Your fav religious /anti religious vids
- Thread starter ThE sAtIvA hIgH
- Start date
MurshDawg
Active Member
So what is a humanist? Are you saying that it can only exist as a secular belief? I await for the day the folks aren't deluded. Athiests and non secular folk alike. Especially, these athiests; who remind me more of the Spanish Inquisition rather than the Italian Renaissance. I am pretty sure there is a mental disorder in thinking that others crazy and not yourself. I should correct my statement I do not follow a religion; though I am very spiritual. Humanism is more of a philosophy than a religion. However, it has secular and non secular tenets. One of which is respect for fellow human's belief. I assume that once you hear anything about god you stick your fingers in your ear and "sing la la la la I can't hear you". Well that is fine, friend. You should look up Pascal's Wager before you so definitively claim there is no god and all who are religious are.... Though I must admit You never said you never belived in a god you just said religion is a disease. On that fact I can partially agree with you. Religion is diseased it isn't the disease. I find religion existing somewhere between history and legend. There are a lot of facts that are trying to be conveyed in religious texts; however, it does get shouted down by the emotional aspects of pursuing spiritual truth.[video=youtube;zKIKKXm6Mlk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKIKKXm6Mlk[/video]
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Pascal's wager is a false dichotomy, it assumes a zero sum loss for believing in god if it turns out god doesn't exist, which isn't so. There's a huge loss associated with believing in god when god doesn't exist.
MurshDawg
Active Member
By that logic everyone SHOULD be an athiest. Please explain what you would lose if you were to believe in god and god turns out to not exist? If anything, the belief in a higher source or deity serves as magnetic north for our moral compass. Though I know you will undoubtedly point out all the violence caused by religion; so allow me to retort preemptively. Religion is evil! God (or whatever the fuck you call it), faith, hope, and spirituality are the positive manifestations in our collective consciousness. In order to fully understand consciousness one must at least entertain the existence of a higher power or source dimension. This is why in order to join the masons you have to believe in a god. Their theosophical ideas are lost upon minds whom believe in the huge loss associated with faith in a god. So, again, please explain to me the "huge loss associated with believing in god when god does not exist".
Dislexicmidget2021
Well-Known Member
there is no loss in not believing in god,Only the loss of delusion,Believing in god and trying to please god is more burdensome than imaginable to the believer,the worst part is they happily go on with their burden......
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
MurshDawg, the only way for faith in a God to direct a moral compass is if the believer assigns a moral preference to God. That cannot be done without religion - the act of setting boundaries on God. Whether or not the religion is organized in any way is less relevant imo. cn
MurshDawg
Active Member
Wow! I don't know what god YOU were believing in or what your concept of god is; but I feel no burden nor do I live to please anyone. I simply seek to exist in harmony with my surroundings. I always enjoy folk like you throwing up the word "delusion". I think there are a lot of deluded religious folk (I follow no religion) there are probably an equal amount of deluded atheists. You might enjoy your life without believing in a higher power. That really doesn't give you privilege to call people delusional just because they won't side with your beliefs. I will never call any atheist deluded but I will say that asserting god's non existence is just as delusional as expecting the son of a Jewish carpenter to make you immortal. Translations: Atheists are apparently as fanatical in their beliefs as non-secular or religious folk.
Oh I do enjoy these conversations.
@cannabineer Again it all really depends on one's definition of "God" I am starting to think that all atheist believe that "believers" have some weird personification of this higher source. I was raised secularly without any knowledge of religion. I will never go to any church because I believe them to be nothing more then a den of wolves. I refuse to personify something I can barely comprehend. I also refuse to flat out deny the existence of any higher source. Just because I cannot see it does not mean it doesn't exist. I believe alien's exist... does that make me delusional?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
MurshDawg, the way I see it, humans cannot help but personify the God-concept. Even something as unbounded as cosmic consciousness or oversoul is, if you remove enough layers, anthropomorphic. We're incapable of imagining a truly nonhuman awareness.
The concept of the divine can be divided into two basic categories.
1) Engaged. (Judeo-etc. traditions are a prime example). God cares about what we do and has a nonzero influence on this world.
All religion derives from this basic idea ... how we behave in the sight/presence of the divine matters to a slight or great extent.
2) Not engaged. Imo this has deep philosophical difficulties, like requesting the weight of a shadow.
I cannot see how an option-2 God can affect one's moral compass ... disengagement carries with it a loss of all consequence.
If I'm missing something basic, let me know ... cn
The concept of the divine can be divided into two basic categories.
1) Engaged. (Judeo-etc. traditions are a prime example). God cares about what we do and has a nonzero influence on this world.
All religion derives from this basic idea ... how we behave in the sight/presence of the divine matters to a slight or great extent.
2) Not engaged. Imo this has deep philosophical difficulties, like requesting the weight of a shadow.
I cannot see how an option-2 God can affect one's moral compass ... disengagement carries with it a loss of all consequence.
If I'm missing something basic, let me know ... cn
MurshDawg
Active Member
I really appreciate your oberservations, Not all religions have the "engaged diety" viewpoint. I would like to point out that the stark majority of religions that share that concept are all western religions. I would like to preface your statement that humans cannot help but personify god. I agree and disagree with that statement. A lot of eastern "philosophical" religions have a rather detached concept of God. In Buddhism for example; the main purpose is to understand about the nature of life, death, and the roles of suffering, relief, happiness, sadness, etc. Through these understandings, Buddhists believe they can free themselves from the cycle of life death and rebirth. Daoism is similar with more happier undertones. I really don't think any concept of god can carry with it loss of consequence. I think you might mistake that for a humans natural ability to eliminating the feeling of responsibility and moral duty by using religious dogma to justify their decisions in life.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
From what I understand of Buddhism's philosophical core, it isn't really a religion. Enlightenment is the removal of a carnal delusion, the loss of the concept of self. Very refreshing in a way because it puts paid to the otherwise so prevalent acceptance of 'soul" as something real. Buddhism as practiced does become a religion, because souls are back in, along with a recycling scheme, saint-equivalents and a vague notion of heaven and hell. cn
<edit> I see I didn't express "loss of consequence' clearly. I did not mean "God's got me covered regardless", which I find to be an abdication of moral adulthood. i meant something more like "If God doesn't have a tangible effect in the mundane ... and moral consequences of following/denying God are necessarily tangible ... it makes no difference if God is there or not". cn
<edit> I see I didn't express "loss of consequence' clearly. I did not mean "God's got me covered regardless", which I find to be an abdication of moral adulthood. i meant something more like "If God doesn't have a tangible effect in the mundane ... and moral consequences of following/denying God are necessarily tangible ... it makes no difference if God is there or not". cn
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
How about the propagation of false beliefs? Wasted time, money and resources? Murder in the name of god? Condemnation of science, and systematic attacks on scientific theory? Just to name a few.
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
No, you re wrong. If this is addressing the previous question posed by mursh. I have not wasted money, murdered, condemned science, or systemic attacks on science. Propagation of false beliefs is retarded to say because everyone is bound to have some sort of false beliwf, believing you have no false beliefs, is a false belief.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
I was responding to Mursh...
No one said anything about claiming to hold no false beliefs. I said the propagation of a false belief is to be avoided, lies are counter productive to society. An honest person should want to hold as many true beliefs as possible, and as few false beliefs as possible, and should care about whether or not what he/she tells people is true or not. For example, getting someone to convert to Christianity when there is no god wastes a ton of their time. They probably donate to the church (wasted money), they could fight for creationism to be taught in schools (condemnation of science/attacks on science), or even bomb abortion clinics or kill doctors ( murder). All of those things would be done for nothing, because there would be no god above watching. Even if you're some new age, mystic, chakra-reading type; if none of that bullshit is true (and it's not) you're effectively wasting your time doing it. You're also making some idiot guru richer by buying his books and "chakra crystals", so he can spread his message to even more people, spreading the lies deeper and deepaker....*cough*
So, don't tell me pascal wager is a zero loss situation if god doesn't exist and people continue to act as if he does.
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
Yea,i know who you were responding to, i saw an exception to your theory about believers.
You say wasted time, hmm, how bout intruding peoples personal beliefs and bashing them. Tell me, how productive is that?
For example, the atheist on here that goes by "the sativa douche". All he does is bash and disrespect peoples beliefs(wasted time) what does he win or gain out of that? he believes in free will yet does not consider others right to think freely.
You have strong beliefs towards believers, but tell me,.what is it to you that bothers you so much that i believe in God?
I have done nothing to you, i have not attacked anyone, i have not murdered anyone in the name of God and i do not condemn science?
I accept the same theories and laws science has brought about as you do, yet you think we are some dumb breed for believing in God.
You say wasted time, hmm, how bout intruding peoples personal beliefs and bashing them. Tell me, how productive is that?
For example, the atheist on here that goes by "the sativa douche". All he does is bash and disrespect peoples beliefs(wasted time) what does he win or gain out of that? he believes in free will yet does not consider others right to think freely.
You have strong beliefs towards believers, but tell me,.what is it to you that bothers you so much that i believe in God?
I have done nothing to you, i have not attacked anyone, i have not murdered anyone in the name of God and i do not condemn science?
I accept the same theories and laws science has brought about as you do, yet you think we are some dumb breed for believing in God.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
That's what a secular society promotes. People with religious affiliations are fine, just keep it private; that's all. People's religious belief (necessarily) spills over into public life where it's not welcomed by all. Then the people who are made to feel uncomfortable by being forcefully exposed to unwanted religious dogma feel the need to speak out about having the right to belong to a non-denominational public society. In turn, religious people feel discriminated against because they can't pollute public space with their personal beliefs which in many cases is an actual requirement of their religion.
We can all live our lives once people keep their religion/spirituality to themselves. I guarantee once public policy stops being influenced by religion, atheists will stop attacking the religious and their ideals.
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
Who came first, an atheist or religious type?
VILEPLUME
Well-Known Member
I know what you mean. As a Christian I can tell you the same thing happens to me each day too, just in a different way. I could complain about all the forcefully uncomfortable stuff that I have to put up with, at work, or the media or whatever, but to be honest, I think life will just always be uncomfortable. I mean, I am a Christian and I smoke weed. Most weed smokers dislike Christians and most Christians dislike weed smokers, how is that for uncomfortable lol?
But dont worry about the preachy stuff from me, I learned a long time ago that you cant preach to deaf ears. I try to treat others like how I want to be treated and if someone asks me about Christianity I wont be ashamed. What do you think Beef?
Similar threads
