Of Course, NOTHING but a scam and a tool for control

Post Reply New Topic

aghogday, you've put into words what I always struggle to <-- this is just a mark of respect, it doesn't mean I now worship you

Right. The Republican and Democratic parties, the ILA and SIL, AMA and the North American Society of Homeopaths, etc. Jesus does not go so far as to say that organization kills - but the ones who tabulate the rules and principles and turn spirit - the meaning - inro the letter are in fact the same of the organizers.

I do not do well in oraganized anything. What it important is to realize that the belief system is not the organization, nor the rule book the organization tries to turn it into.

"religion is inherently based on faith, authoritarianism, and sacred cowism."

You are utterly wrong

"You don't need to adhere to a system of blind faith, authoritarianism, dogma, etc... etc... to be a decent human being"

Nobody said you did

Nobody even said you had to have a belief n a divine entity which is NOT "a system of blind faith, authoritarianism, dogma, "

I guess I was lucky. I met in my life hardly anybody outside of Linguistics or the Universityt PC establishment who was authoritatian, dogmatic, sacred cowist. All the identifiable theists I met were NON authoritarian, NON dogmatic and by no means honoring the sacred cow.

You seem to have met NOBODY who really believed.

Many of my ideas come from muscians that impressed me growing up. There was no google or internet, so one looked to Art for deeper meaning. I guess one could find it at the library but I never had the patience for that. Three groups that inspired me were Supertramp, Styx, and the Police, although there were many more.

The Lord of the Rings by Styx with words to the effect of it didn't matter whether or not one believed in the lord of the Rings the importance was the belief itself.

The Grand Illusion by Styx with words basically that stated be part of the American Illusion go out and by yourself a brand new motor car, and Miss America and how women were branded as objects in our culture.

Super Tramp the logical song stating they taught me to be so logical, so clinical, sometimes I lie awake and wonder who the hell I am.

The Police/Sting: a Rock Album called Synchronicity; I doubt that could happen today.

The music was intense and the lyrics were equally as intense; the originality and deeper meanings were awesome to me.

I guess in a way in those days music was my religion, as far as a source to discern both belief and gain inspiration in life. I would imagine it plays the same part in many peoples lives, however the inspiration and potential wisdom gained, is dependent on the time one is born into and what is accepted as art. The 70's after Vietnam was a hopeful, thoughtful place to be, and it showed in the Music of the times. Earth, Wind, and Fire produced the kind of optimistic energy in their music that could soar a young spirit; listening to the lyrics, wasn't even necessary.

Lady Gaga's music seems to say it all about present day culture, a kaleidoscope of constant, unpredictable change, mixed with increasing levels of instant gratification. Madonna started it in the eighties along with the changes that would come in the coming decades; I don't think it can go much further than Lady Gaga. As a reflection of culture, it makes me wonder the same about humanity.

Culture now has a mind of it's own and it's moving in a global direction. I'm not sure if Lady Gaga was cut out for a culture of that size or complexity, or anyone else in general, but it's a human experiment that continues. I think we need another Earth, Wind, and Fire to help us along, but pop music, it seems, can only reflect what there is to reflect.

When humans lose that belief that Styx was talking about, I don't care where it comes from, life is not quite the same. I like to think that people still find inspiration somewhere beyond the base elements of human existence. I don't think that 24-7 porn could have ever matched the feelings of inspiration I had in those days, although as a young male it would have probably occupied a great deal of my time.

A thousand years from now, if there is no longer a human race, whatever is left of the digital record for music, may be a better indication of the evolution of the heart and soul of the human race than any other measure.

If all that is left is a vast record of holographic porn, at least, if what ever evolves next sees it, they will understand why there were so many of us.

The human cultural experiment continues...

If you had not inserted that last sentence, I would put this in the NSB or PBS category.

But you did, so I will try:

Your last sentence neatly defines faith. Not the "faith" that inexperienced atheists and some theists of immature understanding talk about - but the faith the Old and New Testaments are talking about.

Which has nothing to do with loyalty or obstinacy.

"Help my unbelief":I will save for another occasion.

Buddhism emphasizes direct experience, not taking anyone else's second or third hand opinion of it. Buddhism warns of the dangers of words or concepts, because too many people confuse the map for the territory, the symbol for the reality.

Do you accept this claim as valid because of an abundance of repeatably consistent and measurable evidence, or do you accept it as valid on faith alone?

I am so glad for you. That is clear proof of your point.

Just as the success of the Pet Rock proved that the originator's belief was solidly based.

Your next slogan could be, "Atheism Collects More Likes / And Sells More T-Shirts"

So the point I seem to have missed, looking over this corpus is this:

In three movements:

Religion is dangerous bunk

If a person who CLAIMS religion or is PERCEIVED to be religious does something evil -if you are afraid using the word evil will corrupt you, feel free to substitute "deserving condemnation" that action is BECAUSE of his dangerous religion.

If a person who claims religion does something good, OR if an atheist does something evil, that has NOTHING to do with religion.

---------------------

That kind of reasoning would work, I fear in a lot of departments at the U. I would ask you to examine your logic and rethink.

Direct personal experience, such that cannot adequately be communicated by language but only hinted at. Zen has often been described as being like a finger pointing at the moon. The sad thing about such teachings is that instead of following where the finger points, some people end up sucking the finger for comfort.

If the new controversial theories of Quantum Mechanics are correct that objective reality cannot be consistently measured because it is influenced by the observer, and reality is only that which can be observed and consistently measured, what constitutes that which is real is in the eye of the beholder. If that is the case what we have had so far is blind faith that the Universe we observe is the same one as the Universe that others observe.

Current research in cognitive science suggests that we process reality to suit our own experiences, so it's not likely that any perception of what we know as what is real, is the same for anyone else, or the same for ourselves on a moment to moment basis.

Observation and consistent measurement, is the best we have to objectively understand our reality, but according to the current knowledge in science it doesn't necessarily equal "objective reality".

The same technology used to fly people to the moon can also be used to fly a nuclear warhead halfway across the globe in under an hour. Your belief that science can provide the basis for a perfect moral code has no evidence to support it. Think about all the scientific advancements we have made trying to make our lives easier, and then think of all the advancements made trying to find easier ways to kill people. The reality is that human values have always dictated scientific research, not the other way around. Most scientific studies are done with some sort of underlying goal in mind, and rarely that goal is to satisfy simple human curiosity. Science is neither good nor evil, it is simply a means to an end. It can be used to show us the outcomes of certain human actions, but whether or not we consider those outcomes good or bad is entirely up to us.

According to research done by Gallup religion serves a as a greater emotional boost for those in the poorest countries as opposed to developed countries.

The United States has one of the highest rates of Religious oriented individuals in the developed world.

Many people in the US as opposed to other developed countries rely on religious community rather than the community at large for social networks.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116449/religion-provides-emotional-boost-world-poor.aspx

I accept the claims because I bothered to take the path of direct experience, and verify the truth of the teachings for myself. I totally get why some people don't.

I think the heart of Christianity is basically the same thing, but has possibly been subject to more tooling about with and corruption and misunderstanding.

Last edited by Moog on 27 Jul 2011, 6:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Science = good (happy face) Religion = bad (frowny face) = fallacy

I bears noting that science is based on faith. If we define faith as belief without proof, then almost all of modern science is founded on faith. Most of the foundations of modern scientific inquiry are theories that are only valid to the extent that we have faith in their accuracy and that they have not been disproved by counterexample.

No one can prove the Atomic Theory by direct observation. We can only continue to apply the model and refine it to ensure that it continues to accomodate our real-world observations. But at the end of the day, it is still just an assumption about how the universe works.

As for the fatuous claim about where people get flown, let's take a step back. If we are going to damn Religion for the actions of the 9/11 hijackers, then we must hold Science to account for Josef Mengele, Shiro Ishii, John Cutler and numerous other examples of abuses undertaken under the cloak of scientific experimentation. Science has been obliged to devise standards of ethical conduct in human experimentation in order to address the misconduct of scientists. On the other hand, religion already provides those ethical standards, ready made.

But no codex of ethical rules is going to get around the basic principle that criminal behaviour coexists in all human communities--including religious communities and scientific communities.