Religion is for cowards and pedophiles of childrens minds

Well, I'm pretty sure communal living predated money. You've got to figure there were reasons to have money. I can think of a few (like not having to carry goats around with you), and I've got little reason to think that any of the problems currently caused by greed would be solved by an end to money.

I don't know how well I expressed it, but you need belief to even communicate with another person. Until we develop telepathy, the only way Person A can be sure that Person B understands what Person A has said is by judging the content of Person B's reaction to it. That judgment will be based on previous conversations of that type. I think if people truly realised how subjective language and communication is, there'd be a lot less butthurt forumfags insisting that someone is stupid because they didn't agree with the aforementioned forumfags' tortuous and ill-articulated diatribes on god knows what.

 

The tolerance thing... I mean, you only tolerate differences that you care about. Like, people tolerate people of other religions and races, because religions and races are important to them. They don't "tolerate" people of different shoe colour, though, because they don't care what colour shoe someone wears. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with having prejudices. Indeed, those who convince themselves that they don't have them are very often the worst racists of all because they make no effort to curb their behaviour. It is a courtesy of society that we don't act on prejudices, but funnily enough, there's no "proof" that it's a good idea.

 

Reactions do give pretty poor snapshot of what the other person is trying to communicate, which is partly why I try to see beyond the semantics. I guess that's partly why communication can break down. This is why it is important to listen to people instead of just calling them out on being 'stupid'. You just may find that the other person shares the same beliefs as you do, just as long as things start to become clearer, and the semantics are broken through.

What I meant is that money isn't necessarily useless, or the cause of suffering, just that their may come a time where we simply wouldn't need it. The problem with greed goes a lot deeper than the concept of money... I think greed can be the condition one has when needs aren't being fulfilled in some way. These can be meta-needs such as self development, and basic needs required for survival. Perhaps if we move away from our attachment to material possessions, and start looking at gaining something that is 'higher', then we may not have a need for money -- People can start helping each other as family... Like Christiana -- Basic needs are also important, but I don't think that it is crucial because a starving person, oddly enough, can still find happiness. There is something within man that can transcend primal needs in the replacement of higher ones.

 

I'd agree that most people who accumulate lots of possessions are doing so because they are missing something else in their life. "Retail therapy" is a prime example of how this can be abused (and abused shamelessly) by the powers that be. A good half of all the products you see advertised seem to be aimed squarely at keeping single people single without letting them learn to be happy with it.

My beloved Voltaire observed that man seems to need to work - "it is the only way to render life tolerable". While I don't know if I'd go that far, I'd certainly agree that the Devil makes work for idle hands. A higher purpose - even if it's not religious - seems to help people stave off the sense that they are lacking something in their life. I know I seldom think about where my life's going when I'm at work; mostly I think about it when I've been in the bath slightly too long but can't be bothered to get out.

Well, we mostly base our understanding on accumulated past experience. We know what "red" means because of amassed examples. I think this is probably why we get more intractable in our views as we get older. Prejudices inevitably stack up, and again, knowing that this is happening is a far more feasible way to proceed than hoping we can somehow stop/reverse this.

 

For a peace loving hippie you sure sound eager to join a totalitarian dictatorship after you die.

 

You sound pretty eager to create one while you're still alive. Totalitarians rarely have much truck with religion either.

 

Which would make sense if all religions were man made but if not, if one of those religions was established by God then getting rid of it could be problematic.

 

A totalitarian dictatorship is the most efficient and effective of mankind’s Governments the big problem has always been; who do you put in charge?

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


PS I’m still waiting for that proof that God doesn’t exist.

 

If god does exist I challenge him to strike OWB down. ..... Are you dead yet?

 

problematic for who?....a prideful god who would throw lightning from the heavens?
sounds like fear as motivation to me....

inexistance can only be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. to the unreasonable, dragons and unicorns can be as real as god can.

i am reasonable enough to know that i could be incorrect about the nature of the universe, as well as dragons and unicorns. this is something religion doesn't teach....

who are you to challenge him......

 

And this proves exactly what?

 

Problematic to human potential.

We aren't talking about dragons or unicorns

 

i would have to ask you to elaborate on how logic, reason and ethics cant and don't coincide. or at least how human potential is directly associated with religion.

 

Problematic for God? I don't think so!

And why would God need to throw lightning from the heavens? Do you really think the tree of true worship can be so easily uprooted? It would be a little like you trying to uproot a giant redwood with your bare hands, it just ain't going to happen.

I suppose you feel God's inexistence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

But in any case, it was rudenoodle that said it was a "fact" that God doesn't exist and then based this whole thread on that "fact". I merely pointed out that unless he can prove that "fact" it very well could not be true or a fact.

I also pointed out that the question of God's existence has been argued for thousands of years by the best minds of mankind and most people would say that the question has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by either side.

 

correct. i illustrated this with dragons and unicorns.

thanks for filling me in on the 10 page's i haven't read....
(some of these posts are really fucking long lol....i tried)

seems like a troll thread......hes just exacerbating the shortcomings of atheism.....

religion can be a beautiful thing. and it manifests as such much more often than its given credit for.......the only problem i have with it is the ladder. as it is possible to have beauty through the same manifestations without misunderstanding, oppression and brutality as a bi product of its foundation.

Belief in the doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge is proof of this.

 

Not necessarily religion but faith and ethics.

You're comparing a Dragon to God: a meaning giver that created the universe versus a flying reptilian like beast.

 

It was a joke, and it proves either that the sarcasm was lost on you or that you didn't understand what I was trying to convey to you.

 

Well, if an atheist disapproves of religion on this basis then, as a gesture, he should be willing to admit that he doesn't have proof that there is no god.

I'll freely admit, belief in a god is going out on a limb a bit. But what I know of the scientific theories about the nature of the universe is largely speculative. I don't have any real reason to believe that these things aren't evidenced, but since I haven't seen the evidence myself, it'd be a leap of faith for me to say that "there is no god because it's all string theory, innit".

I'd argue that Gramscian hegemony works a hell of a lot better. Instead of controlling every aspect of people's lives, you just manipulate culture financially so that people control each other's lives. It's maybe a jot less effective, but a fucking fuckload more efficient, because you don't have to pay people to shun their neighbours.

 

I guess. I think the problem I've always had with the notion of religion - as oppose to a god - is that if I was omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (and chose to be invisible, immaterial and unknowable), I'd hope that I wouldn't be so insecure as to get all butthurt that people weren't paying attention to me. And that's before I knew that believing out of fear of the consequences of not believing was considered negative by most religions.

Really, it seemed like we might as well be worshipping this guy:



But yes, technically you're right: picking one religion would be pretty dumb if there was a right one. If you had to pick one and only one, it would make sense to pick the one with the most vengeful and awful god; that way if you're wrong there's more of a chance that it won't matter so much.

 

All hail Q, be praised the Continuum!