I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insane --- it seems like these persons are trying very hard to avoid the subject of god. Especially when you consider that the world’s best moral systems (if not all of the moral systems – one’s that actually stay in civilizations) come from religion. The same with best architecture, best sculpture, best literature – all were inspired by metaphysical ideas like this .. so to say that the most plausible explanation is that these people were insane – when it has been the most culturally productive phenomena in the history of humanity – I mean ... seriously :rolleyes:

one simple example

For many centuries – since the renaissance until recently - the pillar of education was classical civilization (Greek and roman) philosophy, art etc (until the technological/industrial revolution , which convinced people that more important than art, philosophy and morality is high tech consumer products) – but for many centuries it was the basis of western education ....
However, for all their advances in art and culture, the Greeks and Romans could never imagine that there could be anything as absurd as equality; that a rich person and a poor person are equal, or a free person and a slave. It’s ironic how Athenian society it is held up as the quintessential example of real democracy with all the Athenians actually going up on the hill to the acropolis and intensely debating issues .... of course the reason that they could afford to spend their time like this is because they had so many slaves at home ( someone to plant the crops, someone to harvest them, someone to do the pots ). Most people in Athens were actually slaves. So for all their hyper impressive architecture etc the notion of ultimate equality was completely alien (And what to speak of the Romans, who were more than happy to enslave large numbers of people). So interestingly enough, the notion of no matter how much money, power etc you are all equal, that actually came from religion (Jesus in the west).

So historically the highest moral substance has always come from religion. To write all that off as a massive delusion comes across as trying really hard to ignore a jumbo jet that has crashed into one’s dining room

LG, I think you'll find most people who say what you claim they do will not deny doing so facetiously.

Unfortunately, none of what you go on to say provides one iota of support for the truth of the tennets of religious faith.

That the majority of the world are religious? Irrelevant.
That it has inspired people? Irrelevant.

im sorry but your wrong, not all moral codes come from religion. MOST come from Philosophy actually.

thats where ulitiariansium, principle based ethics and virtua ethics all come from

exestenualisium specifically denies that ethics comes from god\gods

I love your religious morals:
http://www.dhushara.com/book/sakina/stoningetc/stoning.jpg

This slut is so totally going to get it:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/stoningDM_468x406.jpg
God told me.

I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insane --- it seems like these persons are trying very hard to avoid the subject of god.
Your problem here is that when you look at the specifics of the claims of all these people throughout history, then end up being mutually-contradictory. If there really was a divine being that was inspiring people to believe that he/she/it exists, I wouldn't expect such a diverse, contradictory set of beliefs. It seems unlikely to me that the Norse religion, Hinduism, Christianity, and the various native American religions were all inspired by the same truth.

Also, your attempts to claim that most societal morals come from religion is simply ignorant. MANY cultures throughout history separated their morals from their religion. The ancient Greeks and Romans, the Norse, and many other cultures justified their morals with philosophy, not religion. If you take a look at the religion of any of those cultures, you'll see that they believed in gods that often behaved very badly and were NOT thought of as beacons of moral virtue that were to be emulated.

And by the way, exactly which set of religious-inspired morals were you talking about? Because again, if there really were some universal deity that was inspiring morality, I wouldn't expect different cultures to all use religion to justify such a diverse range of moral philosophies. Even just looking at Christianity, a single religion, you have inspired moral beliefs that have ranged from the crusades and witch burning to total "turn the other cheek" pacifism. So again, looking at the morals that have been inspired by religion throughout history - even just looking at the morals that have been inspired by a single religion - I don't see any signs that there was some universal truth that was guiding them.

I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insane --- it seems like these persons are trying very hard to avoid the subject of god.

I think that qualifiers like "delusional", "insane", "idiotic" are mostly nothing but convenient at least partly socially acceptable expressions of anger and hatred. If there actually would be some rational basis for using those qualifiers, then the people who use them could justify them in each instance of use and could define "insane" as opposed to "sane", "knowing the truth about reality" as opposed to "delusional" and so on. But they cannot; they resent such a challenge; all they do is revert to "it is obvious, self-evident what the truth is" and "it is so because I said so" in various versions.

In the Buddhist tradition, there is the guideline that the Dharma should never be taught to someone who has not meditated yet. Before a talk, some Buddhist teachers go through a session of guided meditation with the audience first. In other traditions, the first activity at a religious meeting is the singing of songs or praying, and only then do they move to the philosophical part and discussion.
There is a good reason for this: they recognize the importance of stilling the mind, and that a mind in the grip of anger, hatred, jealousy, greed ... cannot think straight and isn't useful. And only someone who has experienced at least some true stillness of mind will be able to appreciate its importance and recognize how anger and hatred tend to go hand in hand with irrationality and low standards of cognition.

im sorry but your wrong, not all moral codes come from religion. MOST come from Philosophy actually.

Where did philosophy come from?

That the majority of the world are religious? Irrelevant.

Why do you think it is irrelevant that the majority of the world are religious?

Why do you think it is irrelevant that the majority of the world are religious?
He doesn't, but it isn't relevant to the OP.
There's no need to read anymore in to it.

No one says they are all insane. It's mostly ignorance, superstition and wishful thinking.


So interestingly enough, the notion of no matter how much money, power etc you are all equal, that actually came from religion...
But the Greeks were very religious, and the bible talked about how one should treat their slaves.

]I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insaneTwo points firstly which god are you referring too. And secondly people have had constant testimony on all sorts of strange creatures since the beginning of time would you say absolutely none of them were delusional. And one other point, deluding oneself just means your mistaken, not necessarily crazy.
it seems like these persons are trying very hard to avoid the subject of god.Yes lol, the exact same way they would be avoiding the subject of Fairies, orks, unicorns, satars, etc...
Especially when you consider that the world’s best moral systems (if not all of the moral systems – one’s that actually stay in civilizations) come from religion.Morals do not come from religion, we are social animals, the golden rule applies, most ancient books contain some form of morality, such as "Aesops fables" "A Thousand and One Nights(Arabian nights)" etc...
The same with best architecture, best sculpture, best literature – all were inspired by metaphysical ideas like this .. Yes the imagination of people has constructed some of the most beautiful and pleasant things, such as the books and fables above.
so to say that the most plausible explanation is that these people were insane – when it has been the most culturally productive phenomena in the history of humanity – I mean ... seriouslyGenius has always had it's links with madness, so to has the imagination, there is nothing wrong with being just a little mad, if we weren't there would be no Art, no Music, etc.. The imagination can Inspire anybody, just watch a child play.
everything inspire us, and I mean everything. Religion is just one small aspect in the vastness that is the Imagination.

Atheism has killed more innocent people than all other religions combined.

But the Greeks were very religious, and the bible talked about how one should treat their slaves.
The greeks are probably one of the best examples (that I know of, anyway) of a society that accomplished a great deal but DIDN'T get their morals from their religion. Their gods were constantly killing their own family members, punishing unfortunate mortals for no reason other than petty spite, backstabbing each other, and doing all sorts of other things that the greeks didn't consider to be moral. They believed that gods existed, but they didn't see them as the ultimate source of morality or moral authority. But it's very telling that lightgigantic just assumed that cultures everywhere throughout history got their morals from their religion...as if it doesn't even occur to him that morality doesn't have to come from religion.

Atheism has killed more innocent people than all other religions combined.
Are you assuming that any time an atheist kills someone it is because of they are an atheist?

Atheism has killed more innocent people than all other religions combined.

Would you care to cite a source? Atheists make up a very small percentage of the worlds people historicly and yet this 5 or 6 percent is way outclassing the theist in the killing dept? Sure.

Would you care to cite a source? Atheists make up a very small percentage of the worlds people historicly and yet this 5 or 6 percent is way outclassing the theist in the killing dept? Sure.
Usually when people say idiotic things like that they try to back it by assuming that anyone who ever died under a communist regime was "killed by atheism." Which makes about as much sense as saying that all the people in the U.S./Iraq war were "killed by religion," since the leaders of both countries are/were religious.

Did you have mass starvation after you tried to collectivize agriculture under your new communist government? Oh, those people were clearly killed by atheism. Rather than, uh...bad farming decisions. Were you a communist dictator who killed a bunch of political opponents? Well, those people were clearly killed by atheism too...never mind the fact that you were killing them because they didn't want to recognize your right to rule them, rather than any religious reason. In other news, since the U.S. is a mostly christian nation, every person who has ever died there was killed by theism. :rolleyes:

Atheism has killed more innocent people than all other religions combined.

Atheism isn't a religion. So your statement makes no sense.

I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insane --- it seems like these persons are trying very hard to avoid the subject of god.

It's not insanity, it's good old fashioned natural anthropomorphism and it's part of a survival mechanism. It biologically doesn't matter if our thought process leads to truth or falsity... it only matters if it improves our chances of survival and persistence.



Especially when you consider that the world’s best moral systems (if not all of the moral systems – one’s that actually stay in civilizations) come from religion. The same with best architecture, best sculpture, best literature – all were inspired by metaphysical ideas like this .. so to say that the most plausible explanation is that these people were insane – when it has been the most culturally productive phenomena in the history of humanity – I mean ... seriously :rolleyes:

Morals come from how we judge other people. There is one primary question and one secondary question that humans use to judge other humans:

1) Are you mean?
2) Are you valuable?

That's the basis for all human morality.




one simple example

For many centuries – since the renaissance until recently - the pillar of education was classical civilization (Greek and roman) philosophy, art etc (until the technological/industrial revolution , which convinced people that more important than art, philosophy and morality is high tech consumer products) – but for many centuries it was the basis of western education ....
However, for all their advances in art and culture, the Greeks and Romans could never imagine that there could be anything as absurd as equality; that a rich person and a poor person are equal, or a free person and a slave. It’s ironic how Athenian society it is held up as the quintessential example of real democracy with all the Athenians actually going up on the hill to the acropolis and intensely debating issues .... of course the reason that they could afford to spend their time like this is because they had so many slaves at home ( someone to plant the crops, someone to harvest them, someone to do the pots ). Most people in Athens were actually slaves. So for all their hyper impressive architecture etc the notion of ultimate equality was completely alien (And what to speak of the Romans, who were more than happy to enslave large numbers of people). So interestingly enough, the notion of no matter how much money, power etc you are all equal, that actually came from religion (Jesus in the west).

So historically the highest moral substance has always come from religion. To write all that off as a massive delusion comes across as trying really hard to ignore a jumbo jet that has crashed into one’s dining room

Western (US specific) moraility was driven negatively by religion. The founders of the US judged their native country as being mean to them by hindering their religious freedom. They found the idea of equal religious freedom as far more valuable and formed America.

My observation is that the healtheir a society is and longer it lasts, the more it will align towards individual equality simply due to how we judge each other.

Usually when people say idiotic things like that they try to back it by assuming that anyone who ever died under a communist regime was "killed by atheism." Which makes about as much sense as saying that all the people in the U.S./Iraq war were "killed by religion," since the leaders of both countries are/were religious.

Did you have mass starvation after you tried to collectivize agriculture under your new communist government? Oh, those people were clearly killed by atheism. Rather than, uh...bad farming decisions. Were you a communist dictator who killed a bunch of political opponents? Well, those people were clearly killed by atheism too...never mind the fact that you were killing them because they didn't want to recognize your right to rule them, rather than any religious reason. In other news, since the U.S. is a mostly christian nation, every person who has ever died there was killed by theism. :rolleyes:
I know, I'm just tired of hearing the same balderdash repeated as fact. Every so often I feel the urge to step out among them, perhaps one here or there may awaken from their slumber.;)

Perhaps there is something to all that religious BS after all.
Because it's riddled with superstitious beliefs, animism and "the spirit", does that mean "the whole thing is a crock"?

I don't personally believe that is the case. There are plenty of common philosophical and moral threads in many "different" religions - how come? Are religious morals "useless" because we now "know" that animism is an incorrect or actually unenlightened perspective?

Why are so many of us still superstitious and essentially animist then?

LG, I think you'll find most people who say what you claim they do will not deny doing so facetiously.
I think if you address the cultural/moral issues presented in the OP, it will be difficult to determine how they don't


Unfortunately, none of what you go on to say provides one iota of support for the truth of the tennets of religious faith.

That the majority of the world are religious? Irrelevant.
That it has inspired people? Irrelevant.
erm
did you go further than the first paragraph of the OP?

I love your religious morals:




Its difficult to see how your contributions can be viewed as controversial unless you bear some support for the theistic contribution of equality, etc.

the same place religious ethics came from, ie what is nessary to bind the tribe into a cohesive sociaty. no nessaty for god at all

Nasor

Your problem here is that when you look at the specifics of the claims of all these people throughout history, then end up being mutually-contradictory. If there really was a divine being that was inspiring people to believe that he/she/it exists, I wouldn't expect such a diverse, contradictory set of beliefs. It seems unlikely to me that the Norse religion, Hinduism, Christianity, and the various native American religions were all inspired by the same truth.
I guess it depends whether you want to accept atheist hate sites or theological/linguistic/cultural studies as one's source for being informed.


Also, your attempts to claim that most societal morals come from religion is simply ignorant. MANY cultures throughout history separated their morals from their religion. The ancient Greeks and Romans, the Norse, and many other cultures justified their morals with philosophy, not religion.
and where did they get their philosophy from?
the backs of breakfast cereal packets?


If you take a look at the religion of any of those cultures, you'll see that they believed in gods that often behaved very badly and were NOT thought of as beacons of moral virtue that were to be emulated.
Well as for the norse, they are not celebrated as great upholders of moral virtue ... and neither are were their cultural achievements longstanding, so I'm not sure why you mention them. But regardless, whatever great things they achieved is certainly heavily steeped in metaphysical ideology.
As for the greeks, it was plato who launched an argument quite similar to yours, and he played a part in establishing something more in line with monotheistic accounts by focusing on the "chos" (or void) - the chos was explained as the cause of the greek pantheon - and so he goes on to talk about an absolute realm that houses absolute versions of what we find temporal examples of here etc etc


And by the way, exactly which set of religious-inspired morals were you talking about? Because again, if there really were some universal deity that was inspiring morality, I wouldn't expect different cultures to all use religion to justify such a diverse range of moral philosophies.
Just to speak in a very general sense, it might be convenient to talk of three general classes of theistic practices

animism
polytheism
monotheism


anyway, there are very good reasons why you find practically no philosophy in animism, a little philosophy in polytheism and a lot of philosophy in monotheism, and also why quality of morals has a direct relationship with philosophy


Even just looking at Christianity, a single religion, you have inspired moral beliefs that have ranged from the crusades and witch burning to total "turn the other cheek" pacifism. So again, looking at the morals that have been inspired by religion throughout history - even just looking at the morals that have been inspired by a single religion - I don't see any signs that there was some universal truth that was guiding them.
well suppose you look at trees as they appear in visual arts
you can see how it is represented differently in different cultures

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:iMCkHzRWKt4zVM:http://www.yewtreegallery.com/2007_June_wild_women/GretePerry/WeAreAllTheLeavesOfOneTree.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:AAJYgLfFGSv3bM:http://aussieart.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/018.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:FsdkUQODdbsFrM:http://www.billgulley.com/Images%255CcBill_SerpentTreePainting.jpg

From an outsiders point of view you could say that these things have nothing in common but from the view of person actually educated and familiar with the phenomena of trees and certain cultural influences its quite clear that the subject is the same.

In the same way, i think you would be hard pressed to find any professional academic involved in the field of studying theology who advocates that the nature of god is some sort of multi-fractured cultural development that develops independently (even atheists in the field opt for arguments that god fulfills certain primal/psychological needs, since it is just plainly too ridiculous to deny the issues of similarity)

Spidergoat




But the Greeks were very religious, and the bible talked about how one should treat their slaves.
so obviously not all religions are equal (in the moral sense) - In other words you can expect very different moral outputs between animism, polytheism and monotheism - and of course you can analyze the grade even more intensely within each category.

The focus of the Op however was on what is prized as the highest moral ground of current society - equality - and how it is a theistic contribution, which is not at all unlike many other theistic contributions for improving the cultural fabric of society (eg art, architecture, literature, etc)

I think that qualifiers like "delusional", "insane", "idiotic" are mostly nothing but convenient at least partly socially acceptable expressions of anger and hatred. If there actually would be some rational basis for using those qualifiers, then the people who use them could justify them in each instance of use and could define "insane" as opposed to "sane", "knowing the truth about reality" as opposed to "delusional" and so on. But they cannot; they resent such a challenge; all they do is revert to "it is obvious, self-evident what the truth is" and "it is so because I said so" in various versions.

In the Buddhist tradition, there is the guideline that the Dharma should never be taught to someone who has not meditated yet. Before a talk, some Buddhist teachers go through a session of guided meditation with the audience first. In other traditions, the first activity at a religious meeting is the singing of songs or praying, and only then do they move to the philosophical part and discussion.
There is a good reason for this: they recognize the importance of stilling the mind, and that a mind in the grip of anger, hatred, jealousy, greed ... cannot think straight and isn't useful. And only someone who has experienced at least some true stillness of mind will be able to appreciate its importance and recognize how anger and hatred tend to go hand in hand with irrationality and low standards of cognition.

/takes a deep breath
:runaway:

:D

Assguard

the same place religious ethics came from, ie what is nessary to bind the tribe into a cohesive sociaty. no nessaty for god at all
yet there is no historical evidence for your claim of no necessity ....

(hence facetious ....etc etc)
:o

greenberg,


I think that qualifiers like "delusional", "insane", "idiotic" are mostly nothing but convenient at least partly socially acceptable expressions of anger and hatred.

That would make them irrational, we can't have that. :D

JaN.

Fahrenheit


Originally Posted by LG
]I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insane
”
Two points firstly which god are you referring too.
its a generic all-inclusive argument by atheism


And secondly people have had constant testimony on all sorts of strange creatures since the beginning of time would you say absolutely none of them were delusional. And one other point, deluding oneself just means your mistaken, not necessarily crazy.
so what are the great cultural contributions of mermaids?
“

Originally Posted by LG
it seems like these persons are trying very hard to avoid the subject of god.
”
Yes lol, the exact same way they would be avoiding the subject of Fairies, orks, unicorns, satars, etc...
you can add faeries, orks, unicorns and satyrs too if you think it bolsters your argument
“

Originally Posted by LG
Especially when you consider that the world’s best moral systems (if not all of the moral systems – one’s that actually stay in civilizations) come from religion.
”
Morals do not come from religion, we are social animals, the golden rule applies, most ancient books contain some form of morality, such as "Aesops fables" "A Thousand and One Nights(Arabian nights)" etc...
If we are social animals, its kind of ironic how that society always coalesces around theistic/metaphysical issues.
As for Aesops fables and Arabian nights, the theistic/cultural influences in them are more apparent and direct than the midday sun. (To say the least, I think you would have assigned yourself a very difficult task if you set out to explain how the morality/metaphysical concepts these works contain is somehow independent from the cultures they arose from ... ok maybe you could do it on sciforums, but amongst an educated forum, I doubt it)


“
Originally Posted by LG
The same with best architecture, best sculpture, best literature – all were inspired by metaphysical ideas like this ..
”
Yes the imagination of people has constructed some of the most beautiful and pleasant things, such as the books and fables above.
so what does that tell you about the truth?
Its boring, uneventful, uninspiring?
I guess that would make communist russia the high point of our civilization.
Would you want to live there?



“
Originally Posted by LG
so to say that the most plausible explanation is that these people were insane – when it has been the most culturally productive phenomena in the history of humanity – I mean ... seriously
”
Genius has always had it's links with madness, so to has the imagination, there is nothing wrong with being just a little mad, if we weren't there would be no Art, no Music, etc.. The imagination can Inspire anybody, just watch a child play.
everything inspire us, and I mean everything. Religion is just one small aspect in the vastness that is the Imagination.
So all that is universally valuable in life has its roots in delusion?
I see ....
:crazy:

Crunchy Cat


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insane --- it seems like these persons are trying very hard to avoid the subject of god.
”
It's not insanity, it's good old fashioned natural anthropomorphism and it's part of a survival mechanism. It biologically doesn't matter if our thought process leads to truth or falsity... it only matters if it improves our chances of survival and persistence.
thats a different argument than what atheists address in the OP
I think we have been here before
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71536
feel free to rehash the thread, but not here, if you don't mind


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Especially when you consider that the world’s best moral systems (if not all of the moral systems – one’s that actually stay in civilizations) come from religion. The same with best architecture, best sculpture, best literature – all were inspired by metaphysical ideas like this .. so to say that the most plausible explanation is that these people were insane – when it has been the most culturally productive phenomena in the history of humanity – I mean ... seriously
”
Morals come from how we judge other people. There is one primary question and one secondary question that humans use to judge other humans:

1) Are you mean?
2) Are you valuable?

That's the basis for all human morality.
and you can't see how different value foundations (cultivated by philosophy of course) will greatly determine the response to these two question?



“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
one simple example

For many centuries – since the renaissance until recently - the pillar of education was classical civilization (Greek and roman) philosophy, art etc (until the technological/industrial revolution , which convinced people that more important than art, philosophy and morality is high tech consumer products) – but for many centuries it was the basis of western education ....
However, for all their advances in art and culture, the Greeks and Romans could never imagine that there could be anything as absurd as equality; that a rich person and a poor person are equal, or a free person and a slave. It’s ironic how Athenian society it is held up as the quintessential example of real democracy with all the Athenians actually going up on the hill to the acropolis and intensely debating issues .... of course the reason that they could afford to spend their time like this is because they had so many slaves at home ( someone to plant the crops, someone to harvest them, someone to do the pots ). Most people in Athens were actually slaves. So for all their hyper impressive architecture etc the notion of ultimate equality was completely alien (And what to speak of the Romans, who were more than happy to enslave large numbers of people). So interestingly enough, the notion of no matter how much money, power etc you are all equal, that actually came from religion (Jesus in the west).

So historically the highest moral substance has always come from religion. To write all that off as a massive delusion comes across as trying really hard to ignore a jumbo jet that has crashed into one’s dining room
”
Western (US specific) moraility was driven negatively by religion. The founders of the US judged their native country as being mean to them by hindering their religious freedom. They found the idea of equal religious freedom as far more valuable and formed America.
so where did they get the idea of freedom from?
Burger King?


My observation is that the healtheir a society is and longer it lasts, the more it will align towards individual equality simply due to how we judge each other.
Your observation of what exactly?

Crunchy Cat

thats a different argument than what atheists address in the OP
I think we have been here before
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71536
feel free to rehash the thread, but not here, if you don't mind

Not many atheists hold the position that theists are just flat out crazy. I think many of them realize the behavior is quite natural. Anthropomorphics is a huge part of why that is.



and you can't see how different value foundations (cultivated by philosophy of course) will greatly determine the response to these two question?/[QUOTE]

There is wiggle room for the answers and the questions remain the same. I think you would be surprised how ethically alike the majority of humans are.

[QUOTE=lightgigantic;1934729]
so where did they get the idea of freedom from?
Burger King?

It's a natural concept that arises from our psychological needs.



Your observation of what exactly?

Human society.

Not many atheists hold the position that theists are just flat out crazy. .

yes
rather that they are deluded, have fantastic beliefs with no grounding in reality, etc etc
:rolleyes:

yes
rather that they are deluded, have fantastic beliefs with no grounding in reality, etc etc
:rolleyes:

It is good to see you admitting your error.

It is good to see you admitting your error.
well at least Myles succeeds in transgressing Crunchy Cat's estimations of atheism
:p

It's a natural concept that arises from our psychological needs.



what psychological need do you have to be equal with me?

rather that they are deluded, have fantastic beliefs with no grounding in reality, etc etc Aside from the "no grounding in reality" part (reality does have profound aspects, normally termed "spiritual", that many theisms are grounded in to some extent) that is true, of course - and theists usually share that opinion about at least some other people's theisms, of course.

That is a common and basically normal aspect of human psychology. It is not particularly insane, and most atheists do not regard it as insanity.

yes
rather that they are deluded, have fantastic beliefs with no grounding in reality, etc etc
:rolleyes:

Why would you care? Everyone's deluded about something. Atheists aren't going to hate you for it, hurt you for it, or otherwise discriminate against you for it.

what psychological need do you have to be equal with me?

We have identical needs. While we may differ in which ones are emphasized over others, we share the same list. A handful of them are:

* Security or safety.
* Effectiveness and control.
* Positive identity and self-esteem.
* Positive connection and esteem for and trust in others.
* Autonomy and self-trust.
* Comprehension of reality or world view.

maslow's hierarchy

We have identical needs. While we may differ in which ones are emphasized over others, we share the same list. A handful of them are:

* Security or safety.
* Effectiveness and control.
* Positive identity and self-esteem.
* Positive connection and esteem for and trust in others.
* Autonomy and self-trust.
* Comprehension of reality or world view.
so what psychological need do you have to be equal with me?

What need do you have that my level of security or safety is equal to yours
etc etc
?

Why would you care? Everyone's deluded about something.
obvious paradigms collide when an atheist claims a theist is deluded


Atheists aren't going to hate you for it, hurt you for it, or otherwise discriminate against you for it.
the one's in communist china and russia certainly might

LG, you still miss the point: it makes not one iota of difference to the truth or falsity of the tenets of the religious faith whether the majority of people are religious, or that the religions help provide people with a moral compass, or that religion has helped inspire people.

It is in the tenets of the faith where the supposed "religion = delusion" arise from... the belief in God, for example.
The number of followers of God does not determine the reality of his existence.

You fail to miss this point, and instead reiterate it as an argument despite having the fallacious nature of it pointed out to you.

Fahrenheit
its a generic all-inclusive argument by atheism Whether it is or isn't is not relevant as you still need to specify which one of the 2850 gods, not including hindu gods, you are referring too. Incidently Atheists put arguments forward not Atheism, Atheism is simply a meaningless title to define them as a group, they are simply like minded people.
so what are the great cultural contributions of mermaids? They are equal to any gods, they have the same concistency as gods. if you have verifiable prove of a difference, feel free to post it, thank you.
you can add faeries, orks, unicorns and satyrs too if you think it bolsters your argumentIt's not relevant whether it bolsters mine, it's more relevant that it destroys yours.

If we are social animals, its kind of ironic how that society always coalesces around theistic/metaphysical issues. Does it, we must live on different planets. But admittedly there are a lot of people who think their in touch with imaginary beings.
As for Aesops fables and Arabian nights, the theistic/cultural influences in them are more apparent and direct than the midday sun. (To say the least, I think you would have assigned yourself a very difficult task if you set out to explain how the morality/metaphysical concepts these works contain is somehow independent from the cultures they arose from ... ok maybe you could do it on sciforums, but amongst an educated forum, I doubt it)The point was made a won, just throwing red herrings around does not help you argument. Morals can come from any book, thats because we as the writers have a basic morality already.
so what does that tell you about the truth? That the truth is the truth and the imagination is purely the imagination. No connection should or need be made.
Its boring, uneventful, uninspiring?
I guess that would make communist russia the high point of our civilization.
Would you want to live there?No but it seems you would like to. As you seem to think the truth is boring, uneventful, uninspiring.
So all that is universally valuable in life has its roots in delusion? It has it's roots in the Imagination, if you wish to call the Imagination, Delusion thats your perogative.
However if a person lived their life according to there Imagination, then I would have to agree with you and call it Delusion.

Lg,


I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insaneThe fact remains no one can show any of these beliefs have any truth. A majority opinion does not decide a truth.

How then do we explain these popular ideas throughout history?

1. In ancient times when little was known about how things worked a lot of things that we now understand appeared magical. From that come many superstitions and god concepts.
2. When popular ideas grow they take on a memetic quality that becomes extremely difficult to dispel.
3. Most people do not do their own research or think for themselves on such matters but prefer to believe what others say. The sheep mentality.
4. Most of the supposed good morality generated by religion is created from fear of reprisal rather than doing the right thing. For most of the past 2000 years Christian preachers pushed the fire and brimstone fear of hell at people. I.e. do what the bible says or suffer eternal torment. This is not a good basis for a moral society.

From ancient ignorance, the power of memetics, and the sheep mentality, we find ourselves in the mess we have today where the vast majority of the world population chose to believe fantasies as truth.

Are they insane? No. Just mainly sheeplike.

Are they insane? No. Just mainly sheeplike.

I presume you imply being "sheeplike" is something negative, undesirable.
If this is what you imply, then I have a question: What exactly do you think is wrong or negative with being sheeplike?

Why are so many of us still superstitious and essentially animist then?

Lack of practice.

No one says they are all insane. It's mostly ignorance, superstition and wishful thinking.

Ignorance, superstition and wishful thinking - about what?
What is it that the religious are ignorant of, superstitious about, and have wishful thinking of?
And how are these ignorance, superstition and wishful thinking bad or negative or wrong?

Are they insane? No. Just mainly sheeplike.

Do you think you are not sheeplike?

Ignorance, superstition and wishful thinking - about what?
What is it that the religious are ignorant of, superstitious about, and have wishful thinking of?
And how are these ignorance, superstition and wishful thinking bad or negative or wrong?

About an all powerful being that leaves no evidence behind.
The religious are ignorant of reality- the physical world.
Ignorance is always worse than knowledge. Wishful thinking is misleading and a waste of time.

greenberg,


I presume you imply being "sheeplike" is something negative, undesirable.
If this is what you imply, then I have a question: What exactly do you think is wrong or negative with being sheeplike?Well not really, it was a more a factual observation.

It is only bad here when it is assumed that because so many believe something that it must be true, when the case might be that only 1 had the original idea and everyone else went along with it.

dave,


Do you think you are not sheeplike?Probably in some things when I am lazy. But my perspective for most things is analytical, so if a proposition is made I tend to ask why, and continue to probe until I am personally satisfied.

dave,

Probably in some things when I am lazy. But my perspective for most things is analytical, so if a proposition is made I tend to ask why, and continue to probe until I am personally satisfied.

I don't think it is anything to do with laziness.

You are born
You learn
You make money
You pay bills and live
You have children
You die

Sheep don't have to pay bills, but ultimately they pay off their debt.

Their kids do the same thing.

So, what is different between a Christian and you(for example)?

dave,


So, what is different between a Christian and you(for example)?Degrees of skepticism.

*************
M*W: Mama's still trying to contact her baby. I was on vacation and my computer was cut off. I'm back! I'm here! I hope Mama's atheists remembered me! If there is life after death, it's called help from At&T. Thanks for all you how PM'd me. I'm still alive and waiting to talk to you!

Love always,

M*W

dave,

Degrees of skepticism.

Agreed.

But who has the better life?

dave,


But who has the better life?Neither. We are both currently doomed to die.

dave,

Probably in some things when I am lazy. But my perspective for most things is analytical, so if a proposition is made I tend to ask why, and continue to probe until I am personally satisfied.

Are you analytical about WHEN you decide to accept a given truth rather than investigate it using the skills you have?
Do truths that are widely accepted in your circles get less scrutiny than those from outside your circles?
(I mean here, for example, a person's circle could be people with academic background who tend to come from the middle class. These people for example might be extremely skeptical when faced with a Noam Chomsky analysis, but take a New York Times article as generally balanced. I hope you can translate to your country's newspapers and if you are conservative instead of liberal to the appropriate newspapers, etc.)

LG, you still miss the point: it makes not one iota of difference to the truth or falsity of the tenets of the religious faith whether the majority of people are religious, or that the religions help provide people with a moral compass, or that religion has helped inspire people.
you miss the point of the OP

(actually I agree with you. Numbers does not equal truth. Truth is revealed by investigation. This thread is examining the delusional basis for atheists not bothering to investigate)

Fahrenheit


its a generic all-inclusive argument by atheism
”
Whether it is or isn't is not relevant as you still need to specify which one of the 2850 gods, not including hindu gods, you are referring too. Incidently Atheists put arguments forward not Atheism, Atheism is simply a meaningless title to define them as a group, they are simply like minded people.
if the atheist argument doesn't specify, a rebuttal of that argument is not required to specify
“

Originally Posted by LG
so what are the great cultural contributions of mermaids?
”
They are equal to any gods, they have the same concistency as gods. if you have verifiable prove of a difference, feel free to post it, thank you.
yes?
so what are the great cultural contributions of mermaids, since you think they are of the same consistency as god?
“

Originally Posted by LG
you can add faeries, orks, unicorns and satyrs too if you think it bolsters your argument
”
It's not relevant whether it bolsters mine, it's more relevant that it destroys yours.
still waiting for a cultural contribution .....
“

Originally Posted by LG
If we are social animals, its kind of ironic how that society always coalesces around theistic/metaphysical issues.
”
Does it, we must live on different planets.
assuming you are not posting from Mars, I would assume so


But admittedly there are a lot of people who think their in touch with imaginary beings.
and admittedly there are a lot who are not
so once again, its ironic how society always coalesces around theistic/metaphysical ideas


“

Originally Posted by LG
As for Aesops fables and Arabian nights, the theistic/cultural influences in them are more apparent and direct than the midday sun. (To say the least, I think you would have assigned yourself a very difficult task if you set out to explain how the morality/metaphysical concepts these works contain is somehow independent from the cultures they arose from ... ok maybe you could do it on sciforums, but amongst an educated forum, I doubt it)
”
The point was made a won, just throwing red herrings around does not help you argument.
Coming from a person who has just opened up with two red herrings, its not clear on what authority you transgress dominant academic ideas on the topic. I mean fair enough, academics can get it wrong, but if your argument boils down to something like "because I say so" it doesn't warrant a lot of discussion.


Morals can come from any book, thats because we as the writers have a basic morality already.
on the contrary, morals develop from a social environment and social environments develop from philosophy - in other words we are "trained" in morals - anyone who comes with ten feet of sociology will probably tell you the same thing
“

Originally Posted by LG
so what does that tell you about the truth?
”
That the truth is the truth and the imagination is purely the imagination. No connection should or need be made.
ok
I guess the topic gets kind of interesting when one starts to approach what constitutes truth and imagination, aside from self referential banter.
“

Originally Posted by LG
Its boring, uneventful, uninspiring?
I guess that would make communist russia the high point of our civilization.
Would you want to live there?
”
No but it seems you would like to. As you seem to think the truth is boring, uneventful, uninspiring.
well anything less is imagination ... according to you
“

Originally Posted by LG
So all that is universally valuable in life has its roots in delusion?
”
It has it's roots in the Imagination, if you wish to call the Imagination, Delusion thats your perogative.
well you just openly declared that truth and imagination are diametrically opposed several paragraphs up ....
:bugeye:



However if a person lived their life according to there Imagination, then I would have to agree with you and call it Delusion.
In that case I guess its lucky that there is always a minor element of misanthropic sociopaths to act as vanguards for the truth

Cris



“
I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insane
”
The fact remains no one can show any of these beliefs have any truth.A majority opinion does not decide a truth.
sure
the fact is that a correct methodology decides the truth of a matter - the other thread about why atheists are irrational in this regard discusses this in detail


How then do we explain these popular ideas throughout history?

1. In ancient times when little was known about how things worked a lot of things that we now understand appeared magical. From that come many superstitions and god concepts.
2. When popular ideas grow they take on a memetic quality that becomes extremely difficult to dispel.
3. Most people do not do their own research or think for themselves on such matters but prefer to believe what others say. The sheep mentality.
4. Most of the supposed good morality generated by religion is created from fear of reprisal rather than doing the right thing. For most of the past 2000 years Christian preachers pushed the fire and brimstone fear of hell at people. I.e. do what the bible says or suffer eternal torment. This is not a good basis for a moral society.

From ancient ignorance, the power of memetics, and the sheep mentality, we find ourselves in the mess we have today where the vast majority of the world population chose to believe fantasies as truth.

Are they insane? No. Just mainly sheeplike.
there is a large element of this post of yours that is probably better discussed on the other thread - so I will just deal with what is relevant
If you want to hold that something is false in one circumstance therefore all things are false in all circumstances you have a good means to throw out any claim of knowledge, since mistakes are made in all fields.
For instance I could cite heliocentricism as a valid means to discredit the the idea that we have put satellites in orbit. (hey they were wrong then so they must be wrong now, so why bother to investigate any claim in the field)

dave,

Degrees of skepticism. Or focus of that skepticism. You might buy a car with a more powerful engine to offset feelings of sexual inadequacy while AT THE SAME TIME being able to answer a test question correctly about whether this car actually helps you in this area. Or to jump fields: you might have accepted this or that government explanation for something.

Further
is skepticism a good base?
How do we decide this rationally and not intuitively?
Are our choices for when to be skeptical rational or intuitive?

obvious paradigms collide when an atheist claims a theist is deluded

It's rare that an atheist would 'attack' in that manner.



the one's in communist china and russia certainly might

Sounds like an issue with communists.

I think there is something extremely facetious about saying the best possible explanation for the constant testimony of most people that ever lived on the face of the planet throughout history that there is some sort of divine being, is that most people are insane --- it seems like these persons are trying very hard to avoid the subject of god.

If you had stuck with "delusion", your argument would fare better. The escalation to insanity opens a vital vulnerability. Delusion ranges from merely being misled or deceived all the way to psychosis, a fairly broad range. "Insane", however, is a different question.

One of the criteria for judging whether or not certain behaviors constitute mental illness is whether or not the action interferes with one's ability to engage in normal social relationships. An example of this would be the sexualization of children. There are plenty of guys I know whose heads are turned by a stunning teenager. If we want to be even more creepy about it, at the Subpop twentieth anniversary show a couple weeks ago, there was this girl who was all of eleven or twelve, but you could tell at first glance that she was going to be a heartbreaker, the obsession of countless teenage late-night masturbatory fantasies. At the Ringo Starr show, I saw a girl who was probably nine who will grow up to make men drool. There are plenty of contexts in which to hold such notions distasteful.

Hell, walking into the Ringo show, there were these two girls behind us chattering about something and one of them said, in regard to whatever the hell they were talking about, "I'm not even thirteen yet!" I had seen them both and without the braces, I would have guessed fifteen and not twelve.

That's why every once in a while, if you pay attention, you'll see some guy you know watching a young girl pass and hear him mutter under his breath, "That ain't right."

Some would indict the twelve year-old for looking like that, but in the end, they're commenting on their own attention. And they're correct: it ain't right.

But this is a far cry from the predatory minds we fret about. Most of these ogling bastards aren't dangerous, and don't suffer behavioral complexes when they realize the hot ass they're watching is so ridiculously underage. They aren't the ones trolling for children, or who have trouble getting it up with a woman their own age. Some might disapprove of the fact that they notice at all, but the fact of their attention does not constitute a mental health issue.

Similarly, there are plenty of religious people who are perfectly sane. Their delusions do not cause any significant disruption to normal social relationships. There are two sides to that point, of course, insofar as what is statistically normal in the United States includes religious delusions. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of religious believers are, in fact, deluded.

That the lasting moral systems have certain religious derivations should not be surprising. After all, to use the Christian experience as an example, the European heritage into the Americas has seen two millennia of social conditioning around religious moral assignations.

We might consider, for instance, that the Catholic Church at one point made Aristotelian logic canonical law. The functional reason for this is that by Aristotle's arrangement of things, there was a place for everything, and everything belonged in its place, and nothing ever changed. It was an excellent logical foundation for securing and justifying the sociopolitical authority that led to such atrocities as the Inquisitions. From this perspective, we see that logical structures made abstract and for the glory of god actually pervert morality.

Looking to the Bible, we might note that God "hates" certain behaviors, and in the context of the times, that hatred makes sense. When your tribe is wandering lost in the desert for years on end, you shouldn't be wasting seed or having reckless sex. Nor should you be tattooing or ritually flagellating yourself. But the subjectiveness of God's outlook on a behavior is generally insufficient. There are plenty of objective reasons for certain moral standards we find in religion. Stealing from your neighbor, or banging his wife, causes disruption within the community, and when those communities were small enough, such tremors could destroy a people. In a more cosmopolitan "global community" of billions, there are plenty of worries more important than whether Mr. Smith is dabbling 'twixt Mr. Jones' wife's thighs.

Perhaps we should go back to night and day determining the difference between self-defense and murder? Maybe we should cut off women's hands if they interfere too greatly in a fight between men? How about poisoning our wives if we are unsatisfied with them?

I would ask you to consider why prohibitions against incest continue today, while Western society has long since stopped lopping off women's hands for interfering in fights, or poisoning them for not being good enough. The reason is that certain moral standards hold up under objective scrutiny. To borrow a line, you don't get with your relatives because you get babies with nine heads and stuff like that.

I would suggest that your examination of morality, religion, and history is perhaps a bit superficial.


So interestingly enough, the notion of no matter how much money, power etc you are all equal, that actually came from religion (Jesus in the west).

Principles of social equality drawn from the Bible are extrapolated. After all, if slavery was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for the Athenians, as well. History suggests strongly that slavery collapsed not because of any traditional religious cause, but rather a slow revolution beginning with the Renaissance and still taking place today.

In the Christian context, we are all equal in the eyes of God. In rendering unto Caesar, however, Western civilization has endured millennia of iniquity by the will of religious authorities who would call themselves Christian.


So historically the highest moral substance has always come from religion. To write all that off as a massive delusion comes across as trying really hard to ignore a jumbo jet that has crashed into one’s dining room

Unless, of course, there is no evidence of a jumbo jet having crashed into one's dining room.

Few, if any, doubt the influence of religion on moral structures. And whether that influence is, on balance, positive or negative is an argument for the ages. But the religious adoption of philosophical truths has also brought some of the greatest moral inconsistencies in human history. Even today, in twenty-first century America, for instance, there are plenty of church leaders who would presume the authority to judge their fellow man; they haven't faith enough to leave the objects of their hatred to God.

there is a problem with your post tiassa and it shows up when you look at the fundermentilist religions and born again christans among others. you can also be classed as insane when your delusion adversly effects OTHER people

for instance my sister had 3 close friends at school
the firsts family was either catholic, anglican or non religious, for the sake of this argument these positions are pritty close
one was a hindu
the last was a muslim

BTW my family are catholic

now nither my parents nor her first friends cared to much about when they dated, expected her to find someone that they liked when they were ready ect

now the other two girls on the other hand were expected to submit to aranged marriges, both of them actually HAD bfs but they were surposed to be good little girls and do whatever mummy and daddy said. ironically enough the muslim girl had a palistinian BF but this still wasnt good enough for her parents. Now this goes against civil sociaty in australia and really lead to alot of distress for these two girls.


lastly i would just like to point out there is a saying in the mental health sector, your not insane if you belive in god, you are if you belive you ARE god:p

Fahrenheit
if the atheist argument doesn't specify, a rebuttal of that argument is not required to specifyOk! so what your saying is, because I cant specify which god your referring too, you in turn cant specify which one because you don't know either, yes thats cleared it up thanks.

yes?Then post up the differences, thank you.

so what are the great cultural contributions of mermaids, since you think they are of the same consistency as god?Google it, Mermaids (http://members.cox.net/mermaid31/merhist.htm)have been mentioned in books, and painted, (http://www.untanglingknots.com/2005/07/proof.html)since the beginning of time.
and admittedly there are a lot who are not
Point made, point won. No red herrings please.
on the contrary, morals develop from a social environment and social environments develop from philosophy - in other words we are "trained" in moralsLol, care to back that up.
well you just openly declared that truth and imagination are diametrically opposed several paragraphs up .... Sorry don't see the connection here the truth will always be the truth, irregardless of what you might imagine the truth to be, yet your imagination is a great source of inspiration, but it cannot change the truth.
In that case I guess its lucky that there is always a minor element of misanthropic sociopaths to act as vanguards for the truthWell you could have those sort of people as vanguards for the truth, I of course will rather have sensible people.

It's rare that an atheist would 'attack' in that manner.



Sounds like an issue with communists.
what is it about the atheist ideology that makes it immune to expressions of violence?

what is it about the atheist ideology that makes it immune to expressions of violence? There is no such thing as "the atheist ideology".

There is no such thing as "the atheist ideology".
maybe you should take the issue up with Crunchy Cat
:shrug:

Well not really, it was a more a factual observation.

What is the point of bringing up this "factual observation"? What was your intention behind writing "Are they insane? No. Just mainly sheeplike."



It is only bad here when it is assumed that because so many believe something that it must be true, when the case might be that only 1 had the original idea and everyone else went along with it.

Granted, theists sometimes argue from what looks like a form of argumentum ad populum (this is true for the humans in general). However, what at least sometimes they are trying to get at is this, as further communication with them can reveal: that because so many people are able to practice a religion, this means it is possible to do it.
This is in reply to those people who claim that religious instructions are either impossible to act upon, or that there are no repeatable results and other objections along these lines. People who make such objections usually simply refuse to practice in line with the religious instructions, or they practice them in line with their own preconceived notions (and aren't aware of those notions or refuse to review them). As such, it is no wonder that the results promised by the religion do not come about for those people, so they conclude that religion is some kind of delusion, or lie.

you miss the point of the OP

(actually I agree with you. Numbers does not equal truth. Truth is revealed by investigation. This thread is examining the delusional basis for atheists not bothering to investigate)Then why oh why oh why did the OP make all those irrelevant comments regarding numbers, regarding inspiration etc to support your case, if that was not intended as part of the point of the OP?

To make those comments seemingly in support of your case, but to then acknowledge that they should not support your case, is deceitful.

“ Farenheit


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Fahrenheit
if the atheist argument doesn't specify, a rebuttal of that argument is not required to specify ”
Ok! so what your saying is, because I cant specify which god your referring too, you in turn cant specify which one because you don't know either, yes thats cleared it up thanks./
Is there some particular god you don’t find delusional?
well?
:rolleyes:

“
Originally Posted by LG
so what are the great cultural contributions of mermaids, since you think they are of the same consistency as god? ”
Google it, Mermaids have been mentioned in books, and painted, since the beginning of time.
and that’s a great cultural contribution?
I mean, what sort of long standing social ideologies do you attribute to them?
What prominent current apparatus of society/culture lies indebted to mermaids?

“
Originally Posted by LG
and admittedly there are a lot who are not ”
Point made, point won. No red herrings please.
one good turn deserves another
:D

“
Originally Posted by LG
on the contrary, morals develop from a social environment and social environments develop from philosophy - in other words we are "trained" in morals ”
Lol, care to back that up.
care to indicate any moral that developed in a social vacuum?

“
Originally Posted by LG
well you just openly declared that truth and imagination are diametrically opposed several paragraphs up .... ”
Sorry don't see the connection here the truth will always be the truth, irregardless of what you might imagine the truth to be, yet your imagination is a great source of inspiration, but it cannot change the truth.
to say the least, just as well that the astronomer who discovered brown dwarfs thought differently (IOW many intelligent people don’t hesitate to imagine how they would set about to discover something before they actually do so) …

“
Originally Posted by LG
In that case I guess its lucky that there is always a minor element of misanthropic sociopaths to act as vanguards for the truth ”
Well you could have those sort of people as vanguards for the truth, I of course will rather have sensible people.
sensible people with no imagination …. goodluck

“ Sarkus


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
you miss the point of the OP

(actually I agree with you. Numbers does not equal truth. Truth is revealed by investigation. This thread is examining the delusional basis for atheists not bothering to investigate) ”
Then why oh why oh why did the OP make all those irrelevant comments regarding numbers, regarding inspiration etc to support your case, if that was not intended as part of the point of the OP?

To make those comments seemingly in support of your case, but to then acknowledge that they should not support your case, is deceitful.
Maybe I didn’t say it clear enough

Numbers does not equal truth.
(you seem to have that part down)

Truth is revealed by investigation.
(so like if say 95% of people from 95% of history say something is true, and practically anything culturally valuable is due to the influence of it, you might feel inspired investigate it)

This thread is examining the delusional basis for atheists not bothering to investigate
(kind of like going with 5% of 5% as a basis for not even trying to investigate)

there is a problem with your post tiassa and it shows up when you look at the fundermentilist religions and born again christans among others. you can also be classed as insane when your delusion adversly effects OTHER people

Fair enough; I certainly failed to cover that base. The broader point I would hope to convey is the difference between what I did manage to cover and your point. While we cannot escalate to insanity, delusion is fair game. Among redemptive monotheists, the question is the nature of faith. I can think of one person, offhand, who vaguely believes, yet does so for hope—not of redemption but for civility and decency. It would be presumptuous to assert that she is the only one. But the faith that is most commonly described, even by the believers, that there is a real God as described in this or that holy book, seems a working example of delusion.

what is it about the atheist ideology that makes it immune to expressions of violence?

I don't think Atheism has an ideology. It's just the non-acceptance of one particular assertion. I have observed that organic atheism tends to arise when there is adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity. Atheists resulting from that type of environment tend to require little or no idology and have their own ways of meeting their psychological needs.

I'll speculate that organic athests growing up in the ebove type of environment have had a wide variety of of their epigenetic markers triggered that make them less prone (but no immune) to expressions of violence.

I'll speculate that organic athests growing up in the ebove type of environment have had a wide variety of of their epigenetic markers triggered that make them less prone (but no immune) to expressions of violence. They tend to outsource their violence and then deny it.

They tend to outsource their violence and then deny it.

Please explain, I am not aware of any violence outsourced in the name of atheism.

They tend to outsource their violence and then deny it.

You are talking bollocks ! Do you make it up as you go along ?

You are talking bollocks ! Do you make it up as you go along ?
I am American. The educated middle and classes both secular and religious has indeed tended to outsource its violence in my country. I would guess it is similar in yours if your country has much of an army or intelligence services. Take, for example, what the CIA did in the 80s in Latin America. In the Vietnam war, with tacit and open approval of the above mentioned groups, poor men were sent across the world to kill Vietnamese.

I think arguments can also be made in relation to the police in the States.

Crunchy cat seemed to think his class of people out there in the suburbs are somehow immune from being causal in violence. The fact is they don't have to get their hands dirty.

It was more of a class based (both intra-national and international) reaction than a religious one.

But I do see nothing, nothing at all that indicates that becoming an athiest somehow reduces one's chances of contributing to violence. And people who walk around calling themselves atheists seem just as likely to vote for war and deny the actions of their intelligence services and their nation's corporations and how these affect the citizens of other countries.

I think CC's post is smug and self-servingly naive.

If you can somehow prove, Myles, that atheists are somehow less violent or less approving of violence and less causal, please go ahead. I see little in world history that shows this.

So keep you bollocks to yourself.

“Truth is revealed by investigation.
(so like if say 95% of people from 95% of history say something is true, and practically anything culturally valuable is due to the influence of it, you might feel inspired investigate it)

This thread is examining the delusional basis for atheists not bothering to investigate
(kind of like going with 5% of 5% as a basis for not even trying to investigate)Then you will likely not get anywhere, as your understanding / use of atheism is flawed.

Atheism is merely a non-belief in God - which people have told you again, and again, and again.

There is no "delusional basis" for atheists not bothering.
The atheists that are not bothered see no beneficial purpose in investigating, and see the trade off between investigation and reward as insufficient. This is not a delusional basis.

Your criticism is with those few strong atheists who argue that God does NOT exist, and that anyone who thinks that God does is delusional (they are a few and far between breed). And your argument, that your roll out again and again, is one of them not following the right path to investigate.

They are not delusional either - as to be delusional there must be rational and overwhelming contradictory evidence to what they are saying.
Yet you are unable to point it out to them - but instead spout the "you need to know how to look" routine.

Their argument that God exists = delusion is based on what they see as a total lack of evidence to support the fact that God does exist.
In order to counter this, you must surely provide them with evidence, no?

Your current argument requires what you consider a blind man to start seeing: no matter what texts you put in front of him, he won't read them.

Surely you would be better off trying to find ways within his capabilities to get him to read, no?... but instead you bang on about the blind man not reading with his eyes.

I am American. The educated middle and classes both secular and religious has indeed tended to outsource its violence in my country. I would guess it is similar in yours if your country has much of an army or intelligence services. Take, for example, what the CIA did in the 80s in Latin America. In the Vietnam war, with tacit and open approval of the above mentioned groups, poor men were sent across the world to kill Vietnamese.

I think arguments can also be made in relation to the police in the States.

Crunchy cat seemed to think his class of people out there in the suburbs are somehow immune from being causal in violence. The fact is they don't have to get their hands dirty.

It was more of a class based (both intra-national and international) reaction than a religious one.

But I do see nothing, nothing at all that indicates that becoming an athiest somehow reduces one's chances of contributing to violence.

I think CC's post is smug and self-servingly naive.

If you can somehow prove, Myles, that atheists are somehow less violent or less approving of violence and less causal, please go ahead. I see little in world history that shows this.

So keep you bollocks to yourself.

The people in the USA who outsource violence, as you put it, would claim to be Christrians if asked. Polls have shown that about 90+ % of Americans believe in god , or say they do. So where are all these atheists you are talking about ?

Perhaps the Russians outsourced violence to the Vatican .

I don't have to prove that atheists are less violent. Common sense suggests that some people are violent, irrespective of what they believe. What you have to show is that those who profess a belief in god are less violent than atheists. Now you have a problem, so work on it instead of trying to pass the buck. As theists are in the majority...

George Bush, that well known born-again, has outsourced torture under the euphemistic name of rendering. Stalin did his own dirty work. So start at the top and work down.

For the record , I am Irish. I was brought up in a theocracy which I was happy to abandon in my youth. I'm sure you are aware of all that sectarian "atheism "in Northern between Catholics and Protestants.

If you think about it, you haven't got a leg to stand on. You really are talking bollocks when you suggest that atheists outsource violence.

Myles, you are some sort of scientists I believe. This below is just crap. He is confusing the priviledge of not having to get one's hands dirty with not being violent or approving violence. Toss in a couple of scientific terms and you get 'speculations' that are of as much scientific merit as racism science.



I'll speculate that organic athests growing up in the ebove type of environment have had a wide variety of of their epigenetic markers triggered that make them less prone (but no immune) to expressions of violence.

Myles, you are some sort of scientists I believe. This below is just crap. He is confusing the priviledge of not having to get one's hands dirty with not being violent or approving violence. Toss in a couple of scientific terms and you get 'speculations' that are of as much scientific merit as racism science.

I cannot offer an informed opinion on this. I would confine myself to saying that it is part of human nature to be violent in some circumstances.

Hitler kissed babies; millions went to their deaths. The Pope kisses babies; millions die in Africa because of his ruling on birth control.

Crunchy cat seemed to think his class of people out there in the suburbs are somehow immune from being causal in violence. The fact is they don't have to get their hands dirty.

Your understanding of the words I posted then is very incorrect.



But I do see nothing, nothing at all that indicates that becoming an athiest somehow reduces one's chances of contributing to violence.

My assertion is that adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity results in human behavior that is more rational and less prone to violence. That pool of behavior is where organic atheism tends to arise from and thrive.



And people who walk around calling themselves atheists seem just as likely to vote for war and deny the actions of their intelligence services and their nation's corporations and how these affect the citizens of other countries.

Do you have a specific example in mind?



I think CC's post is smug and self-servingly naive.

I think it's your interpretation of my post that's the issue.

Myles, you are some sort of scientists I believe. This below is just crap. He is confusing the priviledge of not having to get one's hands dirty with not being violent or approving violence. Toss in a couple of scientific terms and you get 'speculations' that are of as much scientific merit as racism science.

The only confusion is your interpretation. Part of it might be a knowledge gap so I dug up an article describing general primate behavior in a similar resource situation:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/13-science-says-war-is-over-now/?searchterm=bonobos

I cannot offer an informed opinion on this. I would confine myself to saying that it is part of human nature to be violent in some circumstances.

Hitler kissed babies; millions went to their deaths. The Pope kisses babies; millions die in Africa because of his ruling on birth control.
yes, the excuses and justifications vary.
And notice that the Pope will never be found in a photo hitting a baby. Nor have the neo-cons taken out their personal bats in, say, the Latin America. Oh, perhaps a few intel ghosts did some wet work.

My assertion is that adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity results in human behavior that is more rational and less prone to violence. That pool of behavior is where organic atheism tends to arise from and thrive. And my point was this was facile as those areas tend to support the things you listed with violence.


Do you have a specific example in mind? Let's take all the neo-cons who are pulling Bush's strings and are happy to align with the Religious Right and use them for their purposes. I do think if you have basic resources you are probably less likely to break your knuckles on other people's faces, but this should not be confused with the violence one tacitly or openly approves of.


I think it's your interpretation of my post that's the issue.
That would be nice.

The only confusion is your interpretation. Part of it might be a knowledge gap so I dug up an article describing general primate behavior in a similar resource situation:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/13-science-says-war-is-over-now/?searchterm=bonobos

Let's look at this from a South American perspective. How many times have US forces gone into Latin American countries? How many times did US intel staff train torturers or aid fascist governments perpetrate crimes against peasants students and union organizers? How many times have US corporations influenced or coerced governments there to enact policies that directly damaged the lives of peasants - a group according to your theory more likely to be violent than the people who made these policies that fucked up their lives?

Did the USA do this because it lacked basic resources such as food and fuel? Did money and luxuries for some play an enormous role in all this?

It's funny. For a long time scientists called any projection of human emotions, intention and cognitive processes onto animals, well, projection or anthropomorphism. But now some scientists assume that we will act like, what was it bonoboes, despite the rather obvious fact that we do not? One of the things that makes us unique is our ability to make excuses for killing and damaging the other.

And it is very clear we do not need to believe in God to do this, nor do we forswear violence when basic needs are met.

There does seem to be a knowledge gap present, I'll grant you that.

And my point was this was facile as those areas tend to support the things you listed with violence.

In the name of atheism?



Let's take all the neo-cons who are pulling Bush's strings and are happy to align with the Religious Right and use them for their purposes. I do think if you have basic resources you are probably less likely to break your knuckles on other people's faces, but this should not be confused with the violence one tacitly or openly approves of.

Are you saying that atheists control bush?



That would be nice.

More importantly, it would be true.

I don't think Atheism has an ideology. It's just the non-acceptance of one particular assertion.
so an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation
:rolleyes:




I have observed that organic atheism tends to arise when there is adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity.
and where the hell is that on this planet?


Atheists resulting from that type of environment tend to require little or no idology and have their own ways of meeting their psychological needs.
its hard to imagine how you could bypass the conflict in your personal life that arises from resource management .. what to speak of the world at large


I'll speculate that organic athests growing up in the ebove type of environment have had a wide variety of of their epigenetic markers triggered that make them less prone (but no immune) to expressions of violence.
for someone who thinks theists are deluded with the fairies it seems like you really dig into the pixie dust ... for Christs sake man pick up a newspaper!
/slaps crunchy cat several times across the face

Let's look at this from a South American perspective. How many times have US forces gone into Latin American countries? How many times did US intel staff train torturers or aid fascist governments perpetrate crimes against peasants students and union organizers? How many times have US corporations influenced or coerced governments there to enact policies that directly damaged the lives of peasants - a group according to your theory more likely to be violent than the people who made these policies that fucked up their lives?

Do you understand why the US does these things?



Did the USA do this because it lacked basic resources such as food and fuel? Did money and luxuries for some play an enormous role in all this?

The US doesn't know how to manage the resources it does have and has a requirement for 10x - 50x the resources that the entire planet can supply. A bigger issue is that the US and any other international entity aren't privy to equal resources.



It's funny. For a long time scientists called any projection of human emotions, intention and cognitive processes onto animals, well, projection or anthropomorphism. But now some scientists assume that we will act like, what was it bonoboes, despite the rather obvious fact that we do not? One of the things that makes us unique is our ability to make excuses for killing and damaging the other.

The article is one of many examples that deal with primate behavior and adequate resources. There are existing patches of micro human society that exhibit similar behavior.

Like most life forms on earth, humans are difference detection machines that collect energy to persist. Violence is an inescapable part of the process; however, the right environment can strongly influence an individuals propensity towards violence.



And it is very clear we do not need to believe in God to do this, nor do we forswear violence when basic needs are met.

I don't think anybody said we did.



There does seem to be a knowledge gap present, I'll grant you that.

:runaway:

Sarkus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“Truth is revealed by investigation.
(so like if say 95% of people from 95% of history say something is true, and practically anything culturally valuable is due to the influence of it, you might feel inspired investigate it)

This thread is examining the delusional basis for atheists not bothering to investigate
(kind of like going with 5% of 5% as a basis for not even trying to investigate)
”
Then you will likely not get anywhere, as your understanding / use of atheism is flawed.

Atheism is merely a non-belief in God - which people have told you again, and again, and again.

There is no "delusional basis" for atheists not bothering.
on what basis do you say there is no proof for god then?


The atheists that are not bothered see no beneficial purpose in investigating, and see the trade off between investigation and reward as insufficient. This is not a delusional basis.
whats the reward of not investigating?
and how does that compare to the reward of investigating?
... I mean we are talking about investigating the cause of something that has catalyzed practically anything we hold as culturally valuable in life


Your criticism is with those few strong atheists who argue that God does NOT exist, and that anyone who thinks that God does is delusional (they are a few and far between breed). And your argument, that your roll out again and again, is one of them not following the right path to investigate.
and your argument is one of repeatedly rolling out bold claims of theists being delusional and then retreating behind agnosticism when the artillery comes out


They are not delusional either - as to be delusional there must be rational and overwhelming contradictory evidence to what they are saying.
"Quick men! Back to the trenches!"
:rolleyes:



Yet you are unable to point it out to them - but instead spout the "you need to know how to look" routine.
well isn't that what the first part of education is all about?



Their argument that God exists = delusion is based on what they see as a total lack of evidence to support the fact that God does exist.
given the methodologies they apply, one would hardly expect a different result



In order to counter this, you must surely provide them with evidence, no?
or alternatively, the right methodology
its kind of like a person claiming that a thermometer is faulty because it doesn't tell the time accurately


Your current argument requires what you consider a blind man to start seeing: no matter what texts you put in front of him, he won't read them.
its more like a man who refuses to open his eyes

i

so an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation
:rolleyes:

You don't believe that jellybeans rule the zaboombafoo dimension do you? I am sure your unbelief in that is not an ideology.




and where the hell is that on this planet?

A bulk of areas in Western nations. Take silicon valley for example.



its hard to imagine how you could bypass the conflict in your personal life that arises from resource management .. what to speak of the world at large


I've haven't had many resource issues in my lifetime so I am not sure what kind of conflict you are referring to.



for someone who thinks theists are deluded with the fairies it seems like you really dig into the pixie dust ... for Christs sake man pick up a newspaper!
/slaps crunchy cat several times across the face

It's a speculation light... that is not the same as a claim.

Crunchy cat


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation

”
You don't believe that jellybeans rule the zaboombafoo dimension do you? I am sure your unbelief in that is not an ideology.
it is when I declare a non-interest due to lack of cultural credibility



“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and where the hell is that on this planet?
”
A bulk of areas in Western nations. Take silicon valley for example.
hardly what you would call a holistic environment



“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its hard to imagine how you could bypass the conflict in your personal life that arises from resource management .. what to speak of the world at large
”
I've haven't had many resource issues in my lifetime so I am not sure what kind of conflict you are referring to.
the fact that you probably have to work some job doing strange things for postponed rewards amongst people who may not be your cup of tea ... and thats putting it nicely


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
for someone who thinks theists are deluded with the fairies it seems like you really dig into the pixie dust ... for Christs sake man pick up a newspaper!
/slaps crunchy cat several times across the face
”
It's a speculation light... that is not the same as a claim.
its a speco all right!!

Do you understand why the US does these things?I believe I understand both the rationalizations and the real reasons, yes.


The US doesn't know how to manage the resources it does have and has a requirement for 10x - 50x the resources that the entire planet can supply. I think this is a strange suggestion, but it really does not counter my point. The people who decided the US needed to intervene in SA or the corporate heads who decided they needed to do the things they did there had adequate food and other resources AND did not act out of concern for USAs poor.


A bigger issue is that the US and any other international entity aren't privy to equal resources. I did not get this. I can't quite see how privy is the right verb, but perhaps it can somehow fit. Generally we are privy to information.


The article is one of many examples that deal with primate behavior and adequate resources. There are existing patches of micro human society that exhibit similar behavior. Well, those certainly provide a stronger case than what other species do in time of surplus or adequacy. I see many micro and macro human societies where the violence continues, but, as I said earlier it tends to be outsourced, something animals have a hard time doing.


however, the right environment can strongly influence an individuals propensity towards violence. Sure. An individual's. I just don't see any reason to make broad generalizations.


I don't think anybody said we did. Well, it sure seems like you are saying that violence will go down when people have their basic material needs met. Perhaps I have misunderstood that. The article you chose to fill in my knowledge gap seemed to fit with my interpretation. I do not see this is the case. I do see a shift away from direct participation in violence to the getting of others to do it and then psychological mechanisms to deny or distance or justify this violence.

Fist, club, gun, somebody else.

I am sure the nobles in medieval Europe considered themselves beyond the base violence of the lower classes, but the worst of it was in their names and for their goals.

But it seems you keep saying I misunderstand your point. I think I have made mine, in any case. My apolagies if it did not apply. I am done with this thread for a while at least.

Crunchy cat

it is when I declare a non-interest due to lack of cultural credibility

You mean that non-interest would be the guiding principal of your life?



hardly what you would call a holistic environment

Debatable, but it does fulfill the criteria.



the fact that you probably have to work some job doing strange things for postponed rewards amongst people who may not be your cup of tea ... and thats putting it nicely

I do what I enjoy for my work life and the people tend to be close-knit. Not much of a conflict there.



its a speco all right!!

I mean this in the nicest possible way:

:fart:

I believe I understand both the rationalizations and the real reasons, yes.

Good. Then you will note that real or perceived, there are not adequate resource for every party involved (end to end).



I think this is a strange suggestion, but it really does not counter my point. The people who decided the US needed to intervene in SA or the corporate heads who decided they needed to do the things they did there had adequate food and other resources AND did not act out of concern for USAs poor.

Adequate resources have to exist across all parties involved and if that were the case, we wouldn't have the poor.



I did not get this. I can't quite see how privy is the right verb, but perhaps it can somehow fit. Generally we are privy to information.

Many words in the english language have multiple definitions. The definition of privy that I am using is "belonging or pertaining to some particular entity".



Well, those certainly provide a stronger case than what other species do in time of surplus or adequacy. I see many micro and macro human societies where the violence continues, but, as I said earlier it tends to be outsourced, something animals have a hard time doing.

Do you think if all soceities had adequate resources that we would be outsourcing violence?



Sure. An individual's. I just don't see any reason to make broad generalizations.

Individuals do tend to make up the whole.



Well, it sure seems like you are saying that violence will go down when people have their basic material needs met. Perhaps I have misunderstood that. The article you chose to fill in my knowledge gap seemed to fit with my interpretation. I do not see this is the case. I do see a shift away from direct participation in violence to the getting of others to do it and then psychological mechanisms to deny or distance or justify this violence.

Fist, club, gun, somebody else.

I am sure the nobles in medieval Europe considered themselves beyond the base violence of the lower classes, but the worst of it was in their names and for their goals.

But it seems you keep saying I misunderstand your point. I think I have made mine, in any case. My apolagies if it did not apply. I am done with this thread for a while at least.

I'll paraphrase. I am saying that a generation whom was raised in the presence of adequate resources would think more rationally and be less prone towards violent expression. I am also saying that such an environment is quite conducive to organic atheism.

Crunchy cat


it is when I declare a non-interest due to lack of cultural credibility ”

You mean that non-interest would be the guiding principal of your life?
what I hold as culturally credible would be



“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
hardly what you would call a holistic environment ”

Debatable, but it does fulfill the criteria.
well where does the silicon valley get it "adequate" fuel supply from?
and where the hell would it be without its cheap immigrant workers?



“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the fact that you probably have to work some job doing strange things for postponed rewards amongst people who may not be your cup of tea ... and thats putting it nicely ”

I do what I enjoy for my work life and the people tend to be close-knit. Not much of a conflict there.
so would you go to work if they stoppe dpaying you?
Would you complain if you weren't able to go on vacation



“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its a speco all right!! ”

I mean this in the nicest possible way:
kind of wondered where all that hot air was coming from ....

Good. Then you will note that real or perceived, there are not adequate resource for every party involved (end to end). Oh, gosh. I couldn't resist. I have to say it keeps seeming like I understand your position. OK. The people in the US who perpetrated the violence in Latin America did not lack for resources. They were violent.....anyway.


Adequate resources have to exist across all parties involved and if that were the case, we wouldn't have the poor. I think pointing out that very wealthy people often make war on the poor counters your argument. They have resources, they make war anyway. If you mean that the rich who often do this are not above some very high luxurious level of resources, ok, fine. But then my class based arguments apply.


Do you think if all soceities had adequate resources that we would be outsourcing violence?
Absolutely. If the well off members of well off societies do this now and have done this in the past I see no reason why it would not continue. You could try to make the case that the well off have REALLY been doing, for example, what they have been doing in Latin America for the poor of their own country. But in that case I need to warn that I will also not buy the Brooklyn Bridge from you.

Individuals do tend to make up the whole. This was a poor argument. You said it 'can' have an effect on the propensity of an individual. That is hard to disagree with. I see that this does happen with some people. That violence will dissipate in general seems unlikely because I can see that some people continue to be violent or become violent when that have the basic resources. And these people tend to rise to the top of the power structure.


I'll paraphrase. I am saying that a generation whom was raised in the presence of adequate resources would think more rationally and be less prone towards violent expression. I am also saying that such an environment is quite conducive to organic atheism. And I don't see this happening. Again I see these kinds of people only too happy to outsource violence. It is also the environment the whole New Age movement sprung up in, the neo-pagan revivals, the resurgance of potentially atheist Buddhism but also Hinduism in the West. But I am less concerned about this latter theory of yours which you can back up with some figures or not.

I still see those with all their basic needs being met approving directly and indirectly violence in their name or what is supposed to be their interests (as if, for example, American corporations interests are American citizens' interest, somehow, miraculously by definition)

If, for example, a large % of the middle and upper classes in the US were able to somehow face what happened just in Latin America due to interventions of various kinds by their gov and companies, then I might see a new trend. I do not see this. You'd be likely to be spat on by Dems and Repubs. alike for bringing it up. It is taboo.

I've also traveled widely in Latin America and I found the poor, often on the border or below the border of having enough resources not only less violent than say the average Ivy League College student, but also more willing to share.

LG, do you as a Hindu believe in the possibility of multiple universes?

Crunchy cat
what I hold as culturally credible would be

Obviously, but what about the non-credible?




well where does the silicon valley get it "adequate" fuel supply from?

It's not necessarily relevant. What matters is that adequate resources are available.



and where the hell would it be without its cheap immigrant workers?


Don't know. I would speculate a reduced pace and higher quality.




so would you go to work if they stoppe dpaying you?

You bet, I would use their resources to work for myself.



Would you complain if you weren't able to go on vacation

How could my vacation be stopped?




kind of wondered where all that hot air was coming from ....

Asked the volcano?

LG, do you as a Hindu believe in the possibility of multiple universes?
there are lots of different understandings on what the words "multiple universes" mean, but there are similar ideas that are explained along those lines in the vedas ... the universes are never explained to be so "multiple" as to evade the potency of vishnu (or his plenary expansions) however

Oh, gosh. I couldn't resist. I have to say it keeps seeming like I understand your position. OK. The people in the US who perpetrated the violence in Latin America did not lack for resources. They were violent.....anyway.

For the sake of trimming down text in the discussion I have been using the phrase 'adequate resources' to equate to 'adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity'... which have very different meanings. In the case of LA violence did both the US and LA have adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity?

There was a psychology study done in the 90's (sorry I don't remember the exact name of it) where various group of people were put through game simulations for acquiring money. Any player had the ability to donate their money towards hurting the cash flow of other players. Initially one of the players was artificially given far more money than the rest and the other players would then gang up on him and try to hurt him. They even had scenarious where the majority of the players were artifically given extra cash and the minority would try and gang up on them. In all cases, the folks who had the piles of cash didn't feel safe and would start hurting the other players cash flow really bad. In the case where there were multiple high-end cash owners, they would gang up on the low-end cash folks. While the simulation didn't cover the concept of fuel or opportunity, it did show what happens when people perceive inadequate resources and protection.



I think pointing out that very wealthy people often make war on the poor counters your argument. They have resources, they make war anyway. If you mean that the rich who often do this are not above some very high luxurious level of resources, ok, fine. But then my class based arguments apply.

Did the rich people feel they had adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity? I am willing to bet something was missing.



Absolutely. If the well off members of well off societies do this now and have done this in the past I see no reason why it would not continue. You could try to make the case that the well off have REALLY been doing, for example, what they have been doing in Latin America for the poor of their own country. But in that case I need to warn that I will also not buy the Brooklyn Bridge from you.

Even if everyone had the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity? If the answer is 'yes', then what is the objective motivation?



This was a poor argument. You said it 'can' have an effect on the propensity of an individual. That is hard to disagree with. I see that this does happen with some people. That violence will dissipate in general seems unlikely because I can see that some people continue to be violent or become violent when that have the basic resources. And these people tend to rise to the top of the power structure.

I've seen the top of alit of Silicon Valley power structures and violence has never been the phrase I would use to describe those in power. Maybe your argument was aimed at resources only vs the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity?



And I don't see this happening. Again I see these kinds of people only too happy to outsource violence. It is also the environment the whole New Age movement sprung up in, the neo-pagan revivals, the resurgance of potentially atheist Buddhism but also Hinduism in the West. But I am less concerned about this latter theory of yours which you can back up with some figures or not.

I still see those with all their basic needs being met approving directly and indirectly violence in their name or what is supposed to be their interests (as if, for example, American corporations interests are American citizens' interest, somehow, miraculously by definition)

If, for example, a large % of the middle and upper classes in the US were able to somehow face what happened just in Latin America due to interventions of various kinds by their gov and companies, then I might see a new trend. I do not see this. You'd be likely to be spat on by Dems and Repubs. alike for bringing it up. It is taboo.

I've also traveled widely in Latin America and I found the poor, often on the border or below the border of having enough resources not only less violent than say the average Ivy League College student, but also more willing to share.

I understand your observations and I would have to ask the question if all parties involved in the violent conflicts felt they had the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity?

Crunchy cat

what I hold as culturally credible would be
”
Obviously, but what about the non-credible?
if you can explain the non-credible without touching on the credible, please be my guest



“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well where does the silicon valley get it "adequate" fuel supply from?
”
It's not necessarily relevant. What matters is that adequate resources are available.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and where the hell would it be without its cheap immigrant workers?
”
Don't know. I would speculate a reduced pace and higher quality.
just to reiterate a challenge to your naive world view, do you see a connection between troops being deployed in iraq and resource demands of the silicon valley?



“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so would you go to work if they stoppe dpaying you?
”
You bet, I would use their resources to work for myself.
the things we have to do for a buck, eh?


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Would you complain if you weren't able to go on vacation
”
How could my vacation be stopped?
easy
the personnel manager comes in and says words to the effect "if you want to continue working for us you will have to work an extra day per week and your holiday leave will be cut by 50%"

Crunchy cat
if you can explain the non-credible without touching on the credible, please be my guest

Invisible Pink Unicorns are not credible long before cultural credibility is even applied.



just to reiterate a challenge to your naive world view, do you see a connection between troops being deployed in iraq and resource demands of the silicon valley?

I see a connection between troops being deployed to Iraq and one or more parties perceiving some combination of inadequate fuel, resources, protection, or opportunity.



the things we have to do for a buck, eh?

It beats hunting and farming.



easy
the personnel manager comes in and says words to the effect "if you want to continue working for us you will have to work an extra day per week and your holiday leave will be cut by 50%"

To which I would respond, 'I quit'. I am not reliant on an employer for making a living. I can also do it myself.

Crunchy cat

if you can explain the non-credible without touching on the credible, please be my guest
”
Invisible Pink Unicorns are not credible long before cultural credibility is even applied.
if you don't believe absolute negatives get into extremely hot water the moment you mention them, just try and explain why without touching on the credible
:D


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
just to reiterate a challenge to your naive world view, do you see a connection between troops being deployed in iraq and resource demands of the silicon valley?
”
I see a connection between troops being deployed to Iraq and one or more parties perceiving some combination of inadequate fuel, resources, protection, or opportunity.
well I guess we can take silicon valley off the list then


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the things we have to do for a buck, eh?
”
It beats hunting and farming.
I guess it depends if one is willing to extend moral principles of equality to the people of iraq or not ....

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
easy
the personnel manager comes in and says words to the effect "if you want to continue working for us you will have to work an extra day per week and your holiday leave will be cut by 50%"
”
To which I would respond, 'I quit'. I am not reliant on an employer for making a living. I can also do it myself.
you think most sole business owners have shorter hours and longer vacation periods?
/slaps crunchy cat several times again in the face
:D

... I guess those people you work with suddenly aren't so groovy after all, eh?

Crunchy cat

if you don't believe absolute negatives get into extremely hot water the moment you mention them, just try and explain why without touching on the credible
:D

The credible vs. the culturally credible are not the same.



I guess it depends if one is willing to extend moral principles of equality to the people of iraq or not ....

You are really enjoying the Iraq card aren't you?


“


you think most sole business owners have shorter hours and longer vacation periods?
/slaps crunchy cat several times again in the face
:D

All that slapping is making me wet and gooey. Wanna bang? When you work for yourself, you aren't restricted to just running a business. You can cherry pick projects, define your hours, define your cost, and make a great living while having alot more time and flexibility. The downside is you don't have work-buddies around... which can get a little lonely.



... I guess those people you work with suddenly aren't so groovy after all, eh?

Just because I would quit doesn't mean I wouldn't continue to be their friend. I can separate objective and subjective value.

Fahrenheit
Is there some particular god you don’t find delusional?I dont find any gods delusional, they have to exist to be able, to be delusional.

well?Well what!

and that’s a great cultural contribution?Thanks.
Yes it does have a similarity to god/gods doesn't it.

I mean, what sort of long standing social ideologies do you attribute to them?The exact same ones that are attributed to god/gods. Why! isn't it obvious.
What prominent current apparatus of society/culture lies indebted to mermaids?All the navy's of the world.

care to indicate any moral that developed in a social vacuum?Humans could not live without others, so it's a bit of a moot question, however if you mean what inate morals humans have, then the golden rule applies, "do to other, that which you would like done to you" after all social animals need to be accepted by the herd for survival sake.
to say the least, just as well that the astronomer who discovered brown dwarfs thought differently (IOW many intelligent people don’t hesitate to imagine how they would set about to discover something before they actually do so) More Red herring.
Thats not using your imagination that using you experiences and education to formulate a theory, they don't imagine if they mix red with blue it makes green, their experiences and education tell them that red and blue make purple.
sensible people with no imagination Sensible people with intellect, sense and reason, that use their imagination as a tool, and not as a mind set to live by.

Sarkus

on what basis do you say there is no proof for god then?I don't.
I merely say that I have not come across any.
I am an agnostic atheist.


whats the reward of not investigating?
and how does that compare to the reward of investigating?
... I mean we are talking about investigating the cause of something that has catalyzed practically anything we hold as culturally valuable in lifeSo you think we should all follow Pascal's Wager?
The reward of not investigating is life continuing as it has done.
The reward of investigating is life continuing as it has done... but in the knowledge that there is a "God".


and your argument is one of repeatedly rolling out bold claims of theists being delusional and then retreating behind agnosticism when the artillery comes outPlease highlight ANY quote that I have EVER said that theists are delusional.
You can't - because I don't.


well isn't that what the first part of education is all about?No. Education is about applying the tools the person is willing to use, and educating him that way.


given the methodologies they apply, one would hardly expect a different resultthen the onus is on you to be able to explain, in terms they understand, why your methodology is superior in this regard, given that it is based primarily on fallacious logic (Appeal to Authority) and circular logic (Believe to Believe). If there is no evidence you can provide then there is little chance of you being taken seriously by people who require evidence for significant matters.

A physicist can provide rational evidence to support his facts... whether you understand that evidence or not is not an issue - the evidence exists (hence fact and not mere theory / hypothesis).

You, however, state that one must apply the right methodology even to see the evidence.

And your methodology is, from what I have garnered, little more than persuading yourself to believe.
Once you achieve this, lo and behold you believe.
And once believing, you see evidence of God.


or alternatively, the right methodologyYes - much like telling a man with paralyzed legs that the right methodology is to run.


its more like a man who refuses to open his eyesBe that as it may, the onus is on you if you want them to take you seriously.

Fahrenheit

Is there some particular god you don’t find delusional?
”
I dont find any gods delusional, they have to exist to be able, to be delusional.
so there's a hint how specific your argument is
:rolleyes:
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well?
”
Well what!
why whine about specific gods?
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and that’s a great cultural contribution?
”
Thanks.
Yes it does have a similarity to god/gods doesn't it.
“

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I mean, what sort of long standing social ideologies do you attribute to them?
”
The exact same ones that are attributed to god/gods. Why! isn't it obvious.
er - no
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
What prominent current apparatus of society/culture lies indebted to mermaids?
”
All the navy's of the world.
are you serious?
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
care to indicate any moral that developed in a social vacuum?
”
Humans could not live without others, so it's a bit of a moot question, however if you mean what inate morals humans have, then the golden rule applies, "do to other, that which you would like done to you" after all social animals need to be accepted by the herd for survival sake.

if that was the case there would be no observations of conflict within the "herd"
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
to say the least, just as well that the astronomer who discovered brown dwarfs thought differently (IOW many intelligent people don’t hesitate to imagine how they would set about to discover something before they actually do so)
”
More Red herring.
Thats not using your imagination that using you experiences and education to formulate a theory, they don't imagine if they mix red with blue it makes green, their experiences and education tell them that red and blue make purple.
well unlike colours, there was no experience of brown dwarfs
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sensible people with no imagination
”
Sensible people with intellect, sense and reason, that use their imagination as a tool, and not as a mind set to live by.
what's this crack pottery!
what sensible person would dare to invite delusion into their investigations?

I don't.
I merely say that I have not come across any.
I am an agnostic atheist.
quick men! to the bunkers of agnosticism once more!



So you think we should all follow Pascal's Wager?
The reward of not investigating is life continuing as it has done.
The reward of investigating is life continuing as it has done... but in the knowledge that there is a "God".
its all clear men! out of the bunkers and charge with atheism


Please highlight ANY quote that I have EVER said that theists are delusional.
You can't - because I don't.
retreat!
back to the bunkers!


No. Education is about applying the tools the person is willing to use, and educating him that way.
charge I say!



then the onus is on you to be able to explain, in terms they understand, why your methodology is superior in this regard, given that it is based primarily on fallacious logic (Appeal to Authority) and circular logic (Believe to Believe). If there is no evidence you can provide then there is little chance of you being taken seriously by people who require evidence for significant matters.
its all clear men!
charge!
:rolleyes:

Your attempt at humour is sad. Why not quote a bit of nonsense from the Bhagavad Gita as you usually do. I can promise you it is more entertaining.

I merely say that I have not come across any.You haven't ever been aware in any way you could describe, of an external deity, like the sort of doctrinal theism that's in the Bible or the Torah describes, angels and their counterparts, or spirits say?
I bet you all up you have been aware of something that isn't an external kind of "spirit'.

Fahrenheit
so there's a hint how specific your argument isSpecific enough to keep you replying.
er - noWell, I suppose it was a big ask, for you to see it. The invisible and the non existent are very much alike.
are you serious?Yes, about as serious as you are that god actually exist.
if that was the case there would be no observations of conflict within the "herd"When man first stood up, the herd was much smaller. Now we have to many herds, and they all want their own territory.
well unlike colours, there was no experience of brown dwarfsHence why they used the evidence available, to find them. their imagination wasn't really need.
what sensible person would dare to invite delusion into their investigations?Who's inviting delusion, they are merely using there imagination as the tool it is. Do you understand what delusion is.

You haven't ever been aware in any way you could describe, of an external deity, like the sort of doctrinal theism that's in the Bible or the Torah describes, angels and their counterparts, or spirits say?I have been aware of descriptions of such things (e.g. the Bible) but have never, in any way, come across or been aware of such a thing outside of those pages.


I bet you all up you have been aware of something that isn't an external kind of "spirit'.Are you sure your English is correct here?
Yes, I have been aware of something that is NOT an external kind of "spirit".
I am aware of my desk, for example. And of my computer. Do they count as something that "isn't an external kind of spirit"?

quick men!
...
charge!If this is your tactic to those arguments you have no answer for... :shrug:
Or do you only want discourse with those that agree with you?

Can I suggest that before you make claims of all atheists that you do so (a) with an understanding of what atheism is... and more importantly what it is not; and (b) that all atheists do in fact make those claims.

Yes - much like telling a man with paralyzed legs that the right methodology is to run.

Be that as it may, the onus is on you if you want them to take you seriously.

As much as I sympathize with the position of being the one without knowledge of God and therefore requesting others to provide the proofs,
really, there comes a time when one has to make an effort to give up the role of being a helpless I-don't-know-you-show-me-I-can't-do-it and start trying things out for oneself.
There comes a time when one has to take oneself seriously, if one wishes to make any progress. Which includes not waiting for others to seem good enough for one to take them seriously.

I am aware of my desk, for example.You mean, you can see, and presumably feel something you call a desk?
But how do you know it's "yours"? Or that it's the same desk (say I just ordered it to be a desk that looks just like the desk you think is "your desk", but it's really something else now)?

You also no doubt, believe that such a thing is completely impossible - given I have no real idea where you are, or who you are even.

You mean, you can see, and presumably feel something you call a desk?
But how do you know it's "yours"? Or that it's the same desk (say I just ordered it to be a desk that looks just like the desk you think is "your desk", but it's really something else now)?

You also no doubt, believe that such a thing is completely impossible - given I have no real idea where you are, or who you are even.I would say that what you suggest is rationally (far) less likely than the desk still being mine.
Hence I would not "believe" what you claim - unless you could provide evidence to rationally support your claim.

As for it being impossible... that is such an absolute term. I have a fair idea that it is extremely unlikely... but absolute zero probability?

As much as I sympathize with the position of being the one without knowledge of God and therefore requesting others to provide the proofs, really, there comes a time when one has to make an effort to give up the role of being a helpless I-don't-know-you-show-me-I-can't-do-it and start trying things out for oneself.And then it becomes a matter of risk / reward - as do most pursuits.

I'm guessing you consider it unlikely that a cure for all disease and illness exists in an as yet undiscovered plant in Peru. But it might.
The reward is very good indeed - so why don't you go and look for it?

So what is the risk, and what is the reward?
And what evidence do you provide to support these claims of risk / reward.
(And if one does not hold the Bible as evidence of God's existence, it will hardly be valid as evidence of the risks / rewards).


There comes a time when one has to take oneself seriously, if one wishes to make any progress. Which includes not waiting for others to seem good enough for one to take them seriously.I take myself very seriously... most of the time.
But you say "if one wishes to make any progress"... progress to what, exactly?

As for it being impossible... that is such an absolute term. I have a fair idea that it is extremely unlikely... but absolute zero probability?At least, you thought about it, then?

The thing is, or the point if you will, is that you seeing a desk and recognising it means you aren't a desk, and the desk isn't you. Presumably it isn't anyone or anything else.
So where does that leave the idea of an external being, or anything like the sort of things the Bible describes?
You might be able to gain some kind of insight into your perceptive abilities and your awareness of things in general by looking carefully and in great detail at a desk, but you don't have to, do you?

Fahrenheit

so there's a hint how specific your argument is ”
Specific enough to keep you replying.
yes, replying that since your argument is not specific, it’s not a requirement for a rebuttal

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
er - no ”
Well, I suppose it was a big ask, for you to see it. The invisible and the non existent are very much alike.
if you begin your day musing how, say, the legal system has its roots in mermaids, the value of your seeing in general is very questionable

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
are you serious? ”
Yes, about as serious as you are that god actually exist.
if you think that if it wasn’t for mermaids the nature of the entire world’s sea-faring military vessels would be vastly different, I suggest you terminate your friendship with the local permissive pharmacist.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if that was the case there would be no observations of conflict within the "herd" ”
When man first stood up, the herd was much smaller. Now we have to many herds, and they all want their own territory.
so your spiel about the golden rule being an innate moral bites the dust

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well unlike colours, there was no experience of brown dwarfs ”
Hence why they used the evidence available, to find them. their imagination wasn't really need.
duh
the evidence available said there was no evidence – hence it was kind of remarkable when it was “discovered”

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what sensible person would dare to invite delusion into their investigations? ”
Who's inviting delusion, they are merely using there imagination as the tool it is. Do you understand what delusion is.
Can you remember how you defined delusion and imagination several posts previous?

“
Sarkus

Ok, I’ll go back and just deal with points that are valid to the post and leave your vacillating atheism for some other rainy day


on what basis do you say there is no proof for god then? ”
I don't.
I merely say that I have not come across any.
so what have you done to come across it?
I mean I have also not come across any proof for the brain having two hemispheres.
But I know that is because I have never attended any sort of biological dissection, so I don’t give brain surgeons a hard time about it.
So what’s your excuse?

“
whats the reward of not investigating?
and how does that compare to the reward of investigating?
... I mean we are talking about investigating the cause of something that has catalyzed practically anything we hold as culturally valuable in life ”
So you think we should all follow Pascal's Wager?
yes and no
Pascal was wagering belief/acceptance.
I am wagering investigation
If one doesn’t make the grade for investigation, I guess one is just not very curious or something



The reward of not investigating is life continuing as it has done.
The reward of investigating is life continuing as it has done... but in the knowledge that there is a "God".
“ and your argument is one of repeatedly rolling out bold claims of theists being delusional and then retreating behind agnosticism when the artillery comes out ”
Please highlight ANY quote that I have EVER said that theists are delusional.
You can't - because I don't.
no need to look too far
you have just under-ridden the claims of god’s existence in the above paragraph by declaring that knowledge of god bears no consequences to life
“
well isn't that what the first part of education is all about? ”
No. Education is about applying the tools the person is willing to use, and educating him that way.
well I guess that’s why they have institutions or standards of practice.
I mean if you rock up to a medical school with a metal lathe, and insist that this is the only tool you are willing to use and that they qualify you as a doctor, they would probably suggest a career in boiler making or something (and that’s if they are kind)
“
given the methodologies they apply, one would hardly expect a different result ”
then the onus is on you to be able to explain, in terms they understand, why your methodology is superior in this regard, given that it is based primarily on fallacious logic (Appeal to Authority) and circular logic (Believe to Believe).
go back to the Op of this one or the one about the irrational methodology of atheists and clearly indicate how the suggestion of the methodology is based on fallacious logic and circular reasoning.
Actually, as mentioned in the other thread, it is circular reasoning to establish that all things can only be said to be known if they are empirically verified, since that statement alone cannot be empirically verified … so while you are at it you might try and explain how you have not just shot yourself in the foot.


If there is no evidence you can provide then there is little chance of you being taken seriously by people who require evidence for significant matters.
and if there is no chance of the favored methodology withstanding its own demands for evidence, serious problems ensue …


A physicist can provide rational evidence to support his facts... whether you understand that evidence or not is not an issue - the evidence exists (hence fact and not mere theory / hypothesis).
sure the evidence exists
but only those engaged in the sphere of application can approach it
everyone else deals with it on faith.


You, however, state that one must apply the right methodology even to see the evidence.
That’s the general standard for all spheres of knowledge.
At the very least, there are very good reasons why law courts call upon forensic scientists and not janitors to verify claims of evidence, even if the salary rate is six times more costly.



And your methodology is, from what I have garnered, little more than persuading yourself to believe.
Once you achieve this, lo and behold you believe.
And once believing, you see evidence of God.
I guess you kind of breezed over the “application” part
“
or alternatively, the right methodology ”
Yes - much like telling a man with paralyzed legs that the right methodology is to run.
if he wants to understand why he can’t join the SAS, it could be helpful
“
its more like a man who refuses to open his eyes ”
Be that as it may, the onus is on you if you want them to take you seriously.
when a person refuses to open their eyes, it kind of makes you wonder how serious they are

And then it becomes a matter of risk / reward - as do most pursuits.

Sure.



So what is the risk, and what is the reward?

The risk is staying in samsara forever and possibly be very unhappy, the reward is to leave samsara forever, never to return and be truly happy.

It is up to you though how much these things mean to you, how much you want them, and how much you are willing to invest to get them.



And what evidence do you provide to support these claims of risk / reward.
(And if one does not hold the Bible as evidence of God's existence, it will hardly be valid as evidence of the risks / rewards).

Again, as I said above - it's up to you how you personally evaluate matters of suffering and happiness, of ignorance and absolute knowledge.

No matter what evidence or claims other people and scriptures may provide - all that evidence won't mean a thing to you unless you have some personal interest in it being true, and true for you.

And considering that you have been engaging in these discussions for at least a couple of years now, I conclude that you apparently have some personal interest in these things. But it seems this interest hasn't become clearly formulated in your mind yet. Perhaps it is happiness you are after, wealth, knowledge, or Absolute Truth, all of them?



I take myself very seriously... most of the time.
But you say "if one wishes to make any progress"... progress to what, exactly?

When you engage in these discussions here, you are engaging in some sort of mental or spiritual practice, right? And I presume you also read various books, articles, go to some lectures, etc.? This is part of a mental or spiritual practice, too.
What are your goals regarding this practice? Surely you don't think you already know or have everything ... So what is it that you hope to accomplish for yourself by engaging in these discussions, reading those books etc.?

So you think we should all follow Pascal's Wager?
The reward of not investigating is life continuing as it has done.
The reward of investigating is life continuing as it has done... but in the knowledge that there is a "God".

Can you please list your notions about
what it means to believe in God,
what it means to practice a religion,
and what truth is and how one arrives at it?
Important - Just brainstorm, don't try to rationally filter or organize the thoughts as they come up, just make a list, as long as you can.


I'd like to comment on the part of your post that I am quoting above, but for this, I need to know of those notions that you have.

Fahrenheit
yes, replying that since your argument is not specific, it’s not a requirement for a rebuttalThen why are your replying?

if you begin your day musing how, say, the legal system has its roots in mermaids, the value of your seeing in general is very questionableWell it would, if I did, but I'm not gullible enough to believe in mythical creatures, for that I would need to be religious.

if you think that if it wasn’t for mermaids the nature of the entire world’s sea-faring military vessels would be vastly different,I don't, but ancient goat herders did. The very same type of people that think god/gods exist.

so your spiel about the golden rule being an innate moral bites the dustHow so explain?
duh
the evidence available said there was no evidence – hence it was kind of remarkable when it was “discovered”Did it, Well would you mind supplying a source/links thank you?
Can you remember how you defined delusion and imagination several posts previous?No could you show me? thank you.
I do however remember you defining imagination as delusion, well at least implying it, this is what I said "if you wish to call the Imagination, Delusion thats your prerogative."
Notice I'm suggesting it from you implication.

Can you please list your notions about
what it means to believe in God,
what it means to practice a religion,
and what truth is and how one arrives at it?
Important - Just brainstorm, don't try to rationally filter or organize the thoughts as they come up, just make a list, as long as you can.I would like to provide you with the vast swathes you seek - but there really is not the time, and I personally do not think this thread is the right place.

The first is the most difficult. Perhaps if you could define what you mean by God, that would help? Some "Gods" are plausible - but ultimately irrelevant (cause of causes etc); belief in some (those that can directly influence our universe and defy the laws) are irrational etc. And those for which we claim to know attributes such as "good", "benevolent" etc... also irrational to believe in.
The second is generally beneficial to those that need it (support, community, structure, direction etc) - although brainwashing would probably come into it somewhere, as you go down the scale from a "healthy" involvement to fanatic etc.
And truth is the objective reality that we can only interpret through our senses - and must take into account all the ways our senses can be fooled, and arrive at methdologies to minimise that as much as possible before considering something as "truth".

As said - really don't have too much time to go through the whole process you requested.

Feel free to pm me if you want more.

For the sake of trimming down text in the discussion I have been using the phrase 'adequate resources' to equate to 'adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity'... which have very different meanings. In the case of LA violence did both the US and LA have adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity? I have responded to this. I have stated that the instigators of violence had enough. I see no reason to believe that when others have enough these first, often greedy and power hungry people, will now somehow be satisfied. Their satisfaction is not created by some of the citizens in the other countries lack or have. You could at least state why you think the rich will stop wanting to have enormous surpluses when they see others have something. Oh, those Latin Americans now have adequate infrastructure and resources, let's leave them alone. As far as I can see keeping up with and staying ahead of the Jones' is one of the factors here. I also don't see how others having more than before makes the grabbers less greedy and prone to violence. Further the ability of people to feel they are missing something seems endless and a rather creative ability.


There was a psychology study done in the 90's (sorry I don't remember the exact name of it) where various group of people were put through game simulations for acquiring money. Any player had the ability to donate their money towards hurting the cash flow of other players. Initially one of the players was artificially given far more money than the rest and the other players would then gang up on him and try to hurt him. They even had scenarious where the majority of the players were artifically given extra cash and the minority would try and gang up on them. In all cases, the folks who had the piles of cash didn't feel safe and would start hurting the other players cash flow really bad. In the case where there were multiple high-end cash owners, they would gang up on the low-end cash folks. While the simulation didn't cover the concept of fuel or opportunity, it did show what happens when people perceive inadequate resources and protection. Sounds like I shouldn't use that study to back up my ideas. Not that it contradicts them.




Did the rich people feel they had adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity? I am willing to bet something was missing. Sure, in many cases it was the potential for 'lost profits'. In other words they saw how much money they 'could' make and considered this psychologically and morally already made money. Then anything that got in the way needed to be removed.


Even if everyone had the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity? If the answer is 'yes', then what is the objective motivation? Greed, power, an inability to distinguish adequate from oversurplus, an inability to understand their own real needs, perhaps, and assuming that more money then they have now will satisfy these needs - that might be addressed by actually sitting down with their kids and being honest for example or whatever. I do not think these people are especially self-aware.


I've seen the top of alit of Silicon Valley power structures and violence has never been the phrase I would use to describe those in power. Maybe your argument was aimed at resources only vs the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity? They generally vote to have government allocate funds toward violence. I am not saying they are dangerous to sit next to at a party.


I understand your observations and I would have to ask the question if all parties involved in the violent conflicts felt they had the full compliment of adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity? 1) I hope I am wrong but no I do not think this would end conflict. 2) I also think that destabilization and keeping a lack of balance is a trademark quality of many of these people so I also believe we are talking about a very hypothetical future state. 3) I see a restlessness and conceptual violence - that via outsourcing leads to real, physical violence (often far away) - and I do not see this disappearing soon.

Let's take a look at the 20th century. Albeit less modern than the 21 first, but a century with more technology, more ability to distribute resources and pull resources from the environment than any century before that. Nevertheless an unbelievable century of violence.

I feel like what you are putting forth as a hypothesis has some merit. Or to put that more exactly, I think it should make a huge difference if everyone has adequate resources. The human mind, as far as I can tell, comes up with ways of seeing what it has access to and ownership of as inadequate with great ease. I can see having a more optimistic position than mine. I cannot see however being remotely sure. History provides enough example of people with a lot being violent. That their violence would subsize when others have more does not seem logical to me. This opens the gate for more rationalizations that these others have too much, or took it from us, etc. I also think that tempermentally there is a propensity to be violent in many - who seem unfortunately able to rise to the top in a variety of government forms - that seems to me more an addiction and attraction to the dynamic of having enemies. I do not see this hinged to resources. It seems more like a lifestyle. They get happy when the violence breaks out. They are more at home in it. It is easy for them to manipulate 'the people' using arguments based on resources or race or the other side's propensity toward violence. I do not see this stopping when everyone has resources. In fact I see this lifestyle as being immune to such states of balance and also preventing them.

Now I will stop. In any case you helped me to be more conscious of what leads me to believe what I believe, so for that I am grateful. My suggestion for you would be to think about why you think the ones who have enough will stop being violent when other people also have enough and also what makes you so confident this future state of adequate resources for all is possible given how threatening this would be to the temperments of so many in power in the world today.

Cheers.

when a person refuses to open their eyes, it kind of makes you wonder how serious they are

There is the problem of how to be serious - what it means to be "serious", though.
It seems we have a kind of instinctive understanding of what "being serious" means - but what exactly is "being serious" comprised of? It is probably made up of certain attitudes and actions, no?

There is the problem of how to be serious - what it means to be "serious", though.
It seems we have a kind of instinctive understanding of what "being serious" means - but what exactly is "being serious" comprised of? It is probably made up of certain attitudes and actions, no?
well suppose I am serious about going to watch a movie - I would check out all the movie listings, maybe read a movie review or two, see who the main actors, see what times and locations are suitable for me, etc etc
.... or suppose I am serious about taking on a particular vocation - I would find out the prerequisite skills for performing it, find out where I can acquire those skills, lodge a few inquiries from people already in the field, etc etc

Basically to be serious means that one seriously apply oneself to application and investigation. Everyone is serious about something ... and as a side note, some things that one gets serious about can negate the possibility of being serious in another field ... or at least severe clashes of interest will arise.
For instance, if one is serious about performing in the Olympics while also having a serious interest in amphetamines, the result could be disastrous.
Similarly, if one is not serious about applying themselves to religious discipline, yet is serious about talking about how they know all about it or providing a social/athropological/cultural context for how theistic texts appear, it tends to indicate that their serious interests lie elsewhere (unfortunately there are numerous "serious" persons like this in academic fields related to religion)

Would it then be correct to say that in order to be serious about religious discipline, it is necessary that a person be able to have and clearly express their need (or overwhelming desire) for the results that the discipline promises?

If a person does not have an overwhelming need to be happy, wealthy, knowledgeable and to know the Absolute Truth, then they won't be (able to) be serious about religious discipline?

Would it then be correct to say that in order to be serious about religious discipline, it is necessary that a person be able to have and clearly express their need (or overwhelming desire) for the results that the discipline promises?

If a person does not have an overwhelming need to be happy, wealthy, knowledgeable and to know the Absolute Truth, then they won't be (able to) be serious about religious discipline?
Not necessarily,

A person's motivation for strict adherence to religious customs could be rooted elsewhere, i.e. social acceptance, politics, money, etc.

Observe secular politicians who attend worship on a regular basis, or clergymen who have been exposed/convicted for years of child molestation.

Not necessarily,

A person's motivation for strict adherence to religious customs could be rooted elsewhere, i.e. social acceptance, politics, money, etc.

In that case, the person adheres primarily to social acceptance, politics, money, etc., and the adherence to religious discipline is merely a means to that.

The issue raised by me earlier was about seriousness about religious discipline as such.

Would it then be correct to say that in order to be serious about religious discipline, it is necessary that a person be able to have and clearly express their need (or overwhelming desire) for the results that the discipline promises?

If a person does not have an overwhelming need to be happy, wealthy, knowledgeable and to know the Absolute Truth, then they won't be (able to) be serious about religious discipline?
Well, it seems like certain things come easy to certain people.

Would it then be correct to say that in order to be serious about religious discipline, it is necessary that a person be able to have and clearly express their need (or overwhelming desire) for the results that the discipline promises?

If a person does not have an overwhelming need to be happy, wealthy, knowledgeable and to know the Absolute Truth, then they won't be (able to) be serious about religious discipline?
sure
if you don't know what the ideal is, how can you move towards the ideal?
(of course you can argue that there is an advanced ideal to religion which is beyond mere happiness, wealth, curiosity and knowledge of the absolute, but these are fine starting points and certainly require a degree of piety to be pursued along side religiousity - for instance many people want to be rich, but many people do not wish to pursue that desire in accordance with religious ideals)