Yes, everyone should be able to share a country with only the people they choose; no minimum number. Brilliant argument. I would not call treating a ridiculous argument as such, to qualify as, "snarkiness." Please be so kind as to quote, for my edification, the passages in which I was being snarky. It does, however, beg the question, if you take this as a sign that one does not, "desire a true, intellectual conversation," what you had in mind by calling my words, in your prior quote (above), "...a waste of breath?" If that was not snark, I'm going to have to further trouble you, to explain to me what constitutes a snarky remark. No, you are blatantly incorrect. I could fill the rest of this page with examples, to update your long-outdated opinion. But you'd be more likely to believe a different source. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...y a review,engage in rational decision-making. Summary: Previous studies have shown that animals can remember specific events, use tools and solve problems. ... But bolstered by a review of previously published research, Buckner concludes that a wide variety of animals -- elephants, chimpanzees, ravens and lions, among others -- engage in rational decision-making.Nov 1, 2017 This is a sweeping statement, that deserves copious supporting documentation (especially as I was required to prove such common knowledge as that animals can reason-- you ever hear of dolphins, or Orcas, a.k.a. killer whales, chimpanzees, Bonobos, really all the great apes, etc., etc., etc.?) I will not deny there is some truth to your remark, though I'd judge more so, in modern times (read: television). But to allege it to be a uniform practice, worldwide, calls for quite a bit beyond just your say-so. And just because Rome supplied bread & circuses, does not mean that this was their central strategy, for maintaining control. Note that they had a pretty intimidating military force, as well. Additionally, I would call that comment completely false, regarding the founding of modern democracy, in America (since little attention is paid to the Native American democracy of the Iroquois nations, which was an inspirer of aspects of our own republic). https://www.pbs.org/native-america/...quois-great-law-of-peace-shaped-us-democracy/ Though, as I implied, U.S. leaders ultimately came around to incorporate your gilded cage idea. This, however, does not prove your argument, that the anarchical alternative is preferable. I'm sure there are more than a few people living in lawless, war-torn, and anarchy-ridden countries (as in Central & South America, and Africa, just to mention a couple of continents) who would be quite overjoyed to come live in this gilded cage of ours. And yet it is so much better than places where even partial anarchy reigns!
Is the classic black vs white paradigm perspective - where there is nothing in between a Communist Socialism and Laissez faire Oligopolism .. its either "All Good .. or All Bad" The same "God vs Devil" - "Good vs Evil" paradigms we find in religions debate .. all good .. or all evil. Surely the generalized reciprocity (GR) found in many "Primitive" societies was not evil - religion can be said to be encouraging GR in some ways - discouraging in others which is kind of weird and a source of hypocrisy. but, to the question of the OP - since religion encourages generalized reciprocity - or at least I think we can say that Jesus encouraged GR - perhaps religion is not all bad .. and good for something . if for nothing else than encouraging GR in some ways.
I have asked this question several times now: WHAT IS RELIGION? DEFINE RELIGION? and of course the OP and everyone else obviously prefers to have a discussion without understanding first and foremost wth we are talking about?
Don't sell your positive generalization to me. I have 5,000 years of war history to shut you up. You are correct that some of the better left wing Christians sects gave reformed to the law of the land and do not preach discrimination without a just cause against women and gays. The right wing loonies have not yet reformed their satanic religion. Regards DL
You mean this? Argument from ignorance [mirror] - YouTube After watching the link, I hope you can recognize that the statement you think of as a negative statement is a positive one, and the truth. This ignores all of Trump's vile character traits or inference to the good or evil of his loss of the election. We are on the same page, other than my thinking that logic and reason say that the supernatural does not exist. If there is a supernatural god, it is not human enough for us to bother with. Given how vile the gods on offer are, genocidal and all, better to seek one good man to follow. Perhaps we can end our 5,000 years of war history. To do otherwise, as Einstein would say, is insanity. You do recall his saying, --- to do the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result, is insanity. Regards DL
A proof of concept for the supernatural moves the statistical markers of probability to the more of the same side. The proof of one supernatural realm automatically favors more of the same. Think Matrix and gods over gods. Do you deny that the right wings of the god religions are homophobic and misogynous? Do I really need to led you by the nose on this? Regards DL
??? For in group. Not out group. Think Inquisitions and Jihads and Holy Wars. Christianity is licking it's lips waiting for Armageddon and Jesus genociding our ass. Sick fascist minds Regards DL
Religions are groups who usually circle around some kind of god thing as expressed by the people of the group. The term (Tribe), is being used these days to denote the polarized political parties and so I think it can also apply to religious tribes, even as they die out. Atheist tribe/group, religious tribe/group, tribe is a convenient way to bypass all the other definitions that are not so all inclusive. Without analogical thinking, discussions bog down to stall or deflect to discussions on the meaning of words. Even you will not accept the atheist definition of a religion, even as atheist churches pop up. Your type of inflexibility of mind is a deterrent and not a help, as you did not offer a suggestion. Strange that all the time you have spent here has not taught you what a religion is. Try the dictionary buddy. Regards DL
Out of group as well - at least per the teachings of Jesus .. and you are confusing the nasty Son of God YHWH with Jesus.
The Armageddon Jesus is the standard Christian model. Trinity concept, stupid as it is, locks that Jesus to Yahweh. You separate the Terrible Genocidal Twins. Regards DL
Yeah - if one accepts man made dogma that is not in the Bible - I suppose it does lock Jesus to YHWH and you would be correct - except I do note buy the doctrine that Constantine gave his Universal Church .. prior to Usurping the position of "The Logos" emissary between man and God - in declaring "Pontifex Maximus" aka "The Awful Horror" "Abomination of Desolation" aka The unforgivable sin. "What the Bible Says" - is that YHWH is a Son of the Most High - one of El's many sons Jesus is different than YHWH - and the other Sons - as Jesus is born of Man -- hence there phrase "Son of Man" - the offspring of God and Woman - and even that is pushing it if we stick to the Gospel of Mark - where Jesus chosen by a Patron God ( Which patron God we are not told - Enlil (EL) and YHWH being the two candidates YHWH is the offspring of God - God.
I don't need to be led; you misunderstood my inference. Have you not been going on & on about how one CANNOT READ RELIGIOUS TEXTS LITERALLY, in order to deny that Gnostics believed in any of the supernatural phenomena, which is in their few extant texts? Have you not been maintaining that it was common knowledge, among, "the ancients," that all religious myths are meant to be read symbolically? If, then, you are using that explanation for your ability, 2000 years after the fact, to read Gnostic writings about a True God and an evil, false, lesser god (possibly a.k.a. Yaweh), the Demiurge, who created the world, to ACTUALLY mean that there is NO God whatsoever, then why would it not to be reasonable to assume that ALL THE STORIES IN THE BIBLE ALSO SHOULD BE READ SYMBOLICALLY & MAY BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY SAY, on their face? To not concede this, would be the height of hypocrisy, on your part. In the same spirit as your emboldened quote, above, I ask, do I need to draw you a picture? Ohhh, so you are saying only, "YOUR" ancients were intelligent enough to see words as meaning the opposite of what they say, but the Christian (including former Jewish, like your cited Rabbi Hillel) ancients, were dopes. And you know this, today, because you consider yourself as much one of the Gnostics as its founders & adherents in the 2nd & 3rd centuries, of the Common Era. And that doesn't seem both inconsistent, and an over-reach, on your part?
Did you not listen to your own link? Or just not understand it? First of all, let us keep clear, what we are talking about: You are, here, calling the basis for all proselytizing religions (that there is a God, and an afterlife) a false premise, to use the terms of your link. That recording states that there are 3 possible options for a false premise: 1) disproven 2) not yet disproven 3) logically impossible to disprove. Obviously, only in the first option, has the, "false premise," been actually shown, or proven, to be false. The case of religious claims, though, falls into the second category, "not yet disproven," assuming, of course, that they are, ultimately, false. Therefore I answered, or meant to answer, that-- since one cannot yet prove that God does not exist-- none can say for certain that proselytizers are lying (they are stating as true, something of which they have no way to certify as true, just as you have no way to verify it as false) and so it is those who state the absence of God as a proven (or even currently provable) fact, who are the true liars. Obviously, I switched the way I wished to phrase my comment-- from the claims being false, to the claimers being charlatans-- without going back to correct the beginning, but I think the general idea still comes through. You responded to my comment, by asserting: This is a false statement, or at best, a specious argument of semantics-- according to your own link, above, false premises can be, "disproven (the very awkwardly confusing way, your source means to say that things can be, and are, proven to be false)." Since you, however, are not talking about true or false premises, but positive and negative statements, it seems your link doesn't even accurately jibe. What I took to be your meaning, was that it was impossible to prove that God does NOT exist. This is plainly a fallacy, based on your own link (see explanation, above, of the 3 possibilities for a propositional premise that turns out to be false). So I tried to show your error, by equating your supposed, "logical fallacy," i.e., impossibility, of proving there is no God, with the analog, Trump is not president, anymore. You replied: All I can recognize is that you are mixing up terms & making semantic arguments to avoid facing truth-- hardly much of a recommendation for the superiority of Gnosticism over other religions. Your source does not say anything to support your argument that it is a logical fallacy to prove that something doesn't exist, or didn't happen, though it is usually more difficult to do so. To turn my example of Trump, which I patterned after your supposed argument about God-claims, to fit your source's paradigm, I would merely say, " Trump won the 2020 election." That is now a false premise, that can be proven false. The only reason it is not a, "negative," any longer, is because your own terminology does not match that of your source-- you can't have it both ways; though there is certainly precedent, w/in the ranks of religious hypocrites, for this sort of argumentative tactic. But, logically speaking, if it is not a, "logical fallacy," to show that Trump is not President, nor is it one to show that God does not exist. The existence of God is a propositional premise that may be either, "not yet disproven," (i.e., and a false premise), OR, "technically impossible to prove," for the present time (and a true premise). Hence, I have just proven my own, earlier premise, that you are behaving precisely as the proselytizers, you disparage, by promoting ideas as truth which, in reality, are not yet truly provable, except insofar as what seems logical in the mind of the person making the argument (i.e., the proselytizer).
Except I did not sell a positive generalization about people of faith. Its the difference between the use of the term 'they' which is a collective pronoun that replaces the collective noun that precedes and the use of the term 'many' which represents a subset of the collective.noun that precedes. I picked my pronoun use with much greater care than you did. I made darn sure it was real clear what the collective noun was, that was being replaced. I am glad to see we both agree that people of faith will have differing views on women and gay people and generalizations. Your 5,000 years of war history are not going to shut me up. That 'war history' is never as clear cut as you may think it is with respect to organized religion's actual role in promoting hostilities or being the 'cause' of war or promoting peace and ending wars. The patterns that I see, are probably a little different and definitely more nuanced. Its very hard to parce out the amount of blame for any war among the usual suspects, money, land, the ego of the King, internal politics, external international politics and religious beliefs, morality Its a very complex question.
In epilogue, I would note that it is not difficult to see your religion, as you represent it-- touted as being so superior to religions which are bigoted against women and hateful of homosexuals-- just from your postings, as following the same slide into prejudice, depersonalized stereotyping, demonization, persecution complex, self-aggrandizement, and judgemental Crusades against ANY and ALL on the religious, social, or political Right. Hitler was not a Christian. He mandated a return to traditional German, pagan traditions, and religions (as fertility cults). That reminds me, I should have included on the list, self-pitying/ messiah complex. Do you? Which one of us is on a different path than, "saving the world," with our religion (through the HATRED of others)?
There is an interesting thread to be begat by all this anti religious wrath and stereotyping by the author of the OP throughout the thread. What standard do we apply to find the true anti-theist bigot, who's irrational or unyielding aversion to, antipathy/hatred towards, and/or fear of theists and theism reaches a level of consistency and endurance that it is a safe label to apply? I have always demanded a pretty high standard with respect to applying 'racist', 'homophobe', 'misogynist', 'transphobe', 'anti Semite', or 'Islamophobe'. A few statements, a position or two is just not enough to reach into the mind and preclude other reasons for the expressed antitheist statements or position. You have to see an extended pattern. You have to see it broadly applied over issue after issue after issue and its basis has to be visceral, and deeper than a façade of intellectualism in which this crap is normally surrounded and camouflaged. There is a thread here, but I sure am not interested in writing the OP!
As I said already...what these ideas are pointing to is practically impossible to adequately describe. Now you are accusing me of 'playing this guessing game" because you have not understood something By the fact that you are constantly finding fault with this OP... you seem to be implying that you know a much better way to state it's ideas.... so go ahead...show me how it should be done. You can rewrite the OP in the proper manner to illustrate your conclusions.... or continue your pointless critical ranting.
Who said anything about purifying anything??? Please tell me what exactly it is that you think you are accomplishing by accusing me of your very own delusions?? I did not say "purifying" anywhere about anything. You accuse me of saying something that you yourself thought up... and then you proceed to argue against it. Heck...I don't really need to respond at all...you're actually just debating yourself.
Yes...exactly. I would never suggest "abolishing" religion...or even alcohol. My point about "religion" is simply that "religion" has missed the whole point completely. It is worthless. That IMO is the reason society continues to deteriorate....and the environment along with it....
The fact that something...anything has "mass-appeal" doesn't mean it is accomplishing anything... which is quite obvious in the present society of mass hysteria. If "religion" had got it right...humans would have stopped killing each other off long ago.
"Religion" is not God...nor is God "religion". "Religion" can be a distraction from God in that it can become nothing more than a ritual....and dogma. You do not need a "religion" to know God. You do not need a religion at all.
Thank you for reply... sounds like you correctly interpreted the OP and also found it "unpersuasive". That is the most I could have hoped for. People can find happiness and contentment lots of ways... perhaps people "think" that happiness and contentment is the goal in life. Yet how many ever reach that goal...other than temporarily.
