I think that culturally, materialism provides the creature comforts that make us think twice before we kill ourselves in the name our gods.

Just a thought.

Care to explode it?

Well... as a materialist, I'd say my opinion is biased but.....
There is no doubt that materialism serves a greater philosophical purpose than merely providing us with goods (however you think that happens...). I would submit that the virtue of materialism is that it is a systematic application of Occam's razor; an unflinching critical scepticism used to improve our efforts by removing those paths that would be the least fruitful or efficient.

viz.: philosphy dictionary definition (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m2.htm#mat)

True. The terrorists have religion EXACTLY right. I mean, if your god will grant you eternal happiness if you die for it, then why not try and die for it at every possible chance you get. Even if you were mistaken and your god didn’t want you do die for that cause he could not hold it against you, he didn’t stop and/or enlighten you do to otherwise. I don’t know why more little kids aren’t dieing for their gods. Why risk sinning and going to hell (or wherever) for all eternity, why not just try and cement your place in heaven as soon as possible so as not to accidentally sin and be dammed?

The only reason people want to stay alive is their property, emotional attachments, and instinctive mechanisms. If you take out property then just about everyone who got angry/depressed with their family would off them selves.

arent we material too,or at least part of us
just to make sense,cheers godless,youre making me make sense!!!!!
thats what i call a philosopher--->philocrazy he also makes sense!!!!
and according to godless were all material 100% organic!!!!
and you guys get to vote who makes more sense,let the game begin
gogogogogo
-------philocrazy
--godless

I think that culturally, materialism provides the creature comforts that make us think twice before we kill ourselves in the name our gods.


First of all, you've made a non-statement. As if those who believe in God in a religious sense would just go and kill themselves "in the name of their God". You've made a hasty generalization.


Secondly, as for materialism: You still kill yourself in the name of your gods -- only that
1. your gods are money and comfort (" ") and
2. that killing yourself takes up your whole life.

What materialism does is that it makes EVERYTHING a COMMODITY.

Everything is regarded as something that can be bought and sold: food, furniture, love, body, happiness ...

And this materialistic thinking leads you to postulate:
YOU MUST DO IT BECAUSE YOU CAN DO IT,
AND YOU MUST ENJOY IT.


***
As if anyone could be happy by telling himself "I must be happy!"

First of all, you've made a non-statement. As if those who believe in God in a religious sense would just go and kill themselves "in the name of their God". You've made a hasty generalization.

No I haven't. Some people kill themselves for their gods. My "generalization" is simply an example.

Secondly, as for materialism: You still kill yourself in the name of your gods -- only that
1. your gods are money and comfort (" ") and
2. that killing yourself takes up your whole life.

What?? Dying always take your whole life. That's how it's defined? You die then "oh, that was that dead guy's whole life". Comfort and money aren't gods. Comfort and money make you want more of the same and thus, make you want to live longer. They are anti-gods.

What materialism does is that it makes EVERYTHING a COMMODITY.

Not necessarily but that is a tendency. It can be a downside. It's preferable however IMO, to holy war and such.

Everything is regarded as something that can be bought and sold: food, furniture, love, body, happiness ...

I'm rather them side-tracked with extensive trading than killing you. The problem with virtue however I suppose in general is that those who don't appreciate your own are at odds with you from the get-go.

And this materialistic thinking leads you to postulate:
YOU MUST DO IT BECAUSE YOU CAN DO IT,
AND YOU MUST ENJOY IT.

Wrong. You don't HAVE to enjoy anything. You do what you enjoy, that's the nature of the game. You might argue that you tend to do less of stuff you don't like, I'm with that. It certainly doesn't mean you have to enjoy X.

***
As if anyone could be happy by telling himself "I must be happy!"[/QUOTE]

No I haven't. Some people kill themselves for their gods. My "generalization" is simply an example.

You haven't stated the limiting "some", for you said only:

I think that culturally, materialism provides the creature comforts that make us think twice before we kill ourselves in the name our gods.


Comfort and money aren't gods. Comfort and money make you want more of the same and thus, make you want to live longer. They are anti-gods.

You *treat* comfort and money to be THE PRIMAL PRINCIPLES LEADING ALL YOUR THINKING AND ACTING. In other words, you are treating them as your gods.

(In religious thinking, the primal priniciple leading all your thinking and acting is God.)

Either money and comfort are your gods, or you wish to sell apples as oranges.
In a materialistic view, there is no God in the sense of the God in religion; in the materialistic view, there is "the primal priniciple leading all your thinking and acting" though.
What God is to a religionist, money and comfort are to a materialist.
So in your discourse, you either consequently have to use "primal priniciple leading all your thinking and acting" or use "God". But you can't use both of them and compare them, for you are comparing apples and oranges.


Not necessarily but that is a tendency. It can be a downside. It's preferable however IMO, to holy war and such.

And scrambled eggs are preferable to coal to eat for breakfast.
You have said nothing. You are working with a false dichotomy here. What's your point?
Are you trying to make a case against fundamentalists or against religion as a whole?


I'm rather them side-tracked with extensive trading than killing you.

No sweetie, with your outlook, you would STAND THERE, WATCH ME DIE AND DO NOTHING, while a religionist may simply go and kill me.
Watching someone die and do nothing is worse that killing someone, in my view.
You'd suck the life out of me, as long as my money, body and mind are of any use to you.


Wrong. You don't HAVE to enjoy anything. You do what you enjoy, that's the nature of the game. You might argue that you tend to do less of stuff you don't like, I'm with that. It certainly doesn't mean you have to enjoy X.

Ahem.
You see, the thing that cracks me up with your thinking is that you view everything ex post, even though you are talking about an issue that hasn't happened yet, and therefore an ex ante perspective would be needed.

Seen ex post, with the benefit of hindsight, everything seems "as it should be, and it is good the way it is". But this is possible only ex post, from some distant future perspective.

Methinks that this is how you internally solved the issue of values and preferences: When we are facing a situation where we have to choose, we act on our already existing values and preferences, and they are in effect set in advance. However, this means that they also have the nature of being absolute, meaning that one could go and make a list of those values and preferences -- in advance.


The statement "You do what you enjoy" has the internal causal relation of "you do something because you enjoy it", which is possible to say only *after* you have done whatever you have done.

You don't do something because you enjoy it, this would be the same as saying "I cooked lunch because I ate it". You do something because you think or hope that you will enjoy it.

Or you do it because your actions are serving an instinct that is beyond your free will to decide about, and nature only made the acting on that instinct pleasurable as a means to assure you would do it, for your own good and the good of the species; like eating or sex.


The thing with enjoyment is: you do something because you think or hope that you will enjoy it, and this hope and thinking are largely due to socialization.
Thus, nowadays we get to hear that smoking pot is enjoyable, having lots of sex is enjoyable, driving fast is enjoyable, showering twice a day is enjoyable, eating pizza is enjoyable etc. etc. It gives these activities the value of "You must enjoy this or something is wrong with you".
These are the thoughts and hopes that make us do things, and when we do them, we may often end up feeling the way we hoped or thought we would. Which doesn't mean that the ejnoyment was indeed honest. If it really was, one wouldn't become bored of it or feel empty afterwards.

Wes maybe on a basic level people do what is pleasurabe to them. Materials and religion are both pleaurable but not mutually exclusive to most. Killing oneself is unpleasurabe and done only with the promise of greater pleasure (aka allah and 70 virgins for example--perverted as that sounds yuuck!!) or when it is to escape a greater precieved or real displeasure such as physical pain or mental pain.

When we go into a store of anykind and make a material purchase many times (self included) we measure the pleasure of the object against the displeasure of the asking price.

In contemplating kill ones self in the name of God what would need to happen is:

1) more pleasure from future promises after death
2) escape from displeasure

For material purchase to happen beside their being avaliable funds there must be
1) more pleasure from purchase than displeasure from monetary depletion
2) a pleasureable substitute for current displeasure ( make one feel better)


If there was a crossover it would maybe be from escape from displeasure like u suggested but with finite financial resources and the law of large numbers as applied to religion sucides would be rampant if this were true. It is rare instead. By observation it is suggestive that in most instances material wealth is not a deterinet from suicide.


tricky question....and neccessary since people do kill themselvles n the name of their Gods.....maybe the answer can the basis for a thoery that could be used as a universal deterent ....

If I strip a materialist of all his possesions, how would he feel? Like a theist who has lost his god?
Probably yes, I would agree with Rosa, the things become the gods. The virtue of materialsim and theism are the same if you ask me.

And there were many people who died/killed for possesions, just like others died/killed for religion.

I suppose people kill each other over Nikes and such too. ;)

The thought came from from my original theory that dropping nintendos and TVs on terrorist would have been "the bomb". Hehe. Secondly I don't think materialism is necessarily bad if like anything, it's moderate. I have a lot of stuff that I like but if it went away, I'd be pissed for a bit and get over it, probably eventually getting other stuff or whatever. If there was no stuff available, I'd get over that too. Perhaps I'd be inclined to invent some stuff.

I think however, that saying materialism is the same as god is off-base except for in extreme cases. I'll be back to address you later Rosa.

or over oil and weapons...

I think that culturally, materialism provides the creature comforts that make us think twice before we kill ourselves in the name our gods.

Just a thought.

Care to explode it?
What about the fact that materialism makes people futile?
What about the fact that people do kill for money? (Not all.... but many).
What about the fact that capitalistic cultures tend to overconsume, taking the resources away from others?
What about the fact that it is unhealthy, often making people obese?
What about the fact that it makes the great majority suffer?
What about the fact that it makes 1 billion people starve to death and have no clean water?
What about the fact that it makes people selfish and greedy?
What about the fact that it separates people?
What about the fact that it causes quarrels and confusion?
What about the fact that it makes people dependent on unecessary objects?
What about the fact that it degrades society as a whole, making it completely unfair and highly prejudicial?


Capitalism destroys virtue. It is definetely not a virtue. :bugeye:



:eek:

You haven't stated the limiting "some", for you said only:

My bad then. It does seem pretty obvious though that not all people who believe in gods kill themselves in his name.

You *treat* comfort and money to be THE PRIMAL PRINCIPLES LEADING ALL YOUR THINKING AND ACTING. In other words, you are treating them as your gods.

(In religious thinking, the primal priniciple leading all your thinking and acting is God.)

When I think of materialism, I don't think of it as fundamentalist. I forget to remember sometimes that there probably do exist materialistic fundamentalists but now that you present it as you do and I reflect on it, yeah duh. Perhaps the point in your context would be that "fundmantalists suck". I was thinking about general motivations toward one way or another. Perhaps you're right that they're equivalent, but at this point I'm still up in the air over it.

Either money and comfort are your gods, or you wish to sell apples as oranges.

I'm talking about fundamental motivators. There are more than one per person. They are equivalent in that sense, but I don't think they are equivalent in power. Perhaps it's not really the details of the psychology so much as its general tendencies. While fundamentally it seems to me from my perspective that materialism is a lesser evil (for the survival of the species, not necessarily the quality of that survival, which is highly subjective of course), perhaps it's just the person adapting to their cultural scenario. If you're insane and in America, you can kill someone over their x-box (like the slaughter of like 4 in florida recently). If you're insane and a member of Islam, Al-Keada (or however you spell it) wants you.

In a materialistic view, there is no God in the sense of the God in religion; in the materialistic view, there is "the primal priniciple leading all your thinking and acting" though.

Seems to me that plenty of people are materialistic and religious.

What God is to a religionist, money and comfort are to a materialist.

I don't think so, but maybe. Seems to me that comfort is powerful toward survival of self, whereas religion promises the happy afterlife. If you are a sensitive materialist, you would want other people to play with your x-box too, no? I think perhaps religion is much more dangerous in it's fantastic promises, where the promises of materialism are uhm.. you know... material. Enjoying material items while they last is no motivator to kill unless you're well.. fucked in the head. Religion promises heaven post mortem at the whim of the preacher's interpretion. That can be used more strongly (IMO) to motivate death. Mainly because materialism doesn't address the issue of death besides, that's the end and you'll get no more stuff. Certainly if that is threatened it's risky, but if it isn't, then what is the motivation to death? Nada. In religion, it can just be because people don't believe the same thing you do. I materialism, it's because people want to hurt your stuff (that you would be motivated to kill). I suppose you could say that "if you want something you would kill for it", but it's much sweeter to earn it I think...
Meh. Maybe that's not too clear. My own perspective has me skewed at the moment.

If either lacks any form of ethics or challenges the other, I suppose the results are quite similar.

So in your discourse, you either consequently have to use "primal priniciple leading all your thinking and acting" or use "God". But you can't use both of them and compare them, for you are comparing apples and oranges.

Okay then. You've exploded it pretty good. I'll see if I can poke holes in your point, but I'm lacking confidence at this point. ;)

And scrambled eggs are preferable to coal to eat for breakfast.

Pffffffft. WHATEVER. :rolleyes:

Nah, you have a point you bastard.

You have said nothing. You are working with a false dichotomy here. What's your point?

Well it was originally that religion seems more dangerous that materialism to me, but I think at this point they're equal. Social stuff plays more into it than religion, though they are tied, just like materialism and social stuff.

Are you trying to make a case against fundamentalists or against religion as a whole?

I was thinking fundies. I do always wish for a plan to extinct religion safely, but it's just indulging folly. Religions, however stagnant and basically repulsive to me, are needed by many folks. They are decent people for the most part I think, so who letting them have their religion is an annoyance I will only be able to affect locally as far as I know. Unless of course I were to suddeny transform into some form of activist. I won't hold my breath.

No sweetie, with your outlook, you would STAND THERE, WATCH ME DIE AND DO NOTHING, while a religionist may simply go and kill me.

It's not my outlook, it's a premise. Please keep it straight. I wouldn't let you get killed if I could help it.

Watching someone die and do nothing is worse that killing someone, in my view.

I think that's pretty conditional. If you could stop it at a whim I agree. If you're gonna die too as a consequence, it gets kind of iffy.

You'd suck the life out of me, as long as my money, body and mind are of any use to you.

Would not. I would just suck part of your brains like I do now. Okay maybe some other stuff but I'm gonna have to get permission. ;) Hehe. It's a freakin joke okay. I'm flirtish by nature, get off me.

Ahem.

You could at least follow that with a "tisk tisk".

You see, the thing that cracks me up with your thinking is that you view everything ex post, even though you are talking about an issue that hasn't happened yet, and therefore an ex ante perspective would be needed.

So now my thinking is a joke to you? Ha. Okay sometimes it's intended that way and sometimes it comes out that way incidentally but I'd swear part of the time I'm pretty sharp, you bastard.

Seen ex post, with the benefit of hindsight, everything seems "as it should be, and it is good the way it is". But this is possible only ex post, from some distant future perspective.

Well, your assessment isn't quite right but it's more than I can handle at the moment. It seems to me you don't quite get it, but close. It's still far enough to miss the nature of the thing. Think accidental taoist. That's pretty much where I've landed. I do not however, pretend I'm not emotional.

Methinks that this is how you internally solved the issue of values and preferences: When we are facing a situation where we have to choose, we act on our already existing values and preferences, and they are in effect set in advance.

Close, but they're parameters.. loose guidlines. They can be discerned in more clear focus given the brain. Some think in sharp detail, others more nebulous and big maybe. Who knows. Minds come in many skews. People use what they have. Some have a "value checklist" kind of thing, and in others it seems more instictive or intuitive. I'm more the latter. I learn it through playign with it and it sets up a loose conceptual doodad that fits well into a larger scheme. To me, it's practical because that's how my brain works. Bah, anyway, I see it as a mix of both depending on the person and topic. They're set and nebulous at the same time.

However, this means that they also have the nature of being absolute, meaning that one could go and make a list of those values and preferences -- in advance.

But ha! You guessed my postion incorrectly. To some though it is as you say, those on the extreme end of the curve.

The statement "You do what you enjoy" has the internal causal relation of "you do something because you enjoy it", which is possible to say only *after* you have done whatever you have done.

You don't do something because you enjoy it, this would be the same as saying "I cooked lunch because I ate it". You do something because you think or hope that you will enjoy it.

Okay then. Good enough. I've gotten lost on how I think that way. Do I? Maybe I didn't notice. *shrug* Everything I say? Hmm. How has that impacted what I'm saying now? Lemme look.. *looks* crap I don't get it at the moment.

Or you do it because your actions are serving an instinct that is beyond your free will to decide about, and nature only made the acting on that instinct pleasurable as a means to assure you would do it, for your own good and the good of the species; like eating or sex.

The thing with enjoyment is: you do something because you think or hope that you will enjoy it, and this hope and thinking are largely due to socialization.

Hmm, well that would seem to depend on the person but okay for now.

Thus, nowadays we get to hear that smoking pot is enjoyable, having lots of sex is enjoyable, driving fast is enjoyable, showering twice a day is enjoyable, eating pizza is enjoyable etc. etc. It gives these activities the value of "You must enjoy this or something is wrong with you".

Sounds like you're talking about peer pressure. I suppose you can do that to yourself once you're conditioned to whatever it is you like. A personal seeming contradiction is though that I don't drink beer, yet I should by your assertion be all "something is wrong with me" since almost all of my peers, ever, have loved beer. I still don't get how people drink that nasty shit, and have said that to each of them. I don't think there's anything wrong with me at all for finding it disgusting. It's just my skew.

These are the thoughts and hopes that make us do things, and when we do them, we may often end up feeling the way we hoped or thought we would.

That's part of it okay, but far from definitive.

Which doesn't mean that the ejnoyment was indeed honest.

That's a sticky wicket right there. Who are you to tell me I didn't like what I just did? If I honestly contend that I liked it, how can you discern it wasn't honest? Maybe I like it because of the nostalgia. It connects my mind to a reference frame of fond memories, which are what I like, but the activity induced them, so by association, the activity is pleasurable.

If it really was, one wouldn't become bored of it or feel empty afterwards.

Oh did I miss a stipulation? Why can't you enjoy it for whatever reason? Does it have to be social? Sorry maybe I missed something. I'm feeling a little slow tonight. It's probably because I watched football. Hehe. I enjoyed it too! Or did I? Yes, I did. I'm pretty sure at least. Quit fucking with my head.

My bad then. It does seem pretty obvious though that not all people who believe in gods kill themselves in his name.

No. The "it seems pretty obvious" is a non-obligatory inference.


Seems to me that plenty of people are materialistic and religious.

That should be mutually exclusive in a certain view; see below.


I don't think so, but maybe. Seems to me that comfort is powerful toward survival of self, whereas religion promises the happy afterlife.

This is a popular strawman about religion. As if "it seemed pretty obvious" that religion is *all* about a "happy afterlife". Sure, *institutionalized* faith certainly has the appearance the same as that strawman, but this is *not* all what religion is about.
However, here we are in the field of the "holier than thou" argument, and there is no reasonable way out of it, other than leaving the discussion.


If you are a sensitive materialist, you would want other people to play with your x-box too, no?

No. You wouldn't be a materialist anymore, if you'd let other people play with your toys just for the fun of it.


I think perhaps religion is much more dangerous in it's fantastic promises,

If you think that one *is supposed* to believe in a certain religious belief *because* of the promises, then you are a materialist, and understand religion as yet another version of some materialism. Which I don't think religion is meant to be.

In my view, although I am aware that I am in the field of the "holier than thou" argument again, one believes in God because one *recognizes* it as a matter of course, as something that goes without saying; true faith is not that one would believe in something *because* some future reward would be promised for it.
Believing in something *because* of a promised future reward is just a revision of Pavlov, no more.

Truth be told, there is the question "Why do you believe in God?" and many of those who believe catch themselves into the trap of actually attempting to answer this question. "Why do you believe in God?" is a non-question and should not be answered to, lest one should betray one's belief.


where the promises of materialism are uhm.. you know... material.

This life is material, but it is spiritual (whatever this should mean) as well. Consequent materialism just doesn't put much worth, and eventually no worth into the spiritual aspect.


Enjoying material items while they last is no motivator to kill unless you're well.. fucked in the head.

Ah. "Religion" does not say that you should not enjoy material things!


Religion promises heaven post mortem at the whim of the preacher's interpretion.

Like I said before, this is a popular strawman.


If either lacks any form of ethics or challenges the other, I suppose the results are quite similar.

There you go.


So now my thinking is a joke to you? Ha. Okay sometimes it's intended that way and sometimes it comes out that way incidentally but I'd swear part of the time I'm pretty sharp, you bastard.

I never said your thinking was a joke to me.


They're set and nebulous at the same time.

So a cube can be at the same time wholly black, and wholly white?


But ha! You guessed my postion incorrectly. To some though it is as you say, those on the extreme end of the curve.

Then your system is inconsistent. Or not organized by classical logic.


Sounds like you're talking about peer pressure.

No, not just "peer pressure". Nobody, proverbially, fell from the Moon. Your values and preferences aren't exclusively yours, there are many who have the same. You didn't invent your values and preferences, you in a way inherited them from the society you live in.


A personal seeming contradiction is though that I don't drink beer, yet I should by your assertion be all "something is wrong with me" since almost all of my peers, ever, have loved beer.

There are people who would think, "Why does Wes not like beer? Something must be wrong with him!"


I don't think there's anything wrong with me at all for finding it disgusting. It's just my skew.

It is *just* your *skew* ... So it's not "normal", then, is it?


“ Which doesn't mean that the ejnoyment was indeed honest. ”
That's a sticky wicket right there. Who are you to tell me I didn't like what I just did? If I honestly contend that I liked it, how can you discern it wasn't honest? Maybe I like it because of the nostalgia. It connects my mind to a reference frame of fond memories, which are what I like, but the activity induced them, so by association, the activity is pleasurable.

It is not me or anybody else but yourself who can decide whether a certain activity was ejnoyable or not.
But you probably know, from experience, that one sometimes, or often, catches oneself realizing that they weren't really enjoying what they thought they were enjoying.


Quit fucking with my head.

Me? You are doing it yourself, reading this ... thinking whatever you think ... you could just as well ignore me ... but you don't ... because ...

Care to explode it?
Seeing as how the original meaning of explode meant to be 'hissed off stage', yes I do, I care to explode it.

Hisssssss.

This is a popular strawman about religion. As if "it seemed pretty obvious" that religion is *all* about a "happy afterlife".

I don't think I implied that was the whole potato. It was just the aspect I was thinking about at the time. Is it not true that they do?

Sure, *institutionalized* faith certainly has the appearance the same as that strawman, but this is *not* all what religion is about.

Explain exactly how it's a strawman please. I don't see it as such. Maybe I've missed something.

However, here we are in the field of the "holier than thou" argument, and there is no reasonable way out of it, other than leaving the discussion.

That is true and a good point. My last post was an attempt to concede that point.

No. You wouldn't be a materialist anymore, if you'd let other people play with your toys just for the fun of it.

So your take is that if I'm a materialist, material is all I value? What if I only mostly value it? Now that I think of it, I'm not sure what term would describe that I value your happiness... what if I both value your happiness and material? Initially, I think I was approaching it along the lines of "materialism as a component of self" vs. "religion as a component of self" but after your commentary think that they are perhaps equivalent in the sense I mentioned in the last post.

If you think that one *is supposed* to believe in a certain religious belief *because* of the promises, then you are a materialist, and understand religion as yet another version of some materialism. Which I don't think religion is meant to be.

Hmm.. yes that does complicate things. The materialist posing as a religionist? Good point. I think my thoughts on this topic are much more convoluted than I thought they were.

In my view, although I am aware that I am in the field of the "holier than thou" argument again, one believes in God because one *recognizes* it as a matter of course, as something that goes without saying; true faith is not that one would believe in something *because* some future reward would be promised for it.

True enough, but that belief does relieve you of the responsibility of living now doesn't it? If you're faithful, and choose to blow yourself up - it must be god's work.. no?

Believing in something *because* of a promised future reward is just a revision of Pavlov, no more.

True, but what about the associated value? I mean, regardless your faith promises your reward in the afterlife. Doesn't that weight towards relieving personal responsibility in the now life? You have none. Your responsibility is to how you interpret what your faith tells you you should do right?

Truth be told, there is the question "Why do you believe in God?" and many of those who believe catch themselves into the trap of actually attempting to answer this question. "Why do you believe in God?" is a non-question and should not be answered to, lest one should betray one's belief.

Actually I agree with that, but think the consequence is that god should not be asserted as factual, because it begs the question.

This life is material, but it is spiritual (whatever this should mean) as well. Consequent materialism just doesn't put much worth, and eventually no worth into the spiritual aspect.

But if it's only a component it allows for whatever else you need doesn't it? Must materilism be compelling in the same nature as religion? I think it can exist in a set of values but doesn't require that it predominates how values are set. Contrarily, if faith is as you call it - it is predominate by it's inception is it not?

Ah. "Religion" does not say that you should not enjoy material things!

That depends on your religion and interpretation doesn't it? I'm quite confident I could find someone religious to counter that claim. Maybe though, that is tied into the misnomer thing discussed above.

I never said your thinking was a joke to me.

:) Just giving you a hard time. I wonder if the language thing throws that off with you sometimes. I'm sure it does (though not necessarily in this case). Pardon.

So a cube can be at the same time wholly black, and wholly white?

In my mind? Yeah... Don't forget quantum mechanics!

Then your system is inconsistent. Or not organized by classical logic.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion, but it's quite possible. I'm trying to sort it out.

No, not just "peer pressure". Nobody, proverbially, fell from the Moon. Your values and preferences aren't exclusively yours, there are many who have the same. You didn't invent your values and preferences, you in a way inherited them from the society you live in.

That's what I meant but I chose a poor term.

There are people who would think, "Why does Wes not like beer? Something must be wrong with him!"

So what? That doesn't make a significant impact on my perception of me.

It is *just* your *skew* ... So it's not "normal", then, is it?

I don't really give the concept of 'normal' much credence. It's my view that everyone is a freak.

It is not me or anybody else but yourself who can decide whether a certain activity was ejnoyable or not.
But you probably know, from experience, that one sometimes, or often, catches oneself realizing that they weren't really enjoying what they thought they were enjoying.

Sometimes, sure.

Me? You are doing it yourself, reading this ... thinking whatever you think ...

I wasn't serious about that. I like it when you mess with my head in the sense that you did. I was just teasing. Rather, I didn't think you were really messing with my head, but it was a backhanded admission as to my own failure to think through certain pertinent aspects of the analysis very clearly.

you could just as well ignore me ... but you don't ... because ...

Because I enjoy interaction with you. I think you've got a lot to offer on many different subjects. We seem to have a number of similar interests. Your style is quite different from my own. I think it's at least as valuable, so I explore it to the best of my limited ability.

It sounds very hypocritical that theists speak against materialism, when they are: on line, with a computer, sitting on their ass on a chair, having the convinience of electricity, so they can spew their non-sensical bull shiet!!. :rolleyes:

Materialism is not about how much stuff you can have, or own. Materialism is the realization that everything is a substance, that everything is a material to produce products with.

From the cave-man that learnt to build fire with wood, to stone buildings instead of caves, to eventually creating the wheel, clothing themselves, building spears, weapons to protect themselves, and building empires, of any idealogical nature, we have afterall been materialist since the beggining.

Oh!! and BTW..

Thanks Philo.

Godless.

“ This is a popular strawman about religion. As if "it seemed pretty obvious" that religion is *all* about a "happy afterlife". ”

I don't think I implied that was the whole potato. It was just the aspect I was thinking about at the time. Is it not true that they do?

For this, you have to ask a religious person.


“ Sure, *institutionalized* faith certainly has the appearance the same as that strawman, but this is *not* all what religion is about. ”

Explain exactly how it's a strawman please. I don't see it as such. Maybe I've missed something.

Things like: "All that religion is about is worshipping a vengeful God and thinking yourself worthless. If you don't believe what a theist does, you'll go to hell. ..." -- these are forced reductions, made by those who aren't willing to listen to the whole story, as well as by those religionists who actually feel this way about their religion.

For example, the famous "If you don't believe what a theist does, you'll go to hell." is a cynical self-victimization, only trying to make the theist look bad, so that the atheist would look better in comparison.

One doesn't have to do anything. For example, the Christian God promises one an eternal life if one follows the given commandments. What I don't understand is why people, esp. atheists fret about this. If you want something, you have to do something for it, that's the deal.

I guess the real issue is that people want eternal life, but they don't want to do anything for it -- and that's just mean.
It is "sour grapes thinking": it is easy to despise what you (think that you) can't get.

Religion is the personal relationship one has with God -- and objectively, there probably isn't much to say about it. That relationship is to be lived, not talked about.

Yes, I know, usually, by "religion", the historical religious *tradition* is meant, the holy wars and and all that. People fight wars for certain economical reasons; how they *justify* their going to war is rather arbitrary though. Whether it is for "freedom and democracy" or "in the name of God" is secondary. It seems that if people would admit the true reasons of why they go to war -- they'd see that they are so base and natural, as there seems to be nothing noble in going to war because your land can't feed your people anymore.

With this in mind, an atheist claiming "Religious people kill in the name of their God" is just a willfull shutting of one's eyes to the actual reality.

Next, esp. atheists like to ascribe everything that happened "in God's name" to be the same as God's will. This is a really really bad argument! As if whatever anyone says that God told him is to be taken for God's word. If I would say "Hawking told me to write you this post" -- would you believe me? I don't think so. But why then do esp. atheists (who proclaim to not believe in God, or lack belief in God -- thus they have no way, not even potentially, of knowing what God wants or says) do as if whatever anyone says to be from God is so?!


So your take is that if I'm a materialist, material is all I value? What if I only mostly value it? Now that I think of it, I'm not sure what term would describe that I value your happiness... what if I both value your happiness and material? Initially, I think I was approaching it along the lines of "materialism as a component of self" vs. "religion as a component of self" but after your commentary think that they are perhaps equivalent in the sense I mentioned in the last post.

Here we are stuck in a field that has actually nothing to do with materialism or religion, but everything with the logical and philosophical complications regarding absolutes. It's a methodological problem, and I don't know how to solve it.
See, that's the problem with debates -- we would have to have a good basis in formal logic and general philosphy. At some point, the debate comes to the practical application of that theoretical knowledge, and we often aren't stuck because our opinions would clash (even though it may look as if they do), but because of the underlying methodological problems regarding logic.

It seems intuitively possible to me that you value both the material and my happiness -- but logically speaking, we're stuck with the terms here, as their meanings seem to be so ambigous. Uh.


“ In my view, although I am aware that I am in the field of the "holier than thou" argument again, one believes in God because one *recognizes* it as a matter of course, as something that goes without saying; true faith is not that one would believe in something *because* some future reward would be promised for it. ”

True enough, but that belief does relieve you of the responsibility of living now doesn't it?

No! If anything, the belief in an afterlife, a happy one, is all about *earning* it -- meaning that you have all the responsibility to do the best you can, right here, right now.

But some religious people (esp. Catholics have set that example) seem to be taking their happy afterlife for granted -- as they, if they compare themselves to the pagans, turn out to be so much better that they surely must get to heaven. They think that one can be on one side of the fence, point fingers, but still believe that God is on one's side. This way, such people transgress their own commandments when boasting with their religion. Unfortunately, this is the frequent image one gets when thinking of religion!


If you're faithful, and choose to blow yourself up - it must be god's work.. no?

Things should be taken with a pinch of salt, and just because someone said God told him to do so, we should not believe this person on their word.

People project all sorts of personal frustrations into religion, and then religion gets blamed for that. It is easiest to simply ascribe a certain harmful action to "religious extremists" -- if nothing else, those people called themselves this way. But to do that is the same as believing gossip.

Thinking for yourself comes to mind. If you don't have enough first-hand information, how can you judge someone whom you don't know? Yet we are used to do this, we even have to do it, or we would have an opinion only on very, very few things. Still, a lot of our "judgements" is basically gossip, only that it is about very important things.


True, but what about the associated value? I mean, regardless your faith promises your reward in the afterlife. Doesn't that weight towards relieving personal responsibility in the now life?

Unfortunately, this is what religion often breeds out in. All people like to take the path of the least resistence, wherever and whenever they can. Of course, few have the courage and the honesty to admit it, religious or not.
With religion, the pressure is just somewhat greater, as the commandments are clearly set, and their transgressing easy to recognize. This pressure turns many religious people into fundamentalists.


You have none. Your responsibility is to how you interpret what your faith tells you you should do right?

Religion also has the innate function of being gregarious. So the subjectivity of interpretation is limited, esp. if the religion contains commandments like love and understanding. Meaning that as a religious person, you have some power and some responsibility over your fellow religious person, and you must also act on this power and repsonsibility. But few are able to act on this power with love (even though their religion may be commanding them to act on this power, and with love); many times it breeds out into flat accusations and threats, unfortunately.


Actually I agree with that, but think the consequence is that god should not be asserted as factual, because it begs the question.

Yes. But not many have a faith so strong that they would not fall to the temptation of the "I am holier than thou" argument.


But if it's only a component it allows for whatever else you need doesn't it? Must materilism be compelling in the same nature as religion? I think it can exist in a set of values but doesn't require that it predominates how values are set.

I don't think so. I don't think that just *any* set of values is a viable set. Imagine someone being a vegetarian for reasons of not wanting to kill animals, and at the same wearing genuine fur -- logically seen, this is a clash of preferences, and not likely to be viable. (However, there is this thing called hypocrisy that allows for many things ... I personally know a genuine-leather-wearing vegetarian who doesn't eat meat because she doesn't want to get animals killed for her.)

Meaning that in a set of values and preferences, they must not clash, or clash minimally, if the set is to be viable. Thus, the number of sets is limited, and each set is determined by the values being in consonance.


Contrarily, if faith is as you call it - it is predominate by it's inception is it not?

Religious faiths are good systematic solutions to compose a set of values where the values will be in consonance, that's all. You make a basis structure, determined by the central value, and on this structure, you attach individual values and preferences. Their dissonance is minimal.


That depends on your religion and interpretation doesn't it? I'm quite confident I could find someone religious to counter that claim. Maybe though, that is tied into the misnomer thing discussed above.

It's the proverbial "semantics". Also, we're once more back at the problem of absolute and relative terms, mentioned above.


Just giving you a hard time. I wonder if the language thing throws that off with you sometimes. I'm sure it does (though not necessarily in this case). Pardon.

:) Speaking a foreign language, one is often good at "high language", but jerks along behind when it comes to small-talk, colloquialisms and humor, and emotional subtext, of course. I'm sorry too.


“ Then your system is inconsistent. Or not organized by classical logic. ”
I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion, but it's quite possible. I'm trying to sort it out.

I was just trying you. :p
There is the idea that a living cognitive system must necessarily allow for certain temporary inconsistency -- or it could not learn.


“ There are people who would think, "Why does Wes not like beer? Something must be wrong with him!" ”
So what? That doesn't make a significant impact on my perception of me.

Okay then. But I think you can imagine that at some earlier stages in your life, such a "something must be wrong with you" did have an impact on your perception of yourself. It's about how we socialize ourselves.


I don't really give the concept of 'normal' much credence. It's my view that everyone is a freak.

If everyoneis a freak, then nobody is a freak. *tsk tsk*


Because I enjoy interaction with you. I think you've got a lot to offer on many different subjects. We seem to have a number of similar interests. Your style is quite different from my own. I think it's at least as valuable, so I explore it to the best of my limited ability.

Thank you. :)

It sounds very hypocritical that theists speak against materialism, when they are: on line, with a computer, sitting on their ass on a chair, having the convinience of electricity, so they can spew their non-sensical bull shiet!!.
A good way to attack an enemy is by uisng his own forces against himself :cool:

Materialism is not about how much stuff you can have, or own.
Yes it is. Turn on the TV... :rolleyes:

Materialism is the realization that everything is a substance, that everything is a material to produce products with.
Materialism is extreme dependance on outward sources.

From the cave-man that learnt to build fire with wood, to stone buildings instead of caves, to eventually creating the wheel, clothing themselves, building spears, weapons to protect themselves, and building empires, of any idealogical nature, we have afterall been materialist since the beggining.
Which is why we are destroying ourselves and our planet... :rolleyes:

A good way to attack an enemy is by uisng his own forces against himself :cool:

So theists are enemies with athiests? Isn't that somewhat contradictory to most religious idealism? Militant are we?

Yes it is. Turn on the TV... :rolleyes:

My TV is already on. There are funny people making me laugh. How shallow of me.

Materialism is extreme dependance on outward sources.

We're all dependent on food and shelter. Without them we die. That's pretty extreme.

You know it just occured to me that the definition of materialism should be under consideration, since I'm just using a very bland notion of it, so here:

"Materialism is a general view about what actually exists. Put bluntly, the view is just this: Everything that actually exists is material, or physical. Many philosophers and scientists now use the terms `material' and `physical' interchangeably (for a version of physicalism distinct from materialism, see physicalism). Characterized in this way, as a doctrine about what exists, materialism is an ontological, or a metaphysical, view; it is not just an epistemological view about how we know or just a semantic view about the meaning of terms."

from http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/materialism.html

In this thread, my intention was to argue that materialism is less dangerous for the survival of the species at this point than theistic religions which make post-life promises.

Currently, I'm not sure if that argument is valid - as is evident from the discussion with Rosa. I will continue with that debate since your input is superficial at best.

Which is why we are destroying ourselves and our planet... :rolleyes:

For every new moment, the old one is destroyed.

So theists are enemies with athiests? Isn't that somewhat contradictory to most religious idealism? Militant are we?
It was a metaphor... :rolleyes:
And what I'm saying has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

My TV is already on. There are funny people making me laugh. How shallow of me.
Yes indeed. Aside from that there are ads, that try to convince you that you need their product in order to be happy. Then you are hipnotized and brainwashed, and that makes you dependent on their product so that they can buy a whole lot of useless stuff for themselves and let billions of people starving. :bugeye:

We're all dependent on food and shelter. Without them we die. That's pretty extreme.
Exactly. And we would all have that if the materialistic system wouldn't generate greed. :bugeye:

You know it just occured to me that the definition of materialism should be under consideration, since I'm just using a very bland notion of it, so here:

"Materialism is a general view about what actually exists. Put bluntly, the view is just this: Everything that actually exists is material, or physical. Many philosophers and scientists now use the terms `material' and `physical' interchangeably (for a version of physicalism distinct from materialism, see physicalism). Characterized in this way, as a doctrine about what exists, materialism is an ontological, or a metaphysical, view; it is not just an epistemological view about how we know or just a semantic view about the meaning of terms."
Ok. We are sort of discussing two different things here. Still, my point stands. Materialism is still dangerous because of the greed and selfishness generated by the system. There's no virtue in such a thing. It makes you completely dependent on the exterior world. Of course we do need some things, but it is possible to be very happy with little. Materialism shouldn't be used for the purposes it is actually used. Unfortuantely, it is.

Besides, there's more to the world then just what is physical. Even our feelings are not physical (well, it might depens on how you see it, I guess).

In this thread, my intention was to argue that materialism is less dangerous for the survival of the species at this point than theistic religions which make post-life promises.
Both are euqually dangerous if used for selfish purposes. Materialism can easily create violence and hopelessness.

Currently, I'm not sure if that argument is valid - as is evident from the discussion with Rosa. I will continue with that debate since your input is superficial at best.
Superficial? I go way beyond what you have gone so far. Besides, my point is completely unbiased and impartial.

For every new moment, the old one is destroyed.
I thought he had memory.....

Originally Posted by wesmorris
“ This is a popular strawman about religion. As if "it seemed pretty obvious" that religion is *all* about a "happy afterlife". ”

I don't think I implied that was the whole potato. It was just the aspect I was thinking about at the time. Is it not true that they do?

For this, you have to ask a religious person.

I have. They do.

Things like: "All that religion is about is worshipping a vengeful God and thinking yourself worthless. If you don't believe what a theist does, you'll go to hell. ..." -- these are forced reductions, made by those who aren't willing to listen to the whole story, as well as by those religionists who actually feel this way about their religion.

That it can have that affect or impression is hard to deny I'd think, the validity of it however depends on from whom you hear the message of religion. It's a "thing" that can be utilized in any number of ways I suppose.

For example, the famous "If you don't believe what a theist does, you'll go to hell." is a cynical self-victimization, only trying to make the theist look bad, so that the atheist would look better in comparison.

That's not true, as it can be read directly from religious texts. The idea of hell is reserved almost exclusively for those who go against the tenents of the religon no?

One doesn't have to do anything. For example, the Christian God promises one an eternal life if one follows the given commandments.

Isn't that contradictory to what you just said above it? Hell isn't that contradictory to itself? How can "not do anything" = "follow the given commandments". You have to DO SOMETHING, like follow the doctrine of the religion in order to avoid hell.... right? Right, so your points are nullified.

What I don't understand is why people, esp. atheists fret about this. If you want something, you have to do something for it, that's the deal.

But you just said "one doesn't have to do anything". Make up your mind! ;) Perhaps there's some miscommunication.

I guess the real issue is that people want eternal life, but they don't want to do anything for it -- and that's just mean.

So now you're accusing atheists of wanting eternal life, but they're just not willing to do the work? That's either extremely convoluted or there's a significant misunderstanding at work.

It is "sour grapes thinking": it is easy to despise what you (think that you) can't get.

What, so atheists are somehow jealous of theists? Hehe. Uhm, can you support that or have I misinterpreted?

Religion is the personal relationship one has with God

Why do you need religion to have a "relationship with god". Religion tells you "the right way to do it" and "the wrong way to do it".

-- and objectively, there probably isn't much to say about it. That relationship is to be lived, not talked about.

Well, it is talked about all the time. I believe more pertinent would be "it shouldn't be discussed with non-believers who don't want to hear it." Otherwise why go to church eh?

Yes, I know, usually, by "religion", the historical religious *tradition* is meant, the holy wars and and all that.

Well sure, but I think of religion as "a framework of dogma" that provides guidelines for belief. I belief the holy wars, etc.. are simply anthropological
inevitabilities of the belief system they represent.

People fight wars for certain economical reasons; how they *justify* their going to war is rather arbitrary though.

Economics? That's part of the motivation but you can't relegate religion to "justification" when it is in fact often a reason in the same sense that you use it. You think the crusades for instance, was sheer economics? I don't think so. Was the muslim crusades through the middle east sheerly economic? Religious zealots see the unwashed, unclean barbarians of other than their religion and the slaughter them. That is their reason: "You are a heretic, you die now." Economics likely plays a strong role in most 'holy wars', but religion is the foundation or it would just be a war.

Whether it is for "freedom and democracy" or "in the name of God" is secondary.

That is backwards I'd think. There wouldn't be a such thing as a "holy war" if it weren't in the name of god, in order to do the work of god as they see it.

It seems that if people would admit the true reasons of why they go to war -- they'd see that they are so base and natural, as there seems to be nothing noble in going to war because your land can't feed your people anymore.

Well, I'm not an expert in history so I can't really argue the point, but I'd be surprised not to find MANY examples in history where the instigators of war could feed their people just FINE, but they saw heathens and wanted them off the face of the planet. Hitler comes to mind. Hmm. Anyway, even if the intigators do so for economic reasons, if they use religon as the motivator to fight the war, then the folks actually doing the fighting are doing it for religious reasons.

With this in mind, an atheist claiming "Religious people kill in the name of their God" is just a willfull shutting of one's eyes to the actual reality.

I think that's simply incorrect as I explained above. The fact is that religious people kill in the name of their god. Whether or not that is justified is irrelevant.

Next, esp. atheists like to ascribe everything that happened "in God's name" to be the same as God's will. This is a really really bad argument!

Well, I don't think I've made that argument... so I don't know why you use it here, but to be the pain in the ass that I am... If god is "omnipotent and omniscient" then nothing could happen "against his will". Yeah yeah, god chooses blah blah. Whatever.

As if whatever anyone says that God told him is to be taken for God's word.

Well, that's kind of silly.

If I would say "Hawking told me to write you this post" -- would you believe me? I don't think so.

Would you? The difference is when people tell you that and mean it. I've never heard of anyone saying "Hawking told me blah blah" but I've heard on a number of occasions "god told me blah blah". Coincidence?

But why then do esp. atheists (who proclaim to not believe in God, or lack belief in God -- thus they have no way, not even potentially, of knowing what God wants or says) do as if whatever anyone says to be from God is so?!

How very convenient for someone making the claim that god told them whatever. Perhaps you could tell me the way that the theist knows? The FACT is that neither do, but one admits it.

Here we are stuck in a field that has actually nothing to do with materialism or religion, but everything with the logical and philosophical complications regarding absolutes. It's a methodological problem, and I don't know how to solve it.

If I invoke the concept of materialism as a component of self, do I have to consider it absolute? Can't I say "I think being somewhat materialistic is good"? I did not intend to invoke the aboslute, but I suppose to consider the ramifications of materialism in full, taking it to its extreme is necessary. Further than that, I suppose it depends on the individual as to how materialism plays a role in their life. As such, it's likely difficult to clearly establish the validity of generalization about it.

See, that's the problem with debates -- we would have to have a good basis in formal logic and general philosphy. At some point, the debate comes to the practical application of that theoretical knowledge, and we often aren't stuck because our opinions would clash (even though it may look as if they do), but because of the underlying methodological problems regarding logic.

Agreed.

It seems intuitively possible to me that you value both the material and my happiness -- but logically speaking, we're stuck with the terms here, as their meanings seem to be so ambigous. Uh.

Then perhaps we need a new term or to modify the old. "enlightened materialism" or something, whereby the internal non-material warmth provided by emotional gratification of material indulgance is desired to be shared, rather than squashed in anyone but you. In fact, positive emotional feedback from others could itself be considered material. Then we would desire more of the happiness we ourselves experience in others, while still maintaining materialism.

No! If anything, the belief in an afterlife, a happy one, is all about *earning* it -- meaning that you have all the responsibility to do the best you can, right here, right now.

But if you're told you can "earn it" by dying in the name of your god, we have a problem eh? Gotta love martyrdom.

But some religious people (esp. Catholics have set that example) seem to be taking their happy afterlife for granted -- as they, if they compare themselves to the pagans, turn out to be so much better that they surely must get to heaven. They think that one can be on one side of the fence, point fingers, but still believe that God is on one's side. This way, such people transgress their own commandments when boasting with their religion. Unfortunately, this is the frequent image one gets when thinking of religion!

Really it's just about what you said "the path of least resistance". If they can come up with some spin on the rules that allows them not to have to jack with too much stuff.. they do. They are in fact, valid in doing so if they aren't "unspun", or if their assumptoins in that regard are verified by their "spiritual guides" (or even honestly percieved as such).

Things should be taken with a pinch of salt, and just because someone said God told him to do so, we should not believe this person on their word.

Pfffffffft. Who are you to say god didn't tell them? Wasn't that your argument against atheists above?

People project all sorts of personal frustrations into religion, and then religion gets blamed for that.

So there's no validity to the frustration?

It is easiest to simply ascribe a certain harmful action to "religious extremists" -- if nothing else, those people called themselves this way. But to do that is the same as believing gossip.

In that regard, gossip is the closest thing to truth going, as we cannot read one another's minds. If you make the claim "god told me too" and I question you on it and you still maintain your line, how can I question it further? Some people believe it. If so, would you say they're liars or insane? If so, where's room for god? How do you know god didn't tell them that? Because YOU know god and know god wouldn't do that? Do you see there that line of reasoning takes you?

Thinking for yourself comes to mind. If you don't have enough first-hand information, how can you judge someone whom you don't know?

If they blow themselves up or kill a bunch of children, very easily: "does this person apparently represent a threat to me, my family, or society in general?". YES. Judgement done.

Yet we are used to do this, we even have to do it, or we would have an opinion only on very, very few things. Still, a lot of our "judgements" is basically gossip, only that it is about very important things.

Our judgement is a reflection of our perspective.

Unfortunately, this is what religion often breeds out in. All people like to take the path of the least resistence, wherever and whenever they can. Of course, few have the courage and the honesty to admit it, religious or not.

Exactly, the original point was that with religion, it's simply more dangerous because it gives you the license of omnipotent condonement. Otherwise, you're just a person doing stuff, justifying it however, but your motivations to die stand in direct question. If you value the smile on your kids face at christmas while they're opening their gifts more than you value dying because an omnipotent power compells you to do so in his name, then you're less dangerous to me, my family and society.

With religion, the pressure is just somewhat greater, as the commandments are clearly set, and their transgressing easy to recognize. This pressure turns many religious people into fundamentalists.

Yup.

Religion also has the innate function of being gregarious.

How so? Why? I mean, I might say that 'living has the innate function of being gregarious'. That seems to be about as true as what you said yet obvously sociopaths prove that there are exceptions to the rule.

So the subjectivity of interpretation is limited, esp. if the religion contains commandments like love and understanding.

Well, as far as I remember, the christian religion's commandments don't mention love once, nor understanding. Just picking on them for a popular example.

Meaning that as a religious person, you have some power and some responsibility over your fellow religious person, and you must also act on this power and responsibility.

But see I disagree. As a person you have those powers and responsibilities. As a member of a religion, you have the responsibilty to uphold and promote their dogma.

But few are able to act on this power with love (even though their religion may be commanding them to act on this power, and with love); many times it breeds out into flat accusations and threats, unfortunately.

Well, it's because their religion doesn't make them inhuman. Regardless, anger, frustration, love, etc... has a hold on them. Can you imagine a religion based simply on love, with no other rule? That would NEVER work large-scale because there is more to being human than love.

Yes. But not many have a faith so strong that they would not fall to the temptation of the "I am holier than thou" argument.

True enough.

I don't think so. I don't think that just *any* set of values is a viable set.

Of course not, but that doesn't mean that one can't spin whatever framework or use modified existing terminolgy to describe their existing, viable values. It may not be wholly accurate in description I suppose. In other words, the description of "enlightened materialist" is somewhat accurate to describe me. Likewise, "theist" or "religionist" doesn't establish the details of their value system. It does however, give you a clue. Saying "catholic" or "muslim" however, gives you a much more clear idea... but still each individual iterates within/upon the boundaries of the core.

Imagine someone being a vegetarian for reasons of not wanting to kill animals, and at the same wearing genuine fur -- logically seen, this is a clash of preferences, and not likely to be viable. (However, there is this thing called hypocrisy that allows for many things ... I personally know a genuine-leather-wearing vegetarian who doesn't eat meat because she doesn't want to get animals killed for her.)

Sounds pretty non-viable.

Meaning that in a set of values and preferences, they must not clash, or clash minimally, if the set is to be viable. Thus, the number of sets is limited, and each set is determined by the values being in consonance.

Viability = sanity? Hehe, that's a whole other thread I guess.

Religious faiths are good systematic solutions to compose a set of values where the values will be in consonance, that's all. You make a basis structure, determined by the central value, and on this structure, you attach individual values and preferences. Their dissonance is minimal.

Well, that's an over-generalization. They are humans and their dissonance is reflective of that of humans. That they are religion merely sets a particular theme to whatever lack of dissonance their mind can maintain.

:) Speaking a foreign language, one is often good at "high language", but jerks along behind when it comes to small-talk, colloquialisms and humor, and emotional subtext, of course. I'm sorry too.

I though that was the deal... no problem.

I was just trying you. :p

Okay then. ;)

There is the idea that a living cognitive system must necessarily allow for certain temporary inconsistency -- or it could not learn.

Good point. That's one for the other topic I mentioned above. One's mind also has uhm... well, built in inconsistencies basically at the level you are able to maintain at a minimal effort, depending on what you value. IOW, if you value to be consistent, you will spend your energy ensuring you are. Your innate abilty added with the happenstance of your experience will greatly affect the outcome of your endeavor toward consistency.

Okay then. But I think you can imagine that at some earlier stages in your life, such a "something must be wrong with you" did have an impact on your perception of yourself. It's about how we socialize ourselves.

Well as a kid yeah but as an adult, no. I've been thinking in terms of adults here. IMO, kids aren't responsible for their stuff, but as we hit the random age 18, we become responsible.

If everyoneis a freak, then nobody is a freak. *tsk tsk*

Exactly the point! Saying "everyone is a freak" to someone able to see the ramifications is the easiest way to make it for me.

Thank you. :)

You're quite welcome.

It was a metaphor... :rolleyes:
And what I'm saying has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Then as usual, you're irrelevant. You were simply trying a pithy comeback and as usual, you didn't have one that was relevant.

Yes indeed.

Wrong.

Aside from that there are ads, that try to convince you that you need their product in order to be happy.

So what? What if I'm not convinced? What if one of them could save my life, literally? What if one of them offers me something I really NEED rather than just want? Your analysis is simply pointless.

Then you are hipnotized and brainwashed, and that makes you dependent on their product so that they can buy a whole lot of useless stuff for themselves and let billions of people starving. :bugeye:

If you're going to bother posting, please use borrow a functioning brain.

If you are hypnotized and braindead because of ads on television, you deserve it. Looks to me like you must watch a lot of TV.

Exactly. And we would all have that if the materialistic system wouldn't generate greed. :bugeye:

You have in no way established how materialism generates greed. You apparently take it as an assumption, can you justify it?

Ok. We are sort of discussing two different things here.

Oh? Since it's RARE, perhaps never been done, that you accurately address what I've meant to convey, I don't see how any other scenario is possible.

Still, my point stands. Materialism is still dangerous because of the greed and selfishness generated by the system.

Why don't you show how materialism can only generate greed and selfishness. How about "enlightened materialism" as established in my post to Rosa? You are superficial because you can't see beyond your ignorant presumption.

There's no virtue in such a thing.

How would you know?

It makes you completely dependent on the exterior world.

You are already completely dependent on the exterior world. Moreso, you're part of it.

Of course we do need some things, but it is possible to be very happy with little.

Who said it isn't?

Materialism shouldn't be used for the purposes it is actually used. Unfortuantely, it is.

How? How is it used? How shouldn't it be used?

Besides, there's more to the world then just what is physical.

Can you prove that or are you just excercising your fingers? I agree you know but I don't think you have the capacity to demonstrate it. Why don't you prove me wrong?

Even our feelings are not physical (well, it might depens on how you see it, I guess).

Close, you can almost prove it along those lines... go for it!

Both are euqually dangerous if used for selfish purposes.

Okay, but that's not really the issue under discussion. The question is: considering the nature of man, is one worse for the survival of the species at this time than the other? Does one tend to take people to a worse place than the other? Materialism, though potentially horrifying - does have great qualities. Can you name any? So far your case is superficial because it's dogmatic. You say basically "materialism is bad!". Why? "Because it leads to greed". How insightful. That's what you were told in grade school, have you advanced your comprehension since then? Given your statement so far, it seems you haven't.

Superficial? I go way beyond what you have gone so far.

Did that make you feel better? You've presented nothing of substance. That's just contrary to your bloated self-image eh? :rolleyes:

Besides, my point is completely unbiased and impartial.

First you'd have to have a point, then you'd have to morph into someone with a functioning brain. Then, MAYBE you might... after many years of deprogramming... be able to resemble unbiased and impartial. You come in here spewing "materialism is bad!" and call yourself impartial? Ridiculous.

I thought he had memory.....

Apparently, you have no choice but to miss every single point presented to you. I'm sure this post will result in more of the same.

Please, shut up and learn something.

Ayy!! these theist, against materialism, I don't know why they just don't live out in the woods!!. No running water, no electricity, no TOILET PAPER!!, no guns to hunt, no trees to plant, "food is material" thus live off your own "un-intelect" don't worry god will provide, he'll throw a few loafs of Mana every so often.

It dawns on me theist are the first to yell, foul when new technologies are discovered, and then they go ahead and use these same technologies to spread their non-sense. Radio, Tv, internet....

Godless.

Did you read what I wrote? :bugeye:

That it can have that affect or impression is hard to deny I'd think, the validity of it however depends on from whom you hear the message of religion. It's a "thing" that can be utilized in any number of ways I suppose.

Yes, this is always the problem.


That's not true, as it can be read directly from religious texts. The idea of hell is reserved almost exclusively for those who go against the tenents of the religon no?

This is a simpiflication. I'll explain below. Bear with me.


Isn't that contradictory to what you just said above it? Hell isn't that contradictory to itself? How can "not do anything" = "follow the given commandments". You have to DO SOMETHING, like follow the doctrine of the religion in order to avoid hell.... right? Right, so your points are nullified.

This "doing something", "following the commandments" applies only if you (already) believe in God.

If you don't believe in the Christian God, then you also don't believe in hell anyway, so what's the point of being afraid of hell then?!

If you don't believe the basics, for instance God's existence, then the details will be of little consequence.

If you are afraid of hell, then you either do believe in the Christian God, or something else is the matter, and you haven't been honest in your inquiries.


But you just said "one doesn't have to do anything". Make up your mind! ;) Perhaps there's some miscommunication.

I'm glad you noticed this and thought it could be a miscommunication. That's a good start for clearing it up.

If you don't believe in God, you don't feel obliged to God in any way whatsoever, right? So why be afraid of hell or judgement?!


“ I guess the real issue is that people want eternal life, but they don't want to do anything for it -- and that's just mean. ”

So now you're accusing atheists of wanting eternal life, but they're just not willing to do the work?

Apparently, that's the case. Why be afraid of God's judgement, if you don't believe in God?


What, so atheists are somehow jealous of theists? Hehe. Uhm, can you support that or have I misinterpreted?

If you have nothing to hide from God, then you have nothing to worry about. There is no other reason to fear judgement or hell.

If someone worries about judgement and hell -- then it must be that they believe in judgement and hell. Believing in judgement and hell makes no sense unless you also believe in God.


Why do you need religion to have a "relationship with god". Religion tells you "the right way to do it" and "the wrong way to do it".

"Need" is an odd and misleading word to use here. If you want a certain religion, you'll go for it; if you don't want it, you won't go for it.

A certain religion suggests something, and if this doesn't speak to you, if you don't feel addressed, then why do as if you would feel addressed?

For example, I don't feel addressed by what the Hare Krishnas say, and it all goes right by me. If, say, some Manitu spirit says that I will be damned if I don't do as it commanded, I don't care about this, as I don't believe in that Manitu spirit.

There must be some very, very good reasons if people take threats of hell and judgement seriously.
And judging by the things one can read in the religion forum, many do take those threats seriously, even though they say they don't believe in God.


“ -- and objectively, there probably isn't much to say about it. That relationship is to be lived, not talked about. ”
Well, it is talked about all the time. I believe more pertinent would be "it shouldn't be discussed with non-believers who don't want to hear it." Otherwise why go to church eh?

Then why do these non-believers, who, according to you, don't want to hear it, talk about it, why it is often them who inniciate such conversations?


Well sure, but I think of religion as "a framework of dogma" that provides guidelines for belief. I belief the holy wars, etc.. are simply anthropological
inevitabilities of the belief system they represent.

So you think that the motto of a "holy war" is somehting like "Those people over there don't believe what we do, and we hate them for it, so we will go and kill them!"? And you are taking such a motto as a valid example of a motive for going to war?


Economics? That's part of the motivation but you can't relegate religion to "justification" when it is in fact often a reason in the same sense that you use it. You think the crusades for instance, was sheer economics? I don't think so. Was the muslim crusades through the middle east sheerly economic? Religious zealots see the unwashed, unclean barbarians of other than their religion and the slaughter them. That is their reason: "You are a heretic, you die now." Economics likely plays a strong role in most 'holy wars', but religion is the foundation or it would just be a war.

I think that's a bit simplistic. Any war is "just a war".
Why do you think tribes fight? Sure, on the surface it looks as if they were going to their tribal wars "because the other tribe thinks differently and worships different gods" -- but wars are always the same: they begin out of feeling existentially threatened. There is the fear that the other tribe will take your territory, or the fact that your land is becoming too small for you. Economical reasons. And these are the only reasons for going to war.

However, how these reasons are PUT INTO WORDS, what the "official explanation" is -- that can vary greatly!
You can say that you are going to war "because those other people are not of your religion", or "because you want the world to live in peace" -- but the truth is that you felt threatened, and you were only defending yourself, this is why you go to war.

Wars cost a lot of money. And saying that people go to war for such whimsical reasons like "because those other people are not of your religion", or "because you want the world to live in peace" is simplistic and unrealistic.

If we agree to evolution and that only the strong survive, then peace is a rather detrimental and contradictiory demand in the *fight* for survival.


“ Whether it is for "freedom and democracy" or "in the name of God" is secondary. ”

That is backwards I'd think. There wouldn't be a such thing as a "holy war" if it weren't in the name of god, in order to do the work of god as they see it.

It's a figt for survival! Everyone wants to survive, that's essential. And when they have to set off to this fight, the reasons they state may be different, but the essence is the same: survival.


Well, I'm not an expert in history so I can't really argue the point, but I'd be surprised not to find MANY examples in history where the instigators of war could feed their people just FINE, but they saw heathens and wanted them off the face of the planet. Hitler comes to mind. Hmm.

First of all, what "just FINE" is is rather arbitrary and relative. The average Indian may think that his life is "just fine", but I bet you would rather die than live the poor way he does.

Secondly, those heathens, Jews or whomever it was that bothered the majority or the rulers in a country, were bothering them because the rulers felt that the social stability of the state was endagnered by having a group of people who thought differently than it was commanded or generally acceptable.

Whether the reasons are religious, political or economical, is beside the point here. We know from history that if you think differently than the ruling system, you will face certain consequences.
If you are a heathen and the rule is to belong to a certain religion -- you will be persecuted.
If you are a communist and the rule is to be either democrat or republican -- you will be persecuted.
If you are poor and the rule is to be wealthy -- you will be persecuted or face some cosequences.
If you are black and the ruling class is white -- you will face consequences.


Anyway, even if the intigators do so for economic reasons, if they use religon as the motivator to fight the war, then the folks actually doing the fighting are doing it for religious reasons.

But if you say that, then you also agree that whatever anyone says that God told him, really comes from God!!


I think that's simply incorrect as I explained above. The fact is that religious people kill in the name of their god.

So you do believe that whatever anyone says that God told him, really comes from God?!


Well, I don't think I've made that argument... so I don't know why you use it here, but to be the pain in the ass that I am... If god is "omnipotent and omniscient" then nothing could happen "against his will". Yeah yeah, god chooses blah blah. Whatever.

This is putting the responsibility people have for their own works into God's hands. This is not fair.


Would you? The difference is when people tell you that and mean it. I've never heard of anyone saying "Hawking told me blah blah" but I've heard on a number of occasions "god told me blah blah". Coincidence?

For a believer, God is the overarching organizational principle -- but Hawking isn't that sort of an overarching organizational principle, is he?

Still, if you don't believe in God yourself, then whatever anyone does "in His name" is of consequence to you only as the action, not as the motive and not as the justification they provide.

I am speaking from experience here: In elementary school, I was the only kid who wasn't Catholic and who wasn't baptized. I've had some trouble and isolation due to this, and sometimes other kids indeed said that they didn't like me because I wasn't Catholic. If I would still believe *their* explanation and *their* justification, I would still be bitter and full of religious hate for them. (And I was.)

When I had my eyes rubbed with snow and hazy vision in one eye for months -- that was the action, and *their* justification doesn't matter here. Their justification would matter if I would also believe in their God, but if I don't believe in their God, their justification is nothing to me. I only have the harm done, and for this harm, I can demand retribution by the state law system.


How very convenient for someone making the claim that god told them whatever. Perhaps you could tell me the way that the theist knows? The FACT is that neither do, but one admits it.

I don't know what you know, and you don't know what I know. You can't speak of facts here, you don't have absolute knowledge!
You are trying to impose your knowledge of what a fact is on others.

If you would want to know what a theist knows, you would have to believe in God. If you don't believe in God, the whole argument you have against a theist is beside the point.


If I invoke the concept of materialism as a component of self, do I have to consider it absolute? Can't I say "I think being somewhat materialistic is good"?

Of course you can say it, duh. The problem is only with definitions.


Then perhaps we need a new term or to modify the old. "enlightened materialism" or something, whereby the internal non-material warmth provided by emotional gratification of material indulgance is desired to be shared, rather than squashed in anyone but you. In fact, positive emotional feedback from others could itself be considered material. Then we would desire more of the happiness we ourselves experience in others, while still maintaining materialism.

The danger of this, "In fact, positive emotional feedback from others could itself be considered material", as I see it, is that it makes even "positive emotional feedback a commodity". Something that can be bought and sold, in one way or another.


But if you're told you can "earn it" by dying in the name of your god, we have a problem eh? Gotta love martyrdom.

I take you are thinking specifically of Islam, right?

Still, what I said before, applies: What Islamists do affects you only as the action, not as *their* justification. -- Unless you also believe in Allah.


Really it's just about what you said "the path of least resistance". If they can come up with some spin on the rules that allows them not to have to jack with too much stuff.. they do. They are in fact, valid in doing so if they aren't "unspun", or if their assumptoins in that regard are verified by their "spiritual guides" (or even honestly percieved as such).

There are lazy and self-absorbed people inside and outside religion.


Pfffffffft. Who are you to say god didn't tell them? Wasn't that your argument against atheists above?

I am *not* the one to say that "God didn't tell them"!!

I just can't relate to what they say and to the justifications they give for their actions. Thus, I can only view their actions as I see them. Which isn't necessarily the same as they see them -- but that's the point of subjectivity anway!


“ People project all sorts of personal frustrations into religion, and then religion gets blamed for that. ”
So there's no validity to the frustration?

I don't understand what you mean. How is there no validity to the frustration?
If I am, say, a Catholic, and miserable because my lover left me, it could happen that I will end up saying "He left me, and this is how God is punishing me, and this world is a valley of tears, and I am really angry and I will go against everyone who doesn't believe in God" -- it's foul logic, but it happens all the time.


In that regard, gossip is the closest thing to truth going, as we cannot read one another's minds. If you make the claim "god told me too" and I question you on it and you still maintain your line, how can I question it further? Some people believe it. If so, would you say they're liars or insane?

You could only call someone a "liar" or "insane" if you claim to have an absolute standard and absolute knowledge.
If you don't believe in God, but the other person does, any further communication is stopped here.
You cannot relate to eachother. Subjectivity. End of story.


If so, where's room for god? How do you know god didn't tell them that? Because YOU know god and know god wouldn't do that? Do you see there that line of reasoning takes you?

I could only know whether God told what they claim He did if I would also believe in this same God. If I don't believe in this same God, then we cannot talk about these things.


“ Thinking for yourself comes to mind. If you don't have enough first-hand information, how can you judge someone whom you don't know? ”

If they blow themselves up or kill a bunch of children, very easily: "does this person apparently represent a threat to me, my family, or society in general?". YES. Judgement done.

They are a threat, surely, and in effect, this is mostly the only thing we get to see.
But *why* they are a threat to you, is a matter of justification, yours on the one hand, and theirs on the other hand. The two justifications may not be the same though, and I think this is what is bothering you.


“ Yet we are used to do this, we even have to do it, or we would have an opinion only on very, very few things. Still, a lot of our "judgements" is basically gossip, only that it is about very important things. ”

Our judgement is a reflection of our perspective.

Sure. but I was going in the direction of how hard it is to make an informed judgement. How much it takes to make a scientific claim!


“ Religion also has the innate function of being gregarious. ”

How so? Why? I mean, I might say that 'living has the innate function of being gregarious'. That seems to be about as true as what you said yet obvously sociopaths prove that there are exceptions to the rule.

There are exceptions and extremes everywhere. The bell curve.


Well, as far as I remember, the christian religion's commandments don't mention love once, nor understanding. Just picking on them for a popular example.

They don't mention love? Which commandments do you have in mind?


“ Meaning that as a religious person, you have some power and some responsibility over your fellow religious person, and you must also act on this power and responsibility. ”
But see I disagree. As a person you have those powers and responsibilities. As a member of a religion, you have the responsibilty to uphold and promote their dogma.

If you are religious, then there is no (or should be no) discrepancy between "what you are as a person" and "what you are as a member".


Well, it's because their religion doesn't make them inhuman. Regardless, anger, frustration, love, etc... has a hold on them. Can you imagine a religion based simply on love, with no other rule? That would NEVER work large-scale because there is more to being human than love.

You seem to have a desire to discuss these issues, but I'm worried about this one thing that I pick up from your posts: You seem to view religion as something that clearly threatens you, in many ways; you seem to think that religion is just a coat, a mask one wears, a job one does.

It certainly can be only a mask, a job -- but if it's that, then it's not worth believing in, and it's also not worth to put it against those who practice their religion merely as a facade.


Of course not, but that doesn't mean that one can't spin whatever framework or use modified existing terminolgy to describe their existing, viable values. It may not be wholly accurate in description I suppose. In other words, the description of "enlightened materialist" is somewhat accurate to describe me. Likewise, "theist" or "religionist" doesn't establish the details of their value system. It does however, give you a clue. Saying "catholic" or "muslim" however, gives you a much more clear idea... but still each individual iterates within/upon the boundaries of the core.

No, not "whatever". You cannot be a, say, Christian and pray to Allah, and you can't be an atheist and worship Krishna. I suppose some are like that though, for some time, but with time, living systems usually become more consistent and coherent and get rid of contraditctions.


Good point. That's one for the other topic I mentioned above. One's mind also has uhm... well, built in inconsistencies basically at the level you are able to maintain at a minimal effort, depending on what you value. IOW, if you value to be consistent, you will spend your energy ensuring you are. Your innate abilty added with the happenstance of your experience will greatly affect the outcome of your endeavor toward consistency.

It's not just about "valuing to be consistent"; we're always dealing with a perceived consistency or inconsistency.
Whereby we also have the abstract methodological apparatus that is useful for describing any individual.

Consistency (to whichever degree) is the display of system pressure and system economy, the two main organizing principles that work within a system. But these two principles are just way to describe the highly complex interrelations and interactions that take place within a system; it's not like one could have conscious control over one's own system pressure and system economy.



I apologize for the lengthy post, but the occasion called for it.

Then as usual, you're irrelevant. You were simply trying a pithy comeback and as usual, you didn't have one that was relevant.
I'm irrelevant to anyone that cannot think properly. It's a simply metaphor; man! :rolleyes:

Wrong.
Yes. Great argument.

So what? What if I'm not convinced? What if one of them could save my life, literally? What if one of them offers me something I really NEED rather than just want? Your analysis is simply pointless.
The CPI (Consumer Price Index) of Canada is a list of about 500 products that are sold and bought in the contry. How many of those do you think you need? :rolleyes:

If you're going to bother posting, please use borrow a functioning brain.
Irrelevant comment........ keep going....

If you are hypnotized and braindead because of ads on television, you deserve it. Looks to me like you must watch a lot of TV.
The only things I watch in television is "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy", and I only watch them cause they make me think about the society we live in. What about you?

You have in no way established how materialism generates greed. You apparently take it as an assumption, can you justify it?
You want more every day. The ads make you buy stuff. That's why they are there. Companies would waste millions of dollars with ads if they didn't work. Materialism not only creates greed and selfishness through useless consumption, but it also creates lots of waste. For example, have you seen how many ads of cars you see on tv/internet/etc? And then they come up with a newe model, that is basically the same from last year. That's because they want to raise the demand. Then people either sell their old models or just get rid of them. They also become more greedy, wanting to get the latest model. Do you see the cycle? Hopefully....

Oh? Since it's RARE, perhaps never been done, that you accurately address what I've meant to convey, I don't see how any other scenario is possible.
My points are still relevant to the discussion anyways.... I just explained how materialism generates greed.

You are already completely dependent on the exterior world. Moreso, you're part of it.
I said it makes you completely dependent. You are only dependent on food and shelter, basically. You don't need to become dependent on a bunch of useless products.

Who said it isn't?
Do you meant "is"? Why is it not possible to be very happy with little? Do you think people in Switzerland are unhappy? Do you think the Sioux are unhappy?

How? How is it used? How shouldn't it be used?
It is used for selfish purposes. It should be used only to sustain people.

Can you prove that or are you just excercising your fingers? I agree you know but I don't think you have the capacity to demonstrate it. Why don't you prove me wrong?
I thought you didn't know that. Well... are your thoughts physical?

Close, you can almost prove it along those lines... go for it!
Well... we experience feelings physically. Like... when we get nervous we feel kinda sick in the stomach. But two distinct feelings can have the same manifestation. We still label them differently. So there must be something else.

Okay, but that's not really the issue under discussion.
No? Well... depending on how you use it, it can be dangerous or even good. So it does seem relevant.....

The question is: considering the nature of man, is one worse for the survival of the species at this time than the other? Does one tend to take people to a worse place than the other?


Materialism, though potentially horrifying - does have great qualities. Can you name any?
Order, easy to comprehend, tangible....

So far your case is superficial because it's dogmatic. You say basically "materialism is bad!". Why? "Because it leads to greed". How insightful.
I think it can be really that simple. I can always expand on it...

That's what you were told in grade school, have you advanced your comprehension since then? Given your statement so far, it seems you haven't.
No. I've been told the exact opposite. So I did advance my comprehension....

Did that make you feel better? You've presented nothing of substance. That's just contrary to your bloated self-image eh?
Naaah... that's irrelevant to the discussion...

First you'd have to have a point, then you'd have to morph into someone with a functioning brain. Then, MAYBE you might... after many years of deprogramming... be able to resemble unbiased and impartial. You come in here spewing "materialism is bad!" and call yourself impartial? Ridiculous.
Ahhhh.... I gave a lot of reasons......... :bugeye:

[This "doing something", "following the commandments" applies only if you (already) believe in God.

Such is true, but that “doing something” applies to me from the perspective of someone who believes as such.

If you don't believe in the Christian God, then you also don't believe in hell anyway, so what's the point of being afraid of hell then?!


Who said I am, but others expect me to be.

If you don't believe the basics, for instance God's existence, then the details will be of little consequence.


That’s simply untrue. We all live with the consequences of other people’s beliefs.

If you are afraid of hell, then you either do believe in the Christian God, or something else is the matter, and you haven't been honest in your inquiries.


Agreed, but you see what I mean now.

If you don't believe in God, you don't feel obliged to God in any way whatsoever, right?


Because people I care about do believe in god, they also quietly expect me to believe the same. I care to some extent about anyone I run across, so it happens to come up.

So why be afraid of hell or judgement?!


I’m not, but I’m expected to be by those who do.

So now you're accusing atheists of wanting eternal life, but they're just not willing to do the work? So now you're accusing atheists of wanting eternal life, but they're just not willing to do the work?

Apparently, that's the case.

That’s a bit of an over-generalization I think.

Why be afraid of God's judgement, if you don't believe in God?


Again, I’m not, but I’m expected to be. It doesn’t really bother me until I sense it happening. Then I find it highly annoying.

You said:

Religion is the personal relationship one has with God


To which I retorted:


Why do you need religion to have a "relationship with god". Religion tells you "the right way to do it" and "the wrong way to do it".


You replied:

"Need" is an odd and misleading word to use here. If you want a certain religion, you'll go for it; if you don't want it, you won't go for it.


You said “religion IS”. I took that to mean “if you have a personal belief in god, you are religious”. I think some people have a “personal relationship with god” without being religious.

There must be some very, very good reasons if people take threats of hell and judgement seriously.


Good by whose reasoning? Bah, you’re right there are good reasons, but they are emotional. There is nothing real that commands belief such folly, besides the need of the believer. That is a good reason, but in my experience it is almost never presented so honestly, because to do so often contradicts the reasons people tend to believe it.

And judging by the things one can read in the religion forum, many do take those threats seriously, even though they say they don't believe in God.


Some for sure… but many? Yeah maybe.

Then why do these non-believers, who, according to you, don't want to hear it, talk about it, why it is often them who inniciate such conversations?


I didn’t say they don’t want to hear it. I said religious people shouldn’t present it if they don’t.

Well, it is talked about all the time. I believe more pertinent would be "it shouldn't be discussed with non-believers who don't want to hear it." Otherwise why go to church eh?


Some are fascinated by it and want to hear all about it. I myself find it pretty interesting how people justify their beliefs. Most religious people I’m aware of (not all) don’t want to be confronted with the fact that their belief is based on an emotional need, rather than something factual. I’m not saying it isn’t factual, rather that as we know – it has not and as far as I know cannot be shown to be so.

So you think that the motto of a "holy war" is somehting like "Those people over there don't believe what we do, and we hate them for it, so we will go and kill them!"? And you are taking such a motto as a valid example of a motive for going to war?


Actually for the majority of the players, yes.

I think that's a bit simplistic. Any war is "just a war".


Not when you’re discussing the types of wars. A holy war is different than an economic war, though they perhaps overlap.

Why do you think tribes fight?


It depends on any number of things and who in the tribe you ask.

Sure, on the surface it looks as if they were going to their tribal wars "because the other tribe thinks differently and worships different gods" -- but wars are always the same: they begin out of feeling existentially threatened.


That’s not necessarily true. If for instance my religion states that I’m supposed to behead the infidels, what choice to I have if I identify that you’re an infidel?

There is the fear that the other tribe will take your territory, or the fact that your land is becoming too small for you. Economical reasons. And these are the only reasons for going to war.


You’re wrong. You forgot: or the fact that your holy documents mandate it.

However, how these reasons are PUT INTO WORDS, what the "official explanation" is -- that can vary greatly!


Sure, but what if the fighters believe the explanation and not the real reason? Are they not then doing it for religious purposes as described above?

You can say that you are going to war "because those other people are not of your religion", or "because you want the world to live in peace" -- but the truth is that you felt threatened, and you were only defending yourself, this is why you go to war.


If you “feel threatened” because “infidels are offending god”, then my point stands.

Wars cost a lot of money. And saying that people go to war for such whimsical reasons like "because those other people are not of your religion", or "because you want the world to live in peace" is simplistic and unrealistic.


To people who hold such beliefs, calling them “whimsical” is enough to get you infidel status.  Please don’t lose your head.

If we agree to evolution and that only the strong survive, then peace is a rather detrimental and contradictiory demand in the *fight* for survival.

It’s not so simple. People have for the most part; overcome the basic necessities of physical survival (subjectively). Those in that position still apply their necessity for survival but to much more abstract notions. Survival, in some contexts can mean “how does my hair look”, if you follow. It might even mean “infidels must die”.

It's a figt for survival! Everyone wants to survive, that's essential. And when they have to set off to this fight, the reasons they state may be different, but the essence is the same: survival.


Sure, but the reasons for their actions vary like I said, from person to person. Some people most certainly kill because “infidels must die”.

First of all, what "just FINE" is is rather arbitrary and relative.


It’s completely subjective, yes. Each adapts to his environment.

The average Indian may think that his life is "just fine", but I bet you would rather die than live the poor way he does.


I wouldn’t CHOOSE to do it, but if forced to it’s obvious I would adapt or die. Regardless to each as they have adapted to their environment, it’s “just fine”.


Whether the reasons are religious, political or economical, is beside the point here.


Why? Maybe we’re discussing different points. It seems to me that I’m showing how it isn’t beside the point at all. I’m discussing what motivates I think.

We know from history that if you think differently than the ruling system, you will face certain consequences.


That depends on what the ruling system stands to gain or lose from your thinking.

If you are a heathen and the rule is to belong to a certain religion -- you will be persecuted.


True.

If you are a communist and the rule is to be either democrat or republican -- you will be persecuted.


True.

If you are poor and the rule is to be wealthy -- you will be persecuted or face some cosequences.


Sure.

If you are black and the ruling class is white -- you will face consequences.


Sure.

- but for any scenario there are consequences.

But if you say that, then you also agree that whatever anyone says that God told him, really comes from God!!


Not at all, I must only believe that he believes it – and I definitely do believe that (depending on the person I suppose).

So you do believe that whatever anyone says that God told him, really comes from God?!


No, but I believe it’s quite possible that they believe it.

This is putting the responsibility people have for their own works into God's hands. This is not fair.


I don’t understand why not. Given that god is omniscient, omnipresent, etc… how could anything happens not be by his will? Even if he allows humans their own will, it’s still his call.

For a believer, God is the overarching organizational principle -- but Hawking isn't that sort of an overarching organizational principle, is he?


Uhm… depends on you ask I imagine. For most, no… for some? Probably?

Still, if you don't believe in God yourself, then whatever anyone does "in His name" is of consequence to you only as the action, not as the motive and not as the justification they provide.


Not quite true, since it’s the nature of their belief that caused the action.

I am speaking from experience here: In elementary school, I was the only kid who wasn't Catholic and who wasn't baptized. I've had some trouble and isolation due to this, and sometimes other kids indeed said that they didn't like me because I wasn't Catholic. If I would still believe *their* explanation and *their* justification, I would still be bitter and full of religious hate for them. (And I was.)


I understand and I’ve had similar feelings. I’m pretty much over it now. This is just my analysis as I see things. Their actions are still justified by their beliefs, which necessarily puts them at odds with me somewhat frequently.

When I had my eyes rubbed with snow and hazy vision in one eye for months -- that was the action, and *their* justification doesn't matter here. Their justification would matter if I would also believe in their God, but if I don't believe in their God, their justification is nothing to me. I only have the harm done, and for this harm, I can demand retribution by the state law system.


Maybe in your need to get over your hatred for them (much commended BTW), you over-compensated and completely let them off the hook for their lame justification.

I don't know what you know, and you don't know what I know. You can't speak of facts here, you don't have absolute knowledge!


So you don’t believe the concept of observational distance is absolute? I do, but I can’t tell you for sure that belief won’t change.

You are trying to impose your knowledge of what a fact is on others.


In my knowledge, observational distance is fact. IMO, any rational mind would agree. I’ll continue to hold that opinion until it’s shown to be incorrect.

If you would want to know what a theist knows, you would have to believe in God. If you don't believe in God, the whole argument you have against a theist is beside the point.


You mean beside their point. If we disagree that we cannot survive without air, is it beside the point to be the one still standing after the test?

The danger of this, "In fact, positive emotional feedback from others could itself be considered material", as I see it, is that it makes even "positive emotional feedback a commodity". Something that can be bought and sold, in one way or another.


But it is. Most interaction between humans works exactly that way. It’s not necessarily malicious nor intentional, it’s just the way the interactions work. When we can relate to one another, we tend to harmonize. When we can’t: dissidence. If I relate to you for instance, and admire you. It’s fair and instinctual for me to express that appreciation. In some sense, that is “buying your positive feedback” or rather, you bought mine with your words – even if you didn’t intend to.

I take you are thinking specifically of Islam, right?


Well, it does come to mind… I was just thinking of that facet of religion. Islam did spawn the thought but I’d imagine there are more religions that appreciate the martyr – Christianity does come to mind. However, they don’t want more martyrs. They seem happy with just the one for the most part.

Still, what I said before, applies: What Islamists do affects you only as the action, not as *their* justification. -- Unless you also believe in Allah.


And my point “I believe they believe it” nullifies yours.

There are lazy and self-absorbed people inside and outside religion.


That’s true.

I am *not* the one to say that "God didn't tell them"!!


Things should be taken with a pinch of salt, and just because someone said God told him to do so, we should not believe this person on their word.


You said we shouldn’t necessarily believe them, which is to say god probably didn’t. I say, many of them believe god did.

I just can't relate to what they say and to the justifications they give for their actions. Thus, I can only view their actions as I see them. Which isn't necessarily the same as they see them -- but that's the point of subjectivity anway!


Neither can I, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t serious. It is possible to account for them believing something that you don’t.

I don't understand what you mean. How is there no validity to the frustration?


It was a question, not a statement. You said:

“People project all sorts of