Religious Vacuum

Well Pilgrim (said in a John Wayne-like drawl)

If you spare the carpet, you spoil the Hoover Upright & Foursquare.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
I think you may have a critical misunderstanding about evolution. Think tonsils. Think appendix.

So, evolution has advanced to the point that part of your brain is unnecessary? Are you planning on having that part of yours removed lest it activate and cause you to believe in God?

Well, for starters I am not an atheist. I feel there are ways to nurture the desires caused by our 'religion center' without degenerating into a fantasy world.

Why would you nuture that which you believe evolution has superseded?

And speaking of fantasy worlds, didn't you just finish telling us that your philosophy IS patterned (and even named) after a fictional character? That you don't believe in a literal satan, but you practice satanism, correct?

0 Replies

Quote:

Why would you nuture(sic) that which you believe evolution has superseded?

I made no such assertion. I think the majority of people would have a very hard time getting through life without it.
But not everyone.
And then there are those of us that play with it purely as an indulgence.

Quote:

And speaking of fantasy worlds, didn't you just finish telling us that your philosophy IS patterned (and even named) after a fictional character?

Actually I explained that it is not.
Reading comprehension much?

Quote:

That you don't believe in a literal satan, but you practice satanism, correct?

That is partly correct;But I don't need to practice Smile

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Why would you nuture(sic) that which you believe evolution has superseded?

I made no such assertion. I think the majority of people would have a very hard time getting through life without it.
But not everyone.
And then there are those of us that play with it purely as an indulgence.

Quote:

And speaking of fantasy worlds, didn't you just finish telling us that your philosophy IS patterned (and even named) after a fictional character?

Actually I explained that it is not.
Reading comprehension much?

Quote:

That you don't believe in a literal satan, but you practice satanism, correct?

That is partly correct;But I don't need to practice

Oh I think you'll be practicing for some time to come, if you are to remain true (whatever that may mean to a satanist) to your professed religion.

Doktor S wrote:

Stupidity is a sin.

This is part of your religious doctrine as you stated it, right DS?

Well, let me ask you, how much does one have to know ( and concerning what areas of human knowledge) before one is not considered 'stupid' ?

You are quite stupid about a number of things, and so am I.

Is there anyone who, according to your definition, is not sinning?

And how can they stop sinning?

At what point are they deemed smart enough that they are not sinning?

When they agree with you......... or LaVey....... or who?

Is it knowledge that is demanded by this statement..........or conformity?

By whose definition can one be proclaimed 'not stupid' so that they are good little satanists?

A more calculating statement to foster dependence on the church (of satan) can scarce be imagined. Great manipulative technique. But gullible indeed must be those who fall for it.

Yep you are gonna be practicing for a long time until you measure up to what someone else says you ought to think.

When they fully have your brain in their palm , maybe they'll deem you 'smart', to their great satisfaction.

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, let me ask you, how much does one have to know ( and concerning what areas of human knowledge) before one is not considered 'stupid' ?

Enough to know the difference between intelligence and wisdom.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Well, let me ask you, how much does one have to know ( and concerning what areas of human knowledge) before one is not considered 'stupid' ?

Enough to know the difference between intelligence and wisdom.

And by whose definition, DS?

Who is gonna stand over you and wave the bejeweled hand to pronounce you 'wise' in their eyes?

And on what basis? Why, when you agree with them of course!

Well, practice makes permanent, as they say. You better get to work. You have a lot to do to please your masters.

0 Replies

Huh?
Ya ok whatever...
Wisdom deals with judgement based on experience.
Intelligence is an inate capacity to reason.
You can become wiser with age and knowledge. You can never become more inteligent.
They are not synonymous.

Your blathering about 'serving my masters' is an obvious projection on your part..and would be very telling if I didn't already know you to be the subserviant slave of christ that you are.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Huh?
Ya ok whatever...
Wisdom deals with judgement based on experience.
Intelligence is an inate capacity to reason.
You can become wiser with age and knowledge. You can never become more inteligent.
They are not synonymous.

Your blathering about 'serving my masters' is an obvious projection on your part..and would be very telling if I didn't already know you to be the subserviant slave of christ that you are.

I do serve Christ, and He spells out exactly what He expects of me.

You serve under the vague 'Stupidity is sin' motto that you mentioned.

How do you know if you are no longer 'stupid'? What areas of knowledge are you expected to master and to what extent?

By whose standard is it measured and what criteria are used?

Are you just ok if you agree with them?

What if you agree and then they change their mind? Are you expected to change yours too?

And if you don't believe that people can become more intelligent, are you therefore opposed to teaching reasoning skills to individuals? Is it useless in your view? Seems rather backward to oppose it, but you might.

Perhaps your error stems from your faulty view of what intelligence is:

from merriamwebster.com :

Quote:

Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason

0 Replies

real life - by the definition you have provided, intelligence is innate

better luck next time

0 Replies

Ah yes...the Holy Hoover.

0 Replies

The Chinese civilization arose without organized religion, beyond what were implied by asserting that the emperor were the son of heaven. No religious observances were required, and the putative divinity of the emperor was a policy statement only, and not something with which the majority of the populace concerned themselves. There was no temple society stage in the rise of Chinese civilization, and there was no priesthood preying upon the society.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I do serve Christ, and He spells out exactly what He expects of me.

Small world, my wife's name is Christine.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Chinese civilization arose without organized religion, beyond what were implied by asserting that the emperor were the son of heaven. No religious observances were required, and the putative divinity of the emperor was a policy statement only, and not something with which the majority of the populace concerned themselves. There was no temple society stage in the rise of Chinese civilization, and there was no priesthood preying upon the society.

Believe that and you'll believe anything.That has gone beyond imaginary friends and right down into the nether reaches of imaginary ego.

0 Replies

Chumly - I'm gonna need to some monitor cleaner. Thanks for the <snort>

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

real life - by the definition you have provided, intelligence is innate

better luck next time

Where did the definition state that the ability referred to was innate and not acquired?

Perhaps you could point it out?

0 Replies

Logic can be learned, and applied, by anyone. It is a method.
Logic is not itself, intelligence.
But I would say the likelihood of seeing value in logic is generally in direct proportion to ones intelligence.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Logic can be learned, and applied, by anyone. It is a method.
Logic is not itself, intelligence.
But I would say the likelihood of seeing value in logic is generally in direct proportion to ones intelligence.

Did you test this? How? Whose intelligence's were used? Were those tested the one's who came to the conclusion?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
Logic can be learned, and applied, by anyone. It is a method.
Logic is not itself, intelligence.
But I would say the likelihood of seeing value in logic is generally in direct proportion to ones intelligence.

Did you test this? How? Whose intelligence's were used? Were those tested the one's who came to the conclusion?

Mathematics is a well know form of logic, and if you don't believe at least the more concrete of Dok's claims, then spend a bit of time in an elementary school or high school. However this is rather off my exceeding well crafted initial premise :wink:

0 Replies

Re: Religious Vacuum
Here is initial premise, in all it's glory

Chumly wrote:

It's interesting to speculate what vacuum would be left if there *never* were religions.

You could start with some of the early disciplines, which were based at least initially (to some fair degree) on religion: architectures, arts, languages, weapons technology, astronomy all of which (and more) one might well argue religion propelled forward.

It can be argued that we have now outgrown the popular religions, but I am not convinced Man could have advanced at the clip and depth it did, without religions.

Albeit, I know one can argue that religions have also had a dampening force (some would assert severe) on progress, I am referring to religion's long term net effect, minus the last 200 - 300 years.

It's also interesting to speculate that if indeed man can (or will) leave the popular religions behind, what if anything is likely to replace it?

0 Replies

Religious Vacuum

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know