thoughts into words, so if there are parts of this that are hard to understand, I apologize!
Memes and genes are incredibly similar. Pretty much the only difference is that one is physical and one exists in our consciousness. They're a cool meme in themselves.
But I don't know why or how we would be sacrificing our humanity if we deleted religion from our collective minds. If no one had blond hair or we all had four toes, we wouldn't lose our humanity, so why would losing the ideas of religion cause any loss in our humanity? Religion is merely a collection of stories and myths - there isn't one positive aspect of religion that can't come out of a religion-free mind.
I believe that if a large group of infants were to be raised and educated completely religion-free (not even our religious history was taught), they would have a great religion-free society. Not a perfect society, but better than our current one.
And no doubt you are the one who gets to dictate what is religion and myth to be edited from our society in order to meet your approval. What is the harm of exterminating a species that someone decides is annoying? Why should we put up with either the diversity of living things or with the diversity of human thought? Frankly I don't find the myths of non-theists to be any less harmful to human civilization. If we are expunge ANYTHING I say let it be the intolerance of self important ideologues who seek to edit the diversity of human thought to the satisfaction of their own subjective sentiments.
Now let me remind you, before you jump on the typical soapbox strawman of "anything goes", that I DO believe in criterion for the judgment of human belief. Quoting from my introduction:
I judge beliefs by the following criterion:
1. logical coherence is the requirement for a belief to be meaningful.
2. Consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence is the requirement for a belief to be reasonable.
3. Compatibility with the ideals of a free society is required for a belief to be moral in the kind of society I want to live in.
Together these are the conditions for rational belief and they are far from determinate. In other words I defend a great diversity of human beliefs as rational, and I consider that diversity to be both healthy and an asset for human civilization. Indeed, I would compare it to the genetic diversity of the human species, which makes us more adaptable.
BUT this is NOT excuse to condemn with a broad brush any belief you subjectively decide to label "myth". But it is rather a means to show discernment about particular ways of describing and explaining ANY system of beliefs. Despite commonly held delusions to the contrary non-theists CERTAINLY are not immune to trampling over ANY of these criterion. I have seen illogical statements made by BOTH theists AND non-theists. I have seen claims made by BOTH theists and non-theist which contradict the objective evidence. AND I have seen both theists and non-theists pushing their subjective opinion on everyone by making agreement with these dogma fetishes the basis for judging things like intelligence, sanity, morality, courage, honesty and just about every other virtue imaginable.
By all means let us ALL, theist and non-theist alike show some discernment concerning expressions of religion which do not meet these criterion. It is a larger than life FACT of our world today that religion is dangerous. But it is not dangerous because it is theistic but because it is ideological. The most destructive ideology we have seen in modern times was a non-theistic one, to the tune of over 90 million dead, demonstrating quite clearly where the danger really lies. We must give up this habit of pushing subjective sentiment on other people as if uniformity of human thought was really something good. It is NOT good at all!
Memes and genes are incredibly similar. Pretty much the only difference is that one is physical and one exists in our consciousness. They're a cool meme in themselves.
But I don't know why or how we would be sacrificing our humanity if we deleted religion from our collective minds. If no one had blond hair or we all had four toes, we wouldn't lose our humanity, so why would losing the ideas of religion cause any loss in our humanity? Religion is merely a collection of stories and myths - there isn't one positive aspect of religion that can't come out of a religion-free mind.
I believe that if a large group of infants were to be raised and educated completely religion-free (not even our religious history was taught), they would have a great religion-free society. Not a perfect society, but better than our current one.
And no doubt you are the one who gets to dictate what is religion and myth to be edited from our society in order to meet your approval. What is the harm of exterminating a species that someone decides is annoying? Why should we put up with either the diversity of living things or with the diversity of human thought? Frankly I don't find the myths of non-theists to be any less harmful to human civilization. If we are expunge ANYTHING I say let it be the intolerance of self important ideologues who seek to edit the diversity of human thought to the satisfaction of their own subjective sentiments.
Now let me remind you, before you jump on the typical soapbox strawman of "anything goes", that I DO believe in criterion for the judgment of human belief. Quoting from my introduction:
I judge beliefs by the following criterion:
1. logical coherence is the requirement for a belief to be meaningful.
2. Consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence is the requirement for a belief to be reasonable.
3. Compatibility with the ideals of a free society is required for a belief to be moral in the kind of society I want to live in.
Together these are the conditions for rational belief and they are far from determinate. In other words I defend a great diversity of human beliefs as rational, and I consider that diversity to be both healthy and an asset for human civilization. Indeed, I would compare it to the genetic diversity of the human species, which makes us more adaptable.
BUT this is NOT excuse to condemn with a broad brush any belief you subjectively decide to label "myth". But it is rather a means to show discernment about particular ways of describing and explaining ANY system of beliefs. Despite commonly held delusions to the contrary non-theists CERTAINLY are not immune to trampling over ANY of these criterion. I have seen illogical statements made by BOTH theists AND non-theists. I have seen claims made by BOTH theists and non-theist which contradict the objective evidence. AND I have seen both theists and non-theists pushing their subjective opinion on everyone by making agreement with these dogma fetishes the basis for judging things like intelligence, sanity, morality, courage, honesty and just about every other virtue imaginable.
By all means let us ALL, theist and non-theist alike show some discernment concerning expressions of religion which do not meet these criterion. It is a larger than life FACT of our world today that religion is dangerous. But it is not dangerous because it is theistic but because it is ideological. The most destructive ideology we have seen in modern times was a non-theistic one, to the tune of over 90 million dead, demonstrating quite clearly where the danger really lies. We must give up this habit of pushing subjective sentiment on other people as if uniformity of human thought was really something good. It is NOT good at all!
I'm just playing a thought experiment game here. My imagining of what life would be like without religion clouding issues is purely academic - it's like imagining what it would be like to fly faster than light or go back in time. It's just pretend... to me anyways!
The elimination of religion is not like exterminating a species of animal (but if you look at memes as species then I suppose it is something to get upset over, but even then only if you thought I planned on somehow going through with it!) However, in my mind memes are like genes not species of animals, so that's why I used the examples of humanity losing a hair colour or a toe on each foot, instead of using the extermination of sage grouse or the Norway rat as examples.
I'm sure you've read some Richard Dawkins, so just look at my comments with the understanding that I view genes and memes and species the way I believe he does.
**edited to fix the word I used in a couple of spots**
Memes and genes are incredibly similar. Pretty much the only difference is that one is physical and one exists in our consciousness. They're a cool meme in themselves.
But I don't know why or how we would be sacrificing our humanity if we deleted religion from our collective minds. If no one had blond hair or we all had four toes, we wouldn't lose our humanity, so why would losing the ideas of religion cause any loss in our humanity? Religion is merely a collection of stories and myths - there isn't one positive aspect of religion that can't come out of a religion-free mind.
I believe that if a large group of infants were to be raised and educated completely religion-free (not even our religious history was taught), they would have a great religion-free society. Not a perfect society, but better than our current one.
And no doubt you are the one who gets to dictate what is religion and myth to be edited from our society in order to meet your approval. What is the harm of exterminating a species that someone decides is annoying? Why should we put up with either the diversity of living things or with the diversity of human thought? Frankly I don't find the myths of non-theists to be any less harmful to human civilization. If we are expunge ANYTHING I say let it be the intolerance of self important ideologues who seek to edit the diversity of human thought to the satisfaction of their own subjective sentiments.
Now let me remind you, before you jump on the typical soapbox strawman of "anything goes", that I DO believe in criterion for the judgment of human belief. Quoting from my introduction:
I judge beliefs by the following criterion:
1. logical coherence is the requirement for a belief to be meaningful.
2. Consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence is the requirement for a belief to be reasonable.
3. Compatibility with the ideals of a free society is required for a belief to be moral in the kind of society I want to live in.
Together these are the conditions for rational belief and they are far from determinate. In other words I defend a great diversity of human beliefs as rational, and I consider that diversity to be both healthy and an asset for human civilization. Indeed, I would compare it to the genetic diversity of the human species, which makes us more adaptable.
BUT this is NOT excuse to condemn with a broad brush any belief you subjectively decide to label "myth". But it is rather a means to show discernment about particular ways of describing and explaining ANY system of beliefs. Despite commonly held delusions to the contrary non-theists CERTAINLY are not immune to trampling over ANY of these criterion. I have seen illogical statements made by BOTH theists AND non-theists. I have seen claims made by BOTH theists and non-theist which contradict the objective evidence. AND I have seen both theists and non-theists pushing their subjective opinion on everyone by making agreement with these dogma fetishes the basis for judging things like intelligence, sanity, morality, courage, honesty and just about every other virtue imaginable.
By all means let us ALL, theist and non-theist alike show some discernment concerning expressions of religion which do not meet these criterion. It is a larger than life FACT of our world today that religion is dangerous. But it is not dangerous because it is theistic but because it is ideological. The most destructive ideology we have seen in modern times was a non-theistic one, to the tune of over 90 million dead, demonstrating quite clearly where the danger really lies. We must give up this habit of pushing subjective sentiment on other people as if uniformity of human thought was really something good. It is NOT good at all!
I understand what you are saying, but I have never heard Atheists going to war over an interpretation of Atheism.
Removing Theism, as a thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
Memes and genes are incredibly similar. Pretty much the only difference is that one is physical and one exists in our consciousness. They're a cool meme in themselves.
But I don't know why or how we would be sacrificing our humanity if we deleted religion from our collective minds. If no one had blond hair or we all had four toes, we wouldn't lose our humanity, so why would losing the ideas of religion cause any loss in our humanity? Religion is merely a collection of stories and myths - there isn't one positive aspect of religion that can't come out of a religion-free mind.
I believe that if a large group of infants were to be raised and educated completely religion-free (not even our religious history was taught), they would have a great religion-free society. Not a perfect society, but better than our current one.
And no doubt you are the one who gets to dictate what is religion and myth to be edited from our society in order to meet your approval. What is the harm of exterminating a species that someone decides is annoying? Why should we put up with either the diversity of living things or with the diversity of human thought? Frankly I don't find the myths of non-theists to be any less harmful to human civilization. If we are expunge ANYTHING I say let it be the intolerance of self important ideologues who seek to edit the diversity of human thought to the satisfaction of their own subjective sentiments.
We are talking about a *thought experiment*, assuming that we could remove *false* but *persistent myths taken as Truth*, and base our moral compass on *secular values* only, would IMO, result in the removal of religious imperatives and only consider the natural moral imperatives of *cause and effect*.
Quoting from my introduction: I judge beliefs by the following criterion:
1. logical coherence is the requirement for a belief to be meaningful.
2. Consistent with the objective (scientific) evidence is the requirement for a belief to be reasonable.
3. Compatibility with the ideals of a free society is required for a belief to be moral in the kind of society I want to live in.
Together these are the conditions for rational belief and they are far from determinate. In other words I defend a great diversity of human beliefs as rational, and I consider that diversity to be both healthy and an asset for human civilization. Indeed, I would compare it to the genetic diversity of the human species, which makes us more adaptable.
I agree with all of that, however, if we consider that genetic diversity in nature does create *harmful* organisms, so does diversity in thought. In the case were diversity in beliefs results in *discrimination*, I consider that *harmful* rather than *beneficial* to humanity.
BUT this is NOT excuse to condemn with a broad brush any belief you subjectively decide to label "myth". But it is rather a means to show discernment about particular ways of describing and explaining ANY system of beliefs. Despite commonly held delusions to the contrary non-theists CERTAINLY are not immune to trampling over ANY of these criterion. I have seen illogical statements made by BOTH theists AND non-theists. I have seen claims made by BOTH theists and non-theist which contradict the objective evidence. AND I have seen both theists and non-theists pushing their subjective opinion on everyone by making agreement with these dogma fetishes the basis for judging things like intelligence, sanity, morality, courage, honesty and just about every other virtue imaginable.
By all means let us ALL, theist and non-theist alike show some discernment concerning expressions of religion which do not meet these criterion. It is a larger than life FACT of our world today that religion is dangerous. But it is not dangerous because it is theistic but because it is ideological. The most destructive ideology we have seen in modern times was a non-theistic one, to the tune of over 90 million dead, demonstrating quite clearly where the danger really lies. We must give up this habit of pushing subjective sentiment on other people as if uniformity of human thought was really something good. It is NOT good at all!
Again I agree in principle, but your example of Hitler may not be relevant. Hitler did not seek to eredicate Jews for their beliefs, but for their *perceived* power and influence in German Economy. His efforts to eradicate religion was not religion itself, but the power and influence of the church.
These are different motives than Religious wars commanded by scripture. George Carlin put this in perspective in his skit on *Life is Sacred*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_tr_k59O6s (warning; crude language)
"A powerful rationale is the concept of the majority." Your use of 'rationale' sounds like 'rational' but they're different words. A rationale can be irrational, so your example is not right. The rationale of "the majority believing something so it's right" is not a form of rationality (it's a logical fallacy).
"After all a church on a street corner isn’t irrational." If a church is a group of people worshiping together, then no, a church on a street corner is rational.
"The idea behind the church being a place where a god can be convened with is irrational." It's only irrational if you don't believe in god. But the church on a street corner would be irrational by that standard, so if the street corner example is rational, then so must the "church being a place where a god can be convened with" example.
"But the view from an objective observer finds no irrationality in the church being on the street corner.
It’s rational the church is there." Any observer would find it rational if they consider the beliefs of the people that make up the church. I think all churches are based on the irrational, but I accept them as rational to those who attend. And they are a reality, so they are rational to believe in (that they exist, not that what they teach is correct.)
-------------------------
I don't often put my thoughts into words, so if there are parts of this that are hard to understand, I apologize!
It's ok. I found some contradictions possibly, and some semantic haggling.
is not irrational and is rational are the same thing.
Also I used the word rationale as it is defined and intended it that way.
Try not to explode the paragraph into so many parts and then expound on each section.
You got the gist of my "church/corner" example. Just expound on that.
Otherwise it's a flippin' log jam of semantics, derails, extended explanations, further digressions and what have yous.
As that goes I think you partly agreed with me on the rationale of the majority. At least that's what I got from the latter part of your comments.
I'm not saying my bit here is gospel either...it's just thought experiments.
Great comments. Glad this Mitch guy is getting taken care of, since I’m on vacation, I really don’t have time for it. He misses the whole point that I’m not saying ideas are bad, or certain ideas should be exterminated, I’m saying God IS an idea as opposed to being something that is real. So eliminate the memory and it will never come back exactly as it was. Some idea of a an unseen mover, original cause or mysterious agent most likely will come back, but the specific Jesus or Brahma or whomever will not.
Besides that, this line struck me as horribly ironic, “Why should we put up with either the diversity of living things or with the diversity of human thought?” Since when to religions promote diversity?
So many strawmen or at least people reading bizarre things into my post.
Again I agree in principle, but your example of Hitler may not be relevant. Hitler did not seek to eredicate Jews for their beliefs, but for their *perceived* power and influence in German Economy.
Don't know what Hitler has to do with this discussion. Surely you don't think "non-theistic ideology" describes Hitler or that he was responsible for 90 million dead.
Great comments. Glad this Mitch guy is getting taken care of, since I'm on vacation, I really don't have time for it. He misses the whole point that I'm not saying ideas are bad, or certain ideas should be exterminated, I'm saying God IS an idea as opposed to being something that is real. So eliminate the memory and it will never come back exactly as it was. Some idea of a an unseen mover, original cause or mysterious agent most likely will come back, but the specific Jesus or Brahma or whomever will not.
And my point is that just because an idea is irreplaceable doesn't mean it has no value. If we erase Tolkein's books from history would we ever see them again? Not likely. Does this mean they have no value? No.
Besides that, this line struck me as horribly ironic, "Why should we put up with either the diversity of living things or with the diversity of human thought?" Since when to religions promote diversity?
The intolerant are always using the intolerance of others to justify their intolerance. Surely that lame excuse should be retired.
Frankly, I covered this. The 3 criterion I gave ARE NOT justification for any broad brush condemnation of beliefs you don't agree with. It is cause for discernment - to distinguish when ANYONE theist or atheist is wandering over the line into what should not be considered meaningful, reasonable, or acceptable.
I'm just playing a thought experiment game here. My imagining of what life would be like without religion clouding issues is purely academic - it's like imagining what it would be like to fly faster than light or go back in time. It's just pretend... to me anyways!
Yes. Ideologues are always dreaming.... if only everyone thought like me, was rational like me, was RIGHT like me.
The elimination of religion is not like exterminating a species of animal (but if you look at memes as species then I suppose it is something to get upset over, but even then only if you thought I planned on somehow going through with it!) However, in my mind memes are like genes not species of animals, so that's why I used the examples of humanity losing a hair colour or a toe on each foot, instead of using the extermination of sage grouse or the Norway rat as examples.
Religions are not memes, no more than species are genes. Religions are rather complex constellations of many different ideas which mix and match and recombine... you know like species.
The same goes for philosophical labels like existentialism. I call myself an existentialist, but this certainly does not mean that agree with everything Kierkegaard, Camus, Sartre and Nietche all said. Indeed the number of things I agree with is probably rather limited. "Existence precedes Essence." Oh yeah! I am down with that one. First we exist and then we make choices and by them we become who we are in essence.
I'm sure you've read some Richard Dawkins, so just look at my comments with the understanding that I view genes and memes and species the way I believe he does.
Scriptural orthodoxy eh? LOL
I never bought into that line. I will take an idea no matter who came up with it and take it where it logically goes regardless how that person used it to push their own agenda.
I understand what you are saying, but I have never heard Atheists going to war over an interpretation of Atheism.
Removing Theism, as a thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
???
I have never heard of Presbyterians going to war over interpretations of Presbyteranism.
I have never heard of Quakers going to war over interpretations of Quakerism.
Removing Atheism, as thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
Removing Epicurianism, as thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
???
Is there supposed to be some conclusion drawn from this?
Oh I see.... If you have any broad idea and if anybody ever fought about what that means, then that invalidates the idea.
So democracy is invalidated because people fought about what democracy should properly mean.
Science is invalidated because people fought about what science should properly mean.
....
seriously?
But I don't know why or how we would be sacrificing our humanity if we deleted religion from our collective minds. If no one had blond hair or we all had four toes, we wouldn't lose our humanity, so why would losing the ideas of religion cause any loss in our humanity? Religion is merely a collection of stories and myths - there isn't one positive aspect of religion that can't come out of a religion-free mind.
I believe that if a large group of infants were to be raised and educated completely religion-free (not even our religious history was taught), they would have a great religion-free society.
Many would respond, if we did away with religion, people would invent new ones.
I think I agree. Religion fills a void.
The universe around is too huge.
Inside of humans there's something that wants to comprehend all of that.
But there's too much of 'It' out there. It overwhelms.
It takes a true adventurer's heart and spirit to face the universe alone.
Most have enough coping with their day to days.
Religion provides the easy answers and security blanket against the cold chill of reality.
People are social creatures, we need stories and we need each other.
Some are better storytellers than others, some know how to provide a Shadow-Plays that connect with people's imaginations,
and know how to exploit it.
Those story tellers become the religious leaders.
Not a perfect society, but better than our current one.
Interesting thought. Let me play devils advocate.
How would religion disappearing change people?
Or looking at it from a different angle, how would you define the basic flaws that have lead to today's disastrous deadend situation?
So many strawmen or at least people reading bizarre things into my post.
[
I have never heard of Presbyterians going to war over interpretations of Presbyteranism.
I have never heard of Quakers going to war over interpretations of Quakerism.
Removing Atheism, as thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
Removing Epicurianism, as thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
???
Is there supposed to be some conclusion drawn from this?
If you broaden that a little you will have to agree that many Christians have gone to war over interpretations of Christianity, just as Muslims go to war over interpretations of Islam.
Oh I see.... If you have any broad idea and if anybody ever fought about what that means, then that invalidates the idea.
So democracy is invalidated because people fought about what democracy should properly mean.
Science is invalidated because people fought about what science should properly mean.
....
seriously?
mitchellmckain said,
The most destructive ideology we have seen in modern times was a non-theistic one, to the tune of over 90 million dead, demonstrating quite clearly where the danger really lies
Write4U - 15 January 2016 03:48 PM
Again I agree in principle, but your example of Hitler may not be relevant. Hitler did not seek to eredicate Jews for their beliefs, but for their *perceived* power and influence in German Economy.
Don’t know what Hitler has to do with this discussion. Surely you don’t think “non-theistic ideology" describes Hitler or that he was responsible for 90 million dead.
Then which *war* were you talking about and for what reason?
Write4U - 15 January 2016 03:06 PM
I understand what you are saying, but I have never heard Atheists going to war over an interpretation of Atheism.
Removing Theism, as a thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
I have never heard of Presbyterians going to war over interpretations of Presbyteranism.
Then you need to read up on your history.
From the mid-16th century, Presbyterianism developed as a distinct branch of the Reformed church in Scotland, where the Kirk was reconstituted through Calvinism as interpreted in the works of John Knox (c.1513-72). After Knox's death, his work was completed by Andrew Melville (1545-1622) who established the Presbyterian system of church government
I have never heard of Quakers going to war over interpretations of Quakerism.
OK, I'll give you that. The Quakers that fought in the Civil War did so for non-religious reasons, but how about Judaism, Catholicism, Islam?
Removing Atheism, as thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
Removing Epicurianism, as thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate* Is there supposed to be some conclusion drawn from this?
Yes, because neither requires you to go to war because a mythological God *commands* it.
Oh I see…. If you have any broad idea and if anybody ever fought about what that means, then that invalidates the idea.
So democracy is invalidated because people fought about what democracy should properly mean.
No, the Civil War was about *slavery* and *secularism*, which affords *freedom of worship*. But note that the Founders included the *Establishment Clause in the Constitution, to prevent the establishment of a Theocracy!
Science is invalidated because people fought about what science should properly mean.. seriously?
Name me a war fought in the name of *Science*. And who won? The Nobel Science prize winner?
I was talking about *religious* wars. I never said that people do not go to war for other reasons, just that going to war for religious reasons is about the exclusivity and discriminating belief in a mythological *spiritual* God. Please read what I say and don't project any other meaning to it.
mitchellmckain said,
The most destructive ideology we have seen in modern times was a non-theistic one, to the tune of over 90 million dead, demonstrating quite clearly where the danger really lies
Write4U - 15 January 2016 03:48 PM
Again I agree in principle, but your example of Hitler may not be relevant. Hitler did not seek to eredicate Jews for their beliefs, but for their *perceived* power and influence in German Economy.
Don’t know what Hitler has to do with this discussion. Surely you don’t think “non-theistic ideology" describes Hitler or that he was responsible for 90 million dead.
Then which *war* were you talking about and for what reason?
I wasn't talking about any war. I was talking about a non-theistic ideology and the civilians murdered by their own governments because of it.
Theists don't fight theists over an interpretation of "theism". Theism just means a belief in god(s).
Sure there are theistic ideologies which have fought each other just as there have been atheist ideologies which have fought each other.
But no matter who is involved, the actually reasons for military conflict are almost always politics and econcomics. Of course if you are a hate mongering ideologue and want to just exterminate people then you blame the conflict on those people you want to remove.
Yes the Scottish Presbyterian fought against England when the English interfered in their their church affairs.
Where was a war fought between Presbyterians over the meaning of Presbyterianism? Don't see anything like that supported by your link.
Removing Theism, as a thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
Removing Atheism, as thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
Removing Epicurianism, as thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*
Is there supposed to be some conclusion drawn from this?
Yes, because neither requires you to go to war because a mythological God *commands* it.
Ah so this is a reason you use to justify whatever you want to say? Frankly, I see no connection whatsoever to anything in any of these cases.
Name me a war fought in the name of *Science*.
Oh I think people said things like this in both french and communist revolutions. But the point is that it proves NOTHING. Fighting over the interpretation of something does not demonstrate there is anything actually wrong with it. All it means is that people disagree and and fight to settle their disagreements.
I was talking about *religious* wars.
Yes you want to use special pleading for your OWN way of thinking to say it is *special*. I'm sure your my-side bias is quite charming, but I don't buy it.
If you want a valid criticism of theism (particularly monotheism) then here is one for you. It is convenient tool for power and manipulation. Simply appoint yourself the spokeman of the so called deity and then count on believer to follow along like sheep. But then when people are going to sheep-like, then any excuse do. Appointing yourself the spokesman of reason or spokesman of science or spokesman of morality or spokesman of peace -- these all work pretty good too. But I think you can compare it to one of the flaws of the monarchism form of government. People gather around any centralized power in order to act in its name and lord it over others.
mitchellmckain said,
The most destructive ideology we have seen in modern times was a non-theistic one, to the tune of over 90 million dead, demonstrating quite clearly where the danger really lies
Write4U - 15 January 2016 03:48 PM
Again I agree in principle, but your example of Hitler may not be relevant. Hitler did not seek to eredicate Jews for their beliefs, but for their *perceived* power and influence in German Economy.
Don’t know what Hitler has to do with this discussion. Surely you don’t think “non-theistic ideology" describes Hitler or that he was responsible for 90 million dead.
Then which *war* were you talking about and for what reason?
I wasn't talking about any war. I was talking about a non-theistic ideology and the civilians murdered by their own governments because of it. In "modern times" and what "ideology"?
Theists don't fight theists over an interpretation of "theism". Theism just means a belief in god(s).
Sure there are theistic ideologies which have fought each other just as there have been atheist ideologies which have fought each other.
But no matter who is involved, the actually reasons for military conflict are almost always politics and econcomics. Of course if you are a hate mongering ideologue and want to just exterminate people then you blame the conflict on those people you want to remove.
Yes, like in a Theocracy or other Dictatorship. In the US, a secular Democracy, we do it by popular vote.
Yes the Scottish Presbyterian fought against England when the English interfered in their their church affairs.
Where was a war fought between Presbyterians over the meaning of Presbyterianism? Don't see anything like that supported by your link.
better read the last paragraph of that link.
Removing Theism, as a thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
Removing Atheism, as thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*.
Removing Epicurianism, as thought experiment, would not negate a concept of *metaphysics*, such as in the Bohmian *Implicate*
Is there supposed to be some conclusion drawn from this?
Yes, because neither requires you to go to war because a mythological God *commands* it.
Ah so this is a reason you use to justify whatever you want to say? Frankly, I see no connection whatsoever to anything in any of these cases.
No, it justifies what I am saying.
Name me a war fought in the name of *Science*.
Oh I think people said things like this in both french and communist revolutions. But the point is that it proves NOTHING. Fighting over the interpretation of something does not demonstrate there is anything actually wrong with it. All it means is that people disagree and and fight to settle their disagreements.
Not in Science, they *may* compete, but certainly not on a battlefield.
I was talking about *religious* wars.
Yes you want to use special pleading for your OWN way of thinking to say it is *special*. I'm sure your my-side bias is quite charming, but I don't buy it.
I am not selling anything, I merely express my opinion and, contrary to your *glowing* public self introduction (instead of in your profile), I have not laid claim to anything *special*, either about my qualifications or ability to think objectively. I'll leave that to theists who claim special status in the eyes of *their* god.
If you want a valid criticism of theism (particularly monotheism) then here is one for you. It is convenient tool for power and manipulation.
I agree.
Simply appoint yourself the spokeman of the so called deity and then count on believer to follow along like sheep. But then when people are going to sheep-like, then any excuse do.
Not if you are *forced to do.
Appointing yourself the spokesman of reason or spokesman of science or spokesman of morality or spokesman of peace -- these all work pretty good too. But I think you can compare it to one of the flaws of the monarchism form of government. People gather around any centralized power in order to act in its name and lord it over others.
Yes, like Jim Jones (suicide), the Inquisition (terror), Sharia law (prejudicial). Anything that is *fundamentally* prejudicial is dangerous in its very nature.
And anticipating your response, I am an atheist Humanist and try very hard to be non-prejudicial. But I won't hesitate to speak my mind, as *is my right*, at least in the US.
"And my point is that just because an idea is irreplaceable doesn’t mean it has no value. If we erase Tolkein’s books from history would we ever see them again? Not likely. Does this mean they have no value? No. "
Exactly what humanists are trying to do. To find the value of ideas buried in the prophets and philosophers of the past. They are mixed in with the blood sacrifices and requirements for rituals and the claim that “if you believeth” then you shall know the truth. If it’s true, if it’s discoverable, whether it’s a gravitational force holding the world in place or a hard to define force like compassion, then it doesn’t need a magic formula to find it.
Funny you pick Tolkein. A perfect example. I’m not some high school kid arguing that there was once a time when wizards walked the earth. I’m arguing that the idea of an innocent person being the best one to destroy the hold the power of evil and send it back to it’s doom is a universal idea, a theme worth discussing. Why don’t you see that we agree on that?
Seriously? Marxist Leninism also known by the name Communism was an non-theistic ideology responsible for the deaths of millions of noncombatants. There was the pogroms of Stalin, the cultural revolution of China, the killing fields of Cambodia and the list goes on.
P.S. My father was blacklisted in the McCarthy era. So I am not towing any party line. Even my father, who really was a communist, eventually realized Marxist Leninism was a blight on the world -- not because all its ideas were wrong but because of the rigid ideological practice with no compunction about the effect on living human beings.
better read the last paragraph of that link.
here are the last two paragraphs I am seeing.
Although most Presbyterians welcomed the Restoration in 1660, the reforms of the Church of England were quickly revoked under the restored Stuart régime and Episcopacy was re-established. Under the Act of Uniformity (May 1662), all clergymen had to pass three tests or lose their livings: they had to use the revised Book of Common Prayer, to renounce the Solemn League and Covenant and be ordained by a bishop. Hundreds of Presbyterian and non-conformist clergymen were ejected from their livings on St Bartholomew's Day (24 August) 1662 for refusing to comply.
The Presbyterian form of church government and Reformed theology were formally adopted by the national Church of Scotland in 1690. In England, Presbyterians remained non-conformist.
There is no mention of a war fought between Presbyterians over the interpretation of Prebyterianism.
No, it justifies what I am saying.
Well then you need to come to terms with the difference between what justifies things in your own mind and what justifies things to other people.
Not in Science, they *may* compete, but certainly not on a battlefield.
War is not the methodology of science or the methodology of most religions either. Just because it is not the methodology of those things does not mean people don't fight wars over them. And just because people fight wars over them does not mean war is the method which science or these religions advocate for settling disputes.
Yes there are some sects of many religion which do advocate war as a means for settling differences, just as there are non-theistic ideologies which advocate war as a means of solving problems.
Anything that is *fundamentally* prejudicial is dangerous in its very nature.
There are objective means for the 3 criterion I have laid out for the judgment of belief. Let's hear your criterion for distinguishing between things wich are "*fundamentally* prejudicial" and things which are not?
"And my point is that just because an idea is irreplaceable doesn’t mean it has no value. If we erase Tolkein’s books from history would we ever see them again? Not likely. Does this mean they have no value? No. "
Exactly what humanists are trying to do. To find the value of ideas buried in the prophets and philosophers of the past. They are mixed in with the blood sacrifices and requirements for rituals
It is something everyone is trying to do. Even the religions with blood sacrifices in their past don't see much value in these practices anymore.
If it's true, if it's discoverable, whether it's a gravitational force holding the world in place or a hard to define force like compassion, then it doesn't need a magic formula to find it.
Some things are discovered by accident. Throw away a unique opportunity and it may never arise again. It simply doesn't follow that being true means it is discoverable. Sorry, but although your meme test was an idea worth looking at, I don't think it works.
Here is a better way of breaking it down. If you really want a basis for truth which can be called absolute then you will not find it in the dictation of some deity. I would call that divine relativism and I see no improvement in that over social relativism. In that case your "truth" will depend on the so called "deity" and whatever words you choose to attribute to it. A basis for truth which can be called absolute must be found in the reasons WHY it is true. Science does indeed do this for many questions. But the same applies to morality. If you want a morality that can be called absolute in any way then you will not find it in divine dictation but in the reasons WHY something is good or bad. It is the only kind of morality which is suitable for mature rational human beings. It is also more practical, because in a changing world where new ethical questions are constantly arising, what we need is not some antiquated set of rules but the reasoning it takes to distinguish between what is good and what is not.
Funny you pick Tolkein. A perfect example. I'm not some high school kid arguing that there was once a time when wizards walked the earth. I'm arguing that the idea of an innocent person being the best one to destroy the hold the power of evil and send it back to it's doom is a universal idea, a theme worth discussing. Why don't you see that we agree on that?
You may reduce the value of Tolkein's books to some moral of the story you get out of it, but I do not.
Funny you pick Tolkein. A perfect example. I'm not some high school kid arguing that there was once a time when wizards walked the earth. I'm arguing that the idea of an innocent person being the best one to destroy the hold the power of evil and send it back to it's doom is a universal idea, a theme worth discussing. Why don't you see that we agree on that?
You may reduce the value of Tolkein's books to some moral of the story you get out of it, but I do not.
Okay, you're just being difficult now. Sorry that I didn't write an essay on the many aspects of Tolkein. (That's sarcasm, I'm not sorry, the point was that there ARE morals and themes in Tolkein, something we obviously agree on).
Simple question, do you believe in supernatural entities? You say "dictation of some deity". I don't believe in gods, so I would have said, "words written by men attributed to gods". By putting it that way, your explanation loses all coherence since words attributed to gods are said by men, so these universal truths are originated by humans. When I say "humanism" I don't necessarily mean someone who called themselves' a humanist, I mean any wisdom that can be extracted from a named ideology and has reasons WHY it is good or bad, just like you said. So, again, how is what you are saying different?