|
Crowsbeak posted:Oh now its the argument that we've jsut been in a constant advancement of knowledg. For comparing what people know about the world from thousands of years ago to now? Yes that's exactly right. It's been an exponentially increasing rate of learning. We will learn more in the next ten years than we did in the 1000 years from 1 CE to 1000 CE. We didn't have to tools and necessary discoveries back then. Try building a computer with only tools from Ancient Rome even if you build transistors for a living now. It would take decades or longer to physically develop the complex tools we use now even if you knew exactly what you were going for. Crowsbeak posted:Oh also Raspar Fat was praising the Mongols, who of course didn't cause millions to die in their secular attempt at world conquest or anything. BTW I don't take assholes who pretend to be good people seriously so I don't oput effort into this. Because I know that you won't stop being assholes. This thread exists so you can justify being assholes. I didn't "praise" the Mongols. I said they valued secular knowledge for its secular applications. As did the Chinese. As did the Romans. They were still regressive ancient cultures though, and had the baggage that comes with that. Conquest, slaughter, slavery, and the whole slew of old world atrocities that were rampant before secularization movements. You've also completely ignored the point of that argument. It's a numbers game. Stalin and Mao were lovely atheist totalitarians that committed atrocities, but that ignores the entirety of human history where religion and authoritarianism are inextricably linked. Take a good long look at the religiosity statistics I posted earlier. The countries with high religiosity are rife with totalitarian religious shitheads, while the countries with low religiosity are not. I'm not sure how I'm being an rear end in a top hat exactly, I'm pointing out the facts. Being religious doesn't make people intrinsically worse, but it does make them vulnerable to authoritarianism and being reactionary. I would hope this would be seen as a bad thing, especially in the current political climate.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Somebody fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Apr 3, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
Reminder: Stalin was trained in a seminary and Mao's writings were steeped in the Classics. If religion's utility is moral cultivation (as has been argued here) those two would represent rather stellar failures of this system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Reminder: Stalin was trained in a seminary and Mao's writings were steeped in the Classics. Adam and Eve walked in the garden with the very God of creation and they still thought, Hmm, maybe trust the serpent instead?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Adam and Eve walked in the garden with the very God of creation and they still thought, Hmm, maybe trust the serpent instead? As with most promethean myths, the serpent wasn't actually wrong, just defiant. (The association between the serpent, the devil and the beast of apocalypse is also relatively late)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Adam and Eve walked in the garden with the very God of creation and they still thought, Hmm, maybe trust the serpent instead? To be fair the only thing God didn't allow them to do is critical thinking so damned if you do...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Adam and Eve walked in the garden with the very God of creation and they still thought, Hmm, maybe trust the serpent instead? They were also incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong, and so can't be considered culpable for their actions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
pretty hosed up that solomon wanted to tear a baby in half. This guy is supposed to be wise??
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Honestly I don't get why one would lie about their God in their holy book though, makes things kinda confusing I'd super prefer it if people made political choices based on understandings of facts, modern context, and humanitarian goodwill towards others if its all the same to you
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Bates posted:Just a few pages ago religion as a whole was credited with everything from the civil rights movement to math but now it's suddenly wrong to talk about some brands of Christianity. Dont accuse me of believing something not even a majority believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:As with most promethean myths, the serpent wasn't actually wrong, just defiant. The serpent told them that: they wouldn't die, and they'd be gods. They ate the fruit and got: death, and shame in their humanity. It was the humans who were defiant. The sin isn't eating the fruit (which, contrary to common retelling, didn't give humans reason or knowledge or discernment of good from evil — they had that from the start, part of their very formation in imago dei), the sin was acting as though they knew better than God, following the serpent's temptation. So I don't know about your take. Unless you follow along in the longer view, in which via the Fall and salvation in Christ mankind is drawn to theosis and eternal life, but that usually not where people go with this particular criticism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
I dunno. A trickster god who creates a pair of saps ex nihilo and tells them they can do anything they want *except* have an apple off this tree, then puts a snake in the garden explicitly to tell them how cool the apple is, then jumps out from behind a bush yelling 'gotcha, now you have to suffer forever!' when they eat it seems like a pretty lovely dude
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Yeah, it's not so much that the story lacks internal justification as it is that the counter-factual moral is immediately obvious to anyone troubled by the problem of evil. Or who just has pagan sensibilities in general. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I dunno. A trickster god who creates a pair of saps ex nihilo and tells them they can do anything they want *except* have an apple off this tree, then puts a snake in the garden explicitly to tell them how cool the apple is, then jumps out from behind a bush yelling 'gotcha, now you have to suffer forever!' when they eat it seems like a pretty lovely dude So what you want is God to intentionally limit human cognition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:The serpent told them that: they wouldn't die, and they'd be gods. They ate the fruit and got: death, and shame in their humanity. Trickster gods teach wisdom and how to survive in the harshness of the world. Serpent is basically a trickster figure, like Prometheus. Also reminder, the devil in judaism is not actually, initially seen as an evil anti-god, it's an advocate. If you read the old testament through a christian lens only, you're missing the vast majority of the context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:it's an advocate Adversary, or accuser I'm well aware if the devil's OT status.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
you really expect me to believe that aphrodite was made out of sea foam, thats so dumb
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So what you want is God to intentionally limit human cognition. That doesn't follow from what he said, either. An omnipotent being can never hide behind the excuse of "that's just the way things are," which is what He would have to do for the dilemma you're suggesting to exist without a third option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I'd super prefer it if people made political choices based on understandings of facts, modern context, and humanitarian goodwill towards others if its all the same to you I'd prefer it too but I really don't have anything against people having faith in leftist ideals, even if you can reach the same conclusion through reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So what you want is God to intentionally limit human cognition. Human cognition is already limited by our physical brains. Free will is a lie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Human cognition is already limited by our physical brains. Free will is a lie. Prove it. Unless of course you have a background in neuroscience or experimental psychology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Prove it. Unless of course you have a background in neuroscience or experimental psychology. My education in those fields is at least as legitimate as yours is in history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Bates posted:Just a few pages ago religion as a whole was credited with everything from the civil rights movement to math but now it's suddenly wrong to talk about some brands of Christianity. It's not wrong to talk about some brands of Christianity, but it is wrong to conflate certain brands of Christianity with the whole. Fundamentalist Christians are, globally, in the minority. They just seem like the biggest because they're relatively popular in america and they get a looooot of press. Squeaky wheel and all that. Roman Catholics are the single biggest denomination at 1.272 billion, and the Eastern Orthodox represent the second biggest unified denomination at approximately 270 million. Protestants are larger than that at 800 million, but within Protestantism the beliefs, doctrines, and ideas are so diverse that it's really difficult to know how many of those protestants are literalist fundamentalists. According to wiki, methodism represents at least 50 million protestants, and methodists are among the most progressive Christians out there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:My education in those fields is at least as legitimate as yours is in history. I love how you guys could not be bothered to prove me wrong about thae jerking off the mongols. Or that the enlightenment promoted racism. Also its obvious you do this so you can defend being an rear end in a top hat in real life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I love how you guys could not be bothered to prove me wrong about thae jerking off the mongols. Or that the enlightenment promoted racism. Also its obvious you do this so you can defend being an rear end in a top hat in real life. Why would anybody waste energy proving somebody wrong who isn't worth the effort?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Human cognition is already limited by our physical brains. Free will is a lie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why would anybody waste energy proving somebody wrong who isn't worth the effort? I come to correct hilarious assumptions about the beliefs of those who lived in the past. I know not all are as pathetic assholes as you are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I'd prefer it too but I really don't have anything against people having faith in leftist ideals, even if you can reach the same conclusion through reason. My main concern is that when people use faith to come to their conclusions, they might also believe in a bunch of stupid nonsense that comes along for the ride, like life beginning at conception or homosexuality being sinful. Hmm, I guess if I really think about it, my real beef with religion is that its a package of ideals, some good, some really loving awful. If someone came up with an 'only the good stuff' religion I guess I'd have no problems at all with it. Seems like a lot of effort to redeem religion though. E: Even then though 'the good stuff' is likely to change over time, and religion is very slow to keep up
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I come to correct hilarious assumptions about the beliefs of those who lived in the past. I know not all are as pathetic assholes as you are. You can barely post a correctly spelled sentence, much less correct anybody about anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You can barely post a correctly spelled sentence, much less correct anybody about anything. What you're really saying is you dont like theists showing you are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Itd have to actually happen, first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:The serpent told them that: they wouldn't die, and they'd be gods. They ate the fruit and got: death, and shame in their humanity. The sin is trying to improve one's self. God is all about keeping humans in a static, subservient state. God is the ur-fascist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The sin is trying to improve one's self. God is all about keeping humans in a static, subservient state. God is the ur-fascist. "gently caress you, dad! Who do you think you are, the very ground of being?!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:"gently caress you, dad! Who do you think you are, the very ground of being?!" That is not a very left wing argument, hth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:"gently caress you, dad! Who do you think you are, the very ground of being?!" Man's relationship to God being that of a perpetual child is precisely why his point is well-taken, actually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Gods did not make man, man made gods. Examine the political subtext of what Christian dogma is saying here: subservience is a virtue. Don't you think it's a little odd that archaic societies, with a strict vertical hierarchy, had belief systems that rationalized total and unquestioning obedience, to an all powerful father figure? When you say "you can't question god", what you're actually saying is "you cannot defy traditional political authority". That's the subtext you're unintentionally internalizing. You're hypnotizing yourself into slavery, because you don't have the backbone to accept reality as it exists. Defiance of God, that's called revolution. Thinking for yourself, that's called freedom. The death of God, that's called progress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:"gently caress you, dad! Who do you think you are, the very ground of being?!" A good parent teaches and guides. A lovely, abusive parent makes ultimatums.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Itd have to actually happen, first. You are constantly wrong about history. Who What Now posted:A good parent teaches and guides. A lovely, abusive parent makes ultimatums. Well he has and humans refuse his presence so are sent to a place where they can always he away from the presence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Man's relationship to God being that of a perpetual child is precisely why his point is well-taken, actually. Jesus does tell us to be like children, after all, and I want it to be cool to sleep with a boy-sized plush gorilla.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
I don't think subservience to God necessarily has to entail a blanket approval of subservience, but on the other hand I'd go further: conceiving of a perfect universe, the best of all possible worlds, which an all-benevolent and all-powerful God could not but create, there wouldn't be hierarchical relationships to begin with, because they suppose the existence of relatively less-good things. The only option left to such a being, given all options through his power but restrained by his goodness, would be to never exist in the first place, making all things equally good on his way out the door. Or succinctly: I like God too much to accuse him of existing. Never mind existing concurrently with this goddamn mess, which introduces entirely different problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 02:47
|
|