Saved ?

For some people, maliagar, not all.

0 Replies

Trying to generalize on the basis of anecdotal example just doesn't work. It seems some people have difficulty with logic and reasoning.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Are you conceding that many believe due to a fear of death and the unknown?

Never questioned it... :wink: Belief has many possible motivations, based on multiple possible human experiences... Death is probably the most radical (though many people go back to the Chuch when they have their firstborn, or when they heal from a life-threatening condition, or when the share the suffering of someone close, etc).

Quote:

That's the greatest indictment of religion that there is.

"Greatest indictment"? That sounds like the end of the world... Very Happy

Can you explain why?

---

0 Replies

It indicates a very strong possibility that religion's ability to grant immortality and to explain the unknown is not coincidental.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

It indicates a very strong possibility that religion's ability to grant immortality and to explain the unknown is not coincidental.

Uh???

0 Replies

It's quite clear Maliagar. The fact that almost all religions grant humans exactly what they want is indicative of its origins.

As the great Patiodog quipped, necessity is the mother of invention.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The fact that almost all religions grant humans exactly what they want is indicative of its origins.

Too simplistic. Religions do not "grant them what they want". They help define (1) what is the deepest human desire, and (2) they show a way of reaching that goal... provided that one lives a life that is consistent with that end. And living a consistent life is not easy, for it usually involves some form of renunciation, self-denial, and a lot of other things.

Of course a deeper question is: What is it that humans want? Why do they want it? Where did they get that longing from? What sorts of human experiences force us to face the deeper longings of existence? (such as near-death experiences...)

---

0 Replies

You are just mudding the waters. Simplicity has it's utility.

Humans want immortality. Humans want to see their loved ones again. Humans want to have a sense of meaning when aleatory misfortune befalls them. Humans have shown a tendency to create explanations when they are unable to come up with real ones (e.g. the sun is a god).

Religion grants all those things and humans have, in the past, been proven to craete religious and dieties for those very needs.

Your attempt at waxing philosophical does not change that.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Simplicity has it's utility.

Not when it is oversimplification.

Quote:

Humans want immortality.

Sure. The question is why. Stones don't want it. Cats don't either. Automobiles neither.

Quote:

Humans have shown a tendency to create explanations...

More than a "tendency", it is a capacity. Humans are the only being in nature capable of that.

So once again: Why "fear" would be "the greatest indictment" of religion?

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Humans want immortality.

Sure. The question is why. Stones don't want it. Cats don't either. Automobiles neither.

Cats want it. Try to kill one and find out for yourself. That they are unable to express this is indicative only of their comparative intelligence. If the question is why the other objects you mention don't desire immortality the answer is simple. They are inanimate and unable to desire at all.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Humans have shown a tendency to create explanations...

More than a "tendency", it is a capacity. Humans are the only being in nature capable of that.

So once again: Why "fear" would be "the greatest indictment" of religion?

Characterizing it as a capacity does nothing to change the argument in a substantial way. Why fear 'fear'as an indictment? Because it is an indication, if not definitive proof, that your religion is created by the desire rather than coincidentally satisfying all the desires.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
The fact that almost all religions grant humans exactly what they want is indicative of its origins.

Too simplistic. Religions do not "grant them what they want". They help define (1) what is the deepest human desire, and (2) they show a way of reaching that goal... provided that one lives a life that is consistent with that end. And living a consistent life is not easy, for it usually involves some form of renunciation, self-denial, and a lot of other things.
---

Yeah, that's true, Maliagar. The gods always seem to want humans to renounce things that are pleasurable -- and the Christian god seems especially worried that people might be having fun or enjoying themselves.

In any case, there is anther component that is not being mentioned here, Maliagar, and people might get the wrong idea if they listen just to the arguments you are making.

Some gods actually will grant immortal life to people whether they live a life consistent with that end or not. And those gods don't even care if people "renounce" things or indulge in "self-denial" - they will grant them eternal life anyway.

Unfortunately, these kinds of gods -- which, of course, includes the god you Catholics worship -- will grant immortal life to some for the mere purpose of inflicting excruciating, unrelenting torture on them for all the rest of eternity.

Which begs the questions:

Who would actually profess love for a god that would even consider such a scenario?

Who would even profess liking one like that?

Who could ever divorce him/herself from fear and terror of such a monstrous god long enough to truly have any other emotions about it?

Anyone else wonder about this?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Cats want it. Try to kill one and find out for yourself. That they are unable to express this is indicative only of their comparative intelligence.

Duh! I don't see cat's generating a religion.... One thing is the survival instinct, and quite another wanting immortality (talking about muddling the waters... )

Moreover, religious people are oftentimes willing to die as a result of their faith (speaking of oversimplifications). :wink:

[quote="Craven""]Why fear 'fear'as an indictment? Because it is an indication, if not definitive proof, that your religion is created by the desire rather than coincidentally satisfying all the desires.[/quote]

You see it as "an indication" if you CHOOSE to read it that way. It can be read in many other ways. And if you choose to read it one way instead of the other, the question is: What belief framework leads you to choose one possible reading over the other?

Quote:

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Oh, yes. True necessities lead to true inventions (or discoveries, or solutions).

Again, why humans have those particular necessities?

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Duh! I don't see cat's generating a religion.... One thing is the survival instinct, and quite another wanting immortality (talking about muddling the waters... )

Cats are not intelligent enough to create complex contructs of stupidity. You initially said cats do not want immortality now you've changed it to that they don't create religions. duh is indeed the oprative word you are using.

maliagar wrote:

Moreover, religious people are oftentimes willing to die as a result of their faith (speaking of oversimplifications). :wink:

Man you are not having a good day today. No kidding! They think they'll live forever in heaven. That they are willing to die is only indicative of their stupidity.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Necessity is the mother of invention.

Oh, yes. True necessities lead to true inventions (or discoveries, or solutions).

Again, why humans have those particular necessities?

Because they are weak. Human emotions make for some pathetic scenarios. One of them is the need to make stuff up when the truth is not available. Another is to make desire a reality in their own minds.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Cats are not intelligent enough to create...

Cats are not complex enough (1) to have certain needs, and (2) to search for answers to those needs.

Quote:

...complex contructs of stupidity...

As usual, you're just begging the question. :wink:

Quote:

You initially said cats do not want immortality now you've changed it to that they don't create religions.

Uh?

Once again, the instict of survival is not the same as mankind's intuition that there might be something immortal in us.

Quote:

That they are willing to die is only indicative of their stupidity.

Once again, begging the question. Rolling Eyes

Craven wrote:

maliagar wrote:
Again, why humans have those particular necessities?

Because they are weak.

Absolutely! :wink: Humble awareness of our own very real weaknesses and limitations is the starting point of all religions (including the secularist religion that turns men into gods).

Quote:

Human emotions make for some pathetic scenarios.

Why "pathetic"?

Quote:

One of them is the need to make stuff up when the truth is not available. Another is to make desire a reality in their own minds.

You'd have to prove that they are just made up, without any correspondence to the fundamental truth about being human.

To proclaim your own beliefs (however assertively) does not disprove the beliefs of others.

:wink:

0 Replies

Hey Maligar

you are ignoring me again.

I thought we were buddies -- that we had made up.

Please tell me you are not afraid of me again.

I've been good.

I haven't chopped up your notions all that much!

C'mon, Maligar, don't be afraid.

Talk to me.

(signed) Your buddy, Frank

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Cats are not intelligent enough to create...

Cats are not complex enough (1) to have certain needs, and (2) to search for answers to those needs.

Quite right. They don't need to search for or invent answers to many things.

maliagar wrote:

Once again, the instict of survival is not the same as mankind's intuition that there might be something immortal in us.

I never claimed they were the same, I said that I think one is the result of the other.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Human emotions make for some pathetic scenarios.

Why "pathetic"?

Ask yourself that. I don't subscribe to the particular pathetic notions that I am talking about.

maliagar wrote:

You'd have to prove that they are just made up, without any correspondence to the fundamental truth about being human.

No I don't. When one makes ridiculous assertions like that the sun is a god the burden of proof lies with them.

maliagar wrote:

To proclaim your own beliefs (however assertively) does not disprove the beliefs of others.

I never said it did. But please apply this to your beliefs first. I believe in reality as can be proven. You believe in something more.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

maliagar wrote:
Why "pathetic"?

Ask yourself that. I don't subscribe to the particular pathetic notions that I am talking about.

What a move! Weaseling out now? Laughing

If you haven't noticed, religion is not pathetic to me (duh!). Therefore, since you're the one calling it "pathetic", you're the one to explain why (DUH!!!). Unless, of course, you want me to provide evidence for YOUR beliefs as well... Rolling Eyes

Quote:

When one makes ridiculous assertions like that the sun is a god the burden of proof lies with them.

You'd have to explain that to the Incas. Laughing

Quote:

I believe in reality as can be proven. You believe in something more.

Oh, you believe in something more as well. Your definitions of "reality" and "proof" are essential components of your creed. They are grounded in a particular metaphysics and epistemology. And your religion is so blind, acritical, and unquestioning that you don't even see these foundational building blocks of your "being-in-the-world" (faith). This has been said before, but it went unnoticed. Maybe you need to do some more reading.

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

If you haven't noticed, religion is not pathetic to me (duh!). Therefore, since you're the one calling it "pathetic", you're the one to explain why (DUH!!!). Unless, of course, you want me to provide evidence for YOUR beliefs as well...

I don't need to prove to you that I find religion pathetic.

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
When one makes ridiculous assertions like that the sun is a god the burden of proof lies with them.

You'd have to explain that to the Incas.

No I wouldn't. They can continue to be ignorant.

maliagar wrote:

Oh, you believe in something more as well. Your definitions of "reality" and "proof" are essential components of your creed. They are grounded in a particular metaphysics and epistemology. And your religion is so blind, acritical, and unquestioning that you don't even see these foundational building blocks of your "being-in-the-world" (faith). This has been said before, but it went unnoticed. Maybe you need to do some more reading.

Once again you type without saying a single thing of relevance. I do not subscribe to any religion. You have blind faith and wish to label others the same way.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I don't need to prove to you that I find religion pathetic.

And I suppose you don't need to explain why either (more weaseling out...)...

craven wrote:

maliagar wrote:
You'd have to explain that to the Incas.

No I wouldn't. They can continue to be ignorant.

I finally get you: you don't have to explain anything to anybody. Your bottom line is: Only religious types are required to explain their views. You're here to question, not to be questioned. This reminds me of Frankie Galilei, openly saying that he didn't need to provide empirical evidence for his views either.

Thanks for volunteering yet one more piece of evidence in support of my recent discoveries about the way you folks "argue".

Quote:

Once again you type without saying a single thing of relevance.

Now it's clear. No question addressed to your most basic assumptions will ever be "relevant" to you. Some sort of perfectly human fear behind this tendency? Laughing

Quote:

I do not subscribe to any religion.

So you say. But you're unwilling to examine (let alone defend) your obvious metaphysical and epistemological foundational beliefs about what "reality" and "proof" are. You're not even capable of accepting that you're building your whole existence (re-ligare) upon those foundations. Openly religious types are usually able to tell where reason stops and where trust begins (theology). You're not able of doing even that. Your faith is so truly blind, that you don't even see it.

Quote:

You have blind faith and wish to label others the same way.

And I suppose we should accept this as a proving "argument"?

Anyway, I don't like to walk in circles. Today we reached your limit.

Take care.

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I don't need to prove to you that I find religion pathetic.

More weaseling out... And I suppose you don't need to explain why either.

Of course I don't. What I think is not something I need to prove.

maliagar wrote:

I finally get you: you don't have to explain anything to anybody. Your bottom line is: Only religious types are required to explain their views. You're here to question, but not to be questioned. This reminds me of Frankie Galilei, openly saying that he didn't need to provide empirical evidence for his views either.

NAh, I simply don't need to explain things to Incas and don't need to prove what my opinion is.

If you said: "I like icecream" I'd not say "prove it".

And as to explaining to primitive people that the sun is not a god I really feel no obligation to do so.

If you still don't get it:

I think religion is pathetic. This needs no "proof" as each can make up their own mind on the matter.

I do not believe the sun is a god. I also do not feel compelled to explain why to those who do.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know