Theism= Thought Addiction

Rob Roy · Oct 2, 2019

I think the primitive people you were referring to may be on Sentinel Island in the Indian ocean.

My thoughts...

I would define religion as the belief in a superhuman entity or superhuman things that have powers humans or in some cases, most humans, do not have. I say most humans because some religions feature humans as the superhuman entity, which is by design often to achieve control. For instance, the religion of Government. (more on that later if you are curious why belief in government is a religion)

Some aspects of some religions are clearly gibberish and don't hold up under scrutiny since they rely on superstition, ingrained and repetitive dogma and flawed conclusions based or built on other flawed illogical or self contradictory conclusions etc.

While other aspects of some religions are "good" and transcend the religion itself and become beneficial guides for people to follow, such as "being good to other people" etc. These aspects would be good to follow whether a person believed the rest of the erroneous dogma of a particular religion. These aspects are "good" in and of themselves. For instance, I could embrace much of what Christ purported to say, without believing or being a hook, line and sinker Christian.

In a nutshell, I wouldn't say people have been better off with religions than without them, but people are better off practicing some of the good aspects or tenets of religions without embracing the bad or nonsensical aspects.

Religions for the most part have a lifespan, and people grow out of them, when they do, if it involves abandoning the bad aspects of the religion while carrying forward the better aspects, humans benefit. Human civilizations are technologically advanced compared to the past but still captive to emotion, and susceptible to being duped on a large scale. It's fascinating to watch it play it out, but a little frightening too.

You can't pray or vote something which isn't true to become true. The Universe laughs at that and the Universe is old and wise, maybe even amused by humans.

Dalek Supreme · Oct 3, 2019

Flowki said:
I'm fairly sure JP has stated a few times he does not actually believe in god, more so he is intrigued about the deeper meanings of the stories and what moral messages they hold while it is often an opinion of what he thinks those messages mean. If no god exists yet the stories told by various religions help people become better people I don't see why that is bad. On the other side of the coin religion was/is behind a lot of slaughtering but bare with me. Would you dare suggest that killings both historically and in present day would be less frequent had religion not existed?, surely we agree that is rhetorical.

For many people religion is the foundation of hope and for good reason, the thought of nothingness is terrifying. Why would one feel the need to belittle or strip that hope from a person when it actually serves no purpose to do so. You have no proof that an afterlife exists but equally you have no proof to suggest it does not, aside from the argument of no proof it exists is proof it does not. You have no credibility to judge another on what type of afterlife they choose to believe in. If you do this then you are no better than extreme believers who try to force a religion onto others.

One thing I can prove is that the world would be worse with no religion. The bar is set higher than any person can truly achieve and all cultures have slowly moved toward that carrot on a stick perfection. If the bar was simply to achieve what a human can achieve, we can all achieve misery. That bottomless pit is the reason religion was born. Back in the days of true struggle, how else could you make peace with the complete agony, those were bad times for people.

It's funny that when faced with a life threatening situation many people will call on a god when they have spent their whole life not really believing in one. Up till that point they had never felt true hopelessness. People going way back dealt with that more than we can imagine. Even still, many people today may be less able to deal with the thoughts of death, even though the chance of it on a daily basis is low. If religion brings them peace so be it, or should we seek to medicate them instead, maybe ''educate'' them to not be scared of potentially spending eternity in darkness.

Ehh I can't help it. I would be interested to read your ideas on an alternative. Religion for those who believe, more often than not points people toward a positive outcome. For those who don't believe, just about all common law derives from concepts of religion, and more often than not people follow those laws. What would you replace this with?.

Unfortunately I do not have the time currently to respond in full. But I will give a short response, and link two vids for those to ponder.

First off this thread has far reaching things about reality that I did not mention. It's better for those that come to this conclusion to figure it out themselves, and I'm not talking about Theists.

Sure there are people that need a belief to get by. I get this, but their minds will protect, and hold said belief. So I'm not worried about it, and I'm just a bad person to them anyway without being downright nasty about it (just giving facts).

Religion just perpetuates ignorance plain, and simple. Like earlier I heard that a person's favorite Bible quote is from Genesis. We are made in God's image, and this to him planted the seed of equal rights. This is ludicrous because we have some writers of the ancient Greek, and Roman world to thank for this. Not a book that calls for stoning, slavery, genocide, and no freedom of religion.

It's the 21st century, and we have better understanding through actual knowledge rather than imagination.

Flowki · Oct 3, 2019

Rob Roy said:
I think the primitive people you were referring to may be on Sentinel Island in the Indian ocean.

My thoughts...

I would define religion as the belief in a superhuman entity or superhuman things that have powers humans or in some cases, most humans, do not have. I say most humans because some religions feature humans as the superhuman entity, which is by design often to achieve control. For instance, the religion of Government. (more on that later if you are curious why belief in government is a religion)

Some aspects of some religions are clearly gibberish and don't hold up under scrutiny since they rely on superstition, ingrained and repetitive dogma and flawed conclusions based or built on other flawed illogical or self contradictory conclusions etc.

While other aspects of some religions are "good" and transcend the religion itself and become beneficial guides for people to follow, such as "being good to other people" etc. These aspects would be good to follow whether a person believed the rest of the erroneous dogma of a particular religion. These aspects are "good" in and of themselves. For instance, I could embrace much of what Christ purported to say, without believing or being a hook, line and sinker Christian.

In a nutshell, I wouldn't say people have been better off with religions than without them, but people are better off practicing some of the good aspects or tenets of religions without embracing the bad or nonsensical aspects.

Religions for the most part have a lifespan, and people grow out of them, when they do, if it involves abandoning the bad aspects of the religion while carrying forward the better aspects, humans benefit. Human civilizations are technologically advanced compared to the past but still captive to emotion, and susceptible to being duped on a large scale. It's fascinating to watch it play it out, but a little frightening too.

You can't pray or vote something which isn't true to become true. The Universe laughs at that and the Universe is old and wise, maybe even amused by humans.

First off FUCK YOU. I am stoned here trying to read and then something moved, I got a fright, eeehh.. I thought, just stoned paranoia.. looked away, but it caught my eye again and BAM, that damn pic really is moving :lol:

with some damn jeepers creepers vibe.

That may well be the tribe, it was a while ago I learned of them. Well, who ever they are good luck to them.

Yes a lot of religious elements have super natural powers etc but why so surprised?. We have an imagination, the same imagination that lead us to all this technology. Further more, look at movies, they represent our imagination and our very being. Horror, action, love, hate, joy, sadness, good, evil and ofc doing the impossible. All the same things found in religion. This ties into your theory of government and you are right, most elements are in that too, it's also in sport, books, songs and everything else. People are essentially finding their own system of ''religion'' and while that may seem ok, I'm not so sure. Are all ventures equal?.. would the world be better if we set our standards from Buddhism or if we set them from the millions tuning in to watch the kardashians?. It sounds like a laughable comparison but take a short time to think about it, what are most kids up to these days. They are hooked on devices and plugged into watching endless fake people spinning lies, yet it's as strong a following as any religion has been. The message isn't hope, love and most things found in religion or other positive rooted ideologies , instead it's most dominantly about consumerism and vanity. This is the truth of religion I guess, it is just an outlet, like many, for our imagination. The word we should be taken from religion is ''moral grounding''. That's what we are losing as we lose religion, because our other outlets are not near as morally grounding.

I also agree traditional religions have a sell by date for many of the details. However I think the core morals universally live on since they are linked to the core of human nature that will always be with us yet need controlling. I think we all accept that killing is most often bad. From that, are secondary antagonists that religion cover well, such as controlling jealousy. I'd say most of the internet pushes vanity and that often leads to jealousy, hate isn't far from that.. and then pick any negative path you like from there.

''You can't pray or vote something which isn't true to become true. The Universe laughs at that and the Universe is old and wise, maybe even amused by humans.''

I'm not sure if this is a bait or not ;p. If not then the Irony would be that while arguing against the super natural, you suggest the universe has the capacity to understand our stupidity, qualifying it as a higher being. I hope I caught you out there ;p makes us even for that damn pic.

Flowki · Oct 3, 2019

Dalek Supreme said:
Unfortunately I do not have the time currently to respond in full. But I will give a short response, and link two vids for those to ponder.

First off this thread has far reaching things about reality that I did not mention. It's better for those that come to this conclusion to figure it out themselves, and I'm not talking about Theists.

Sure there are people that need a belief to get by. I get this, but their minds will protect, and hold said belief. So I'm not worried about it, and I'm just a bad person to them anyway without being downright nasty about it (just giving facts).

Religion just perpetuates ignorance plain, and simple. Like earlier I heard that a person's favorite Bible quote is from Genesis. We are made in God's image, and this to him planted the seed of equal rights. This is ludicrous because we have some writers of the ancient Greek, and Roman world to thank for this. Not a book that calls for stoning, slavery, genocide, and no freedom of religion.

It's the 21st century, and we have better understanding through actual knowledge rather than imagination.

I understand what point you are trying to make about the negative aspects of religion but it is simply wrong. What you are suggesting is not exclusive to religion. Take the vid for example, somebody pretending to resurrect a man? clearly BS. But is that bullshit limited to religion?. What are magic shows?, what are fortune tellers, mind readers and so on. Second, what's the motive of that resurrection, likely money or nobility. How many people con others out of money in day to day life?, how many none religious based charity's are a con?. An America women cheated a marathon like 2 years in a row by getting on the train, just so she could have the fame of winning. The traits and issues you pick out in religion are simply traits of humans and they are found in all walks of life that do not include religion. You can argue religion has litterally told people to go kill. It's a valid argument, but have leaders not sent us to ''certain'' wars in the name of democracy? when we know it was really just about money and power.

''Religion just perpetuates ignorance plain, and simple. Like earlier I heard that a person's favorite Bible quote is from Genesis. We are made in God's image, and this to him planted the seed of equal rights.''

Unlike my last post to rob roy, this irony isn't very fun ;/. By claiming all religion perpetuates ignorance is an ignorant statement in itself. You can't cherry pick what annoys you and then apply it to the entire cake.

Funnily enough I don't think humans would have survived if not for religion. I don't think you have currently comprehended how cruel existence was in the earliest centuries. More over, you take for granted what we know now. Back then they knew nothing but the stars in the sky, the blankest canvas for our imagination, the one that put me and you here. You think you would have came up with a better explanation for death and the other big questions back then?. Would logic have seen you through the reality of your high child death rates?. I say logic, you wouldn't have had much of it back then since it heavily correlates with knowledge.

Rob Roy · Oct 3, 2019

Flowki said:
I think we all accept that killing is most often bad.

Yes, most people would agree with that, but then their religious beliefs cause them to abandon that belief in favor of obeying "authority", and they kill regardless. That's a case of instilled obedience being so effective, it renders people senseless and makes them place a higher value on obedience over their own belief.

People kill people they don't even know and who have never harmed them, because their adherence to a religious belief in "authority" (and government...which is a religion) is so strong they no longer consider themselves responsible for their own actions. A handy rationalization, but nevertheless a rationalization.

Flowki said:
The word we should be taken from religion is ''moral grounding''. That's what we are losing as we lose religion, because our other outlets are not near as morally grounding.

I like and respect where you're trying to go with this thought, but....

It is possible to behave with high morals, be respectful of others etc and not believe in a religion. I would even suggest it is preferable. Religions often feature a central authority, who is / are exempt from the morality that they espouse. God can smite people, you can't. Governments (the most dangerous religion) can get away with "collateral damage", waterboarding, extortion, etc. things which would be bad if you and I did them. Double standards should be questioned and disobeyed.

Flowki · Oct 3, 2019

Rob Roy said:
Yes, most people would agree with that, but then their religious beliefs cause them to abandon that belief in favor of obeying "authority", and they kill regardless. That's a case of instilled obedience being so effective, it renders people senseless and makes them place a higher value on obedience over their own belief.

People kill people they don't even know and who have never harmed them, because their adherence to a religious belief in "authority" (and government...which is a religion) is so strong they no longer consider themselves responsible for their own actions. A handy rationalization, but nevertheless a rationalization.

I completely agree with this, I think it's the insight that delek is failing to comprehend. People are not perfect, indefinitely, any establishment that derives from them is also not perfect. Not perfect typically means misery, my thought path is what systems bring about the least.

Rob Roy said:
I like and respect where you're trying to go with this thought, but....

It is possible to behave with high morals, be respectful of others etc and not believe in a religion. I would even suggest it is preferable. Religions often feature a central authority, who is / are exempt from the morality that they espouse. God can smite people, you can't. Governments (the most dangerous religion) can get away with "collateral damage", waterboarding, extortion, etc. things which would be bad if you and I did them. Double standards should be questioned and disobeyed.

Where do you think most of our morals and laws derived from?. I personally drop them at the feet of religion. My worry is that can those morals actually uphold long term with no religion, what then will uphold or reinforce them?. Also, as I mentioned in another post fear has to be accounted for. How do you keep a man or an organisation in moral check when they no longer fear the wrath of another man or the wrath of god/s?, such people are very dangerous... and they can exist in all classes of society. It's almost like law/jail and religion served as a double safety net to hopefully keep most people on the right track (assuming said laws or religion is morally in line). If we lose one net I just can't see how it is good. Again, unless you can speculate on an alternative moral safety to religion?, or maybe you think law is enough?.

Rob Roy · Oct 4, 2019

Flowki said:
I completely agree with this, I think it's the insight that delek is failing to comprehend. People are not perfect, indefinitely, any establishment that derives from them is also not perfect. Not perfect typically means misery, my thought path is what systems bring about the least.

Where do you think most of our morals and laws derived from?. I personally drop them at the feet of religion. My worry is that can those morals actually uphold long term with no religion, what then will uphold or reinforce them?. Also, as I mentioned in another post fear has to be accounted for. How do you keep a man or an organisation in moral check when they no longer fear the wrath of another man or the wrath of god/s?, such people are very dangerous... and they can exist in all classes of society. It's almost like law/jail and religion served as a double safety net to hopefully keep most people on the right track (assuming said laws or religion is morally in line). If we lose one net I just can't see how it is good. Again, unless you can speculate on an alternative moral safety to religion?, or maybe you think law is enough?.

Fear is usually why people are bad, not why they're good. Statutory laws are a clusterfuck of corruption. I don't look there for any saviors. Things which are bad, but legal, are still bad in and of themselves. Things which are good or acceptable for people , but illegal don't become "bad" simply because some dickwadds in power pass a law against it.

Self interest is a strong motivator and can work in a negative way or in a positive way. I think most people are basically good, which is why they worship "authority", but not because they worship authority. Because they've been told and indoctrinated to believe that obedience to authority is a virtue, when it often isn't. Most people want to be seen as virtuous, so they fall for the trap of religion / authority, because of purposeful conditioning imposed on people, with religious regularity.

Thru conditioning people lose the ability to discern and simply do what they are told...especially if everybody else is doing it and they are born into it. Also there are negative psychological consequences for most people if they don't follow the herd / obey "authority" even when their obedience runs contrary to being good in reality. Checkout the Milgram Experiment sometime.

As an alternative to religion / authority...

If a person is interested in maintaining good relationships with other people, they would behave in ways that other people find valuable. Keep their agreements, respect other people, their property etc. So the feedback mechanism is a good way to keep people in line so to speak. If your behavior is such that people don't like what you do, they will seek relationships elsewhere, probably advise others to steer clear of you etc.

This feedback aspect works, UNLESS, people are duped into thinking that the actions of some, RELIGIONS, GOVERNMENTS, "AUTHORITIES" aren't the criteria for judging them. Instead, people are convinced that the position held by the authority is the thing that matters....simply because they believe authority is exempt from being "bad". This is flawed thinking, but it is the prevailing thinking of most people now. For mankind to advance behind infantile behavior, we must relearn critical thinking and shed the worship of arbitrary authority.

Religions and government (a type of faith based religion) are what hold people back and keep them obedient to people who do evil under the guise of "authority". I don't mean to disparage people who follow or practice religions per se, not all religious practitioners are "sheep", but blind obedience isn't virtuous and if it's part of the package, it should be critically examined and shed if it grants some people rights others do not have.

If you are told ." you have to take the good and bad" with something...it's a trojan horse used by people to gain control over others. I reject that.

Flowki · Oct 4, 2019

Rob Roy said:
Fear is usually why people are bad, not why they're good. Statutory laws are a clusterfuck of corruption. I don't look there for any saviors. Things which are bad, but legal, are still bad in and of themselves. Things which are good or acceptable for people , but illegal don't become "bad" simply because some dickwadds in power pass a law against it.

I don't agree with this, at-least half of it. People can do things out of fear but fear also stops people doing things. I dare say a lot more of us would commit more crimes if we knew we would get off with no punishment (jail or a beating/death). For example most normal people lie out of fear, to avoid punishment or blame. How many people do you think would sleep around if it didn't mean the end of their marriage?. I could go on.

Rob Roy said:
Self interest is a strong motivator and can work in a negative way or in a positive way. I think most people are basically good, which is why they worship "authority", but not because they worship authority. Because they've been told and indoctrinated to believe that obedience to authority is a virtue, when it often isn't. Most people want to be seen as virtuous, so they fall for the trap of religion / authority, because of purposeful conditioning imposed on people, with religious regularity.

Thru conditioning people lose the ability to discern and simply do what they are told...especially if everybody else is doing it and they are born into it. Also there are negative psychological consequences for most people if they don't follow the herd / obey "authority" even when their obedience runs contrary to being good in reality. Checkout the Milgram Experiment sometime.

I agree we are mostly good within context and the proof is clear to see. If we were mostly bad we would be extinct as a species. Although, in the context of the planets survival (our pollution) I feel we are mostly bad, but we are leaning into good on that front, hopefully soon enough. If we destroy the planet then it turns out we were very bad all along.. and our subjective good view of ourselves was naively inaccurate.

Assuming we save the planet, part of the reason we are able to be mostly good is that we work together under a common goal, be it the ideologie of a religion, country or tribe w/e. As we have progressed as a species we have banded together in larger and larger groups (fewer and fewer fragments) all with the same goals in mind (climate change is proving to be the biggest uniting force). This is enevitable, we have to work together.. it's even partly biological from a survival aspect. With those facts in mind, a government ''type'' of structure will always be present. A class is lead by one teacher, a school by one head, town by one mp.. and on and on. You may not like the idea of an establishment but our survival depends on it. Any alternitive system you offer up with either fail or turn into the same pyramid structure of leadership we have now.. only under another name.

Rob Roy said:
As an alternative to religion / authority...

If a person is interested in maintaining good relationships with other people, they would behave in ways that other people find valuable. Keep their agreements, respect other people, their property etc. So the feedback mechanism is a good way to keep people in line so to speak. If your behavior is such that people don't like what you do, they will seek relationships elsewhere, probably advise others to steer clear of you etc.

This feedback aspect works, UNLESS, people are duped into thinking that the actions of some, RELIGIONS, GOVERNMENTS, "AUTHORITIES" aren't the criteria for judging them. Instead, people are convinced that the position held by the authority is the thing that matters....simply because they believe authority is exempt from being "bad". This is flawed thinking, but it is the prevailing thinking of most people now. For mankind to advance behind infantile behaviour, we must relearn critical thinking and shed the worship of arbitrary authority.

This is almost utopian and impossible. Not everybody has the critical thinking to become that balanced as a person. Why? because humans are not perfect and none of our structures ever will be. This means a certain number of people will always be hard done by within any system you can ever create. Since they are hard done by the bitterness within such people (not all) will stop them becoming good people. This however does not stop them hijacking the system and corrupting more of it from within. This objective cycle of human nature is something you need to comprehend in order to avoid utopian type ideology's.

If a person is not falling in line, what are you going to do with them?. ''Steer clear'' is not near good enough when this person is trying to burn your house down, kill your family and what ever else. If you can physically stop this person yourself ok.. but if not?. Who then does it? who do you deem fit to be put in charge to keep people safe from the occasional rise of such a person/group?. We already have this, the police. Are police perfect, no, are humans perfect, no. Do we need the police? 100% yes. Give me an alternative to the police and I guarantee you it is only different in name. We could go on like this with the various structures we have created. Even down to the army. When was the last time a Viking raiding party came through your town?. We don't see this type of thing any more because of the structures of government and rise of army and world ''policing''.

Rob Roy said:
Religions and government (a type of faith based religion) are what hold people back and keep them obedient to people who do evil under the guise of "authority". I don't mean to disparage people who follow or practice religions per se, not all religious practitioners are "sheep", but blind obedience isn't virtuous and if it's part of the package, it should be critically examined and shed if it grants some people rights others do not have.

If you are told ." you have to take the good and bad" with something...it's a trojan horse used by people to gain control over others. I reject that.

I think you are still stuck on the secondary issues. The primary issue here is that people will always begin to collect in groups, people will always have an imagination, they will always create structures, their will always be followers and leaders. Those structures may take the form of religion, it may be government, it may be a pop star, a sports team or what ever. Some people will beleive and follow anything.. can't help them. Some people just want to dominate others. Most people, however, follow and lead in such a way that we can say is good. Going back to the start, the definition of good will depend on if we destroy the planet or not. If we are to base it only from our population rise, then we are overwhelmingly good in our leading and following (I prefer to call it collaboration) skills.

Rob Roy · Oct 4, 2019

Flowki said:
I don't agree with this, at-least half of it. People can do things out of fear but fear also stops people doing things. I dare say a lot more of us would commit more crimes if we knew we would get off with no punishment (jail or a beating/death). For example most normal people lie out of fear, to avoid punishment or blame. How many people do you think would sleep around if it didn't mean the end of their marriage?. I could go on.

Flowki said:
You might be presupposing that in the absence of a central authority (god, government, etc) that actual crimes would go unchecked. I don't think that's the case. In fact it isn't, but I'll save that conversation for another time.

I agree we are mostly good within context and the proof is clear to see. If we were mostly bad we would be extinct as a species. Although, in the context of the planets survival (our pollution) I feel we are mostly bad, but we are leaning into good on that front, hopefully soon enough. If we destroy the planet then it turns out we were very bad all along.. and our subjective good view of ourselves was naively inaccurate.

Good and bad people come in all genders, colors and sometimes practice different belief systems. What makes an INDIVIDUAL good or bad is of concern to me. When we lump everybody into a "we", it obfuscates things and makes it easier for bad people to continue being bad.

Assuming we save the planet, part of the reason we are able to be mostly good is that we work together under a common goal, be it the ideologie of a religion, country or tribe w/e. As we have progressed as a species we have banded together in larger and larger groups (fewer and fewer fragments) all with the same goals in mind (climate change is proving to be the biggest uniting force). This is enevitable, we have to work together.. it's even partly biological from a survival aspect. With those facts in mind, a government ''type'' of structure will always be present. A class is lead by one teacher, a school by one head, town by one mp.. and on and on. You may not like the idea of an establishment but our survival depends on it. Any alternitive system you offer up with either fail or turn into the same pyramid structure of leadership we have now.. only under another name.

I'm not opposed to people banding together, I am opposed to a forcible hierarchy, since it's a rationalization for lesser kinds of slavery, which is man's past and present state. Hopefully not the future state though.

As far as an alternative system, isn't it possible for there to be alternative systems ? Of course it is. Why should a person be prevented from doing their own thing? I'm not saying a person should be able to do their own thing if it violates other people or their justly acquired property though. That wouldn't be "doing their own thing", that would be overstepping and going beyond doing their own thing and doing others unjustly.

This is almost utopian and impossible. Not everybody has the critical thinking to become that balanced as a person. Why? because humans are not perfect and none of our structures ever will be. This means a certain number of people will always be hard done by within any system you can ever create. Since they are hard done by the bitterness within such people (not all) will stop them becoming good people. This however does not stop them hijacking the system and corrupting more of it from within. This objective cycle of human nature is something you need to comprehend in order to avoid utopian type ideology's.

If a person is not falling in line, what are you going to do with them?. ''Steer clear'' is not near good enough when this person is trying to burn your house down, kill your family and what ever else. If you can physically stop this person yourself ok.. but if not?. Who then does it? who do you deem fit to be put in charge to keep people safe from the occasional rise of such a person/group?. We already have this, the police. Are police perfect, no, are humans perfect, no. Do we need the police? 100% yes. Give me an alternative to the police and I guarantee you it is only different in name. We could go on like this with the various structures we have created. Even down to the army. When was the last time a Viking raiding party came through your town?. We don't see this type of thing any more because of the structures of government and rise of army and world ''policing''

Viking raiding parties ? They still exist, only the "Vikings" wear Police costumes with shiny badges now, don't they ? No we do not need Police, we need security and ways to arbitrate disputes that don't have exemptions built in for the privileged, judicial and enforcer class. You should learn the difference how the differing free market security and arbitration functions would perform versus the status quo, which is based in criminal acts. One is funded via extortion, the other is funded via voluntary interaction.

I think you are still stuck on the secondary issues. The primary issue here is that people will always begin to collect in groups, people will always have an imagination, they will always create structures, their will always be followers and leaders. Those structures may take the form of religion, it may be government, it may be a pop star, a sports team or what ever. Some people will beleive and follow anything.. can't help them. Some people just want to dominate others. Most people, however, follow and lead in such a way that we can say is good. Going back to the start, the definition of good will depend on if we destroy the planet or not. If we are to base it only from our population rise, then we are overwhelmingly good in our leading and following (I prefer to call it collaboration) skills.

There is a difference between following a leader and having a master(s) assigned over you, isn't there ?

Thank you for presenting your point of view in a reasonable manner. In red, above, are my responses to your thoughts.

Flowki · Oct 4, 2019

Rob Roy said:
Thank you for presenting your point of view in a reasonable manner. In red, above, are my responses to your thoughts.

Ehh, I could talk for hours on this kinda thing, do tell me when to stop ;p.

Since the beginning of civilisation it has been the same thing. We had a group of people, the group had a few who were the protectors, the warriors or what ever name you want to give them (you can see this in all history). We have always went to this system, no matter the size of the group. They are essentially today's police/army. We had the farmers of the group, then we had the shaman aka doctor. You can see the roles forming in history, we have them all today and more. The most successful groups had the most diverse roles, different people doing different jobs to better the group, individuals working together be it a common goal or for the understanding of greater personal benefit. The groups that didn't do this are extinct or struggling now. You have to remember, we too are entwined with evolution, on every scale, culturally, socially, even scientifically. We tried many systems and cultures over various human time frames and species. If we were capable of a vastly superior alternative system why has it not shown itself yet?.

This is the point of logic that you won't be able to get away from, if an alternative system is vastly superior it would not be an alternative system. For example we can very likely agree that communism has merits for it's attention to human fairness, it's a superior system to current in that context alone. However, take into account it's flaw, the ability for one man to hijack it's state ownership.. that's now a dictatorship and clearly (I hope you'd agree) no longer a superior system. That's why communism in it's truest form has never came close and never will, it's flaw is too great.

I can partly agree with what you are saying. Like anything, parts of our current system could be out dated (likely are). They need to mature or change, I can see that. However, the whole system is bad?, I don't think we can sit here hundreds of miles apart yet communicating, in our nice little homes, with next to no threat of life ending danger, and claim that is true.

Dalek Supreme · Oct 6, 2019

Flowki said:
I understand what point you are trying to make about the negative aspects of religion but it is simply wrong. What you are suggesting is not exclusive to religion. Take the vid for example, somebody pretending to resurrect a man? clearly BS. But is that bullshit limited to religion?. What are magic shows?, what are fortune tellers, mind readers and so on. Second, what's the motive of that resurrection, likely money or nobility. How many people con others out of money in day to day life?, how many none religious based charity's are a con?. An America women cheated a marathon like 2 years in a row by getting on the train, just so she could have the fame of winning. The traits and issues you pick out in religion are simply traits of humans and they are found in all walks of life that do not include religion. You can argue religion has litterally told people to go kill. It's a valid argument, but have leaders not sent us to ''certain'' wars in the name of democracy? when we know it was really just about money and power.

''Religion just perpetuates ignorance plain, and simple. Like earlier I heard that a person's favorite Bible quote is from Genesis. We are made in God's image, and this to him planted the seed of equal rights.''

Unlike my last post to rob roy, this irony isn't very fun ;/. By claiming all religion perpetuates ignorance is an ignorant statement in itself. You can't cherry pick what annoys you and then apply it to the entire cake.

Funnily enough I don't think humans would have survived if not for religion. I don't think you have currently comprehended how cruel existence was in the earliest centuries. More over, you take for granted what we know now. Back then they knew nothing but the stars in the sky, the blankest canvas for our imagination, the one that put me and you here. You think you would have came up with a better explanation for death and the other big questions back then?. Would logic have seen you through the reality of your high child death rates?. I say logic, you wouldn't have had much of it back then since it heavily correlates with knowledge.

You need to watch the rest of the video with the con resurrection.

Will you fully read these articles, and argue against them?

What’s the Harm? Why Religious Belief Is Always Bad

What's the Harm? Why Religious Belief Is Always Bad • Richard Carrier Blogs

I’m often asked, “Christianity doesn’t really hurt anyone. Why is it so important? Just let people believe what they want. At least in religion. Why should we bother critiquing and opposing belief?” In some cases the question is terribly naive. In others, it’s meant to refer not to conservative...

www.richardcarrier.info

It Wasn’t Christian Values That Saved the West

No, Tom Holland, It Wasn't Christian Values That Saved the West • Richard Carrier Blogs

Novelist Tom Holland just wrote an article for The Spectator titled “Thank God for Western Values,” declaring the “debt of the West to Christianity is more deeply rooted than many might presume.” Everything he says is false. The Back Story Holland is another amateur playing at knowing what he’s...

www.richardcarrier.info

Yes, the Dark Ages Really Were a Thing

Yes, the Dark Ages Really Were a Thing • Richard Carrier Blogs

There is a trend to try and deny the Dark Ages ever existed; even to portray them as really lovely, light and wonderful ages of goodness and achievement. I’m exaggerating. But only a little. I’ve debunked this a lot. I have a whole category assigned to the subject. And I wrote a whole chapter on […]

www.richardcarrier.info

This Is How We Know Christianity Is a Delusion

This Is How We Know Christianity Is a Delusion • Richard Carrier

In researching another article I came across an old piece by Mark McIntyre. On his blog Attempts at Honesty, back in 2011, he wrote a brief piece dismissing New Atheism with the argument that “their unbelief is not due to the lack of evidence but the suppression of it.” The fact that this is...

www.richardcarrier.info

Flowki · Oct 6, 2019

Dalek Supreme said:
You need to watch the rest of the video with the con resurrection.

Will you fully read these articles, and argue against them?

What’s the Harm? Why Religious Belief Is Always Bad

What's the Harm? Why Religious Belief Is Always Bad • Richard Carrier Blogs

I’m often asked, “Christianity doesn’t really hurt anyone. Why is it so important? Just let people believe what they want. At least in religion. Why should we bother critiquing and opposing belief?” In some cases the question is terribly naive. In others, it’s meant to refer not to conservative...

www.richardcarrier.info

It Wasn’t Christian Values That Saved the West

No, Tom Holland, It Wasn't Christian Values That Saved the West • Richard Carrier Blogs

Novelist Tom Holland just wrote an article for The Spectator titled “Thank God for Western Values,” declaring the “debt of the West to Christianity is more deeply rooted than many might presume.” Everything he says is false. The Back Story Holland is another amateur playing at knowing what he’s...

www.richardcarrier.info

Yes, the Dark Ages Really Were a Thing

Yes, the Dark Ages Really Were a Thing • Richard Carrier Blogs

There is a trend to try and deny the Dark Ages ever existed; even to portray them as really lovely, light and wonderful ages of goodness and achievement. I’m exaggerating. But only a little. I’ve debunked this a lot. I have a whole category assigned to the subject. And I wrote a whole chapter on […]

www.richardcarrier.info

This Is How We Know Christianity Is a Delusion

This Is How We Know Christianity Is a Delusion • Richard Carrier

In researching another article I came across an old piece by Mark McIntyre. On his blog Attempts at Honesty, back in 2011, he wrote a brief piece dismissing New Atheism with the argument that “their unbelief is not due to the lack of evidence but the suppression of it.” The fact that this is...

www.richardcarrier.info

I honestly don't NEED to watch the rest of the video or read everything you've linked in-depth as I am no stranger to the topics. I've skimmed across them all and they confirm the issue you are projecting. You have focused entirely on the negative aspects, mostly around the catholic religion as a means to say all religion is bad. You have not comprehended the idea that some types of religion are entirely bad while some parts of a given religion are bad. This is because religion derives from humans and humans are not perfect, first came humans.. then came religion. What you also leave out is the fact that some of the main stream religions have made efforts to ''modernise''. One of the statements also suggests religion encourages rape. Seriously bias. Men have not needed an excuse to rape women over the centuries other than primal dominance. Has parts of some religions emphasised that men are above women? of course.. but that is because said cultures believed that women were not equal from the start.. and it got written into the religion as a result. It's a key difference and one that most certainly does not apply to every religion, just as sexism does not apply to every culture.. although the extreme feminists in western culture would have you believe other wise. Extreme feminists are also a religion aka belief system now.. a bat shit crazy one. Does that mean we should stomp out feminism?.. certainly not.. but we should be removing those toxic fuckers and stopping them degrading the name and movement.

It was only about 8 year ago in England where it was officially illegal to have sex with your wife against her will. Up until that point it was not categorised as rape. Would you now suggest marriage is corrupt and should be abolished?. You may well would given it's origin and your stance. Needless to say many, many men were not raping their wives.. they were not even aware of this loop hole in the law, they simply were not doing it because it's not what a decent man does. Also the men that done this were not getting away with it, the law was outdated but in text only. The law changed, one or even multiple imperfections does not = the entire system is corrupt. You are doing this with religion, suggesting that people are following text word for word. We seen it with Muslims and we all came to realize extremists and Muslims are two very different things. The same happens with patriotism, fine line before racism sets in. Was the slave trade a religious movement or an empire movement?.

More concerning to me is your implication that humans would have been better off with no religion at all, and that suggests that religion is the route of all evil. I'm not even going to get into how wildly naive and ignorant that is because I will not be able to remain polite. I will say, If you remove religion it will be replaced with something else, a cult, a structure or some other singular ''uniting'' force. We have seen the effects of cults and we have seen the effect of political types of ''religion'' that slaughtered millions, lets not name the obvious, but not the only example.

Patriotism as used earlier is another form of religion in that you align with the goals of your country and follow the rules. Great if it's a just country, not so great if it's a murderous dictatorship. Any system can become corrupt because humans are corrupt. The question is what systems are the least likely to become corrupt. Look around the world now and you can see a constant battle between corrupt people and good people. Corrupt people are in every walk of life, every establishment and every religion.. but so are good people.

Lastly, your biasses stem from YOUR belief of no after life or higher existence being true. You have no proof of atheism being true other than the fact an after life has not been proven, that is not proof. You need to take on board the idea that you could actually be wrong. You also need to take on board the idea that people will always have an imagination and will always be afraid of death. You are not accounting for the super natural side of religion that is given people an outlet for this if they choose to believe an after life or higher being is possible. This is why you are ignorant, I am respectfully saying this, but it is people of your nature who start off groups or religions that were rotten from the get go.. because you are starting from an ignorant stance of firmly believing your way is the only way.

It is very strange that you are doing a better job at the core problem you are inacurately calling out.

Dalek Supreme · Oct 12, 2019

Flowki said:
I honestly don't NEED to watch the rest of the video or read everything you've linked in-depth as I am no stranger to the topics.

It shows.

Flowki said:
I've skimmed across them all and they confirm the issue you are projecting. You have focused entirely on the negative aspects, mostly around the catholic religion as a means to say all religion is bad. You have not comprehended the idea that some types of religion are entirely bad while some parts of a given religion are bad. This is because religion derives from humans and humans are not perfect, first came humans.. then came religion. What you also leave out is the fact that some of the main stream religions have made efforts to ''modernise''.

You certainly did skim through it.

Even religions that made progressive efforts still provide cover for fundamentalists.

Flowki said:
One of the statements also suggests religion encourages rape. Seriously bias.

He was talking about how the Catholic church used to shuffle around troublesome priests instead of dealing with it directly. It seems when people started leaving (noteriety of the problem) they finally made efforts to correct the problem.

Flowki said:
Men have not needed an excuse to rape women over the centuries other than primal dominance. Has parts of some religions emphasised that men are above women? of course.. but that is because said cultures believed that women were not equal from the start.. and it got written into the religion as a result. It's a key difference and one that most certainly does not apply to every religion, just as sexism does not apply to every culture.. although the extreme feminists in western culture would have you believe other wise. Extreme feminists are also a religion aka belief system now.. a bat shit crazy one. Does that mean we should stomp out feminism?.. certainly not.. but we should be removing those toxic fuckers and stopping them degrading the name and movement.

People interested in scrutiny of Islam should check out Apostate Prophet on YouTube.

Flowki said:
It was only about 8 year ago in England where it was officially illegal to have sex with your wife against her will. Up until that point it was not categorised as rape. Would you now suggest marriage is corrupt and should be abolished?. You may well would given it's origin and your stance. Needless to say many, many men were not raping their wives.. they were not even aware of this loop hole in the law, they simply were not doing it because it's not what a decent man does. Also the men that done this were not getting away with it, the law was outdated but in text only. The law changed, one or even multiple imperfections does not = the entire system is corrupt. You are doing this with religion, suggesting that people are following text word for word. We seen it with Muslims and we all came to realize extremists and Muslims are two very different things. The same happens with patriotism, fine line before racism sets in. Was the slave trade a religious movement or an empire movement?.

So some Christians no longer take some of the Bible literally.

Muslims have to take everything the Quran says as truth, or they are an apostate.

Did you know that the Bible was used to justify the slave trade?

Flowki said:
More concerning to me is your implication that humans would have been better off with no religion at all, and that suggests that religion is the route of all evil. I'm not even going to get into how wildly naive and ignorant that is because I will not be able to remain polite. I will say, If you remove religion it will be replaced with something else, a cult, a structure or some other singular ''uniting'' force. We have seen the effects of cults and we have seen the effect of political types of ''religion'' that slaughtered millions, lets not name the obvious, but not the only example.

Communism was the worship of the state. More secular nations like Sweden, and the like are doing pretty good.

The first amendment nullifies the first commandment.

Flowki said:
Patriotism as used earlier is another form of religion in that you align with the goals of your country and follow the rules. Great if it's a just country, not so great if it's a murderous dictatorship. Any system can become corrupt because humans are corrupt. The question is what systems are the least likely to become corrupt. Look around the world now and you can see a constant battle between corrupt people and good people. Corrupt people are in every walk of life, every establishment and every religion.. but so are good people.

You should check out the many "Deconversion" videos on YouTube to help out your twisted view of things.

Flowki said:
Lastly, your biasses stem from YOUR belief of no after life or higher existence being true. You have no proof of atheism being true other than the fact an after life has not been proven, that is not proof. You need to take on board the idea that you could actually be wrong. You also need to take on board the idea that people will always have an imagination and will always be afraid of death. You are not accounting for the super natural side of religion that is given people an outlet for this if they choose to believe an after life or higher being is possible. This is why you are ignorant, I am respectfully saying this, but it is people of your nature who start off groups or religions that were rotten from the get go.. because you are starting from an ignorant stance of firmly believing your way is the only way.

It is very strange that you are doing a better job at the core problem you are inacurately calling out.

Atheism is just a lack of belief in God, or Gods.

You have no idea on my views on the paranormal. Also I never made any declaration of "There is no God", but that theists have faulty reasonings for believing in one.

One does not have to be a theist to be effected by the Holy Dopamine Ghost.

All in all we should have a more healthy outlook when it comes to death.

Flowki · Oct 12, 2019

Dalek Supreme said:
It shows.

You've shown no comprehension of a clear middle ground, forgive my refusal to read in-depth the links that agree entirely with your polarized argument. I could easily spam links that make current capitalism look like barbarism.. if that's what I believed.

Dalek Supreme said:
You certainly did skim through it.

Even religions that made progressive efforts still provide cover for fundamentalists.

He was talking about how the Catholic church used to shuffle around troublesome priests instead of dealing with it directly. It seems when people started leaving (noteriety of the problem) they finally made efforts to correct the problem.

Jimmy Savil, Gary Glitter, Elvis Presely, Bill cosbey, Bill Clinton etc.

Very high level people yet all involved in molesting or rape. You think others didn't cover for them or turn a blind eye?. Borstal schools, prisons, mental institutions and so on, all have had extreme cases of facilitating terrible acts. You don't seem to grasp the reality that bad people are within any religion, culture or establishment that you can conceive. Why focus on one context?.

Dalek Supreme said:
People interested in scrutiny of Islam should check out Apostate Prophet on YouTube.

Again the focus of pointing out the faults in religion. Don't you think people know many religions have faults, contradictions and so forth?. You could apply the same fault finding to any government of any country and you'll come up with corruption and contradictions. Common denominator?, ''people''.

Dalek Supreme said:
So some Christians no longer take some of the Bible literally.

Muslims have to take everything the Quran says as truth, or they are an apostate.

Did you know that the Bible was used to justify the slave trade?

Are you an all seeing god? of course not. You don't know the level of faith, how closely/loosely BILLIONS of people follow the bible. You simply assert you do because it makes your argument look better. I didn't know the Bible justified the slave trade. I do know the British empire and America CARRIED IT OUT for a very long time. Lets imagine religion didn't exist.. you think another scape goat justification for bad acts would not take it's place?. As I eluded to in the last post, patriatism has been used very well in this manner. How many couldn't wait to invade a country with no proof of womd?...

This next bit is priceless, the naivety or ignorance went next level. If Muslim's had to follow word for word we would have seen a lot more attacks during the phase where the religion was under intense scrutiny, they were indeed under attack by extreme right wing and general ignorance. What we actually seen was the vast majority denouncing the parts that can and very well have been taken literally, even in the face of anti muslim aggression. That's a complete counter of your statement, it's the opposite of what should have happened in the world you live in. So yeah.. If the religion turns out to be correct, maybe they are doomed for the denouncement of extremism, but still they follow. If the religion is not correct they follow. Either way, they live a better life becuase of the positive side of the teachings that they choose to follow (not all ofc).

I live right next to a large Muslim community, I had a lot of school friends who were Muslim. During my teen and young adult years they were certainly not following word for word ;p. I've liked most Muslims I've ever met, they were respectful and friendly. Most of the truly bad people I've met were natives, had no religion accompanied with moral lacking upbringings, what a shock result. I don't suggest all Muslim ''groups'' are this good but I certainly assume it isn't uncommon. Based on.. well, the vast majority denouncing the extremists.

On the topic of extremists, we've seen plenty of right wing shootings, random school shootings and random street shootings. All from the same path, psychotic individuals. Some use religion as a warping point, some use race, some make up there own shit to warp (cults). And on and on.

Dalek Supreme said:
Communism was the worship of the state. More secular nations like Sweden, and the like are doing pretty good.

Lets get the terminology back down from biasvill. Communism is deeply flawed but why connect it directly to worship?. Sweden is working for now but that doesn't mean it deserves any difference in terminology, it is a political/economic system. With that out the way, Sweden is not communist, not even socialist. It's system isn't so different from the UK. Further more, and probably most important, you can not use economical status to argue a point of religion. Economic status is a very subjective measure of success, also define success. I'd be careful if you venture into the studied happiness of swedes and it's proposed link of low diversity. That's a slippery slope.

Dalek Supreme said:
The first amendment nullifies the first commandment.

It was at this point I realised how far down the rabbit hole you are. In the spirit of Jaws ''We're gunne need a bigger rope''.

The first amendment is one text from one country. The first commandment is one text from one religion. With a world full of country's, laws, religions and teachings.. what does your statement even mean?. That in your view a body of text written long after another body of text has a counter meaning?. So what body of text is more just. Well, both of them serve the same purpose, they are telling you what to do. They fundamentally have more in common than they do apart.

Dalek Supreme said:
You should check out the many "Deconversion" videos on YouTube to help out your twisted view of things.

We can agree that religion is not perfect, much as we can agree capitalism is not perfect. But this is where you lose it. You only seem to acknowledge the extreme flaws or actions facilitated by religion while a balanced person can see the extreme actions and flaws facilitated by all human endeavours, indefinitely. You've zoomed in and got stuck.

Dalek Supreme said:
Atheism is just a lack of belief in God, or Gods.

You have no idea on my views on the paranormal. Also I never made any declaration of "There is no God", but that theists have faulty reasoning's for believing in one.

One does not have to be a theist to be effected by the Holy Dopamine Ghost.

All in all we should have a more healthy outlook when it comes to death.

Maybe you should outline what it is you believe in. I could have baited you but I'll be honest at-least. What ever you believe in will have the same flaw, you can't prove it.. and if you talk long enough about it I will find a contradiction, down snaps the trap of hypocrisy.

Dalek Supreme · Oct 12, 2019

Flowki said:
WOW! Strawman much?

You've shown no comprehension of a clear middle ground, forgive my refusal to read in-depth the links that agree entirely with your polarized argument. I could easily spam links that make current capitalism look like barbarism.. if that's what I believed.

Actually the links are not for you.

I get the impression religion to you is above scrutiny, or you're very bored?

Jimmy Savil, Gary Glitter, Elvis Presely, Bill cosbey, Bill Clinton etc.

Very high level people yet all involved in molesting or rape. You think others didn't cover for them or turn a blind eye?. Borstal schools, prisons, mental institutions and so on, all have had extreme cases of facilitating terrible acts. You don't seem to grasp the reality that bad people are within any religion, culture or establishment that you can conceive. Why focus on one context?.

Are these people you listed sanctioned by an imaginary friend?

Again the focus of pointing out the faults in religion. Don't you think people know many religions have faults, contradictions and so forth?. You could apply the same fault finding to any government of any country and you'll come up with corruption and contradictions. Common denominator?, ''people''.

You have this political obsession. You realize some people use religion to gain political power?

Are you an all seeing god? of course not. You don't know the level of faith, how closely/loosely BILLIONS of people follow the bible. You simply assert you do because it makes your argument look better. I didn't know the Bible justified the slave trade. I do know the British empire and America CARRIED IT OUT for a very long time. Lets imagine religion didn't exist.. you think another scape goat justification for bad acts would not take it's place?. As I eluded to in the last post, patriatism has been used very well in this manner. How many couldn't wait to invade a country with no proof of womd?...

once again. Strawman much?

This next bit is priceless, the naivety or ignorance went next level. If Muslim's had to follow word for word we would have seen a lot more attacks during the phase where the religion was under intense scrutiny, they were indeed under attack by extreme right wing and general ignorance. What we actually seen was the vast majority denouncing the parts that can and very well have been taken literally, even in the face of anti muslim aggression. That's a complete counter of your statement, it's the opposite of what should have happened in the world you live in. So yeah.. If the religion turns out to be correct, maybe they are doomed for the denouncement of extremism, but still they follow. If the religion is not correct they follow. Either way, they live a better life becuase of the positive side of the teachings that they choose to follow (not all ofc).

Islam is a religion of peace. This is through the whole world is Muslim, Judgement Day, or whichever comes first.

I live right next to a large Muslim community, I had a lot of school friends who were Muslim. During my teen and young adult years they were certainly not following word for word ;p. I've liked most Muslims I've ever met, they were respectful and friendly. Most of the truly bad people I've met were natives, had no religion accompanied with moral lacking upbringings, what a shock result. I don't suggest all Muslim ''groups'' are this good but I certainly assume it isn't uncommon. Based on.. well, the vast majority denouncing the extremists.

Quran (Pickthall) "003.028 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying."

Taqiya - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

On the topic of extremists, we've seen plenty of right wing shootings, random school shootings and random street shootings. All from the same path, psychotic individuals. Some use religion as a warping point, some use race, some make up there own shit to warp (cults). And on and on.

Psyochotic individuals you say?

Lets get the terminology back down from biasvill. Communism is deeply flawed but why connect it directly to worship?. Sweden is working for now but that doesn't mean it deserves any difference in terminology, it is a political/economic system. With that out the way, Sweden is not communist, not even socialist. It's system isn't so different from the UK. Further more, and probably most important, you can not use economical status to argue a point of religion. Economic status is a very subjective measure of success, also define success. I'd be careful if you venture into the studied happiness of swedes and it's proposed link of low diversity. That's a slippery slope.

Thank you. Smoke some more.

It was at this point I realised how far down the rabbit hole you are. In the spirit of Jaws ''We're gunne need a bigger rope''.

The first amendment is one text from one country. The first commandment is one text from one religion. With a world full of country's, laws, religions and teachings.. what does your statement even mean?. That in your view a body of text written long after another body of text has a counter meaning?. So what body of text is more just. Well, both of them serve the same purpose, they are telling you what to do. They fundamentally have more in common than they do apart.

LOL!

We can agree that religion is not perfect, much as we can agree capitalism is not perfect. But this is where you lose it. You only seem to acknowledge the extreme flaws or actions facilitated by religion while a balanced person can see the extreme actions and flaws facilitated by all human endeavours, indefinitely. You've zoomed in and got stuck.

Just a reminder. One does not have to be religious to be effected by the Holy Dopamine Ghost.

Maybe you should outline what it is you believe in. I could have baited you but I'll be honest at-least. What ever you believe in will have the same flaw, you can't prove it.. and if you talk long enough about it I will find a contradiction, down snaps the trap of hypocrisy.

I'm not afraid to say "I don't know".

Flowki · Oct 13, 2019

Dalek Supreme said:
Strawman

You wrote: ''What would the average person experience if they believed they won a million dollar scratch-off ticket? That same feeling through thoughts (like believing outlandish conspiracy theories, or some other information above the masses to feel as if one is clever to believe it) is also achieved by drugs like alcohol, nicotine, and cocaine (Dopamergic release). Now imagine that same person refusing to look at the back of the ticket that reads "Redeem at 123 fake st Anywhere USA".''

Following that, you give mention to a new concept by saying: ''The word "Imaginationism" is something I made up''

No doubt that during all the research that lead to your coining of ''Imaginationism'' you received a few dopamine hits yourself. You began feeling like those pointed out within the underlined quotation. I could rightly and equally project as you have. I understand you suggest they turn the ticket over but read on, I am not attempting to twist the context.

The mechanism of dopamine release is not important for this argument, nor is the terminology you apply to it ''holy dopamine''. What matters, is if the channels that lead to dopamine releases are considered positive or negative. Some religious people do bad, most do good. If they get some ''holy dopamine'' from this, so be it. It's mostly positive since the teachings of most religions are morally grounding. You, on the other hand get your dopamine hits from coining your own words, applying negative outcomes to billions of people, refusing to give religion any positive merit. That is completely negative.

Subjective Key word for you. Reading and understanding the mechanics of molecular, biological, chaos and all those kinds of science/concepts give you an understanding.. but still a subjective one. You don't know more than anybody else of the biggest question. We don't fully understand how evolution, gradual or punctured factors for things like religion and it's necessity (or not). We speculate. In other words, I am giving my subjective views to balance out your subjective views.. simply to avoid the polarised and ignorant implication of your post (I apologies if that isn't the case). Nobody knows enough for polarisation to be a good thing.

Here is something for you to think about when hating on religion. Teachers, parent's and adults attempt to raise kids with the ideology of ''work hard, plan for the future and you will become successful''. Well, to name but one let down of that blind faith, how many young adults rush to CA seeking fame, only to wind up living on the streets. Prostitution, drug addiction etc can follow, seems like a miserable life and perhaps a short one at that. One could say it is about as extreme in misery as those who commit religious terrorism. However, the idea of ''work hard, plan for the future and you will become successful'' is not a bad concept, many people will find happiness following that ideology. Equally like religion, not everybody.

I have no issue with you scrutinising elements of religion but you give no balance to the conversation. It's easy to fall into the conclusion that you are simply being ignorant.

Dalek Supreme · Oct 13, 2019

Flowki said:
You wrote: ''What would the average person experience if they believed they won a million dollar scratch-off ticket? That same feeling through thoughts (like believing outlandish conspiracy theories, or some other information above the masses to feel as if one is clever to believe it) is also achieved by drugs like alcohol, nicotine, and cocaine (Dopamergic release). Now imagine that same person refusing to look at the back of the ticket that reads "Redeem at 123 fake st Anywhere USA".''

Following that, you give mention to a new concept by saying: ''The word "Imaginationism" is something I made up''

No doubt that during all the research that lead to your coining of ''Imaginationism'' you received a few dopamine hits yourself. You began feeling like those pointed out within the underlined quotation. I could rightly and equally project as you have. I understand you suggest they turn the ticket over but read on, I am not attempting to twist the context.

The mechanism of dopamine release is not important for this argument, nor is the terminology you apply to it ''holy dopamine''. What matters, is if the channels that lead to dopamine releases are considered positive or negative. Some religious people do bad, most do good. If they get some ''holy dopamine'' from this, so be it. It's mostly positive since the teachings of most religions are morally grounding. You, on the other hand get your dopamine hits from coining your own words, applying negative outcomes to billions of people, refusing to give religion any positive merit. That is completely negative.

Subjective Key word for you. Reading and understanding the mechanics of molecular, biological, chaos and all those kinds of science/concepts give you an understanding.. but still a subjective one. You don't know more than anybody else of the biggest question. We don't fully understand how evolution, gradual or punctured factors for things like religion and it's necessity (or not). We speculate. In other words, I am giving my subjective views to balance out your subjective views.. simply to avoid the polarised and ignorant implication of your post (I apologies if that isn't the case). Nobody knows enough for polarisation to be a good thing.

Here is something for you to think about when hating on religion. Teachers, parent's and adults attempt to raise kids with the ideology of ''work hard, plan for the future and you will become successful''. Well, to name but one let down of that blind faith, how many young adults rush to CA seeking fame, only to wind up living on the streets. Prostitution, drug addiction etc can follow, seems like a miserable life and perhaps a short one at that. One could say it is about as extreme in misery as those who commit religious terrorism. However, the idea of ''work hard, plan for the future and you will become successful'' is not a bad concept, many people will find happiness following that ideology. Equally like religion, not everybody.

I have no issue with you scrutinising elements of religion but you give no balance to the conversation. It's easy to fall into the conclusion that you are simply being ignorant.

I gave your post a like because it was more coherent with less rambling than before.

We are all prone to cognitive errors is what this thread is stealthily about.

I do not claim I'm perfect either.

This is my favorite video in the playlist I provided in the beginning of this thread:

What you call my imbalance in representing religion is my take on it. Sure there is some good, but there's secularism that does the same good. Also the latter will not hold a sandwich hostage while giving a hungry person a sermon.

I will continue to provide links/vids as per your responses which I do not find useful. So I will make it useful.

New Age United · Oct 13, 2019

Flowki said:
Firstly, I have no proof that any said religion is true, no more so than a believer of a specific religion can prove. I believe that one or all of the religions ''could'' be true, in that one might be the most accurate or that all are loosely correct in the idea of a higher being/purpose. I guess I am on the fence because as said, no proof of existence does not automatically equate to proof of none existence. The thing is, people think that because we know how the universe began it proves god/s don't exist. All it actually does is proves a contradiction in x/y/z religion that states how the planet was made. What the big bang does not disprove is that while the religion/s in question got it wrong, the big bang could have been an intentional push start from a higher order.
To add another spanner to it, the big bang is just a theory, that too is not proven. While we have tangible evidence to suggest it could be, think how wrong humans have been in the past. Also think of the irony involved with the idea that all religion is wrong while a person believes in the big bang theory and it too could be wrong.

I tend to see all religions as the same thing, humans trying to make sense of the unknown (death and the universe). More over, religious ideas have evolved just like humans, because they are conceived by humans, they are essentially a reference to our current moral being. For example back in the earlier days religious sacrifice was common place, but at the time, humans were a lot more violent in general, so theirs a correlation. Today, no main stream religion practices human sacrifice and that also coincides with the fact (like it or not) that humans are far less brutal than we use to be. But, this isn't to say all factions of religion have progressed since all cultures have not progressed.
In certain parts of the middle east people are still stoned to death, but that also coincides with the fact that those small pockets of brutal culture still exist. You could argue that religion is what is holding those pockets of cultures back and you may have a point to some degree. I would counter that by tasking you with finding me a tribe of people in current day or past who did not follow some form of religion, be it to animal or nature gods. You won't be able to do this and it nion objectively proves that humans and religion go hand in hand. So the question would be, is it religion that decides if a culture progresses or not?. I would say it has some effect, but the biggest factor in current cultural progression to me is technology AKA science.

But this is where it gets extremely tricky as I counter my current understanding of ''mainstream reasoning'' with my personal ideology. In a jungle (I forget where) is one of the few remaining ancient tribes/cultures. They have their own way of doing things, own religion etc. What they don't have is much in the way of science so if they get sick, they die (within reason). One could argue that living in this way, cut off from the rest of the world, believing in ridicules gods and dying from things avoidable in modern science is an example of religion/culture holding those people back. On the other hand one can argue that as modern people have less and less to do with religious practice and more to do with scientific practices, we have populated and consumed the planet to the point of mass extinction of other species.
So, while religion may slow the progress of man kind, they do in fact seem to deliberately or inadvertently strike a balance between man and nature. In other words the success of science is HIGHLY subjective, but this isn't something we often consider, if at all. It's a strange thing to consider that saving lives can equate to the same thing as ending lives. A balance has to be maintained, saving too many people (as a species) has objectively had negative effects on the planet and other inhabitants.
From here you need to step away from thinking only of humans and consider the 'rights' of nature.. or more over the consequences of over reaching with science. If we continue to be too good at saving our selves eventually the imbalance will result in billions dead. I won't jump on the climate thing but I fear the real danger we have as humans is knocking out a vital food chain link on the microscopic level, so much misery would come from that.

Sorry that it's long winded but it serves a purpose to answer your question.

I believe that religion on the whole served/s as a moral conscience, evolving with culture. A bit like left leaning political views on human rights as a loose comparison (not talking about communism o0). I then believe pure science represents capitalism in it's purist form, progression with little regard to ethics (we all know some of the horror science experiment stories).

More and more people drop religion, but more importantly we are losing the moralistic underlining stories based on real human experience. As we turn our back on religion we are also slowly losing well grounded morals, such as no stealing, excessive vanity, etc. We instead lean more into science and it's subjective benefits that have lead to mass use of planet resources, mass population, mass consumerism, mass waste and on it goes.

You could say that this is a product of capitalism but I'd strongly disagree. Capitalism would not be possible were it not for science (fire+industrial revolution). Had religion died out sooner and we got into science sooner I believe we would be at the point we are at now sooner. Currently I do not think the point we are at right now is good for the planet and thus us, so that's why I draw the conclusion that religion was and continues to be good for us. If we are able to extract the best parts of religion on a moral level then at-least it serves for something, maybe we can maintain this. The deeper fear I have is that the less we culturally fear in god/s and punishment of our ''sins'' the more we lean toward man and our own actions, we only fear the wrath of each other. When you get men who don't fear other men and also don't fear an afterlife punishment of sin, think about what they are capable of, I'd say our oil corporations are the result of that. On a much smaller and less technological scale I think we got to this point many many years ago and I think that is why religion was born, to put in check the actions of reckless men. Science is here, religion is fading but hopefully something of it's calibre will rise to get us in check before the planet is fucked.

It's a difficult theory to explain so I am sorry if it amounts to a waste of your time.

Before we can make real changes in the world without there must be a shift in consciousness within, the balance we must find within ourselves, the balance between doing and being, between things and no-thing, between You and the world. You are right religion and capitalism are not the problem and if used properly they could both work wonders, but it is in your Hearts humanity, you must let the Light shine in and dispel the darkness.

Flowki · Oct 13, 2019

Dalek Supreme said:
I gave your post a like because it was more coherent with less rambling than before.

We are all prone to cognitive errors is what this thread is stealthily about.

I do not claim I'm perfect either.

It was mostly stoned rambling, sorry. Those responses were stealthily placing the message that cannabis does have downsides. That ''was'' a joke.

Dalek Supreme said:
This is my favorite video in the playlist I provided in the beginning of this thread:

What you call my imbalance in representing religion is my take on it. Sure there is some good, but there's secularism that does the same good. Also the latter will not hold a sandwich hostage while giving a hungry person a sermon.

It really isn't so simple to say secularism does the same good. Every civilisation I know of had some form of religion, it evolved along with us and helped shape our cultures, laws and principles, got us out of missery to a time where we can think more. A secular country didn't just rise up from nowhere, it's very existence was only possible because of past activity, all of which included religion. If you were to say religion is/was not needed then you are also suggesting most of humanity was wrong. I can see clear historic examples of bad religios rule, as much as I can see governments can and have become just as corrupt.

I do think this path is interesting though, If religion is indeed useless yet survived evolution then by rights we should also have an equally useless physical attribute, like a genuine tail. The ever more useless or obsolete religion is, while it continues to remain, the ever more ridicules I can make claim of the physical left overs of evolution we should also see. That is, unless you feel conciousness is free from the touch of evolution?. In that case religion is completely useless and we choose to keep it at our own demise (assuming no after life is true).

In reality, we have not seen prolonged global secularism and a huge reduction in religion across man kind at any point. We do not know if it could turn out bad, and it sure could. I believe our conciousness is bound with human evolution, there for religious belief was selected. It could well be that the imperfections of most people have an over lapping commonality. They are terrified at the thought of infinite darkness. The need for a belief or ''denial'' system evolved to stop them going nuts. If that were true and you are not a believer, you should at-least see the vital role it played for billions and billions of people across our history to be able to tolerate life. It's a win win kind of deal for an atheist looking at it that way. Well, unless an afterlife is real and then they don't get to go ;p.

Dalek Supreme said:
I will continue to provide links/vids as per your responses which I do not find useful. So I will make it useful.

Dalek Supreme · Oct 15, 2019

Flowki said:
It was mostly stoned rambling, sorry. Those responses were stealthily placing the message that cannabis does have downsides. That ''was'' a joke.

It really isn't so simple to say secularism does the same good. Every civilisation I know of had some form of religion, it evolved along with us and helped shape our cultures, laws and principles, got us out of missery to a time where we can think more. A secular country didn't just rise up from nowhere, it's very existence was only possible because of past activity, all of which included religion. If you were to say religion is/was not needed then you are also suggesting most of humanity was wrong. I can see clear historic examples of bad religios rule, as much as I can see governments can and have become just as corrupt.

I do think this path is interesting though, If religion is indeed useless yet survived evolution then by rights we should also have an equally useless physical attribute, like a genuine tail. The ever more useless or obsolete religion is, while it continues to remain, the ever more ridicules I can make claim of the physical left overs of evolution we should also see. That is, unless you feel conciousness is free from the touch of evolution?. In that case religion is completely useless and we choose to keep it at our own demise (assuming no after life is true).

In reality, we have not seen prolonged global secularism and a huge reduction in religion across man kind at any point. We do not know if it could turn out bad, and it sure could. I believe our conciousness is bound with human evolution, there for religious belief was selected. It could well be that the imperfections of most people have an over lapping commonality. They are terrified at the thought of infinite darkness. The need for a belief or ''denial'' system evolved to stop them going nuts. If that were true and you are not a believer, you should at-least see the vital role it played for billions and billions of people across our history to be able to tolerate life. It's a win win kind of deal for an atheist looking at it that way. Well, unless an afterlife is real and then they don't get to go ;p.

You like to constantly bring up government in this conversation. It's a non-sequiter. Sure some people think just the right government is their savior, but this varies (just like religions).

Religion is not part of our evolution, but it takes advantage of what blind evolution cannot prepare for. If only people with buck teeth bred? Then there would be more, and more people with buck teeth. Many religions took those that did not follow it out of the population because it would displease the God worshipped (cause drought, plague, or famine). This would lead to a decrease of those that can think for themselves, or able to utilize our modern rationalizing frontal cortex.

So you believe, or fear that if religion was gone there would be chaos? Well schizophrenics that see, and talk to God would be urged to seek medical attention instead of seen as righteous. Is that so bad? So what if we don't actually know what happens after death. We can be good for goodness sake, and most importantly be more careful instead of thinking deities are watching out for us.

People are going to believe anyway because they are thought addicts. But there's people that are burdened by religion. You should check out deconversion stories, and see how people freed themselves of the shackles of religion. You can start with this podcast.

Flowki · Oct 16, 2019

Dalek Supreme said:
You like to constantly bring up government in this conversation. It's a non-sequiter. Sure some people think just the right government is their savior, but this varies (just like religions).

Government is just as important as religion in the fact that every civilisation ever has had a definition of and/or. As this is shown to be true across most of humans developed history then it is wise to draw the conclusion that they are an extension or manifestation of biological hierarchy. I'm not trying to be rude here, but brushing either of them to the side so readily shows a lack of understanding on human history.

Dalek Supreme said:
Religion is not part of our evolution, but it takes advantage of what blind evolution cannot prepare for. If only people with buck teeth bred? Then there would be more, and more people with buck teeth. Many religions took those that did not follow it out of the population because it would displease the God worshipped (cause drought, plague, or famine). This would lead to a decrease of those that can think for themselves, or able to utilize our modern rationalizing frontal cortex.

See I have this countered already, we are going over old ground. If buckteeth were advantageous to human survival then we would see more buckteeth, since we don't lets assume it's a low rate variation. If you're going to force breed something then sure, changes may occur. Problem I have with this is you are actually trying to apply that to all humans/history using one specific religion in one specific time. Do you really think all religions have been systematically wiping out none believers across all of humanity.. for the sole purpose of breading ''religious'' people who can't ''think for themselves''. If you suggest that you are extremely delusional. More to the point, even if you were right then my simple answer would be ''the strongest survived''.. in this case, religious people. Strongest isn't just about physicality and surviving isn't just about your definition of what should survive. It's harder to survive alone, cooperation has been shown across most of human history, if the cooperation comes in the form of religion yet increases the survival of the species, guess what gets selected?. I don't think you've accounted for the cultural benefits/effects on evolution, you think to singularly. You also speak oblivious to hindsight and from a position of extreme comfort, science back then knew less and people also died in awefull ways on top of living in very bad conditions. Something had to be done to make some peace with that, but you don't seem to have the empathy at this point to relate to this, or else you would see religion in another light.

Dalek Supreme said:
So you believe, or fear that if religion was gone there would be chaos? Well schizophrenics that see, and talk to God would be urged to seek medical attention instead of seen as righteous. Is that so bad? So what if we don't actually know what happens after death. We can be good for goodness sake, and most importantly be more careful instead of thinking deities are watching out for us.

Again you pick the most rare and extreme people as a means to paint all with the same brush. It's truly ignorant. It's also highly insulting to schizophrenics on a number of levels, I'm not using this to gain any moral high ground, just trying to make you see how blinded by biasness you've become.

''So what if we don't actually know what happens after death''

I hope you consider what I'm about to write here. Have you ever been to the edge of nothingness?, where you truly contemplate eternal darkness. It is a terrifying place to visit, a one that may even have the potential to send a person crazy, most certainly able to send them into the realms of extreme anxiety. This is bad enough.. and this is the reason a lot of people never go near it. I truly believe a lot of people don't have the mental/emotional resilience to spend much time in this realm at all (I seriously mean no offence by this). Some could learn it no doubt.. but I beleive many are simply limited in this area of life much the same way some people are academically limited, physically limited or what ever else. Essentially, no amount of food is going to make you grow 7 foot tall if it isn't in your dna. For people limited in the mental capacity of dealing with death, religion is a band aid at the very least. That is, keeping an open mind in that an after life may exist.

I've spent more time than is healthy visiting that cliff edge. The conclusion I drew is that if no after life exists and we goto eternal darkness, then our children and children's children are going the same way. Eventually the planet will end, maybe we get off, maybe not.. but one day, man kind will also end. Since we all go to nothingness, then eventually our very existence as a specie will not matter. Theirs NO POINT in life. So you take that conclusion literally one of two ways. If theirs no point then why follow the rules and why be good, why not go and do all the crimes and darkest desires of a human, why not. Other way this pans out, if theirs no point, then what's the point of acting out those bad desires... they won't mean anything. Why do anything from this point, it has no meaning?.. I might as well kill myself but theirs also no point in that?.. I'll just lie here and do nothing, eventualy dying of thirst.

What stopped me from taking those conclusions literally (and that would be the logical thing to do if you are a true atheist) was instinct. Self preserving instinct at that (includes reproduction). Go do bad things or live a selfish life sure... but I'll end up in jail and that won't be much fun. Kill myself before I get to jail?.. well sure but I'm instinctively scared to die.

Is this the mental space you would like adolescence/young adults, the insane, depressed or otherwise potentially ''hindered fear of death'' people to visit?. I don't think you've understood me if so. You don't just ''teach'' people to handle the fear and conclusions drawn by true atheism.

Finally we arrive at the other end of the spectrum. Strip people of all belief and should they have no fear of death, the conclusions of true atheism will result in violence of the same magnitude as a ''schizophrenic believer''. You should understand, those who no longer believe in religion are now on track to understanding the conclusion of atheism. I hope they don't get there, it serves no good.

Dalek Supreme said:
People are going to believe anyway because they are thought addicts. But there's people that are burdened by religion. You should check out deconversion stories, and see how people freed themselves of the shackles of religion. You can start with this podcast.

Let me ask you a personal thing. My Gran occasionally mentions that her dead son communicates with her late in the night. I personally have never experienced this kind of thing so I assign it to the bucket of ''never happened to me but it could be possible''. I typically just nod along when she speaks of this. For the sake of argument, lets agree it is categorically untrue, no ghosts exist 100% proven. She does not offend me or other family by beleiving this and she does not hurt anybody by beleiving it. With the context that she hurts nobody to beleive this, what purpose does it serve to make her understand that she is not hearing her sons voice?.

Theism= Thought Addiction

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member