For all the ex-religious.

[Absinthe]

How IS it logical? Why do so? Why is excessive concern for the greater good a logical pursuit?

The point I'm trying to get at is that believing in the "Common Good" isn't too far on the logic scale from believing in "God".

You confuse the use of logic with some kind of warped nihilism. And your equivalence between practical, ethical considerations based on an understanding of the real world and your unfounded belief in magic is disingenuous.

I don't know about you, but my hopes, dreams, and ambitions are not built from a platform of hard logic. There is, however, a logical way to pursue these things. These "bleeding hearts", as you refer to them, believe in a greater good and work towards one because:

A) It is likely fulfilling for them.
B) There are tangible ways to work towards the benefit of the community with measurable results.

If I have children, it would be logical for me to want them to inherit a better world. If I have a respect for the earth and nature, it would be logical for me to want to see a reduction in carbon emissions continuing for the next century. If I'm offended by genocide, it would be logical for me to want measures in place to prevent or minimize it even long after I'm dead. You're equating the use of logic with being a robot. Logic is not the endgame here.

In fact, I think addressing this in terms of logic is a bit misleading. It is reasonable to strive for a greater good. Reasoned thinking is precisely what God belief lacks.

 

[Krynn72]

How IS it logical?

What? There are quantifiable benefits...

 

[Absinthe]

What's logical about being happy, eh?

Suck on that for a while.

 

[CptStern]

I'm simply questioning the origins of your bleeding-heart/atheist brand of philosophy

I can only speak for myself but I think most "liberal bleeding hearts" philosophy stems from the desire to better your own surroundings and make the world a better place. it's pretty much the same as the motives behind religious based altruism but without the underlying selfishness inherent on a reward based religion (you can argue that charitable works bring you closer to god but the promise of salvation has to fit in there somewhere). additionally the flip side of the reward is fundamentally the same; it's self serving the ego

I'm more or less implying that there's as much of a logical reason to have a bleeding-heart morality as there is for someone to believe in a God.

not at all. the logical reason is to make your surroundings/society a better place as well as making the person feel better about themselves. there is no logical reason to believe in god

It was proposed earlier that there is no logical reason to believe in a God, and that atheists in general tend to put logic before anything else. So please explain to me the hard logic behind a bleeding-heart morality.

see above. really it's not that difficult to discern. I mean why else would atheists do charitable works besides to practice their moral views in a self serving way. for example I've given money/items to the salvation army even though I dont follow their religion however it makes me feel better that in some way I'm doing something to help out. I dont see why god has to fit into it at all; morality is not exclusive to religion

 

[Noodle]

A) It is likely fulfilling for them.
B) There are tangible ways to work towards the benefit of the community with measurable results.

If I'm offended by genocide, it would be logical for me to want measures in place to prevent or minimize it even long after I'm dead. You're equating the use of logic with being a robot. Logic is not the endgame here.

In fact, I think addressing this in terms of logic is a bit misleading. It is reasonable to strive for a greater good. Reasoned thinking is precisely what God belief lacks.

It being fulfilling is true, and seeking that sort of fulfillment is logical, but I fail to see how the actual act of being fulfilled by it is logical.

Basically, wanting to feel good is logical, but the actual state of what feels good and what doesn't isn't always so.

Stern's post

But why is it logical for you to feel better when you make the world a better place overall? It's logical up to the point that it directly benefits you and your gene pool, and even that is evolutionary programming.

Also, pretending that it lacks the inherent selfishness as religion is somewhat naive. You donate to the Salvation Army because you feel better for it. Voluntary charity is still ingrained with selfishness. You donate because you want to and you feel better than you would if you didn't. If donating the money didn't make you feel any better or improve your situation in life, it wouldn't be logical to donate.

As it is, you donate because you want to and you feel better for it. You might feel better helping others, but then you are still helping others because it makes you feel better.


Basically, the whole thing is ultimately based off of what feels right, not what you reasoned to be right. You reasoned what makes you feel better, not what you feel.

And believing in God makes me feel better, so it's logical that I believe in God. Self-interest is logical.

 

[CptStern]

But why is it logical for you to feel better when you make the world a better place overall? It's logical up to the point that it directly benefits you and your gene pool, and even that is evolutionary programming.

you answered your own question; it's logical to make the world you live in a better palce because ...you live in it

Also, pretending that it lacks the inherent selfishness as religion is somewhat naive.

I clearly didnt say that. in fact I said pretty much waht you said in the next sentence. the DIFFERENCE in terms of "inherent selfishness" is that a religious person may have the afterlife or a religious reward as an added reason, an atheist doesnt therefore their reasoning for doing charitable works is on average more genuine than that of a religious person. now there are certainly religious people who do it for the same reasons as non religious reason but that would be difficult to assess

Basically, the whole thing is ultimately based off of what feels right, not what you reasoned to be right. You reasoned what makes you feel better, not what you feel.

that's one hell of an assumption to make and it's an empty one at that. there are a zillion charities; any one of them could make you feel "better" about yourself. but people still choose which charity to support and it's not like the criteria for choosing that over any number of charities is whether that particular one would make you feel better about yourself because they all do. no "what's right" defiantely plays a role in it for non religious people. itr just strikes me odd that's you're putting all these labels on people you have zero contact with and know little about. it's all based on assumptions. the incorrect ones I might add

And believing in God makes me feel better, so it's logical that I believe in God. Self-interest is logical.

sure but self-deception is not

 

[Absinthe]

Self-interest may be logical, but making up shit out of the blue is not. I'm sorry, but you can't reduce your stance to one bit component and draw an equivalence between your willful fantasy and that of real, practical beliefs and considerations that are based on an observable, material world.

We are not logical for the sake of it. Logic is a tool that we employ to ensure what we say and do makes sense and is consistent in its reasoning, ensuring accuracy and clarity where they apply.

I'm not really sure to what end you're making this point towards. Yes, it would be logical to donate for the sake of self-gratifying "selfishness". Yes, it would be logical to improve one's community for the sake of preserving one's gene pool and satisfying your evolutionary programming. To be honest, it all seems a bit beside the point since your main argument - that belief in a greater good (an abstraction) is the same as belief in an immeasurable god entity are fundamentally the same - holds no water.

ADDENDUM: This article sums up my argument a bit more eloquently, I think.

It is indeed normal for an atheist to believe in the existence of things like love, values, beauty, and so forth. Perhaps there are few who don't, but they are in a small enough minority that it's justifiable to ignore them here. Does the existence of such beliefs mean, though, that atheists believe in "unprovable" things? No, because love, beauty, and value are concepts rather than things: they are abstractions created by the human mind rather than independently existing parts of the universe or reality.

...The failure of the analogy to work in even a rudimentary sense isn't the only problem here — there is also the claim that concepts such as love, beauty, and value are not provable. What is this supposed to mean? Is it not provable that they exist at all? This is obviously false because a concept exists so long as one person says that they have a conception of it. They may conceive of the subject in an incoherent, contradictory, or illogical manner, but it's still a concept in their mind.

I believe the "Greater Good" falls in with the rest of those. We can argue all day about how logical it is to subscribe to altruism, love, liberalism, conservatism, et cetera. But belief in such concepts is a different beast altogether from claiming that an unprovable entity exists without evidence.

 

[Noodle]

Stern's post

Up to a point, yes. Only up to the point that it directly affects you. Many acts of charity have no explicit benefit to me aside from the way it makes me feel.

Also, religious charity that is purely for the purpose of being good off in the afterlife is still focused on making that person feel better in the current life, but they simply feel better because of their new found security about the afterlife.

That said, I think you're inaccurately describing the purpose of the religious charity. If you follow the Bible, Jesus didn't preach charity so it leads to salvation, he preached it as a moral good. He preached that charity in your current life something moral. It's general that being moral will help you in the afterlife, but the reward for it is because it is good in the current life.

Charity is seen by both sides as a moral good, only for religious people it was taught by Jesus instead of supposedly learned by reason. I could also argue that before Jesus nobody really reasoned for charity.

And the assumption I'm making is that the majority of people give charity because it feels right, not because they did logical equations in there head telling them it benefits them.

Charity is logical because it makes you feel better, I'm claiming that the origins of those feelings are often no more logical than the origins of belief in God.


Also, Absinthe, I'm not claiming the believing in God is coldly logical. I do see your point, though I believe God on the same level as I believe in love, happiness, etc. They're sort of the same thing to me.

 

[CptStern]

Up to a point, yes. Only up to the point that it directly affects you. Many acts of charity have no explicit benefit to me aside from the way it makes me feel.

ok so then why would you assume the same isnt true for atheists?

Also, religious charity that is purely for the purpose of being good off in the afterlife is still focused on making that person feel better in the current life, but they simply feel better because of their new found security about the afterlife.

sure but there's still that carrot leading the horse thingy which is NOT present in atheists

That said, I think you're inaccurately describing the purpose of the religious charity. If you follow the Bible,

as so many christians do when determining their official policies ..I'm being sarcastic here

Jesus didn't preach charity so it leads to salvation, he preached it as a moral good. He preached that charity in your current life something moral. It's general that being moral will help you in the afterlife, but the reward for it is because it is good in the current life.

sure but that was jesus, the son of god, god made flesh ...his followers are decidely less .....perfect.

Charity is seen by both sides as a moral good, only for religious people it was taught by Jesus instead of supposedly learned by reason.

which makes the atheist's reasoning much more genuine; they came up with that on their own the christian needed to be taught that and even then they were promised an extra reward

I could also argue that before Jesus nobody really reasoned for charity.

you could but you'd be wrong. there must have been charitable acts before jesus. to assume otherwise is ridiculous. the simple act of giving someone a hand up in anything is charitable

And the assumption I'm making is that the majority of people give charity because it feels right, not because they did logical equations in there head telling them it benefits them.

right, jesus commanded his flock to go out and do works of mercy and charity and listened because jesus commanded it. jesus also commanded christians to treat their brothers as they'd like to be treated but that could follow that command if their lives depended on it. it seems to me that your concept of christianity is abstract and outside of reality

Charity is logical because it makes you feel better, I'm claiming that the origins of those feelings are often no more logical than the origins of belief in God.

what? this is silly. that logic is measureable: you do a good deed and feel better afterwards. there is no quantifying belief in god because there's absolutely zero evidence to support his existance. it's a bad analogy Noodle

Also, Absinthe, I'm not claiming the believing in God is coldly logical..

there's no aspect of "belief" in god that is logical. believing in god is anti-logic. at best it's guessing at worst it's self-deception

 

[Eejit]

I could also argue that before Jesus nobody really reasoned for charity.

Wrong. Charity is a feature of buddhism, judaism and hinduism, all predating Jesus.

 

[Acepilotf14]

WOO RELIGION THREAD

 

[Escaep]

WOO RELIGION THREAD

Surprisingly it has managed to be a good, well thought out debate and not just mindless trolling.

 

[Tyguy]

I'm having a problem trying to follow this thread...

Noodle, you're saying charitable acts are done to benefit the giver with a sense of comfort for doing so but then claim this feeling is the result of catholic teaching? This is just circular logic...

I do good things to feel good
I feel good because I do good things

vs

I do good things to feel good and to please god
I feel good because I do good things and I pleased god

I just don't see how doing nice things can be interpreted as selfish on the basis that it makes us feel better.

 

[Noodle]

which makes the atheist's reasoning much more genuine; they came up with that on their own the christian needed to be taught that and even then they were promised an extra reward

(rest of Stern's post)

The inadequacy of modern christians within their religion, while widespread in cases, is not really the topic. If I'm the one that brought it up than I apologize. Again, I'm not saying a belief in God is purely logical, I'm saying that it's just as logical as the feelings and emotions we get from giving charity.



Eejit, if you follow Biblical canon, Jesus really just brought charity back into style. I worded that poorly originally, and you are correct.

A sense of charity beyond immediate personal benefits (the "let's pull together as a team to help all of us"), that is, a sense of charity being a moral good, has origins within religion (though not specifically Christianity). The origins of charity are religious, not the result of reasoned thinking. Teamwork and charity are different.

I'm having a problem trying to follow this thread...

Noodle, you're saying charitable acts are done to benefit the giver with a sense of comfort for doing so but then claim this feeling is the result of catholic teaching? This is just circular logic...

I do good things to feel good
I feel good because I do good things

vs

I do good things to feel good and to please god
I feel good because I do good things and I pleased god

I just don't see how doing nice things can be interpreted as selfish on the basis that it makes us feel better.

I'm not specifically talking about catholic teachings, Christianity is just the base religion I'm going from.

It's not circular logic if you realize charity is still motivated by self-interest. If making someone else feel good makes you feel good, then your reason for making them feel good is SO you can feel good. My question is that if this is not true, then whatever logic you ARE using when concerning charity (as opposed to teamwork; different concepts) is a altruistic as the logic (or lack thereof) behind God.
It's basically a choice between accepting you are run by hard logical self-interest or accepting that the altruistic logic (the "logic" atheists oppose) is truth.

It it made you feel bad emotionally, would you still give charity? If you say yes, you are being logical, and if you say no, I would like to know what logic you are using, if any.

 

[Krynn72]

That is a huge claim that charity originates from religion. I think its an incredibly far-fetched idea that there were not just as many cases in which charity has been given for non-religious reasons.

And of course, this is all ignoring the notion that religion was created by men who input their own morality into doctrine.

 

[CptStern]

The inadequacy of modern christians within their religion, while widespread in cases, is not really the topic. If I'm the one that brought it up than I apologize. Again, I'm not saying a belief in God is purely logical, I'm saying that it's just as logical as the feelings and emotions we get from giving charity.

and I'm not buying that because the effects of charitable acts is a measureable whereas belief in god is not measureable in any way; there's no obvious reward. it's just the promise of a reward. faith takes place of logic. it's not logical to have faith in something that's not only unproven but there's not even circumstantial evidence for. in this respect religion runs entirely on faith not logic.

 

[Noodle]

and I'm not buying that because the effects of charitable acts is a measureable whereas belief in god is not measureable in any way; there's no obvious reward. it's just the promise of a reward. faith takes place of logic. it's not logical to have faith in something that's not only unproven but there's not even circumstantial evidence for. in this respect religion runs entirely on faith not logic.

And I say charity beyond the point of quantifiable self-interest is, while still based on self-interest to the extent of one's feelings towards charity, is based on feelings that do not have a logical backing outside of outdated evolutionary instincts. While not explicitly based on faith, it's still an altruistic non-logic without a reason behind the feelings. It's as logical as me believing in God because I feel better and enjoy life more if I do.

Of course, this is all holding that rational self-interest is logical. For this debate I'm concerning rational self-interest within a gene pool, not just the individual.

 

[GreatEmperor]

I lol'd. The obvious trolling combined with the 'than' for a finisher. God damn this is some funny shit.

Scalding. But seriously folks, this is yet another errant goober trying to lord something over someone else with pitiable results. The basis of the entire argument is that this is religion, instead substitute grammar nazi here for the obligatory "You see, I'M a christian" smugness. Its entirely seperate from morality which we insert ourselves and ignore the Bronze Age morality already present.

Really its just a way for people to feel superior by ignoring physical pleasure and no-no regions, fairly neurotic in its obsessions

 

[Sheepo]

At first I was going to edit the grammatical errors out of your post as a joke, but upon trying I realized that it was so choppy and poorly formed that I genuinely did not know what you were trying to say much of the time.

 

[GreatEmperor]

Go for it, and put fixed under it, that would be awesome

 

[Mogi67]

Scalding. But seriously folks, this is yet another errant goober trying to lord something over someone else with pitiable results. The basis of the entire argument is that this is religion, instead substitute grammar nazi here for the obligatory "You see, I'M a christian" smugness. Its entirely seperate from morality which we insert ourselves and ignore the Bronze Age morality already present.

Really its just a way for people to feel superior by ignoring physical pleasure and no-no regions, fairly neurotic in its obsessions

Nice ad-hominem sir:thumbs:

 

[GreatEmperor]

Its not ad hominem, its an attempt to explain why religion is so popular, and before you say that is not the argument, its popularity is directly responsible for its acceptance and endurance. He offered a good comparison that I found very relevant. It also shows a part of its impact on society, putting so many sketchy people in a single stupid cause is bad for society

 

[Shift]

Scalding. But seriously folks, this is yet another errant goober trying to lord something over someone else with pitiable results. The basis of the entire argument is that this is religion, instead substitute grammar nazi here for the obligatory "You see, I'M a christian" smugness.

Really? Because that sounds SO familiar...

its popularity is directly responsible for its acceptance and endurance

Urr what?

And stop trying to formulate sentences intelligently because the end result doesn't make much sense.

 

[Sheepo]

Go for it, and put fixed under it, that would be awesome

Well I can't... that's what my post said.

 

[Tyguy]

And I say charity beyond the point of quantifiable self-interest is, while still based on self-interest to the extent of one's feelings towards charity, is based on feelings that do not have a logical backing outside of outdated evolutionary instincts.

You're playing with words. Essentially what your argument boils down to is there is no humanistic necessity to place concerns outside of oneself. Even if this were true, arguing that this deep seeded inner morality has anything to do with religion outside the bounds of self preservation is completely unfounded. Would you argue that Oskar Schindler did what he did strictly because of how it made him feel and/or it satisfied his religious teaching? The former point is probably true but I don't think you can possibly argue this was his prime motivation. (I know, a bit on the extreme side of metaphors)

While not explicitly based on faith, it's still an altruistic non-logic without a reason behind the feelings. It's as logical as me believing in God because I feel better and enjoy life more if I do.

I'm sure different people have their own reasons for donating, and sure, some people do it purely for self-assurance. I'd like to think that many non-religious folks like to donate because they can imagine themselves in the other person's shoes.

 

[CptStern]

And I say charity beyond the point of quantifiable self-interest is, while still based on self-interest to the extent of one's feelings towards charity, is based on feelings that do not have a logical backing outside of outdated evolutionary instincts. .

this isnt true at all. by going to say a gay rights demostration you're suporting your community; it's not only about feeling better, there's real tangible measureable rewards. it makes sense to want to help your fellow man beyond reasons of altruism





not sure where to put this so I'll post it in this thread:

 

[Noodle]

You're playing with words. Essentially what your argument boils down to is there is no humanistic necessity to place concerns outside of oneself. Even if this were true, arguing that this deep seeded inner morality has anything to do with religion outside the bounds of self preservation is completely unfounded. Would you argue that Oskar Schindler did what he did strictly because of how it made him feel and/or it satisfied his religious teaching? The former point is probably true but I don't think you can possibly argue this was his prime motivation. (I know, a bit on the extreme side of metaphors)

Schindler (good example, actually) did what he did because he preferred it to the alternative. It's still motivated by oneself. My point is that if you do not admit that self-interest (be it immediate or in the grand scheme of things) is the driving force behind it, then you accept an altruistic non-logic no better than believing in God.

Personally, I believe that self-interest is logical, and charity is logical up to the point of having a tangible self-interest. Even if that self-interest is only in the way one feels.

One thing I hate about it though is that oftentimes charity is carried out solely to ease the guilt put upon an individual by others. The self-interest lies in the easing of guilt. You can force someone to be charitable but you can't force them to be sincere.


And Stern, it is logical up to the point of having tangible benefits for the individual. It's still self-interest, though.

 

[blackout]

I'm pissed off at the church and the pope as a Catholic ex-atheist, but I became Catholic for spiritual reasons, so while this does really anger me, I'm never gonna leave my faith.

Pax Christi.

 

[Sheepo]

I hope by faith, you mean faith, and not, as most people mean it, church.

 

[lord_raken]

this isnt true at all. by going to say a gay rights demostration you're suporting your community; it's not only about feeling better, there's real tangible measureable rewards. it makes sense to want to help your fellow man beyond reasons of altruism





not sure where to put this so I'll post it in this thread:

Might want to do some research on those mythological gods. Horus was actually conceived by a gold penis that Isis made to replace Osiris' lost one. (lol) in Another story Isis was impregnated by a "divine fire" but she was Osiris' wife.... there is NO WAY IN HELL she was a virgin.

Also. December 25th was a European pagan holiday and the church placed the birth of Jesus then because the holiday was involved something similar to the birth of a savior. Jesus was actually most likely born sometime in the late spring or early summer.


I categorically distrust amusing pictures that have bits of unsupported information attached to them and is presented as evidence.

 

[GreatEmperor]

Urr what?

Well, what i was saying was ......

And stop trying to formulate sentences intelligently because the end result doesn't make much sense.

Oh, there it is, why don't you try reading what I wrote a couple more times before, you know, talking at me. No sense looking like more of a shit eater than you already are.

But the point is it entices many people on various levels, which is why it is so quickly defended by people who do not have the specific urge to cause violence on its behalf. Its history with Western civilization has made it into a part of our heritage and frequently, a national priority. It is often confused not only with morality but patriotism and even democracy. This makes it a hard hypodermic needle in the sandbox to ignore or even play around, it definitely stymies intellectual pursuits not just because people waste good brainpower trying to justify and debating this load

 

[TheDude]

To interject in this conversation with a hot load of logic:
I used to be a bleeding heart catholic. I didn't understand the world. Then I realized I was a selfish prick.
I believed in the afterlife. I believed that if I prayed enough and ate some ****ing cracker that I was going to inherit some sort of magical power. I was an uneducated slave, living for big brother (some ****ing Jesus) and finally I realized I was living a lie.
Have you ever been in a relationship where it was all about sex at first, and then it escalates into a tolerance for each other just for the sex? Eventually that relationship falls apart and you realize that you were in it for the self gratification and let yourself be dragged into something that was wasting your time and the time of anyone involved (usually 3 monkeys and a sparrow.)
When I broke with my faith (which I now despise, as well as the faith of everyone on this planet cause it cuts your ****ing balls off and neuters your potential as a human being), it was hard to come to terms with the fact that the time we have on this earth is IT. There is nothing else, no matter how many prayers you say and no matter how many deities you pray to. If you want eternal life, you have to find it on this earth, either through science or go **** yourself. Its hard to grasp that everyone before you is REALLY DEAD, but its something you have to deal with if you want to move past your enslavement to big brother.
NOW THE REASON I ****ING HATE ANY PERSON THAT TRADES THIS LIFE FOR A FALSE HOPE:
Put this in your pipe and smoke it. This world is in peril. This is our only home. and you false prophets, you religious zealots, you filth, are trading our home for some false hope of an afterlife. You are waiting for the apocalypse, or the Jihad, or whatever the **** you are in it for, and you are ransoming this world for the next. That is unacceptable. If you try to destroy my home, my ecosystem, my life support, I will destroy you. This is my home, this is my land, and this is my only means of survival. We are a pale blue dot in a vast cosmic arena, fragile and vulnerable. And the fact that religious ****TARDS don't give two shits about this life pisses me off to no end. IF YOU BELIEVE IN AN AFTERLIFE AND ARE WILLING TO RANSOM THIS PLANET FOR THE AFTERLIFE, GO **** YOURSELF AND DIE YOU SELFISH PRICK.
/End 3-beer rant.

 

[Noodle]

But the point is it entices many people on various levels, which is why it is so quickly defended by people who do not have the specific urge to cause violence on its behalf. Its history with Western civilization has made it into a part of our heritage and frequently, a national priority. It is often confused not only with morality but patriotism and even democracy. This makes it a hard hypodermic needle in the sandbox to ignore or even play around, it definitely stymies intellectual pursuits not just because people waste good brainpower trying to justify and debating this load

Irrelevant remark is irrelevant.

I'm going to take a guess that you basically came here to accuse me (and whoever else happens to believe in a god for whatever reason) of being blind sheep following society. Aside from whatever disagreements we may have regarding that, this discussion has been about comparing the rationality of God compared to that of a bleeding-heart morality, with a side-discussion on the extent to which rational self-interest motivates both. I haven't at all been repeating any sort of typical jargon you seem to think I am.

The irony here is that you seem to be repeating the same anti-religious (I'm using that phrase as a category, not a slur) jargon implying that everything related to religion is inherently bad. Your lack of individual thought is what "stymies intellectual pursuits".

Also, you have worn out your time that deserves intelligent responses. Please read the thread and respond relevantly.


TheDude, I'm going to assume your level of intoxication is what is keeping you from thinking with your brain instead of your heart (or wherever your feelings are kept).



Edit: It seems like the majority of ex-religious people here were raised Catholic, I don't seem as many ex-Protestants, and Protestantism was created for rational reasons not entirely faith-based.

 

[TheDude]

Irrelevant remark is irrelevant.

I'm going to take a guess that you basically came here to accuse me (and whoever else happens to believe in a god for whatever reason) of being blind sheep following society. Aside from whatever disagreements we may have regarding that, this discussion has been about comparing the rationality of God compared to that of a bleeding-heart morality, with a side-discussion on the extent to which rational self-interest motivates both. I haven't at all been repeating any sort of typical jargon you seem to think I am.

The irony here is that you seem to be repeating the same anti-religious (I'm using that phrase as a category, not a slur) jargon implying that everything related to religion is inherently bad. Your lack of individual thought is what "stymies intellectual pursuits".

Also, you have worn out your time that deserves intelligent responses. Please read the thread and respond relevantly.


TheDude, I'm going to assume your level of intoxication is what is keeping you from thinking with your brain instead of your heart (or wherever your feelings are kept).



Edit: It seems like the majority of ex-religious people here were raised Catholic, I don't seem as many ex-Protestants, and Protestantism was created for rational reasons not entirely faith-based.

No I'm quite sober in fact. And the fact that you stand up for an idea with no basis makes me think that you are the one who's intoxicated. No offense, but to believe in something that has no proof is moronic and neutering to your potential. I truly pity that your mind is so imprisoned by your beliefs.

 

[TheDude]

Noodle I once believed as you do, strong in my conviction that I was an immortal being if I believed in some false deity. Billions of people before me made the same mistake. If you could just get past your preconceived notions about the afterlife and faced reality in all its magnificence, you'd unlock your potential. But I suppose that you would rather follow your false deity who promises you EVERY EARTHLY PLEASURE IN PARADISE rather than follow your desires and passions. i understand your path. But it is a false path and it is complete and utter bullshit.

 

[GreatEmperor]

Irrelevant remark is irrelevant.

If it wasnt so acceptable, it would be a mental illness, youre deceiving yourself is not only not frowned upon, it is encouraged. I understand the reason for having these delusions, I just think creating a standardized system of it can lead to dangerous events, but detaching this crap from our government and scientific institutions is absolutely essential, and not just because we live with many such belief systems cohesively

I'm going to take a guess that you basically came here to accuse me (and whoever else happens to believe in a god for whatever reason) of being blind sheep following society. Aside from whatever disagreements we may have regarding that, this discussion has been about comparing the rationality of God compared to that of a bleeding-heart morality, with a side-discussion on the extent to which rational self-interest motivates both. I haven't at all been repeating any sort of typical jargon you seem to think I am.

The thread is about religion, with anger about its validity your ongoing sideshow is just a part of it. I came in I offered my opinion, and it was challenged, so I clarified. Your argument is very much stepping into the bounds of religion is a social need. But so far it is stuck really on atheists do good deeds for the good feeling and that is somehow similiar to religion. It isnt, religion offers rules and rewards that are not always or even mostly keeping with the well being of others. Me screwing my partner out of wedlock is not immoral if it is not harmful, that is an important part of modern morality, religion says otherwise, that causes problems that dont need to be there

The irony here is that you seem to be repeating the same anti-religious (I'm using that phrase as a category, not a slur) jargon implying that everything related to religion is inherently bad. Your lack of individual thought is what "stymies intellectual pursuits".

Calling someone a jargon spewer is a slur, read up on manners. And lack of freedom in intellectual pursuits is slowing them down, not to mention imposition of stupid emotional rulings like dont use parts of dead fetuses. This does not lead to more being killed if a law that says they must be offered is also presented

Also, you have worn out your time that deserves intelligent responses. Please read the thread and respond relevantly.

I barely talked to you, with good reason, you are a self-righteous buffoon

TheDude, I'm going to assume your level of intoxication is what is keeping you from thinking with your brain instead of your heart (or wherever your feelings are kept).

More smugness illustrating my previous point, you almost jump at the bit to compare his thinking to genitalia. And thinking with your heart is what you are doing, putting a self-aggrandizing belief above logic

Edit: It seems like the majority of ex-religious people here were raised Catholic, I don't seem as many ex-Protestants, and Protestantism was created for rational reasons not entirely faith-based.

It was created because because an overly bloated hierarchy was profiting too much off it. It does not make it rational as the beliefs were kept, no more rational than the schizm between Eastern Catholic Church and Roman, people realizing its crap can be in any denomination and is what happens

 

[Noodle]

If it wasnt so acceptable, it would be a mental illness, youre deceiving yourself is not only not frowned upon, it is encouraged. I understand the reason for having these delusions, I just think creating a standardized system of it can lead to dangerous events, but detaching this crap from our government and scientific institutions is absolutely essential, and not just because we live with many such belief systems cohesively

Again, how the hell is this relevant? I'm glad you have your opinion, but it's not one I was arguing.

The argument is about religion, with a bit of anger about its validity your ongoing sideshow is just a part of it. I offered my opinion, and it was challenged, so I clarified. Your argument is very much stepping into the bounds of religion is a social need. But so far it is stuck on atheists do good deeds for the good feeling and that is somehow similiar to religion. It isnt, religion offers rules and rewards that are not always or even mostly keeping with the well being of others. Me screwing my partner out of wedlock is not immoral if it is not harmful, that is an important part of modern morality, religion says otherwise, that causes problems that dont need to be there

This argument is not about the validity of religion. Read the damn posts before you respond to them, because it is completely beyond me how you got that out of it. Especially the part about social need wtf?

Calling someone a jargon spewer is a slur, read up on manners. And lack of freedom in intellectual pursuits is slowing them down, not to mention imposition of stupid emotional rulings like dont use parts of dead fetuses. This does not lead to more being killed if a law that says they must be offered is also presented

... what the hell are you talking about?

More smugness illustrating my previous point, you almost jump at the bit to compare his thinking to genitalia. And thinking with your heart is what you are doing, putting a self-aggrandizing belief above logic

...genitalia? What... he ended his post with "/3-beer rant" and I took it literally.

It was created because because an overly bloated hierarchy was profiting too much off it.

...which is logical.

Noodle I once believed as you do, strong in my conviction that I was an immortal being if I believed in some false deity. Billions of people before me made the same mistake. If you could just get past your preconceived notions about the afterlife and faced reality in all its magnificence, you'd unlock your potential. But I suppose that you would rather follow your false deity who promises you EVERY EARTHLY PLEASURE IN PARADISE rather than follow your desires and passions. i understand your path. But it is a false path and it is complete and utter bullshit.

Here we go again with everyone assuming they directly know and understand my beliefs. You know nothing about my beliefs except that I believe in God. You do not know why, you do not know my reasons and views on it, you do not know my attitude towards other beliefs, you do not know what I believe about the afterlife, and you do not know what the hell I've been talking about on this thread. Please don't be so presumptuous.

 

[blackout]

I hope by faith, you mean faith, and not, as most people mean it, church.

yeah I mean faith, I'm bloody angry at the church, or at least the higher powers of the church, but like I said, I became Catholic because the spiritual beliefs (not the teachings and actions) of Catholicism Bring me closest to God.

 

[Shift]

Noodle I once believed as you do, strong in my conviction that I was an immortal being if I believed in some false deity. Billions of people before me made the same mistake. If you could just get past your preconceived notions about the afterlife and faced reality in all its magnificence, you'd unlock your potential. But I suppose that you would rather follow your false deity who promises you EVERY EARTHLY PLEASURE IN PARADISE rather than follow your desires and passions. i understand your path. But it is a false path and it is complete and utter bullshit.

My god you're an ignorant wanker..

Oh, there it is, why don't you try reading what I wrote a couple more times before, you know, talking at me. No sense looking like more of a shit eater than you already are.

Urm, I did read the posts, and they failed to make sense, hence why, you know, I said they didn't? And its general practice to talk TO someone, not at them. And why exactly am I shit eater? Not my fault you can't create intelligent posts even if your life depended on it.

 

[Viperidae]

But the point is it entices many people on various levels, which is why it is so quickly defended by people who do not have the specific urge to cause violence on its behalf. Its history with Western civilization has made it into a part of our heritage and frequently, a national priority. It is often confused not only with morality but patriotism and even democracy.

I know man, science is a pretty dangero--

Oh, you were talking about Christianity.

Horus was actually conceived by a gold penis that Isis made to replace Osiris' lost one.

Horus was the man. And what a man.