|
Annointed posted:Or any relgious symbol, it's almost like people are typically Atheist to every other kind of god other than their own. not really
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Annointed posted:Or any relgious symbol, it's almost like people are typically Atheist to every other kind of god other than their own. Gold star of david?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I was raised to be analytical and my side of the family has a strong depressive streak which makes us all rather somber and prone to assuming the worst. I was raised to be similarly analytical, but the key difference here is an acknowledgement that without a scientific education our explanations will naturally tend towards nonsense. I posit that this nonsense tends more toward the supernatural the less sophisticated our society is, because there is less of an outside corrective force acting upon us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:No, some people don't have much of that instinct. If you didn't see and hear people in your early life turn to supernatural explanations (other than the kid fantasy stuff like Santa) why would that habit necessarily take root? A modern human raised more or less without religion is substantially less likely to generate supernatural beliefs spontaneously than pre-modern folks, even without a conscious decision to be skeptical of the supernatural, since much less of the world is unexplainable, too. Early homosapiens make for a strong case that supernatural thinking takes root rather naturally. Early homosapiens did not exist in a vacuum and had the influence of its predecessors to contend with, but it is rather compelling. If we are to dismiss early homosapiens as an example due to the influence of pre-existing magical thinking, then we must dismiss your hypothetical of modern humans raised in a secular society, for they too would have a paradigm influencing them. The degree to which we can call this modern paradigm actually explanatory is up for debate, too. Judakel fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Superstition is often exceedingly complicated, far moreso than simple absence of belief. Especially for the kind of unified, coherent belief systems found in world religions, there is a great deal of sophistication involved. It's not really sound, I think, to view skepticism as more complex or sophisticated than superstition, there are comparatively uncontacted people living in the world who lack much in the way of religion, so it seems more correct to think of religion as a highly sophisticated and communicable set of ideas, reinforced very heavily by outside influence, as you put it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Superstition is often exceedingly complicated, far moreso than simple absence of belief. Especially for the kind of unified, coherent belief systems found in world religions, there is a great deal of sophistication involved. It's not really sound, I think, to view skepticism as more complex or sophisticated than superstition, there are comparatively uncontacted people living in the world who lack much in the way of religion, so it seems more correct to think of religion as a highly sophisticated and communicable set of ideas, reinforced very heavily by outside influence, as you put it. Superstition can be ontologically complex, and most religions are certainly so. This does not mean it takes a complex thought process to begin attributing natural phenomena to supernatural forces. Every single one of these uncontacted peoples are eventually contacted and revealed to have supernatural beliefs, if not religions. Do not conflate the two. Religion is largely thought to be customs, rituals, and worship organized around and based upon supernatural beliefs. Most religions fit this description. A supernatural belief is just a false axiom, if you will. Judakel fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Which still suggests that organized religion satisfies the need for sophistication. The sophistication/skepticism correlation is not really satisfactory. Arbitrary skepticism is as intuitive as arbitrary superstition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
les fleurs du mall posted:If atheism is a choice then it isn't a logically necessary conclusion and therefore lacks the rational level of scrutiny atheists claim it has The choice lies in facing that which is necessarily true given the apparent state of affairs, or turning away from the apparent state of affairs. You always have a choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which still suggests that organized religion satisfies the need for sophistication. The sophistication/skepticism correlation is not really satisfactory. Arbitrary skepticism is as intuitive as arbitrary superstition. Of course organized religion needs sophistication. No one ever denied this. Note that I have always spoken of supernatural beliefs, such as the belief in a single entity whose existence transcends our apparent reality. A religion like Catholicism is exceedingly complex and I have never denied this or implied otherwise. However, the reasoning which takes one to a mere supernatural explanation for natural phenomena is quite simple and requires only the simplest of minds. Something occurs which a simple mind cannot explain through a process of causal association, without the benefit of understanding why it should leave the cause as undetermined, the simple mind will instinctively continue to seek attribution, and eventually conclude it must be something unseen, unheard, and otherwise beyond nature. Here the fallacy occurs. The creation of this entity bears some consideration: Is it a simple thought or a series of complex thoughts? I posit that it is a simple thought in itself, but as the product of complex processes we naturally use to determine causality. The mind does not need to attribute any complex properties to this entity nor the implied existence of another world. What the latter implies metaphysically completely escapes the simple mind. For now, it is merely the entity which caused whatever was just observed. Of course, this presupposes that you'd agree with the notion that leaving something as undetermined is logically simpler, but something the logic of which is not readily apparent in a simple way. There used to be a poster by the name of Viktor around these parts for whom the notion that it was the most logical move to simply leave it undefined was downright difficult to grasp. For most people, this is also true. Judakel fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
To construct a conscious entity from first principles as the cause of any phenomenom is logically complex, however potentially, to infer one from the starting point of being a conscious entity and that subsequently being among the most basic and inherent building blocks of one's conception of the world, is logically simple.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To construct a conscious entity from first principles as the cause of any phenomenom is logically complex, however potentially, to infer one from the starting point of being a conscious entity and that subsequently being among the most basic and inherent building blocks of one's conception of the world, is logically simple. We do not disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Early homosapiens make for a strong case that supernatural thinking takes root rather naturally. Early homosapiens did not exist in a vacuum and had the influence of its predecessors to contend with, but it is rather compelling. If we are to dismiss early homosapiens as an example due to the influence of pre-existing magical thinking, then we must dismiss your hypothetical of modern humans raised in a secular society, for they too would have a paradigm influencing them. The degree of magical thinking in the modern paradigm is much less than that of the early homo sapiens paradigm, though - even if the explanations might not be fully explanatory, they do not casually include the supernatural. As such, a comparison between the two paradigms just emphasizes my point rather than dismissing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Morkies posted:not really The Kingfish posted:Gold star of david? and toss in a buddhist necklcr while you're at it
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:The degree of magical thinking in the modern paradigm is much less than that of the early homo sapiens paradigm, though - even if the explanations might not be fully explanatory, they do not casually include the supernatural. As such, a comparison between the two paradigms just emphasizes my point rather than dismissing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Annointed posted:yeah really no, not really
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:The degree of magical thinking in the modern paradigm is much less than that of the early homo sapiens paradigm, though - even if the explanations might not be fully explanatory, they do not casually include the supernatural. As such, a comparison between the two paradigms just emphasizes my point rather than dismissing it. How does it emphasize your point, when the modern paradigm is a product of greater thoughtfulness?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Morkies posted:no, not really yes, is really
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
ITT a lot of smugness about one's own path in life (self included). Hello folks, after performing some psychic chirurgery on myself I'm back down to a more rational & self-aware level. I'd like to apologize for getting all "preachy" ITT earlier but, honestly, I've learned to follow my spooky compulsions to their weird ends. To each their own, I guess. To the OP 's topic: I'd like to posit that a conviction for "doing what's right" is much more important than "deciding what's right" for others to have faith in. Allow yourself to maintain a skeptical mind, by all means, just don't limit yourself when trying to resolve the bigger, weirder stuff in life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Though logically one must be able to decide what is right in order to do what is right with any degree of success.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Judakel posted:I was raised to be similarly analytical, but the key difference here is an acknowledgement that without a scientific education our explanations will naturally tend towards nonsense. I posit that this nonsense tends more toward the supernatural the less sophisticated our society is, because there is less of an outside corrective force acting upon us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
RODNEY THE RACEHOR posted:This can not be considered Correct. You are arguing that a less sophisticated Society can be expected to hold stronger and more comprehensive Religious Beliefs than a sophisticated society because a less sophisticated Society lacks a Scientific Education; this is not true; a Scientific Education for the Time Period (where Science and Technology are considered to be synonymous Terms as is frequently "The Case"; though Available Science outstrips Available Technology by a considerable Margin at any given Historical Period; as Technological Progress is susceptible to Human Error to a far greater extent than Scientific Progress; in fact many Scientific Discoveries have been achieved by an Individual) is available to all Individuals; further more Religious Intensity does not correlate with Technological Level. For example; Islamic Nations have historically been at the fore front of Scientific Break Through; and yet Muslim Terrorists are so Dangerous; and have been Highly Dangerous through out History (e.g. [for example]) the Turkish Devastation of the Australian Forces at Gallipoli [1915-1916]; the Aero Plane Attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York (11/09/2001) that killed Two Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Six (2996) People; the Massacre of Numerous Hindus by Pakistani Muslim Forces in Chamba [03/08/1998]; the Suicide Bomb Assault that killed Ten [10] Commuters in Moskva [31/08/2004] the Siege of Beslan School One that resulted in Three Hundred and Eighty Five [385] Deaths); this is because they have always had High Religious Intensity. Muslims can therefore be described as a High Science High Religion Population; this disproves your Argument that Low Science corresponds to Low Religion. TIME CUBE
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
Schnedwob posted:TIME CUBE
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
RODNEY THE RACEHOR posted:This can not be considered Correct. You are arguing that a less sophisticated Society can be expected to hold stronger and more comprehensive Religious Beliefs than a sophisticated society because a less sophisticated Society lacks a Scientific Education; this is not true; a Scientific Education for the Time Period (where Science and Technology are considered to be synonymous Terms as is frequently "The Case"; though Available Science outstrips Available Technology by a considerable Margin at any given Historical Period; as Technological Progress is susceptible to Human Error to a far greater extent than Scientific Progress; in fact many Scientific Discoveries have been achieved by an Individual) is available to all Individuals; further more Religious Intensity does not correlate with Technological Level. For example; Islamic Nations have historically been at the fore front of Scientific Break Through; and yet Muslim Terrorists are so Dangerous; and have been Highly Dangerous through out History (e.g. [for example]) the Turkish Devastation of the Australian Forces at Gallipoli [1915-1916]; the Aero Plane Attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York (11/09/2001) that killed Two Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Six (2996) People; the Massacre of Numerous Hindus by Pakistani Muslim Forces in Chamba [03/08/1998]; the Suicide Bomb Assault that killed Ten [10] Commuters in Moskva [31/08/2004] the Siege of Beslan School One that resulted in Three Hundred and Eighty Five [385] Deaths); this is because they have always had High Religious Intensity. Muslims can therefore be described as a High Science High Religion Population; this disproves your Argument that Low Science corresponds to Low Religion. Source your quotes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
He guys. Theres a spirit floating in the sky. This spirit is like superpowerful, can destroy the whole universe if he want. This spirit follow you around and can heard what you think and what you do. He have a serie of rules. If you has been bad, when you die, the spirit will create a clone of you into a spirit form, and torture you forever. And thats why eating bacon is bad. <--- most religions What the gently caress is wrong on the brain on people that believe in the above. I mean, jesus, WHAT THE gently caress is wrong with them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Tei posted:He guys. You have autism, or you are a teenage boy. It's ok, it's not your fault.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:You have autism, or you are a teenage boy. It's ok, it's not your fault. Seems like your contributions to this discussion are dismissing pro-atheism posters by insulting them personally and ignoring the content of their posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:You have autism, or you are a teenage boy. It's ok, it's not your fault. You can insult me if you want, I don't mind it. To me the existence of religious people is amazing. How these people can function in the real world?[1] We can consider them real adults?[2] What other nonsense believe?[3] Are they dangerous?[4] Is safe to allow religious people near kids?[5] (and my own answers to these questions) [1] They work, but really how the world work is half catered to this mindset sos is not has amazing. [2] They are real adults and religion is not has important has may seems. Because of perception disonance, religion only completely fubar their reasoning abilities in a few subjects not everywhere anytime. [3] Many fun things!. One religious person told me recently that fish have no brains. [4] Only the extremist. But extremist-anything could be dangerous so is not important. [5] Is only unsafe around catholic priest. Many catholic priest have repressed sexual instinct that can make them abuse of childrens, it seems to happen all too often. Other religious people seems mostly safe. Probably because they don't function like religious people in most normal everyday areas of life. Tei fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Moxie posted:Seems like your contributions to this discussion are dismissing pro-atheism posters by insulting them personally and ignoring the content of their posts. Yup. Mainly because all their arguments are tired and missing the point of the religious experience. Read this if you want to know why you are an idiot: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
If you want boring "but religion is dumb and for sheeple" kind of retard poo poo there's a huge site called reddit you might be interested in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Tei posted:You can insult me if you want, I don't mind it. read this and tell me it warrants a response beyond ridicule.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:read this and tell me it warrants a response beyond ridicule. Do it if you want. The human animal has been religious since 100.000 years ago*, and It will probably be religious for the next 10.000 years. Is still strange and stupid. I think is good that this place exist to wonder about it. *maybe a bit less, maybe it started with the burial of corpses of familiars and warriors Tei fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:read this and tell me it warrants a response beyond ridicule. *tips zucchetto* M'parishioner
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Yup. Mainly because all their arguments are tired and missing the point of the religious experience. Read this if you want to know why you are an idiot: This article repeatly references the historical context of 19th century Germany. Its argument appears to be that philosphy is the spiritual weapon of the proletariat. I don't really think it's relevant. You're really being a dick about this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Moxie posted:This article repeatly references the historical context of 19th century Germany. Go to hell you piece of poo poo. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Go to hell you piece of poo poo. Calm down there, Spergpope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
I'm sure there are religion threads in D&D if you want a serious discussion on how mad you are that grandma makes you say grace at family dinner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Is that why you're so mad right now? Is grandma making you say grace to the wrong version of Jesus? This is a safe space you can tell us after take a few deep breaths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Religiosity, that is the importance placed on religious belief has a large genetic component, as observed by adoption and twin studies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
les fleurs du mall posted:for those of you saying atheism isn't a choice: No. That clearly isnt what they meant. If you dont play sports then by your own choice you dont play sports. There is nothing preventing you from making a choice to play sports or not except your free will. However, if you have a fundamental belief that sports isnt a decent use of your time then it you might say," playing sports isnt a choice for me".
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Free will does not exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:24
|
|