For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I am feeling rather belittled which is rather odd for an attofish. Care to produce the facts that i omitted for fear of 'fucking up' my story?Obvious Leo wrote:Good on ya, Fishy. You're honouring a great Australian tradition of never allowing the facts to fuck up a good story. You should run for parliament.attofishpi wrote:I know God exists, and i believe this to be true.
All of themattofishpi wrote: Care to produce the facts that i omitted
Lame.Obvious Leo wrote:All of themattofishpi wrote: Care to produce the facts that i omitted
Insufficient reason. You're asking the wrong question of a non-believer. Most people who don't believe in god don't believe in god because there is insufficient reason to do so. That's all there is to it. What I don't get is why this should bother you so much. I don't give a fuck what you believe so why should you give a fuck what I don't believe?attofishpi wrote:What is leaving you so convinced there is no God, or even further, that if there is one, that one will not be made aware of its existence?
The burden of proof is with the person making the claim.attofishpi wrote:Where is this evidence and knowledge that you possess that convinces you that there is no God?Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is the heart of the problem. Belief is about choice. Any fool can chose. It takes more effort to discriminate on the grounds of knowledge and evidence. And it can take imagination to be able to free oneself of the endemic assumptions of your community, and its tacit ideology.
You have nothing but your delusion to protect you from the truth.attofishpi wrote:Lame.Obvious Leo wrote:All of themattofishpi wrote: Care to produce the facts that i omitted
What is leaving you so convinced there is no God, or even further, that if there is one, that one will not be made aware of its existence?
I think people might be drawn to the religion before they're drawn to the god? The religion offers many solutions: social support, guidance, security, redemption, purpose, meaning, activity, and righteousness. People are drawn in by what appeals to them, and then they adopt (and learn about) the particular overarching belief system that holds it all together. So god (and the particular story) is actually the ticket for admission into the support network. That doesn't mean that theists' sacred experiences aren't real -- I just think that non-theists can have sacred experiences too because it's a natural part of tuning into something larger than oneself. Non-theists simply don't use the overarching belief system of a "god" -- they adopt different stories or none at all.Obvious Leo wrote:I can't even understand why anybody would WANT to believe in god. Why would anybody rush so thoughtlessly to define their own existence as meaningless?
Never heard of 'cold as charity"? - so much for support, I get that from friends. I'd never accept help from a church, the cost is too great.Lacewing wrote:I think people might be drawn to the religion before they're drawn to the god? The religion offers many solutions: social support, guidance, security, redemption, purpose, meaning, activity, and righteousness. ?Obvious Leo wrote:I can't even understand why anybody would WANT to believe in god. Why would anybody rush so thoughtlessly to define their own existence as meaningless?
All of these things were listed as solutions that people MIGHT SEE FOR THEMSELVES that would draw them to a religion. I'm not a theist. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand what religion offers to a lot of people. My point was that I'm guessing that people are drawn to the religion (for whatever reasons they see) before they embrace a god.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Never heard of 'cold as charity"? - so much for support, I get that from friends. I'd never accept help from a church, the cost is too great.Lacewing wrote: I think people might be drawn to the religion before they're drawn to the god? The religion offers many solutions: social support, guidance, security, redemption, purpose, meaning, activity, and righteousness. ?
Guidance from education and family; security from the state; "redemption" what is redemption? Since I'm not a sinner then I have no need for that. It seems that religion creates its own need for redemption by pretending everyone is born a sinner. Urummph!
Purpose - you are kidding? And lets assume you mean the same by "meaning". Obviously religion is not providing useful meaning and purpsoe - just stuff of benefit to the church.
Activity- talk a walk in the park if you want to be active. No point wasting your Sunday being made to feel small.
And finally you don't get righteousness from a pack of all too obvious lies.
I get it. I'm just telling you why they might be ill advised to join a religion on those grounds.Lacewing wrote:All of these things were listed as solutions that people MIGHT SEE FOR THEMSELVES that would draw them to a religion. I'm not a theist. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand what religion offers to a lot of people. My point was that I'm guessing that people are drawn to the religion (for whatever reasons they see) before they embrace a god.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Never heard of 'cold as charity"? - so much for support, I get that from friends. I'd never accept help from a church, the cost is too great.Lacewing wrote: I think people might be drawn to the religion before they're drawn to the god? The religion offers many solutions: social support, guidance, security, redemption, purpose, meaning, activity, and righteousness. ?
Guidance from education and family; security from the state; "redemption" what is redemption? Since I'm not a sinner then I have no need for that. It seems that religion creates its own need for redemption by pretending everyone is born a sinner. Urummph!
Purpose - you are kidding? And lets assume you mean the same by "meaning". Obviously religion is not providing useful meaning and purpsoe - just stuff of benefit to the church.
Activity- talk a walk in the park if you want to be active. No point wasting your Sunday being made to feel small.
And finally you don't get righteousness from a pack of all too obvious lies.
Let me guess, you're an atheist that owns a BMW, right?Hobbes' Choice wrote:Atheists tend to score higher in intelligence, as we have heard from time to time. But this article also includes creative thinking.
It always seemed obvious enough that a person self-identifying as an atheist is one who had at some point seriously thought about his position , and thus the statistics would mean that atheism was a good predictor of a reasonably good level of rational thinking, whilst those brought up within religion along with people of intelligence is also cluttered up with unthinking, followers.
You may disagree but intelligence can also be the ability to argue any point effectively regardless of the truth; clever obfuscation, goal-post changing; assuming the premise, and a whole host of other tricks that many here will have witnesses in our Theistic friends. So I do not suggest that you have to be stupid to be a Theist - but have another quality. I'll leave that up to you what you think I think that is.
But this revelation, below, requires a different explanation. Whereas Theism does not lead to stupidity, I think there is a good argument that some forms of Theism are perfectly capable of quashing creative thinking. Religiocity requires dogmatic thinking, it denies imagination and enforces rules and fixed ideas. It is less open minded; tends to be conformist, homophobic, misogynistic and even racist. To be part of a religion requires a person to belong. And belonging means sharing an ideology and a system of belief.
All these things might also apply to an Atheist, depending on what they might choose to believe. But for most atheists it is necessary to fundamentally question the nature of belief itself; and in rejecting ONE "Faith", it is more likely that atheism would also score higher for non-conformity, open mindedness - (but not the the point of believing in anything that comes along), and it being suspicious of belief itself. Creativity would enable a range of fantastical ideas to remain that way, rather than accepting any one as true, as the Theists have to.
http://thehumanist.com/arts_entertainme ... y-might-be
Lacewing wrote: I think people might be drawn to the religion before they're drawn to the god? The religion offers many solutions: social support, guidance, security, redemption, purpose, meaning, activity, and righteousness.
Are there grounds that you would suggest?Hobbes' Choice wrote: I'm just telling you why they might be ill advised to join a religion on those grounds.
I'm not trying to conclude anything. I was responding to Leo's statement that he "couldn't understand why anybody would WANT to believe in god". I was simply offering an observation based on the WILD notion that when people have a need, they'll move (maybe even lurch) towards whatever promises or appears to be able to fill or resolve that need... which religion promises to do. Then once they're there, religion teaches the person about god... and what that's all about... or how else would they know? I'm speaking generally... from my own viewpoint. It's just one perspective. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Without religion being passed around, I don't know that people would naturally be in angst or great wonder thinking about some sort of god SEPARATE from everything. Please explain more about how you see it?Hobbes' Choice wrote: I don't see how or we you can conclude from this list, nor think that this list supports your claim that people are drawn to religion BEFORE they embrace a notion of 'god'. Usually the both go hand in hand. And in some cases people find a religion after they think there might be a god.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:But seriously, to remain on topic, let me interject the following:
If everyone on the face of the planet, but one, believed one way, and they all agreed that it was the most intelligent way to believe, could the one standout that believed the other way, be the more intelligent of the lot?