View Full Version : Is Hate Delusional Thinking?
PsychoticEpisode
10-14-09, 09:59 PM
Or love for that matter? Or a product of delusional thinking? I thought of this when I read SAM's 'Do Atheists have a God Complex' thread this morning. I don't hate theists, I pity them. Maybe hate is too strong a word but I believe SAM at least detests atheism. Detest being a harbinger of hate.
Hate for someone never seems to be instantaneous. Never hear that "it was hate at first sight'. So it kind of builds momentum. Same with love. Can love and hate be anything other than delusional thinking if the object of these affections doesn't reciprocate.
Getting back to the theist/atheist relationship...who is more likely to hate the other? Somehow I can't bring myself to believe that emotions such as hate & love are normal, everyday rational thoughts. Hate and love are accumulative, it takes a series of occurences to firmly establish themselves.
When I write about theists do I come across as hating them? If you think that then why? If you think I am anti religious out of spite then isn't that very thought hateful of me in some respect? I'm just using myself as an example of an atheist here so don't think I'm harboring any irrational fears, far from the truth.
Personally I can't hate the delusional theist. Are the deluded more prone to hate? If so, then in a world that's approximately 90% delusional it is not surprising to see a lot of it. Yes I expect a few theists to see my remarks and take it as a hate-thread, but isn't thinking that thought somewhat hateful of me or at least a step in that direction?
Comments?
No reason to hate people, but there are many reasons to detest religion.
PsychoticEpisode
10-14-09, 10:33 PM
No reason to hate people, but there are many reasons to detest religion.
Religion is a hate mechanism. Not saying everybody but as in anything in life it is something that people take to be more important than anything else including life.
NMSquirrel
10-14-09, 11:45 PM
hey look..its your favorite theist..lol
seriously...
i kinda agree to a point with your point about religions being hate machines...
but i think its more basic than that..
read this please.. (http://forum.imperion.org/showpost.php?p=60802&postcount=154)
when some ppl turn to religion (not god) they expect that religion to give them a sense of worth, they use their religion to justify their own feelings of worth and whether you are into religion or not most ppl tend to devalue those who are not like them, religion just give them an excuse to justify their hate..
i don't know how many churches i have walked away from as soon as i discovered the ppl take offense at almost everything (offense is self centered and has nothing to do with god) or have started speaking out against a particular group of ppl..(many other reason also..but not relative to my point..)
if i were to put a number to how many churches i think are 'getting it right' i would have to say about 1% of them..the rest are just trying to play the dominance game..
and also please be aware that i DO NOT believe as other believers believe..so please dont stereotype me..ask me what i believe first before you go off on any god believer hateing rants..
if i were to put a number to how many churches i think are 'getting it right' i would have to say about 1% of them..the rest are just trying to play the dominance game..
You say they're wrong, they say you're wrong. So, who's right?
and also please be aware that i DO NOT believe as other believers believe..
You believe as they all do, that the supernatural exists and has control over our destinies. The only difference are the names and places.
Hate or Love are the states of delusional thinking since we can not observe them anywhere other than among humans and certain type of animals with brain capacity. Detest, hate or love are emotions which are provided by nature as an alert system for species in terms of taking decisions and acting accordingly to their own existence as well as to their environment.
Religious people and their alertfulness against "atheist devils" are not exeptions. If someone says that their God(s) is/are nothing but a product of human imagination, this is simply an attack to their whole reasoning of existence, a threat to their world view. If they had any degree of sympathy against the very existence of non-believers, they would become "open" for their ideas, they would start to ask the similar suspicious question to their own beliefs. This is not allowed. Because almost all religions warn their fallowers against possible questionings put by outsiders: They are the representatives of Satan or Evil; they want to shake their good belief system; they are promoting hell.
They must at least be very careful about atheists, if they do not detest or hate.
Some of them are confrontational: They risk their beliefs and they play reasoning game: This can never be a serious reasoning, because in order to reason, involving people must have at least one common concept to develop some further ideas. Religious people come up with an indescribable God idea. They expect you to fill every empty, suspicious, unanswered -yet-, emotional part of your brain with this essence. So the shape and size of your God necessarily get bigger. Emptier the neuron connections, bigger the God. Non-religious theists have a softer, energy wave like Gods; religious theists have a character builder, active, political, social and emotional Gods, just as themselves.
Atheists fulfill their emptiness with "I don't know" question instead of the "god essence" thought. They are able to detest things: For example "how on earth some people are still believing in Gods". Moreover, they can also find themselves inside of the delusional thinking of hate. And everybody acts like apes...
Hate is an emotion, like love. They are not opposites, you cannot hate someone unless you are in some way invested in them. The opposite of love/hate is indifference.
Is love/hate irrational? Probably. Most worthwhile things in life are. Indifference is rational. Which is why the rational can kill without caring [we murder to dissect].
Religion gives worth and meaning to life. Love caring charity are all irrational, which is why you see so many religious groups invested in it. Being offensive is a matter of context. I've noticed that when atheists are offended, they paint theists as fanatics, bigots, haters. When theists are offended, its because they want to block freedom of expression. So from the atheist point of view, its alright for them to be as ofensive and hateful as they like, in the name of being "free" and "rational". But if they are treated the same way, or sometimes, not even that, a wink and a greeting, it is made out to be a grievous insult to their entire identity or ludicrously still, the whole of atheism.
I think atheists lack perspective. I think the reason they are atheists is because they are literal thinkers; they simply cannot understand points of view which seem perfectly obvious to me. I have often noticed this in discussions, where a theist will say one thing which seems very clear and inspite of being explained over and over, the atheist simply cannot understand it. They seem to be incapable of thinking on anything other than a literal plain. Once I realised this, I also realised the futility of attempting to explain anything to them. Its like showing a red rose to a colour blind person. He cannot appreciate its beauty, its all gray to him.
I don't hate atheists, I just hate assholes. Anyone who is incapable of according even nominal respect in a discussion should not be surprised if they are treated according to the samskara they display. Even atheists know this, they would never act the way they do anonymously on this forum, in real life. Not without consequences. Which is why they deceive people in reality, by playing a role of being polite and respectful, which they drop once they are anonymous. Its made me wonder what the atheists around me, that I meet are really like in their hearts and minds. How much of what they show is real and not a deception.
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 07:11 AM
I think atheists lack perspective. I think the reason they are atheists is because they are literal thinkers; they simply cannot understand points of view which seem perfectly obvious to me.
To say atheism lacks perspective is a mistake. Many of us were once theists, believed what you believed, etc. If you like, we were literal then also. I don't read any atheist literature, visit their websites or partake in any organized debates, nor do I lobby government on atheism's behalf. You are right in the fact that I(can't speak for others) do not defend atheism in my normal daily life. Maybe since the advent of forums the atheist has been provided an avenue for coming out of the closet, albeit slowly but with guns blazing.
In my position I cannot publicly denounce religion for fear of losing my livelihood and acquaintances. Through actual life situations I have realized that this is true, I didn't get it from some form of media. I realize that in the grand scheme of things that theists might considered this an irrational fear on my part. Am I more afraid of personal loss or of hate being directed towards me because in reality I'm a nice guy with plenty of friends and such? This is a real situation and I have plenty of reasons to hate theists for it. However I can't since they are delusional in every sense of the word. I don't hate theists any more than I'd hate a bedridden quadriplegic. I pity them for not being able to live a normal life.
Any atheist that has experienced a bout of theism has more perspective than someone who's only been a theist or atheist from the beginning. Until you have experienced both you won't ever have the full perspective. Not to say that others don't offer excellent points. No doubt, if we were all atheists, then we would still find a reason to hate one another.
Caring is irrational by definition? :rolleyes:
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 07:28 AM
Caring is irrational by definition? :rolleyes:
How so?
Dictionary.com says... Caring
1. a state of mind in which one is troubled; worry, anxiety, or concern: He was never free from care.
2. a cause or object of worry, anxiety, concern, etc.: Their son has always been a great care to them.
3. grief; suffering; sorrow.
Are these not what evolution has given us? Innate and inbred. Are you referring to pity?
How so?
Dictionary.com says... Caring
Are these not what evolution has given us? Innate and inbred. Are you referring to pity?
Sorry, that was a reaction to this:
Is love/hate irrational? Probably. Most worthwhile things in life are. Indifference is rational. Which is why the rational can kill without caring [we murder to dissect].
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 07:44 AM
Sorry, that was a reaction to this:
I wonder if SAM appreciates me having pity for her:D Nah!;)
lightgigantic
10-15-09, 08:29 AM
Or love for that matter? Or a product of delusional thinking? I thought of this when I read SAM's 'Do Atheists have a God Complex' thread this morning. I don't hate theists, I pity them. Maybe hate is too strong a word but I believe SAM at least detests atheism. Detest being a harbinger of hate.
Hate for someone never seems to be instantaneous. Never hear that "it was hate at first sight'. So it kind of builds momentum. Same with love. Can love and hate be anything other than delusional thinking if the object of these affections doesn't reciprocate.
Getting back to the theist/atheist relationship...who is more likely to hate the other? Somehow I can't bring myself to believe that emotions such as hate & love are normal, everyday rational thoughts. Hate and love are accumulative, it takes a series of occurences to firmly establish themselves.
When I write about theists do I come across as hating them? If you think that then why? If you think I am anti religious out of spite then isn't that very thought hateful of me in some respect? I'm just using myself as an example of an atheist here so don't think I'm harboring any irrational fears, far from the truth.
Personally I can't hate the delusional theist. Are the deluded more prone to hate? If so, then in a world that's approximately 90% delusional it is not surprising to see a lot of it. Yes I expect a few theists to see my remarks and take it as a hate-thread, but isn't thinking that thought somewhat hateful of me or at least a step in that direction?
Comments?
cynicism and arrogance are also remarkably compatible with delusion.
Am I more afraid of personal loss or of hate being directed towards me because in reality I'm a nice guy with plenty of friends and such?
That depends, are you considered a "nice guy" because you don't say what you really think? Would you still be considered a "nice guy" if you did? On my part, I would never hide behind anonymity to say anything that I didn't have the guts to say out loud. Thats not to say its easy or doesn't get me into trouble, but if I'm pretending to be someone else just to be considered "acceptable" by people I consider idiots, then whats the frigging point? It would make me a bigger idiot.
lightgigantic
10-15-09, 08:52 AM
Actually, at the risk of investing a little serious thought in your threads, its the nature of anger to facilitate delusion, and its the nature of delusion to shadow memory which causes intelligence to be lost .... and to go further afield, anger itself appears in a chain of cause and effect ....
BG 2.62 While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises.
BG 2.63 From anger, complete delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost one falls down again into the material pool.
IOW what sets the ball rolling is being in a state of incompleteness, to begin the game of acquisition .
Since you appear to be late 70's/early 80's man, perhaps you might understand the topic more clearly from one of your gurus (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KpTNXXCxJzUJ:www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/f/frank_zappa/you_are_what_you_is.html+frank+zappa+lyrics+%22+in +the+dirt%22&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au)
If you don't like (Where'd you get that word?), what you has got (Appropriot? The word is not)
Drop it in the dirt (Drop it yeah) and let it rot (I can smell it now)
Someone else (Here they come, here they come) will surely come (I told you he was comin')
And pick it up (That's right) 'cause he wants some (And he wants it for free)
And when one day (There will come a day) you wonder who (I wonder too) you used to was (Who I was anyway)
And what you do (I, I, I used to work at the post office)
You'll scratch your head (But I don't wanna un-do my doo) and look around (To see what's goin' on)
But what you lost (Can't seem to find it) will not be found (A Mercedes Benz)
Do you know what you are? (I know)
You are what you is (I'm the kinda guy)
You is what you am (That ought to be drivin'), a cow don't make a ham (A four-fifty SLC)
;)
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 11:21 AM
That depends, are you considered a "nice guy" because you don't say what you really think? Would you still be considered a "nice guy" if you did? On my part, I would never hide behind anonymity to say anything that I didn't have the guts to say out loud. Thats not to say its easy or doesn't get me into trouble, but if I'm pretending to be someone else just to be considered "acceptable" by people I consider idiots, then whats the frigging point? It would make me a bigger idiot.
Here's how I see it. In an insane asylum, does it do any good for the doctor to tell the patients they're crazy? None whatsoever. If I'm in the same institution talking with my peers does it do any good to take the opposite stance and declare the patients sane? None whatsoever. If word got out that I felt either way about my chosen field I would either be ostracized or canned. So for self preservation I keep a low profile in real life. Life is about survival & enjoying for me. Call me selfish if you want.
In a world where there is significantly more people who are theists then it is no problem for them to besiege us with anything and everything about their faith. The odds are that it will be well received. Much different scenario for an atheist to shout out his thoughts publicly as there is much more risk involved. I don't like it, I may even hate it but I don't blame those who take the theistic approach. They should not be hated for being delusional, they are more like crime victims to me, lost and befuddled.
Here's how I see it. In an insane asylum, does it do any good for the doctor to tell the patients they're crazy? None whatsoever. If I'm in the same institution talking with my peers does it do any good to take the opposite stance and declare the patients sane? None whatsoever. If word got out that I felt either way about my chosen field I would either be ostracized or canned. So for self preservation I keep a low profile in real life. Life is about survival & enjoying for me. Call me selfish if you want.
In a world where there is significantly more people who are theists then it is no problem for them to besiege us with anything and everything about their faith. The odds are that it will be well received. Much different scenario for an atheist to shout out his thoughts publicly as there is much more risk involved. I don't like it, I may even hate it but I don't blame those who take the theistic approach. They should not be hated for being delusional, they are more like crime victims to me, lost and befuddled.
So you're a "nice guy" because you treat the people you interact with as inmates of an asylum where you have to watch what you say. If those people knew what you really thought of them, they wouldn't entertain you.
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 11:37 AM
So you're a "nice guy" because you treat the people you interact with as inmates of an asylum where you have to watch what you say. If those people knew what you really thought of them, they wouldn't entertain you.
Jeezuz SAM, I didn't think I was planting the seeds of hate. I told you why. I don't wear a symbol of atheism around my neck or have it tattooed on my face so I'm not going to risk going public in a predominantly theistic world, too much at stake. I'm not good at differentiating between an atheist and theist just by looks. For all I know, YOU might be in the crowd.
Jeezuz SAM, I didn't think I was planting the seeds of hate. I told you why. I don't wear a symbol of atheism around my neck or have it tattooed on my face so I'm not going to risk going public in a predominantly theistic world, too much at stake. I'm not good at differentiating between an atheist and theist just by looks. For all I know, YOU might be in the crowd.
Indeed. And considering the kind of person you are with the mask off, its a blessing to all around you that you have to wear the mask. One person keeping his idiotic opinions to himself is worth all the others not having to listen to it.
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 11:54 AM
Indeed. And considering the kind of person you are with the mask off, its a blessing to all around you that you have to wear the mask. One person keeping his idiotic opinions to himself is worth all the others not having to listen to it.
With you I can't be sure if you're trying to play me like a violin. Is this commentary, like calling me an idiot, meant for me to suddenly proclaim that delusion does breed hate? I think it borders on the devious though. Poor thing, what institution are you writing from?
With you I can't be sure if you're trying to play me like a violin. Is this commentary, like calling me an idiot, meant for me to suddenly proclaim that delusion does breed hate? I think it borders on the devious though. Poor thing, what institution are you writing from?
Nope not playing at all. There is already enough negativity in the world, without adding malignant atheists to the mix. If you had something positive to offer society, it would be different, as it is you'd only be a Debbie Downer at every table. Take me for instance. I had no opinion of atheists at all before meeting the likes of you. Now I wonder if every atheist is an actor with a bitter heart who'd be happier in a world without people like us.
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 12:08 PM
Nope not playing at all. There is already enough negativity in the world, without adding malignant atheists to the mix. If you had something positive to offer society, it would be different, as it is you'd only be a Debbie Downer at every table. Take me for instance. I had no opinion of atheists at all before meeting the likes of you. Now I wonder if every atheist is an actor with a bitter heart who'd be happier in a world without people like us.
I repeat, JEEZUZ SAM, now you have me wanting to commit genocide. What part of pity don't you understand. Sorry you feel this way.
At least now you can never be sure whether that the person you're addressing is sitting there thinking your nuts. Perhaps they agree with you in order to avoid confronting you. At least here you get a chance to defend.
I repeat, JEEZUZ SAM, now you have me wanting to commit genocide. What part of pity don't you understand. Sorry you feel this way.
At least now you can never be sure whether that the person you're addressing is sitting there thinking your nuts. Perhaps they agree with you in order to avoid confronting you. At least here you get a chance to defend.
Defend what? :p
You think it matters to me what some guy who pretends to everyone around him thinks about my position on anything at all? You are a faker, a dishonest person. You live your life being nice to people you secretly think are nuts because you depend upon them. I pity you.
At least, with all my "delusions" I am honest with myself and with others. :)
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 12:18 PM
At least, with all my "delusions" I am honest with myself and with others. :)
I could be your imam.
I doubt it. I've never had one. But go ahead, enjoy yourself treating people like crap from beyond the safety of your anonymity.
Its probably the only time you get to be yourself :wave:
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 12:34 PM
I doubt it. I've never had one. But go ahead, enjoy yourself treating people like crap from beyond the safety of your anonymity.
Its probably the only time you get to be yourself :wave:
Not really. I don't think about it beyond this chair. Everything I say is off the cuff. My religion is golf. Actually when people do talk to me of religion they just question their own. I haven't been totally silent on it, if you ask I tell. People then change the subject, I stop.
Is this a bad time to ask if you would you be interested in donating to the B'nai Brith?
Not really. I don't think about it beyond this chair. Everything I say is off the cuff. My religion is golf. Actually when people do talk to me of religion they just question their own. I haven't been totally silent on it, if you ask I tell. People then change the subject, I stop.
Is this a bad time to ask if you would you be interested in donating to the B'nai Brith?
Heh, the irony of it is, you're a person even you can't live with. :D
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 12:54 PM
Heh, the irony of it is, you're a person even you can't live with. :D
Your mistake is thinking I take this seriously. I'm a free atheist, not condemned to a life of mindless prattle. What's your post total at?
Fraggle Rocker
10-15-09, 01:38 PM
Or love for that matter? Or a product of delusional thinking?While our uniquely massive forebrain gives us qualitatively more conscious control over our cognitive behavior than any other animal, it is nonetheless a mistake to assume that it gives us complete control. We have instincts programmed by our DNA and passed down by mutation, natural selection and genetic bottlenecks, just like all other vertebrates. Like them we also have hormones that can trigger instinctive reactions or even directly affect our cognition; external chemicals like pheromones and drugs can do the same thing.
Love and hate are not "thinking." They are emotions. They percolate into our forebrain and manifest as thoughts, but they themselves are not thoughts.Never hear that "it was hate at first sight'.Love and hate are not symmetrical opposites. In fact they are not even mutually exclusive. So there's no reason to expect them to deconstruct along similar lines.Religion is a hate mechanism.Monotheistic religion, to be precise. Someone with more scholarly experience can correct me, but I don't see that the traditional polytheistic religions generated anywhere near as much hatred and violence as Judaism, Christianity and Islam have. Jung's model of archetypal instincts explains that by pointing out that the polytheistic religions all had the identical set of gods.
Of course all the Abrahamists (as well as the Bahai, Zoroastrians and other monotheist minorities) believe in the same single god, but somewhere they got sidetracked into thinking that their particular way of honoring that god is the only correct way and everyone else is at least wrong and at worst in need of aggressive conversion, and that their god demands it since apparently he can't take care of it himself.
I've been reading the news for more than fifty years and I submit that monotheistic religion is the greatest engine of hatred on this planet. Economic philosophy was in competition for that title for several decades, but we managed to get past that. Perhaps that experience will show us how to get past religion.. . . . and also please be aware that i DO NOT believe as other believers believe . . . .As Q pointed out, regardless of the petty details about prophets, covenants, resurrections, saints, rituals, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, you hold the core belief that defines you as religious and puts you in opposition to science. You disagree with the premise that is the foundation of the scientific method and all science, and which has withstood rigorous peer review for five centuries: that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. You believe that there is an illogical, unobservable supernatural universe, inhabited by at least one creature who capriciously suspends the natural laws of the universe and perturbs its workings. This is supernaturalism, this is religion, and this is antiscientific. The other details don't matter.. . . . so please dont stereotype me..ask me what i believe first before you go off on any god believer hating rants.I hate monotheism but I do not hate monotheists generically. (I assume you're a monotheist since you never put "gods" in the plural.) You differ from one another as much as any people and some of you manage to transcend your moral and intellectual handicap. The Quakers, for example, have an unblemished history of being inspired by their faith to do only good--not just good as defined in their holy book, but good that qualifies as good by any sensible standard. Such as holding clandestine classes in antebellum America to teach slaves to read and write: a capital offense.Is love/hate irrational? Probably. Most worthwhile things in life are. Indifference is rational.It seems like every time I run into one of your posts I slap my forehead in amazement that you can call yourself a professional biologist. You seem to know nothing about the pre-Neolithic history of our species, and nothing about the differences in instinctive psychology between species of varying degrees of socialization.
Like all the other Great Apes except orangutans, like many other primate species, and like many species we have learned to work with such as dogs, horses and dolphins, Homo sapiens is a pack-social species. (As opposed to, for example, solitary species like tigers and owls, or herd-social species like cows and penguins. There are other types of social organization, especially among the invertebrates.) Pack-social animals depend on their pack-mates for survival, or at least for comfortable survival. This manifests in many behaviors such as cooperative hunting, cooperative defense, group child-care, and sharing of discoveries such as rich hunting grounds, bountiful grazing territory, or safe rest areas.
Because pack-social animals depend on their pack-mates for safety and prosperity, they also have to care for them. In a small pack like those of Mesolithic humans, perhaps a couple of dozen extended-family members, it would be a tragedy to lose a member.
It is, therefore entirely rational to have feelings of affection, caring and dependence on one's pack mates. We call this love. After the Neolithic Revolution (agriculture and permanent settlements) this was expanded and strengthened. In a Neolithic "economy" division of labor and economies of scale began to increase prosperity disproportionately to the size of the community. If the person who was the specialist in making shoes, brewing beer, hybridizing figs (the first cultivated crop), or telling stories died, it would be a greater loss than the demise of one member of a nomadic hunting and gathering tribe.
The evolution of our farming villages into cities, nations, states and transnational hegemonies continues to exacerbate this. When John Kennedy died it was a loss to the entire First World. He was loved by hundreds of millions of people who had never met him, for entirely rational reasons.
Hatred works the same way. The slacker in the hunter-gatherer pack with the defective gene or the incompetent parenting who doesn't pull his weight during the mastodon stalk and then steals your food may be your cousin, but he is directly endangering the survival of the pack, so it is entirely rational to hate him. (Illustrating my earlier note that love and hate are not mutually exclusive.) The tribe in the next valley whose food supply was wiped out by a flood and is now encroaching on your precious hunting and gathering range is endangering the survival of your pack (since there was no food surplus before the invention of the technology of agriculture), so it is entirely rational to hate them.
Today there is a colossal food surplus, but it is not reaching the people in some regions, so for them it is rational to hate the ones they have been taught to believe are responsible for their hunger. (They have been misled but that's not their fault. Americans send boatloads of food to the Third World but their despotic leaders sell it and use the money to buy champagne and weapons.)
Everywhere else people have risen above the first couple of steps on Maslow's Hierarchy, no longer worrying daily about survival and security. This makes life more complicated as they worry about others threatening the things that are important to them at this higher level, the things that in aggregate define their way of life. It is still rational to hate people who pose those threats, although the error rate in targeting that hatred is much higher.
The neighbor who works the night shift and wants the Animal Control Department to take away your beloved dog because he barks during the daytime. The preacher who thinks your music is sinful and petitions the City Council not to allow a concert to be held. The people in another country who don't spend very much on their children's education, so they can afford to let them grow up to be factory workers, so your brother who was wasting the $100,000 education our taxes paid for by pushing a button on a machine tool is now out of work.
Or the guy who gives your girlfriend a ride home from the library in his Jaguar so now she's dating him instead of you.
This hatred is not irrational. It is often manipulated by the powerful for political gain (including religious gain, since religion today is largely politics), so it is wrong, but that's not the same thing as irrational.Religion gives worth and meaning to life. Love caring charity are all irrational . . . .Bullshit. I have just demolished that argument. Please do not EVER post it again or it will be a textbook case of trolling. This is not something that should have to be explained to any self-respecting biologist. You have a habit of coming back a few weeks later and reposting an argument that was already refuted, hoping you can indoctrinate our younger members into your monotheistic folderol before anybody notices.I think the reason they are atheists is because they are literal thinkers; they simply cannot understand points of view which seem perfectly obvious to me. I have often noticed this in discussions, where a theist will say one thing which seems very clear and inspite of being explained over and over, the atheist simply cannot understand it. They seem to be incapable of thinking on anything other than a literal plain.You cleverly substitute the word "literal" for "rational." Your "point of view" is supernaturalism, which stands in opposition to science since it gainsays the fundamental premise that underlies science. It is not that we can't understand your assertion, since we've been bombarded with it by the world's theistic majority throughout our lives. What we can't understand is how someone who calls herself a scientist can take fairytales seriously.
If you were simply trying to say that religion is a collection of metaphors, that would be fine. But you have never said that. You insist that there really is an illogical, unobservable supernatural universe, a belief which so far does not contradict science so long as it leaves the natural universe as a closed system. But you go on to believe that there is a creature in that supernatural universe who pops into the natural universe from time to time and mucks it up, violating the laws of nature right and left. At this point the natural universe is not a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. So your belief is antiscientific.Once I realised this, I also realised the futility of attempting to explain anything to them. Its like showing a red rose to a colour blind person. He cannot appreciate its beauty, its all gray to him.This bogus simile is a perfect example of your trademark disingenuity. It's absurdly easy for a color-blind person to test for the existence of colors he can't see. In a controlled experiment with any desired level of rigor, people with normal vision will distinguish red from green with 100% consistency. So will most species of birds, who are notoriously difficult to subvert. And many insects, who need color vision to find food. He can go to a university and learn about the electromagnetic spectrum, and discover that he does indeed perceive light in a manner suggesting that he has a physical abnormality. The evidence for colors is everywhere. We've even recently discovered that many animals have more color receptors than we do, and many can see into the ultraviolet. Bees and flowers evolved together, and bees can tell them apart by their ultraviolet spectrum. Many birds that we assume are not dimorphic have ultraviolet marking so they can tell a male from a female.
There is no way to test for the existence of a supernatural universe. However, observational experimentation can be used to test for the perturbations of the natural universe by the denizens of the supernatural universe, which your supernaturalist model of reality postulates. And in the half millennium since science as we know it has existed, none have been detected.Anyone who is incapable of according even nominal respect in a discussion should not be surprised if they are treated according to the samskara they display.The Rule of Laplace (or Sagan's Law for the TV junkies among us) advises us that when an extraordinary assertion (in this case one that contradicts the foundation of science) is not accompanied by extraordinary evidence to support it, we are under no obligation to treat it with respect.
This is a place of science. It says so in the website's title. You have the entire rest of the world in which to spout your superstitious crap. If you try to preach it here you will be slapped down.Even atheists know this, they would never act the way they do anonymously on this forum, in real life. Not without consequences.Gosh, is that because Abrahamists comprise almost two thirds of the population and rule most of the planet??? Because if we speak candidly we will be ostracized at best and murdered at worst?Which is why they deceive people in reality, by playing a role of being polite and respectful, which they drop once they are anonymous. Its made me wonder what the atheists around me, that I meet are really like in their hearts and minds. How much of what they show is real and not a deception.I can't speak for all of them but I'm happy to have a frank conversation with just about anyone once I get to know them and am sure they're not going to find a way to get me fired, denied credit, or harrassed by the police.
If I met you in the carbon world I would have the same conversations with you that I have here. But I will not do that while standing in line in the company cafeteria with twenty strangers listening, of whom six or eight are statistically likely to be militant Christian fundies and one of them car-pools with my manager.
Thanks for making all my points.
Like I said, is love/hate irrational? Probably. I love the necklace I bought in an exhibition 20 years ago, I love my cat, I love the melody Fur Elise. I hate waiting, I hate being late or not prepared. These are all real emotions. I may hate assholes who pick on nice people that never fight back and I especially hate it when they think of it as a weakness. So is love or hate irrational? Probably. Not literally.
Caring, charity, are all irrational. Animals don't "care" for their young, thats anthropomorphism. They feed them because their oxytocin levels tell them to. If they are starved for a couple of days before parturition, they eat their babies as soon as they are born. They are not a social species like a book club or a group of people forming the welfare for stray dogs association. Their behaviour is not choice. They don't stay with abusive husbands or calll the fire station when they see smoke in the neighbours house as a matter of choice. They do it because of training or because they follow their instincts. Its not a rational choice unless you are arguing for directed evolution.
And there is nothing more irrational than marrying for love and getting divorced over financial differences. But people do it a second time, sometimes even a third and a fourth. The problem with anthropomorhising biology is that there is a danger of applying artificial constructs to animal behaviour and then using them as justification for your own. This is circular reasoning and probably why people confuse trained behaviour with instinct and vice versa.
The Rule of Laplace (or Sagan's Law for the TV junkies among us) advises us that when an extraordinary assertion (in this case one that contradicts the foundation of science) is not accompanied by extraordinary evidence to support it, we are under no obligation to treat it with respect.
"That law is written in your hearts." Rom 2:15
I think that covers it. I am not obligated to follow your law [since science is a tool which does not cover supernatural phenomenon] and I am hence able to treat people's beliefs with respect. If you don't know which tool is for what, you're a poor worker. Your inability to accept the limitations of science is not my problem.
quadraphonics
10-15-09, 02:10 PM
Caring, charity, are all irrational. Animals don't "care" for their young, thats anthropomorphism.
Humans are animals.
Their behaviour is not choice.
Is yours?
The problem with anthropomorhising biology is that there is a danger of applying artificial constructs to animal behaviour and then using them as justification for your own.
Your own behavior is animal behavior.
Humans are animals.
This is circular reasoning
Indeed.
Humans are animals.
Is yours?
Your own behavior is animal behavior.
Humans are animals.
Indeed.
Clearly you are operating on instinct and cannot be held responsible for your irrational outbursts.
quadraphonics
10-15-09, 02:22 PM
Clearly you are operating on instinct and cannot be held responsible for your irrational outbursts.
How is that clear?
I did an animal study on irrational outbursts. When provoked, they bite you. Its mindless, defensive behaviour. They have no choice but to respond.
quadraphonics
10-15-09, 03:04 PM
I did an animal study on irrational outbursts. When provoked, they bite you. Its mindless, defensive behaviour. They have no choice but to respond.
So I'm a (non-human) animal, apparently?
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 08:50 PM
Originally Posted by S.A.M.
I did an animal study on irrational outbursts. When provoked, they bite you. Its mindless, defensive behaviour. They have no choice but to respond.
So I'm a (non-human) animal, apparently?
Quad...I'd wager she's waxing metaphorical.
NMSquirrel
10-15-09, 09:41 PM
As Q pointed out, regardless of the petty details about prophets, covenants, resurrections, saints, rituals, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, you hold the core belief that defines you as religious and puts you in opposition to science. You disagree with the premise that is the foundation of the scientific method and all science, and which has withstood rigorous peer review for five centuries: that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. You believe that there is an illogical, unobservable supernatural universe, inhabited by at least one creature who capriciously suspends the natural laws of the universe and perturbs its workings. This is supernaturalism, this is religion, and this is antiscientific. The other details don't matter.
I hate monotheism but I do not hate monotheists generically. (I assume you're a monotheist since you never put "gods" in the plural.) You differ from one another as much as any people and some of you manage to transcend your moral and intellectual handicap. The Quakers, for example, have an unblemished history of being inspired by their faith to do only good--not just good as defined in their holy book, but good that qualifies as good by any sensible standard. Such as holding clandestine classes in antebellum America to teach slaves to read and write: a capital offense.
wow...he really nailed me...ill bet he didn't even have to read any of my other posts to figure that one out.i would bet he could figure all this out by just four words i wrote.."i am a theist".....(in case you cant tell..i am trying to be sarcastic...)
let me ask those who have read at least 100 of my post or more than just this thread( of my posts)...do i really come across as the typical theist that everyone bitches about????
oh..btw psycho..sam.. are you two done? or do we need to seperate you two?...lol
PsychoticEpisode
10-15-09, 09:51 PM
oh..btw psycho..sam.. are you two done? or do we need to seperate you two?...lol
Frag has a way with words.
As for SAM, I love her like a sister.
So I'm a (non-human) animal, apparently?
You tell me.:rolleyes:
I did an animal study on irrational outbursts. When provoked, they bite you. Its mindless, defensive behaviour. They have no choice but to respond.
How is that different from human behavior?
NMSquirrel
10-16-09, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by S.A.M.
I did an animal study on irrational outbursts. When provoked, they bite you. Its mindless, defensive behaviour. They have no choice but to respond.
How is that different from human behavior?
ppl tend to focus way too much on their emotional state of being, so they tend to react to situations instead of stopping to think and choosing a course of action..
(look at all the ppl here who just point out whats wrong with everyone else..then get all defensive when you call them on it....)
Medicine*Woman
10-16-09, 08:56 PM
Or love for that matter? Or a product of delusional thinking? I thought of this when I read SAM's 'Do Atheists have a God Complex' thread this morning. I don't hate theists, I pity them. Maybe hate is too strong a word but I believe SAM at least detests atheism. Detest being a harbinger of hate.
Hate for someone never seems to be instantaneous. Never hear that "it was hate at first sight'. So it kind of builds momentum. Same with love. Can love and hate be anything other than delusional thinking if the object of these affections doesn't reciprocate.
Getting back to the theist/atheist relationship...who is more likely to hate the other? Somehow I can't bring myself to believe that emotions such as hate & love are normal, everyday rational thoughts. Hate and love are accumulative, it takes a series of occurences to firmly establish themselves.
When I write about theists do I come across as hating them? If you think that then why? If you think I am anti religious out of spite then isn't that very thought hateful of me in some respect? I'm just using myself as an example of an atheist here so don't think I'm harboring any irrational fears, far from the truth.
Personally I can't hate the delusional theist. Are the deluded more prone to hate? If so, then in a world that's approximately 90% delusional it is not surprising to see a lot of it. Yes I expect a few theists to see my remarks and take it as a hate-thread, but isn't thinking that thought somewhat hateful of me or at least a step in that direction?
Comments?
*************
M*W: To me, I have an intense curiosity about theists and why they believe what they do. To me, their beliefs are a delusion. Of course, that's what they believe about atheists. The difference is that they believe their diety actually exists. Atheists just don't have that delusion.
Medicine*Woman
10-16-09, 09:07 PM
*************
M*W: I've always considered fear to be the opposite of love. It is out of fear that all phobias emerge.
It is still my opinion that reading, writing and religions, were all created for man's entertainment purposes only.
First this does not belong in comparative religion. Either it belongs in religion, if it is really an atheist vs. theist OP - which later posts seem to indicate - or in Human Sciences if it is about what the title of the thread indicates.
Or love for that matter? Or a product of delusional thinking? I thought of this when I read SAM's 'Do Atheists have a God Complex' thread this morning. I don't hate theists, I pity them. Maybe hate is too strong a word but I believe SAM at least detests atheism. Detest being a harbinger of hate.
I think one can hate something without being delusional. I don't think, for example, hating a poison ivy rash needs some delusional thinking to get it going. Some hatred of other people is fueled by thinking, often messed up thinking. Racist propaganda functions this way. But some hatred of other people is a response to their behavior or lack of certain kinds of behavior.
Hate for someone never seems to be instantaneous. Never hear that "it was hate at first sight'. I've hated at first sight. Generally the person must being doing somethign I abhor. This reaction is not something I cling to. I certainly give people second chances and third ones. But I have felt hatred instantly for people. And I have felt love for people instantly - though usually children or animals - I know the latter aren't people, but, really, we are all animals.
So it kind of builds momentum. Same with love. Can love and hate be anything other than delusional thinking if the object of these affections doesn't reciprocate. Sure. Ask a parent about love. And ask a woman being stalked by a man who loves her about hate.
Getting back to the theist/atheist relationship...who is more likely to hate the other? Somehow I can't bring myself to believe that emotions such as hate & love are normal, everyday rational thoughts.They aren't thoughts, though peopel often confuse them with thoughts and vice versa.
Personally I can't hate the delusional theist. Are the deluded more prone to hate? If so, then in a world that's approximately 90% delusional it is not surprising to see a lot of it. Yes I expect a few theists to see my remarks and take it as a hate-thread, but isn't thinking that thought somewhat hateful of me or at least a step in that direction?Well, if you are taking the rational, atheist position - for example that assertions must be backed up by evidence - you would need to present some evidence that theists are more hateful that non-theists.
*************
M*W: I've always considered fear to be the opposite of love. It is out of fear that all phobias emerge.
If I am afraid of what might happen to my child it is not the opposite of love. If I am walking down the street and see five men walking toward me all go silent and stare at me, my fear is a form of self-care. There is no reason to say that fear is not love, since it often is love or comes from love. It is concern turned up a few notches. And there is a lot out there to turn concern up a few notches.
ScaryMonster
10-16-09, 10:24 PM
Or love for that matter? Or a product of delusional thinking? I thought of this when I read SAM's 'Do Atheists have a God Complex' thread this morning. I don't hate theists, I pity them. Maybe hate is too strong a word but I believe SAM at least detests atheism. Detest being a harbinger of hate.
Hate for someone never seems to be instantaneous. Never hear that "it was hate at first sight'. So it kind of builds momentum. Same with love. Can love and hate be anything other than delusional thinking if the object of these affections doesn't reciprocate.
Getting back to the theist/atheist relationship...who is more likely to hate the other? Somehow I can't bring myself to believe that emotions such as hate & love are normal, everyday rational thoughts. Hate and love are accumulative, it takes a series of occurences to firmly establish themselves.
When I write about theists do I come across as hating them? If you think that then why? If you think I am anti religious out of spite then isn't that very thought hateful of me in some respect? I'm just using myself as an example of an atheist here so don't think I'm harboring any irrational fears, far from the truth.
Personally I can't hate the delusional theist. Are the deluded more prone to hate? If so, then in a world that's approximately 90% delusional it is not surprising to see a lot of it. Yes I expect a few theists to see my remarks and take it as a hate-thread, but isn't thinking that thought somewhat hateful of me or at least a step in that direction?
Comments?
I have no opinion about god, as far as I see it the notion of God i.e. the creator, lawgiver and judge and absolute authority is fiction.
I hate organized religion; I see it as one of the most divisive and destructive forces in human history.
In essence god is dead, human beings if they only would think for themselves are beyond the judgments of deities created by primitive savages.
And as I see it the god of the Old Testament is a destructive force, but still is only a fairy tale.
Bebelina
10-17-09, 01:12 AM
I think this whole discussion is faulty to begin with, because love and hate are feelings, not delusional thinking.
Religion gives worth and meaning to life.
No, it gives worth and meaning to submission, obedience and worship to an imaginary being, which has little to do with real life.
I've noticed that when atheists are offended, they paint theists as fanatics, bigots, haters.
Yes, the fanaticism, bigotry and hatred of your cult is most certainly offensive.
When theists are offended, its because they want to block freedom of expression. So from the atheist point of view, its alright for them to be as ofensive and hateful as they like, in the name of being "free" and "rational". But if they are treated the same way, or sometimes, not even that, a wink and a greeting, it is made out to be a grievous insult to their entire identity or ludicrously still, the whole of atheism.
That would be the wink and greeting that follows up fanaticism, bigotry and hatred. An extra knife in the back, so to speak.
I think atheists lack perspective. I think the reason they are atheists is because they are literal thinkers; they simply cannot understand points of view which seem perfectly obvious to me.
Obvious, like talking with animals?
Then why aren't animals theists? There will be no "last vestiges" of theism as long as there are human beings/
I have often noticed this in discussions, where a theist will say one thing which seems very clear and inspite of being explained over and over, the atheist simply cannot understand it. They seem to be incapable of thinking on anything other than a literal plain. Once I realised this, I also realised the futility of attempting to explain anything to them. Its like showing a red rose to a colour blind person. He cannot appreciate its beauty, its all gray to him.
Showing something real like a red rose is much different than showing nothing at all and still arguing there's something actually there.
I don't hate atheists, I just hate assholes.
You are an asshole yourself.
Anyone who is incapable of according even nominal respect in a discussion should not be surprised if they are treated according to the samskara they display.
You provide very good examples of that yourself, Mrs Pot.
Even atheists know this, they would never act the way they do anonymously on this forum, in real life. Not without consequences. Which is why they deceive people in reality, by playing a role of being polite and respectful, which they drop once they are anonymous. Its made me wonder what the atheists around me, that I meet are really like in their hearts and minds. How much of what they show is real and not a deception.
And, you WOULD act the way you do, Mrs Pot?
There is little reason for an atheist to be deceptive. Since theists are unable to demonstrate a single claim, don't you think theists are the ones who are being deceptive?
NMSquirrel
10-17-09, 12:05 PM
I think this whole discussion is faulty to begin with, because love and hate are feelings, not delusional thinking.
which would bring up the question of how much value should we assign to our feelings?
PsychoticEpisode
10-17-09, 12:16 PM
I think this whole discussion is faulty to begin with, because love and hate are feelings, not delusional thinking.
The thread title was just a question. With your answer you obviously think not. Where is the fault?
Are we to consider your response as part of the discussion?
Well, if you are taking the rational, atheist position - for example that assertions must be backed up by evidence - you would need to present some evidence that theists are more hateful that non-theists.
I've hated at first sight.
Seems, you had the evidence all along.
let me ask those who have read at least 100 of my post or more than just this thread( of my posts)...do i really come across as the typical theist that everyone bitches about????
Without a shadow of a doubt.
What's confusing about your claim to not be religious, not be the typical theist, is that if there were only one god, you'd most certainly want everyone else to share that belief, and that god, hence you would by default be that typical theist.
Why is it that you want total and complete independence from religion, yet still believe in one god? That simply makes no sense.
NMSquirrel
10-17-09, 01:38 PM
Without a shadow of a doubt.
What's confusing about your claim to not be religious, not be the typical theist, is that if there were only one god, you'd most certainly want everyone else to share that belief, and that god, hence you would by default be that typical theist.
Why is it that you want total and complete independence from religion, yet still believe in one god? That simply makes no sense.
it does when you think about your own attitude against god and if your honest with yourself you would realize it doesnt come from god but from the beleivers who you don't respect (the ones trying to establish their own sense of worth by forcing their opinions on you..)(again this apllies to both sides of the issue)
Seems, you had the evidence all along.I'm not sure what you meant.
Bebelina
10-18-09, 02:57 AM
which would bring up the question of how much value should we assign to our feelings?
For some it's a matter of admitting they have feelings to begin with, and other live by them completely. Some people are afraid to feel and make mental constructions around their feelings to keep them at a minimum. Like in a acute survival situation, ,and also very common, as an everyday standard procedure. It's a situation based reaction, and of course very individual. Then we have the emo-junkies.
Feelings should be attended, they are physical reactions to a situation and if you ignore them you are missing out on essential clues to whatever you were thinking.
PsychoticEpisode
10-18-09, 03:13 PM
If in your mind the decision is made to believe in something there is no proof of then it is delusional thinking. If the delusion is expanded to include a religion that eventually instigates hate between others with the same delusion then that hate is a product of delusional thinking.
Is the actual thought to hate, a delusion? Hate between theistic groups requires a shared delusion before it can take shape. Unfortunately the delusion is not recognized as such by the participants. Therefore a member of the hating factions is probably not delusional about their directed hate. I say probably because it is debatable whether or not the hate that has festered in the deluded mind is considered delusional by default.
it does when you think about your own attitude against god and if your honest with yourself you would realize it doesnt come from god but from the beleivers who you don't respect (the ones trying to establish their own sense of worth by forcing their opinions on you..)(again this apllies to both sides of the issue)
That isn't an answer, it's a bs excuse.
lightgigantic
10-18-09, 04:33 PM
If in your mind the decision is made to believe in something there is no proof of then it is delusional thinking. If the delusion is expanded to include a religion that eventually instigates hate between others with the same delusion then that hate is a product of delusional thinking.
Is the actual thought to hate, a delusion? Hate between theistic groups requires a shared delusion before it can take shape. Unfortunately the delusion is not recognized as such by the participants. Therefore a member of the hating factions is probably not delusional about their directed hate. I say probably because it is debatable whether or not the hate that has festered in the deluded mind is considered delusional by default.
actually even a brief investigation of conflict in and between theistic groups shows it has nothing to to with god and everything to do with wealth, land, politics and all the standard catalysts of hatred that direct all conflicts, aside from anything particularly religious.
IOW whatever "necessity" you are alluding to that requires one religion to descend into issues of hatred is certainly also present in any other sort of social medium you care to stick your nose at.
NMSquirrel
10-18-09, 07:48 PM
actually even a brief investigation of conflict in and between theistic groups shows it has nothing to to with god and everything to do with wealth, land, politics and all the standard catalysts of hatred that direct all conflicts, aside from anything particularly religious.
IOW whatever "necessity" you are alluding to that requires one religion to descend into issues of hatred is certainly also present in any other sort of social medium you care to stick your nose at.
thats my point..(i think) ppl are gonna be beligerant/hate filled disrespectfull and any other negative trait associated with humans whether they believe in god or not..the ppl who are that way and get into religion to justify their hate are the ones destroying belief in god from withing their religion.
would god be as unpopular if there wasnt any attrocities commited in his name?
If in your mind the decision is made to believe in something there is no proof of then it is delusional thinking. If the delusion is expanded to include a religion that eventually instigates hate between others with the same delusion then that hate is a product of delusional thinking.
Let me try two experiments with this:
1) If in your mind a decision is made to believe in something there is no proof of then it is delusional thinking. If the delusion includes judgments of other groups and leads to hatred of these groups, then the hatred is a product of delusional thinking.
Religious versions of this pattern are a subset of the whole.
2) Let's see what the implicit rule is in your quote above...
a) never believe anything there is no proof of. (this needs to be looked at further since proof is usually made or not, like in geometry. Evidence might be a better word.)
Is the actual thought to hate, a delusion?
I am still not sure what this means. One can hate without thought. Someone starts screaming at me and attacking me I will either feel fear or hate or some combination. I won't need to do any rational analysis or irrational, but thought based analysis, to arrive at these emotional states.
Hate between theistic groups requires a shared delusion before it can take shape. Unfortunately the delusion is not recognized as such by the participants. Therefore a member of the hating factions is probably not delusional about their directed hate. I say probably because it is debatable whether or not the hate that has festered in the deluded mind is considered delusional by default.I think LG is correct here, that hatred between groups often has other real causes and religion is used as a way to get people to do or think what you want. Secular versions abound, see WOMD and Iraq.
shichimenshyo
10-18-09, 08:19 PM
I think LG is correct here, that hatred between groups often has other real causes and religion is used as a way to get people to do or think what you want. Secular versions abound, see WOMD and Iraq.
I think when people focus on religion and act like hate is primarily derived from religious difference it offsets the real fact that hate is a product of differences and peoples inablity to cope with them.
I think when people focus on religion and act like hate is primarily derived from religious difference it offsets the real fact that hate is a product of differences and peoples inablity to cope with them.and to add to that, that differences are used by small groups of people and individuals to rile up majorities for the ends of those small groups. These ends are often rather secular in nature: money, power, resources (energy resources, land, etc.)......These differences can be racial, religious, belief centered, cultural, financial, national......
NMSquirrel
10-18-09, 08:34 PM
Originally Posted by PsychoticEpisode
If in your mind the decision is made to believe in something there is no proof of then it is delusional thinking. If the delusion is expanded to include a religion that eventually instigates hate between others with the same delusion then that hate is a product of delusional thinking.
belief without proof exists in many forms without being delusional..
IE;
life on other planets.
big bang.
evolution.
posting..
politicians.
health care.
freedom...
shichimenshyo
10-18-09, 08:34 PM
and to add to that, that differences are used by small groups of people and individuals to rile up majorities for the ends of those small groups. These ends are often rather secular in nature: money, power, resources (energy resources, land, etc.)......These differences can be racial, religious, belief centered, cultural, financial, national......
yes indeed, power being the real catalyst.
Actually I guess difference would be the catalyst and power the cause.
NMSquirrel
10-18-09, 08:36 PM
and to add to that, that differences are used by small groups of people and individuals to rile up majorities for the ends of those small groups. These ends are often rather secular in nature: money, power, resources (energy resources, land, etc.)......These differences can be racial, religious, belief centered, cultural, financial, national......
well..think of it like this..what if..money/land/power/resource were divided up evenly so no one person would have more than the other...hate would still exist..
shichimenshyo
10-18-09, 08:39 PM
well..think of it like this..what if..money/land/power/resource were divided up evenly so no one person would have more than the other...hate would still exist..
Well as long as human beings are different they will fight over their differences. Making everyone on equal material/financial footing would eliminate some difference, but racial ,cultural, geographical and sexual differences would still exist.
yes indeed, power being the real catalyst.
Actually I guess difference would be the catalyst and power the cause.
I would say difference is the excuse or the marketing point for whatever the power seekers want to have happen.
Well as long as human beings are different they will fight over their differences. Making everyone on equal material/financial footing would eliminate some difference, but racial ,cultural, geographical and sexual differences would still exist.
I don't think it has to be like this. I have been in environments with a wide range of differences where there was no violence. I realize fight can also mean arguing, etc., and I do see some struggle to be present, but I think war, etc., does not have to inevitable.
NMSquirrel
10-18-09, 09:21 PM
I don't think it has to be like this. I have been in environments with a wide range of differences where there was no violence. I realize fight can also mean arguing, etc., and I do see some struggle to be present, but I think war, etc., does not have to inevitable.
that would require the ppl involve to be responsible for their own emotional state of being..and not blame others for how they are feeling..
shichimenshyo
10-18-09, 09:22 PM
that would require the ppl involve to be responsible for their own emotional state of being..and not blame others for how they are feeling..
Givin the history of the human race I have doubts about our ability to maintian that kind of long term rational thought.
that would require the ppl involve to be responsible for their own emotional state of being..and not blame others for how they are feeling..Or to blame others in a primarily emotional way, rather than a physical one or by labeling the other person or group as subhuman or evil. 'I hate when you do that.' is a lot easier to work with than 'you are Lucifer's lapdog and always will be.'
would god be as unpopular if there wasnt any attrocities commited in his name?
He would have to actually exist first.
well..think of it like this..what if..money/land/power/resource were divided up evenly so no one person would have more than the other...hate would still exist..
That's because religion still exists.
belief without proof exists in many forms without being delusional..
IE;
life on other planets.
big bang.
evolution.
posting..
politicians.
health care.
freedom...
Those are beliefs that would considered delusional without being educated. Big difference.
the ppl who are that way and get into religion to justify their hate are the ones destroying belief in god from withing their religion.
Or, more precisely, religion makes good people do bad things.
lightgigantic
10-19-09, 11:25 AM
Or, more precisely, religion makes good people do bad things.
hehe
so what's your excuse then?
shichimenshyo
10-19-09, 11:28 AM
Or, more precisely, religion makes good people do bad things.
Religion Doesn't "make" anyone do anything it just can push you in a certain direction. The choice to do wrong lies with the individual.
hehe
so what's your excuse then?
That, word for word, was my reaction. :p:D
Religion Doesn't "make" anyone do anything it just can push you in a certain direction. The choice to do wrong lies with the individual.
Indoctrination overrules the choices one makes.
hehe
so what's your excuse then?
What bad things do you refer? Would that be my disgust for your cult? How is that a bad thing, LG?
That, word for word, was my reaction.
Then, please explain the "bad things" I've done?
You realise you actively defeat all your arguments about theists simply by being yourself?
You realise you actively defeat all your arguments about theists simply by being yourself?
So, in other words, you're blowing hot air again.
No, I'm merely commenting on your ineffectiveness as an advocate.
Anyone who listens to you will consider you a poster child for "why not to be an atheist"
You give atheists a bad name.
shichimenshyo
10-19-09, 11:36 AM
Indoctrination overrules the choices one makes.
How so?
You realise you actively defeat all your arguments about theists simply by being yourself?
I understand completely that you've been indoctrinated into the cult of Islam and are unable to be yourself. You are the product of cult indoctrination, you think and act accordingly. The cult has molded you into what you are today.
That's why I blame the cult, not you.
earth to (Q)...
I hate to interrupt, but we were talking about you. :rolleyes:
You give atheists a bad name.
I'm not an atheist. That is a word made up by theists to give their supernatural delusions validity.
earth to (Q)...
I hate to interrupt, but we were talking about you.
Yes, you were insulting me. I get it, Sam.
Are you still human or have you rejected all man made definitions?
lightgigantic
10-19-09, 11:41 AM
What bad things do you refer? Would that be my disgust for your cult? How is that a bad thing, LG?
Its more to do with your character and disposition than your ideology
Its more to do with your character and disposition than your ideology
You know nothing of either my character or disposition. Which ideology is that, LG?
shichimenshyo
10-19-09, 11:48 AM
Q....Would you please explain how indoctrination overides free will?
lightgigantic
10-19-09, 11:50 AM
You know nothing of either my character or disposition.
:rolleyes:
Which ideology is that, LG?
You don't get it, do you?
We are not talking so much about your arguments, but your manner of argument.
well..think of it like this..what if..money/land/power/resource were divided up evenly so no one person would have more than the other...hate would still exist.. if the indoctrination programs currently in place continued, sure. We are bombarded with lies and distortions from birth. Further, in the current state of things you would need a totalitarian, one world government to force that scenario on us. They would need a powerful military to create and enforce this. There would be violence in this process.
That's because religion still exists.This implies that religion is the sole cause of hate. Is that your position?
Q....Would you please explain how indoctrination overides free will?
Do you need someone to explain indoctrination to you?
This implies that religion is the sole cause of hate. Is that your position?
No. It implies that religion is a primary driver of hatred throughout the ages.
Do you need someone to explain indoctrination to you?No, it was a reasonable question. If one believes in free will, iow our actions are not completely determined by past events, you would need to show how one childhood, for example, leaves one free from being completely determined, and another, religious in this case, leads to adults who no longer have free will. This would be an interesting philosophical task and is probably better suited to that forum.
No. It implies that religion is a primary driver of hatred throughout the ages.Actually it implied more than that, but now I understand what you meant.
We are not talking so much about your arguments, but your manner of argument.
Is that an ideology or are you confused as usual?
The manner in which I deal with cult ideology is blunt and aggressive, tossing in a few dollops of general frustration dealing with the delusional and insane.
No, it was a reasonable question. If one believes in free will
I didn't mention anything about free will, I stated that indoctrination overrules the choices one makes. They will choose the indoctrinated ideology over all else. That has been made more evident here than anything else.
I didn't mention anything about free will, I stated that indoctrination overrules the choices one makes. They will choose the indoctrinated ideology over all else. That has been made more evident here than anything else.Yes, but he or she put the question in terms of free will, that would have been the time to mention that you said nothing about free will and that he or she was misrepresenting your position. Then the two of you could have worked on the distinction between 'overruling choices on makes' and 'eliminating free will'.
Yes, but he or she put the question in terms of free will
So, he put words in my mouth, what does that have to do with me?
Is that an ideology or are you confused as usual?
The manner in which I deal with cult ideology is blunt and aggressive, tossing in a few dollops of general frustration dealing with the delusional and insane.
Bluntness is not a problem. But repeatedly resorting to ad homs is a problem, especially if, as you admit, the frustration with people you consider delusional and insane leads you to be aggressive.
Probably more like the result of delusional thinking.
Bluntness is not a problem. But repeatedly resorting to ad homs is a problem, especially if, as you admit, the frustration with people you consider delusional and insane leads you to be aggressive.
It would be a problem, but that isn't the case.
So, he put words in my mouth, what does that have to do with me? As I said, it would have been clearer if you had raised this issue when he or she put it in terms of free will - a choice that is not at all unreasonable, especially in a science forum where determinism would be seen to hold in all cases - rather than asking a question with a dollop of aggression in it.
It would be a problem, but that isn't the case.
Are you making the claim that your posts do not contain ad homs? I checked and only looked at posts from after your banning. There are a good number of examples. The post I quoted, where you refer to your discussion partners as insane, is an ad hom.
lightgigantic
10-19-09, 12:32 PM
Is that an ideology or are you confused as usual?
The manner in which I deal with cult ideology is blunt and aggressive, tossing in a few dollops of general frustration dealing with the delusional and insane.
Ironic that you speak like this in a thread titled as it is
shichimenshyo
10-19-09, 12:44 PM
If you allow emotion to fuel your thinking about a particular group then you abandon rational thought and in so doing that you are becoming just like these indoctrinated people that make you so mad.
Are you making the claim that your posts do not contain ad homs? I checked and only looked at posts from after your banning. There are a good number of examples. The post I quoted, where you refer to your discussion partners as insane, is an ad hom.
It was an observation from evidence where no other conclusion was plausible, not an ad hom.
And no, I'm not making that claim.
Ironic that you speak like this in a thread titled as it is
The thread is titled, "Is Hate Delusional Thinking?"
What is ironic?
If you allow emotion to fuel your thinking about a particular group then you abandon rational thought and in so doing that you are becoming just like these indoctrinated people that make you so mad.
The fact that a particular group exhibits characteristics that would charge emotions does not preclude the fact that those they charge are not capable of rational thought.
How do you become 'like these indoctrinated people' if you haven't been indoctrinated?
Its more to do with your character and disposition than your ideology
Well, you could have a really, really, really nice person lying to you instead.
You often pleasantly piss off a number of people here yourself LG. Is it because of your character and disposition? Or, are you intellectually dishonest?
What's your preference, LG?
NMSquirrel
10-19-09, 08:17 PM
That isn't an answer, it's a bs excuse.
Would that be my disgust for your cult?
So, in other words, you're blowing hot air again.
Do you need someone to explain indoctrination to you?
Is that an ideology or are you confused as usual?
Is it because of your character and disposition? Or, are you intellectually dishonest
The manner in which I deal with cult ideology is blunt and aggressive,
That's why I blame the cult, not you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You know nothing of either my character or disposition
the above says everything about your character and disposition..
it also says your blunt and aggressive...
That's because religion still exists.
It implies that religion is a primary driver of hatred throughout the ages.
i wont argue with that point..there is alot of truth there..
I stated that indoctrination overrules the choices one makes. They will choose the indoctrinated ideology over all else. That has been made more evident here than anything else.
nothing or nobody would ever make me do something that i dont believe in..you cant make me kill a baby even if the pope himself asked me to..
indoctrination is a choice you make(you choose to listen and apply it) if it is a persons nature to kill a baby then he will find an excuse to, otherwise if it is not in your nature then you won't,NO MATTER WHAT!
if you dont like what your church is teaching you,go to a different church! there is a church for everything nowadays..you may even find one that feels the same way you do on alot of issues..
So, he put words in my mouth, what does that have to do with me?
um..maybe he was just trying to clarify your position?
you haven't excatl'y been clear on where you stand..your mostly telling everyone else how bad their thoughts are..
The thread is titled, "Is Hate Delusional Thinking?"
What is ironic?
LOLOLOL
I'm not an atheist. That is a word made up by theists to give their supernatural delusions validity.
huh?
so now the word atheist has become a bad word..you either believe in god or you don't which is it?..god=theist no god=atheist..
It was an observation from evidence where no other conclusion was plausible
what is the evidence you are claiming??
and what about any evidence that contradicts your conclusion?
is plausibility dependent on how you feel at the time?
lightgigantic
10-19-09, 10:52 PM
Well, you could have a really, really, really nice person lying to you instead.
You often pleasantly piss off a number of people here yourself LG. Is it because of your character and disposition? Or, are you intellectually dishonest?
What's your preference, LG?
You (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2390210&postcount=76)made the comment that religion makes good people do bad things. I am simply asking what (given that the OP is asking around the topic of hatred being delusional thinking), IYHO, makes atheists do the same.
;)
You (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2390210&postcount=76)made the comment that religion makes good people do bad things. I am simply asking what (given that the OP is asking around the topic of hatred being delusional thinking), IYHO, makes atheists do the same.
;)
Ah but there are no atheists who "hate". :rolleyes:
the above says everything about your character and disposition..
No, it does not, it's simply reaction to an ideology that is destroying mankind. Big difference.
nothing or nobody would ever make me do something that i dont believe in..you cant make me kill a baby even if the pope himself asked me to..
Almost everything you think and do is a result of what somebody else told you to believe in. There isn't a single choice you made yourself. That's one of the results of indoctrination.
indoctrination is a choice you make
No, it isn't. It wouldn't be indoctrination then.
if you dont like what your church is teaching you,go to a different church! there is a church for everything nowadays..you may even find one that feels the same way you do on alot of issues..
In other words, you don't go to churches that don't agree with your indoctrination.
The fact that there are churches for everything nowadays only demonstrates the hypocrisy of religion.
so now the word atheist has become a bad word..you either believe in god or you don't which is it?..god=theist no god=atheist..
Then, if you don't believe in unicorns, you're a aunicornist? :rolleyes:
and what about any evidence that contradicts your conclusion?
is plausibility dependent on how you feel at the time?
You're free to provide any evidence whatsoever that would support your god. Can you show your god? Can you do anything at all that would demonstrate anything about your god?
You (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2390210&postcount=76)made the comment that religion makes good people do bad things. I am simply asking what (given that the OP is asking around the topic of hatred being delusional thinking), IYHO, makes atheists do the same.
Where does the lack of belief in cult doctrines translate to doing good or bad things? It doesn't because that makes no sense.
Or love for that matter? Or a product of delusional thinking? I thought of this when I read SAM's 'Do Atheists have a God Complex' thread this morning. I don't hate theists, I pity them.
Comments?
arrogant.
lightgigantic
10-20-09, 11:00 AM
Where does the lack of belief in cult doctrines translate to doing good or bad things?
I'm not sure ... but then I am also not sure how a belief in doctrine translates into it either ...
It doesn't because that makes no sense.
Then what (delusion) do you suppose drives an atheist under the duress of hatred?
I'm not sure ... but then I am also not sure how a belief in doctrine translates into it either ...
Simple, the doctrines order you to do bad things.
Then what (delusion) do you suppose drives an atheist under the duress of hatred?
Theism.
Insane.
doctor Q strikes again.
lightgigantic
10-20-09, 04:29 PM
Simple, the doctrines order you to do bad things.
Amusing
Perhaps you could provide an example from everyday life
Theism.
So there is no other factor that introduces issues of hatred within an atheist's life ?
(I guess you must take your trolling on religious forums quite seriously, eh?)
Amusing
Perhaps you could provide an example from everyday life
I know that many examples from the bible have been presented to you ad nauseum, and you know it.
So there is no other factor that introduces issues of hatred within an atheist's life ?
Intellectual dishonesty. Lying.
What you and many theists fail to grasp is that your cults are ideologies, not arms and legs. I'm disgusted with cult ideologies, not arms and legs.
lightgigantic
10-20-09, 04:59 PM
I know that many examples from the bible have been presented to you ad nauseum, and you know it.
I know you have a passion to present caricatured renditions that find no practical support in everyday life to support your biased arguments ad nauseum, .....but I suspect you don't know it.
(I guess its part of the delusional aspect of hatred that makes one blind to such things)
Intellectual dishonesty. Lying.
Interesting
So an atheist is never susceptible to these things?
What you and many theists fail to grasp is that your cults are ideologies, not arms and legs. I'm disgusted with cult ideologies, not arms and legs.
My question is not what you think is the most popular issue that disgusts am atheist but whether there are any other issues that introduce hatred into an atheist's life.
Or is it that an atheist is so shallow that they have no pending issues in their life aside from the religious?
:D
I know you have a passion to present caricatured renditions that find no practical support in everyday life to support your biased arguments ad nauseum, .....but I suspect you don't know it.
True, the bible has no practical support for everyday life. It's demands would have us all extinct in a short time.
Interesting
So an atheist is never susceptible to these things?
There is no need to support reality with intellectual dishonesty and lies, but most certainly it is required to support a supernatural worldview.
My question is not what you think is the most popular issue that disgusts am atheist but whether there are any other issues that introduce hatred into an atheist's life.
Violence is an issue that might disgust people.
lightgigantic
10-20-09, 07:44 PM
True, the bible has no practical support for everyday life. It's demands would have us all extinct in a short time.
well ... yeah .. hence you are an atheist I guess ......
There is no need to support reality with intellectual dishonesty and lies, but most certainly it is required to support a supernatural worldview.
I don't see how that explains how an atheist is beyond issues of hatred ... much less delusion.
Violence is an issue that might disgust people.
I don't see how that explains how an atheist is beyond issues of hatred ... much less delusion.
well ... yeah .. hence you are an atheist I guess ......
No, I'm not an atheist, just like you're not an aunicornist or aleprechaunist.
lightgigantic
10-20-09, 07:57 PM
No, I'm not an atheist, just like you're not an aunicornist or aleprechaunist.
Can we expect to see you in the pews this sunday or are you severely bi-polar?
:o
Can we expect to see you in the pews this sunday or are you severely bi-polar?
What's happening in the pews on Sunday? What can I expect?
NMSquirrel
10-20-09, 09:19 PM
all in favor of ignoring Q, raise their hands!
lightgigantic
10-21-09, 04:15 AM
all in favor of ignoring Q, raise their hands!
aye
:o
CheskiChips
10-21-09, 01:47 PM
Q is so emotionally invested in his disbelief in a God, that it consumes him. Like it does many atheists.
Medicine*Woman
10-21-09, 03:22 PM
Q is so emotionally invested in his disbelief in a God, that it consumes him. Like it does many atheists.
*************
M*W: What will consume us if nothing is there?
lightgigantic
10-21-09, 05:56 PM
*************
M*W: What will consume us if nothing is there?
the emotional underpinnings that grant you such a world outlook of course.
Fraggle Rocker
10-21-09, 06:32 PM
Or is it that an atheist is so shallow that they have no pending issues in their life aside from the religious?Religion is an enormous issue; it's the 500-pound gorilla of issues. Averaged over the centuries since the rise of Christianity, and exacerbated by the rise of Islam, Abrahamic religion has been (certainly) one of the top two or three forces for disharmony and violence among humans, and (arguably) the number one force.
In the name of their god and with the blessing and encouragement of their top religious leaders, Abrahamists have destroyed three of earth's precious civilizations. (Egypt, Inca and Aztec/Maya/Olmec.) Whether from a purely scholarly, academic perspective, or from a touchy-feely humanitarian perspective, there is no greater sin than the obliteration of an entire civilization, and it is a sin that the Abrahamist community (or communities, they seem to be able to discern subtle differences among themselves) can never atone for.
It's rather difficult to get past that when deciding which battle to join--which evil against which to muster one's finite energies.
When I think about speaking out in the debates over drugs, spanking, abortion or immigration, I'm overwhelmed by the image of ALL of the Aztec libraries being burned by Christians, because ALL of the history of an entire people was labeled "heathen." Today the power of the Christian community has waned slightly in the West, but the baton of evil has been passed to their clones, the Muslim community in the Middle East.
If so many of us atheists are fixated on religion, it's because we see transcendence over religion as humanity's most pressing need.
Fraggle Rocker
10-21-09, 06:48 PM
Q is so emotionally invested in his disbelief in a God, that it consumes him. Like it does many atheists.It isn't disbelief in a god that consumes us. It's the evil perpetrated in the name of that god over two millennia. As I noted in my previous post, much of that evil is both enormous and irreparable.
Genghis Khan is probably the greatest figure of evil in our history who was not motivated by Abrahamic monotheism. And the depredations of his armies pale in comparison to those of the Muslim armies of Caliph Omar and the Christian armies of Pope Urban.
If I don't squelch her in advance, Sam will jump in and say that the depredations of Stalin and Mao were motivated by atheism, and I'll have to remind her that communism is an offshoot of Christianity. The notion that what a man takes from civilization need not correlate with what he gives back is not one that would have popped into the head of any self-respecting member of a Hindu, Jewish or Confucian society.
Medicine*Woman
10-21-09, 09:36 PM
the emotional underpinnings that grant you such a world outlook of course.
*************
M*W: There is nothing emotional about it. I make my own choices, and I'm not influenced by another's emotional underpinnings. Nothing in this life is granted to us without our own will making it so.
CheskiChips
10-21-09, 11:16 PM
*************
M*W: What will consume us if nothing is there?
the emotional underpinnings that grant you such a world outlook of course.
While I like lightgitantic's answer I'll supplement one of my own.
The consumption is in his time, mental efforts and desire to display his belief. be it by fashion or verbally.
It isn't disbelief in a god that consumes us. It's the evil perpetrated in the name of that god over two millennia. As I noted in my previous post, much of that evil is both enormous and irreparable.
Genghis Khan is probably the greatest figure of evil in our history who was not motivated by Abrahamic monotheism. And the depredations of his armies pale in comparison to those of the Muslim armies of Caliph Omar and the Christian armies of Pope Urban.
If I don't squelch her in advance, Sam will jump in and say that the depredations of Stalin and Mao were motivated by atheism, and I'll have to remind her that communism is an offshoot of Christianity. The notion that what a man takes from civilization need not correlate with what he gives back is not one that would have popped into the head of any self-respecting member of a Hindu, Jewish or Confucian society.
The evil perpetrated in the name of god is by an a few extraordinary people whose numbers are irrelevant for a case study of how atheism affects the average individual. I'm saying that atheism today manifests its self in obsession. The atheist is more outspoken because he's a minority, it consumes their time and resources to be an atheist. This is not universal, or even a good stereotype. But 'Q' and people like him go out of their way to post attacks against religion when the presence of a god is assumed as a starting point. When the starting of a point has god assumed and you believe it to be false aren't you obsessive if you're responding at all (If your response is in disagreement with the premise)? This is especially true when you're both in a minority. I never engage in religion conversation with Christians and interject "But Jesus isn't savior" for a few reasons; it doesn't help my case, it doesn't further their discussion, it's a reiteration of what they probably already knew of my opinion.
It isn't disbelief in a god that consumes us. It's the evil perpetrated in the name of that god over two millennia. As I noted in my previous post, much of that evil is both enormous and irreparable.
The worst wars of modern times and the worst atrocities have been committed by areligious states, which do not have religion as their motivation.
Genghis Khan is probably the greatest figure of evil in our history who was not motivated by Abrahamic monotheism. And the depredations of his armies pale in comparison to those of the Muslim armies of Caliph Omar and the Christian armies of Pope Urban.
Can we see some evidence for this?
If I don't squelch her in advance, Sam will jump in and say that the depredations of Stalin and Mao were motivated by atheism, and I'll have to remind her that communism is an offshoot of Christianity. The notion that what a man takes from civilization need not correlate with what he gives back is not one that would have popped into the head of any self-respecting member of a Hindu, Jewish or Confucian society.
How does that "squelch" the argument unless you are claiming that atheism has no influence on a person at all? I could easily "squelch" your argument by saying that any "religious" person who makes war is clearly an atheist pretending to believe in God to attain his ambitions. We have confessions from atheists here who tell us outright that they hide their beliefs to attain their ends.
PsychoTropicPuppy
10-22-09, 08:01 AM
No reason to hate people, but there are many reasons to detest religion.
And what is the source of religion? People. :rolleyes:
lightgigantic
10-22-09, 09:01 AM
Religion is an enormous issue; it's the 500-pound gorilla of issues. Averaged over the centuries since the rise of Christianity, and exacerbated by the rise of Islam, Abrahamic religion has been (certainly) one of the top two or three forces for disharmony and violence among humans, and (arguably) the number one force.
In the name of their god and with the blessing and encouragement of their top religious leaders, Abrahamists have destroyed three of earth's precious civilizations. (Egypt, Inca and Aztec/Maya/Olmec.) Whether from a purely scholarly, academic perspective, or from a touchy-feely humanitarian perspective, there is no greater sin than the obliteration of an entire civilization, and it is a sin that the Abrahamist community (or communities, they seem to be able to discern subtle differences among themselves) can never atone for.
It's rather difficult to get past that when deciding which battle to join--which evil against which to muster one's finite energies.
When I think about speaking out in the debates over drugs, spanking, abortion or immigration, I'm overwhelmed by the image of ALL of the Aztec libraries being burned by Christians, because ALL of the history of an entire people was labeled "heathen." Today the power of the Christian community has waned slightly in the West, but the baton of evil has been passed to their clones, the Muslim community in the Middle East.
If so many of us atheists are fixated on religion, it's because we see transcendence over religion as humanity's most pressing need.
Even though there is a thing or two I could say in response to this, you are changing the subject.
Q made the point that religion makes good people do bad things.
I asked what makes an atheist do bad things.
IOW I am asking about the hatred that is expressed on an individual level (since if you want to extrapolate the phenomena to a communal level, you inevitably bring in the sociology of power, politics and media which don't really stand as being intrinsically a/theistic .... for instance one could just as easily paint a tirade of atheist powers having a field day in ignorance the moment they come to office)
lightgigantic
10-22-09, 09:06 AM
*************
M*W: There is nothing emotional about it. I make my own choices, and I'm not influenced by another's emotional underpinnings.
hence one's own personal emotional issues come to the fore
Nothing in this life is granted to us without our own will making it so.
we didn't will ourselves into life.
Neither do we will the basic requirements of life (like water, air and food) into existence .... although we do seem to have a knack for spoiling them
And death will inevitably pay us a visit, no matter how much we might will to the contrary.
We might bring our will to bear on a few things, but these are but minor details in the bigger picture in which we exist.
And what is the source of religion? People. :rolleyes:
The source of communism, nazism, and other isms are also people. So what? There is no need to be disgusted with the people when it is the ideology that drives them.
Q made the point that religion makes good people do bad things.
I asked what makes an atheist do bad things.
Irrelevant, since there is no ideological justification for doing bad things, unlike religion.
Fraggle Rocker
10-22-09, 11:52 AM
The worst wars of modern times and the worst atrocities have been committed by areligious states, which do not have religion as their motivation.Even if that were true, I noted that the only valid way to measure the evil done by evangelical monotheism is to average it over the two millennia since it first began its metastasis. I regard the annihilation of half of the world's civilizations as a greater evil than the results of WWI and WWII (which some historians regard as one war with an intermission). The Holocaust (which is included in WWII's death toll because the Nazis understood that it could only be undertaken under the fog of war) cannot be separated from Christendom's millennium of antisemitism, clearly a religion-based hatred. That leaves one point for Hitler: his attempted genocide of the Gypsies, which is not a religion-based hatred.
Besides, as Jung pointed out, evangelical monotheism exacerbates our species' tribal instinct by making its disciples believe they are superior to their neighbors AND that someone needs to help those poor neighbors improve themselves even against their own objections. He noted that Christianity specifically puts its communities into a frame of mind in which they can easily be swayed toward war, probably because of its emphasis on a fictitious afterlife that makes mortal life seem easier to sacrifice.
It is not a coincidence that the Christian nations have developed the "weapons of mass destruction" that define their era, starting with guns.Can we see some evidence for this? [That Genghis Khan's depredations pale in comparison to those of the armies of evangelical monotheism.]Genghis Khan's body count is certainly impressive: ten percent of the population that the transportation technology of the era brought into his sphere of influence. But the Mongols never attempted to commit genocide, and they certainly never attempted to destroy a civilization. Their m.o. was simply to take over the leadership of a prosperous civilization and enjoy the perquisites that came with leadership. In fact, from China to Turkey, to a greater or lesser degree they assimilated into the occupied peoples. In China they adopted the language and in the Middle East they adopted the religion.
This contrasts with Caliph Omar's armies, who brought an end to the traditions, practices, language and other culture of Egyptian civilization (except their sturdy stone monuments), marginalized the population, flooded the country with Arabs, and established an Arabic culture with the Arabic language and the Muslim religion. (In Afghanistan, with modern weapons at their disposal, Caliph Omar's spiritual descendants actually destroyed some gigantic treasured statues of Buddha that were carved into a mountainside.)
And do we need to recount the evil done by Pope Urban's armies in the Americas? The 2,000-year old Aztec/Maya/Olmec Bronze Age civilization was demolished, leaving, again, only the huge stone edifices whose destruction was beyond the power of pre-industrial weapons. Their libraries, the repository of their history and culture, were burned so completely that today we have trouble deciphering Maya script. The same fate befell the slightly younger Bronze Age civilization of the Incas. They had not invented writing but the Christians melted down their "blasphemous" artworks--the legacy of their culture--and shipped them back to Europe as raw bullion. Throughout the Western Hemisphere, including north of the Rio Grande where the first baby steps toward civilization were in progress, the natives were marginalized, their culture pushed aside, and boatloads of Christian occupiers claimed the so-called "wilderness" as their own to exploit and convert into an outpost of Europe. Everywhere they went, the first buildings were churches and the "heathen" locals who had managed to survive where assimilated.How does that "squelch" the argument unless you are claiming that atheism has no influence on a person at all? I could easily "squelch" your argument by saying that any "religious" person who makes war is clearly an atheist pretending to believe in God to attain his ambitions.But until very recently those "ends" were so often purely religious in motivation, generally rooted in the evangelical imperative that shapes Christianity and Islam. If atheists in disguise were in command of the armies who fought the wars that defined the Reformation, what would they have to gain from either the defense of Catholicism or the victory of Protestantism? If Pope Urban were a closet atheist, why would he burn books and melt down works of art, instead of packing them up and shipping them to European libraries and museums, which enhances the wealth of the victors and is the norm when Christian armies conquer other Christian nations?We have confessions from atheists here who tell us outright that they hide their beliefs to attain their ends.Or just to survive! The Inquisition is not forgotten, and if the Muslims achieve their goal of world domination it will start anew.
But to take your point seriously, if I were a megalomaniac who found myself appointed Dictator of America, I would set about reforming America. I'd try to improve the attraction of rational thought and reduce the influence of supernaturalism and other irrationality. I'd see to it that reason played a larger role in our culture, from our counterproductive glut of attorneys to our idiotic terrorism-fixated risk management. I'd abolish the tax exemption for churches, significantly reducing their number. I'd facilitate the spread of Buddhism with its lack of a deity and its respect for science, of Hinduism with its non-evangelical polytheism that resonates more harmoniously with the human spirit, and of other Eastern philosophies that downplay supernaturalism and do not as strongly reinforce our tribal instinct. I'd also facilitate the existing growth of secularism, agnosticism, atheism and non-denominational personal religious philosophies.
What I would not do is make war on Thailand or Malaysia in order to make them Christian countries.
As a third-generation atheist who may have a mutation that lost my gene for the supernaturalism instinct, or who at least has never discovered a vestige of the Stone Age tribalism instinct inside myself, I would use my power to push my people toward peace and to integrate them into the Global Village.
Of course as a small-d democrat, it would be difficult for me to effectively wield my despotic powers.;)Even though there is a thing or two I could say in response to this, you are changing the subject. Q made the point that religion makes good people do bad things. I asked what makes an atheist do bad things.Sorry, I was answering another question. Someone asked why atheists put so much of our cognitive energy into the phenomenon of religion, something we don't even believe in. The answer is that religion dominates the world, religion is evil, and religion continually threatens to bring down civilization and take us back to the Stone Age, where it was more appropriate. Anyone who cares about the future of our species, and is not blinded by his instinct to believe in the supernatural, can't help but be terrified of what evangelical monotheism has done to mankind.IOW I am asking about the hatred that is expressed on an individual level . . . .I explained that hatred is usually a manifestation of our species' pack-social instinct. Sure it can be a rational reaction to a personal threat, but it's often an instinctive (although unconsciously rational, which Sam dismisses as unimportant, rather odd for a biologist) reaction to someone who we perceive as a threat to the survival, or at least the prosperity, of our family, our tribe, our nation, or our entire civilization.
I hate the guy who shot my cat because he harmed the emotional health of my family, but I also hate him because people who walk around shooting guns for any reason except self defense reduce the viability of civilization.. . . . since if you want to extrapolate the phenomena to a communal level, you inevitably bring in the sociology of power, politics and media which don't really stand as being intrinsically a/theistic .... for instance one could just as easily paint a tirade of atheist powers having a field day in ignorance the moment they come to officeI don't know what country you live in but in the United States with its self-serving too-big-for-its-britches government, the higher a level you attain in our government, the more exclusively it selects for only two traits:You love power You will do anything you have to in order to get it or increase itTheists and atheists go through the same filter. Once you get up beyond the level of the county council or the water commissioner, all you care about is having power and wielding it. Your religion or lack of it is secondary. Christians in Congress routinely violate the principles of their religion, are lambasted for it by the staunch co-religionists among their constituents, and are re-elected by the others.
It is not a coincidence that the Christian nations have developed the "weapons of mass destruction" that define their era, starting with guns.
So all the scientists who worked on the atomic bomb were Christians?
Could you name the significant developers of weapons of mass destruction and their religious affiliations?
This contrasts with Caliph Omar's armies, who brought an end to the traditions, practices, language and other culture of Egyptian civilization (except their sturdy stone monuments), marginalized the population, flooded the country with Arabs, and established an Arabic culture with the Arabic language and the Muslim religion. (In Afghanistan, with modern weapons at their disposal, Caliph Omar's spiritual descendants actually destroyed some gigantic treasured statues of Buddha that were carved into a mountainside.)
Huh? Caliph Omar came after the Persians, Romans and Byzantines. Do you honestly think the Egyptian civilisation survived these three?
Besides Omar didn't "flood Egypt with Arabs", he's the guy who could not be identified as the leader because he was dressed just like the soldiers. The Egyptian population is probably over 90% native Egypt, Arabised, but not Arabic.Omar is also guy who cleaned the garbage around the wailing wall with his own hands and invited the Jews back to Jerusalem. He is famous for his just treatment of non-Muslims and known for his humble nature. He built the Masjid al Aqsa as a place of worship for all the Abrahamic religions not just Muslims and sincerely believed in treating prisoners well. He is known for releasing all the POW Christians after the war with Byzantine and letting them go in return for a pledge of peace.
To compare him with the horde of Mongol warriors who ripped through China, Europe, Persia, Arabia, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and India is frankly baffling.
This is the guy who said:
If a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Umar will be responsible for dereliction of duty.
Where have you read his history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar#Legacy
PsychoTropicPuppy
10-22-09, 04:02 PM
The source of communism, nazism, and other isms are also people. So what? There is no need to be disgusted with the people when it is the ideology that drives them.
All of those -isms, and -ions, have a big flaw. They ignore that we're human.
I'm not disgusted with humanity.
All of those -isms, and -ions, have a big flaw. They ignore that we're human.
I'm not disgusted with humanity.
Exactly. Humanity is a great thing, it just needs to get together. We don't hate one another as humans, we merely despise the ideologies that attempt to divide and conquer us.
lightgigantic
10-22-09, 05:03 PM
Irrelevant, since there is no ideological justification for doing bad things, unlike religion.
on the contrary life is full of ideological justifications for doing bad things. You can find two broad categories within politics and justice, neither of which are intrinsically irreligious or religious.
:shrug:
on the contrary life is full of ideological justifications for doing bad things. You can find two broad categories within politics and justice
Sorry, but I don't find either ideological justifications for doing bad things. :shrug:
lightgigantic
10-22-09, 05:30 PM
Sorry, but I don't find either ideological justifications for doing bad things. :shrug:
Nevertheless, the first thing a high ranking criminal will do when they anticipate getting busted is call their lawyer or ask a few favours from those who are on the take.
:shrug:
Geez, even a kid who gets caught stealing cookies will wail "but I was hungry" ....
Nevertheless, the first thing a high ranking criminal will do when they anticipate getting busted is call their lawyer or ask a few favours from those who are on the take.
What does that have to do with your claim?
Geez, even a kid who gets caught stealing cookies will wail "but I was hungry" ....
What does that have to do with your claim?
lightgigantic
10-22-09, 05:41 PM
What does that have to do with your claim?
What does that have to do with your claim?
that life is jam packed full of ideological justifications for doing bad things.
If you can't see that, you must have blinkers on.
:shrug:
that life is jam packed full of ideological justifications for doing bad things.
That's circular reasoning. You didn't answer the questions.
lightgigantic
10-22-09, 05:51 PM
That's circular reasoning. You didn't answer the questions.
huh?
You said that you can't see any issues surrounding justice and politics offering ideological justifications for bad things.
I asked what planet do you live on.
:o
huh?
You said that you can't see any issues surrounding justice and politics offering ideological justifications for bad things.
I asked what planet do you live on.
You couldn't provide any, what planet are you on?
lightgigantic
10-22-09, 06:00 PM
You couldn't provide any, what planet are you on?
I can only assume you can't read newspapers.
:shrug:
I can only assume you can't read newspapers.
Many assumptions you have made here were full of rhetoric. Why should that one be any different?
NMSquirrel
10-22-09, 06:51 PM
Exactly. Humanity is a great thing, it just needs to get together. We don't hate one another as humans, we merely despise the ideologies that attempt to divide and conquer us.
what would you suggest as a fix for this?
lightgigantic
on the contrary life is full of ideological justifications for doing bad things. You can find two broad categories within politics and justice, neither of which are intrinsically irreligious or religious.
that is my point..if ppl would understand this, they would quit justifying their hate by attacking a particular group of ppl, just because they can be stereotyped...(blacks,gays,christians,jews,asians. .etc..etc) there are just as many bad ppl as there are good ppl..to judge a whole group because all you have known is the bad ppl is not fair to the good ppl of that group..
I asked what planet do you live on.
she has no opinions LG. she just likes to argue on autopilot.
what would you suggest as a fix for this?
Education. Simple, really. :)
NMSquirrel
10-22-09, 07:05 PM
Education. Simple, really. :)
what kind of education..what would you say is needed to be known?
what kind of education..what would you say is needed to be known?
The ideologies that divide and conquer us, of course, and how to stop them from doing so that we might all work together for humanity.
NMSquirrel
10-22-09, 07:20 PM
The ideologies that divide and conquer us, of course, and how to stop them from doing so that we might all work together for humanity.
what ideoligies are seperating us?
how would we stop them?
lightgigantic
10-23-09, 09:38 AM
Many assumptions you have made here were full of rhetoric. Why should that one be any different?
Even though I couldn't word it as such at the time, I first encountered that I lived in a world that offered ideological justifications for good and bad acts when I went to kindergarten.
I don't consider myself unique in this regard.
But anyway, please feel free to continue with your ideological justifications for atheism being good and theism being bad ......
:o
But anyway, please feel free to continue with your ideological justifications for atheism being good and theism being bad ......
I never made such a comparison, you did.
what ideoligies are seperating us?
Cult ideologies.
how would we stop them?
Education.
lightgigantic
10-23-09, 10:00 AM
I never made such a comparison, you did.
Sheesh!
Go back and read post 148 to understand why even atheists tend to distance themselves from you.
:rolleyes:
Sheesh!
Go back and read post 148 to understand why even atheists tend to distance themselves from you.
Yes, you're putting words in my mouth, LG. Why does everyone distance themselves from you, LG?
Seems more like they are all around him.
NMSquirrel
10-23-09, 04:13 PM
Cult ideologies.
Education.
so is that all you got?
just leave a generic remark and not get into specifics??
thinking
10-24-09, 11:36 PM
Or love for that matter? Or a product of delusional thinking? I thought of this when I read SAM's 'Do Atheists have a God Complex' thread this morning. I don't hate theists, I pity them. Maybe hate is too strong a word but I believe SAM at least detests atheism. Detest being a harbinger of hate.
Hate for someone never seems to be instantaneous. Never hear that "it was hate at first sight'. So it kind of builds momentum. Same with love. Can love and hate be anything other than delusional thinking if the object of these affections doesn't reciprocate.
Getting back to the theist/atheist relationship...who is more likely to hate the other? Somehow I can't bring myself to believe that emotions such as hate & love are normal, everyday rational thoughts. Hate and love are accumulative, it takes a series of occurrences to firmly establish themselves.
When I write about theists do I come across as hating them? If you think that then why? If you think I am anti religious out of spite then isn't that very thought hateful of me in some respect? I'm just using myself as an example of an atheist here so don't think I'm harboring any irrational fears, far from the truth.
Personally I can't hate the delusional theist. Are the deluded more prone to hate? If so, then in a world that's approximately 90% delusional it is not surprising to see a lot of it. Yes I expect a few theists to see my remarks and take it as a hate-thread, but isn't thinking that thought somewhat hateful of me or at least a step in that direction?
Comments?
ironically it is the theists who hate each other and obviously this is not delusional
If I don't squelch her in advance, Sam will jump in and say that the depredations of Stalin and Mao were motivated by atheism, and I'll have to remind her that communism is an offshoot of Christianity. This would be like saying scientific thinking is an offshoot of paganism - if one thinks it came from the Greeks - or Abrahamic religions if you think it came primarily from the learned Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Should we be wary of scientific thinking also?
so is that all you got?
just leave a generic remark and not get into specifics??
Are you asking me to solve the worlds problems, that I have all the answers?
I don't have all the answers.
But most certainly, the cycle of religious indoctrination is the first thing that has to be broken. Offer choices to children and teach them. Don't demand they believe in the same religion you believe.
With religious indoctrination of children out of the way, we'll begin to see a breakdown of organized religions and eventually they'll become irrelevant and have little or no control over the population. That's a start to ridding ourselves of ideologies that divide and conquer us.
Are you asking me to solve the worlds problems, that I have all the answers?
I don't have all the answers.
But most certainly, the cycle of religious indoctrination is the first thing that has to be broken. Offer choices to children and teach them. Don't demand they believe in the same religion you believe.
With religious indoctrination of children out of the way, we'll begin to see a breakdown of organized religions and eventually they'll become irrelevant and have little or no control over the population. That's a start to ridding ourselves of ideologies that divide and conquer us.
You are such a raging hypocrit.
Hate the sin and love the sinner is a basic tenet of my faith. The fact that some religious people don't practice the fundamentals of their own doctrine isn't surprising according to the doctrine.
To hate what causes suffering and death is sane, if you love people.
You are such a raging hypocrit.
Hate the sin and love the sinner is a basic tenet of my faith.
To hate what causes suffering and death is sane, if you love people.
:crazy:
:crazy:
Profound comment Q. Thanks for your input as always. <3
PsychoticEpisode
10-25-09, 10:03 PM
Am I not deluding myself if I hate (or love) someone at first sight?
The fact that some religious people don't practice the fundamentals of their own doctrine isn't surprising according to the doctrine.
To hate what causes suffering and death is sane
It is the tenets of your cult that causes suffering and death, Lori.
lightgigantic
10-26-09, 10:30 AM
It is the tenets of your cult that causes suffering and death, Lori.
hmmmm (http://danger.mongabay.com/causes_of_death.htm) ......
:scratchin:
hmmmm (http://danger.mongabay.com/causes_of_death.htm) ......
:scratchin:
Sin.
It is the tenets of your cult that causes suffering and death, Lori.
Sin, and the hatred of people, is what causes suffering and death according to christianity. Your sin and hatred of people is no less devastating than anyone elses.
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 10:54 AM
Hatred is just one side of a coin. /shrug
Am I not deluding myself if I hate (or love) someone at first sight?
Hatred yes, love no. Why wouldn't you love everyone? Anyone? I'm not talking about sex or romanticism either, but a realization that everyone is equally valuable.
PsychoTropicPuppy
10-26-09, 10:58 AM
Why do you think that everyone is equally valuable in the first place? Are people really equally valuable? By what criteria do you judge that?
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 10:59 AM
Loving someone on no merit is just as delusional as hating someone for no reason.
Isn't loving or hating anyone delusional anyway?
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 11:03 AM
Isn't loving or hating anyone delusional anyway?
I hate you Enmos!
lightgigantic
10-26-09, 11:05 AM
Isn't loving or hating anyone delusional anyway?
Only on the proviso that your viewpoint is not delusional .... namely individuality having no inherent value outside of the material elements it operates out of
;)
I hate you Enmos!
I always knew you were delusional :D
What I meant was is that there doesn't seem to a be a 'valid merit' on which to love or hate someone.
Only on the proviso that your viewpoint is not delusional .... namely individuality having no inherent value outside of the material elements it operates out of
;)
I feel stupid.. Can you explain?
Seems to me that inherent value doesn't exist.
Sin, and the hatred of people, is what causes suffering and death according to christianity.
That's like saying a certain group of people are the cause of all evil in the world, according to Nazism. It is Christianity that is the evil, Lori, and YOU are one of it's followers.
Your sin and hatred of people is no less devastating than anyone elses.
I don't hate anyone, Lori, and it is your cults version of "sin" that is the real sin of mankind.
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 11:15 AM
I always knew you were delusional :D
What I meant was is that there doesn't seem to a be a 'valid merit' on which to love or hate someone.
Well there is merit on which to love or hate but it is purely subjective.
Well there is merit on which to love or hate but it is purely subjective.
I think there is merit on which to like or dislike someone.
Loving or hating someone means you greatly amplify a few aspects of the persons personality while completely ignoring a host of other aspects, without justification.
In other words, you paint a picture of the person in your mind that does not correspond with reality. And no matter what anyone else says or points out about that person you hold on to your unrealistic image of that person.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of delusion?
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 12:33 PM
Yes, I would agree with that, but to the person who is caught in this delusion your reasoning is just as delusional.
hay_you
10-26-09, 12:35 PM
Or love for that matter? Or a product of delusional thinking? I thought of this when I read SAM's 'Do Atheists have a God Complex' thread this morning. I don't hate theists, I pity them. Maybe hate is too strong a word but I believe SAM at least detests atheism. Detest being a harbinger of hate.
Hate for someone never seems to be instantaneous. Never hear that "it was hate at first sight'. So it kind of builds momentum. Same with love. Can love and hate be anything other than delusional thinking if the object of these affections doesn't reciprocate.
Getting back to the theist/atheist relationship...who is more likely to hate the other? Somehow I can't bring myself to believe that emotions such as hate & love are normal, everyday rational thoughts. Hate and love are accumulative, it takes a series of occurences to firmly establish themselves.
When I write about theists do I come across as hating them? If you think that then why? If you think I am anti religious out of spite then isn't that very thought hateful of me in some respect? I'm just using myself as an example of an atheist here so don't think I'm harboring any irrational fears, far from the truth.
Personally I can't hate the delusional theist. Are the deluded more prone to hate? If so, then in a world that's approximately 90% delusional it is not surprising to see a lot of it. Yes I expect a few theists to see my remarks and take it as a hate-thread, but isn't thinking that thought somewhat hateful of me or at least a step in that direction?
Comments?
Why hate at all? Why not let people think what they want. You could say you hate all military people, because their job is to kill others. You could hate governments, because they are different to yours. You could hate religion because it is different to yours or because you think there is no God. You could hate science because it also is delusional thinking. You could also hate science because it has given man the ability to destroy the earth.
Many wars are a result of all these things. We have a world now that is devoid of a clear leader, ( like God) so man in his own thinking, has brought the world to where it is now.( on the brink of destruction)
If you think science is correct and evolution is correct, then what does any of this matter? The toughest meanest ruthless gang is the one that will win, and only those will survive, then in time they will hate each other, and kill each other off. In our willingness to hate, we, may destroy all life.
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 12:38 PM
I feel like thats a stepping stone to saying "fuck it" and abandoning rational thought.
Why do you think that everyone is equally valuable in the first place? Are people really equally valuable? By what criteria do you judge that?
The fact that they exist, I did not create them, and do not have the perfect knowledge with which to judge.
Dywyddyr
10-26-09, 12:39 PM
Why hate at all? Why not let people think what they want.
Because hate is an emotional response.
Not about what people think.
You could hate science because it also is delusional thinking.
Crap.
If you think science is correct and evolution is correct, then what does any of this matter? The toughest meanest ruthless gang is the one that will win, and only those will survive, then in time they will hate each other, and kill each other off.
Wrong.
Loving someone on no merit is just as delusional as hating someone for no reason.
What merit would that be? How much they benefit and/or please you?
Isn't loving or hating anyone delusional anyway?
No. It is manifest, and you experience the reprocussions. Don't you?
hay_you
10-26-09, 12:47 PM
I feel like thats a stepping stone to saying "fuck it" and abandoning rational thought.
No not all. All this really shows is that man does not have the ability to rule himself.
Originally Posted by hay_you
Why hate at all? Why not let people think what they want.
Because hate is an emotional response.
Not about what people think.
You could hate science because it also is delusional thinking.
Crap.
If you think science is correct and evolution is correct, then what does any of this matter? The toughest meanest ruthless gang is the one that will win, and only those will survive, then in time they will hate each other, and kill each other off.
Wrong.
Actually science does not know how life started and can not demonstrate or show that evolution is correct.
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 12:48 PM
What merit would that be? How much they benefit and/or please you?
Well yes, if that is your view of what constitutes love. There are some people who are ust bad people, I dont trick myself into thinking deep down everyone is a little bundle of light just weaiting to get out. There are shitty people out there that make shitty decisions, and while I dont hate them they certainly arent worthy of my love.
I always knew you were delusional :D
What I meant was is that there doesn't seem to a be a 'valid merit' on which to love or hate someone.
Life and the quality of it seems valid to me.
Dywyddyr
10-26-09, 12:49 PM
Actually science does not know how life started
"Actually" so what?
Science has never claimed to have all of the answers right now.
It freely admits that there are things we don't yet know.
and can not demonstrate or show that evolution is correct.
Ah, I see you don't know what you're talking about.
Evolution has been shown to be correct.
Yes, I would agree with that, but to the person who is caught in this delusion your reasoning is just as delusional.
Yea well.. they'll just have to live with that delusion, won't they? :p
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 12:51 PM
No not all. All this really shows is that man does not have the ability to rule himself.
Actually science does not know how life started and can not demonstrate or show that evolution is correct.
You have the ability to rule yourself to some degree, thinking you have no power in the happenings around you is just as bad as thinking you have absolute power.
....Evolution has been proven to be correct.....;)
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 12:52 PM
Yea well.. they'll just have to live with that delusion, won't they? :p
They will probabily hate you for being so delusional.:shrug:
They will probabily hate you for being so delusional.:shrug:
I won't hate them back ;)
Are you 'in love'? Shudder.. :D
Dywyddyr
10-26-09, 12:53 PM
I won't hate them back ;)
That's good.
Stay deluded. :p
That's good.
Stay deluded. :p
Oh no! It got you too? :D
Dywyddyr
10-26-09, 12:56 PM
Oh no! It got you too? :D
Not at all.
I don't bother with hate, I just like delusion.
Well yes, if that is your view of what constitutes love. There are some people who are ust bad people, I dont trick myself into thinking deep down everyone is a little bundle of light just weaiting to get out. There are shitty people out there that make shitty decisions, and while I dont hate them they certainly arent worthy of my love.
What if hate breeds shitty people and love heals? Then are you not part of the problem by not loving?
I believe there is power in love and in hate, the fruit of which is manifest.
You could hate religion because it is different to yours or because you think there is no God.
Or, because religion is one of the largest producers of death and misery throughout all of history.
You could hate science because it also is delusional thinking.
Delusional thinking? Like your internet connection and computer are a result of delusional thinking? In fact, every single advancement that YOU enjoy today is a result of delusional thinking?
If you actually believe that, why are using a computer and internet connection and haven't given up all that science has provided you and moved back into a cave?
You could also hate science because it has given man the ability to destroy the earth.
You could hate religion because it has and still is undergoing that task.
Many wars are a result of all these things.
Hogwash.
We have a world now that is devoid of a clear leader, ( like God)
Your god has lead us to where we are today. He's clearly failed at leadership.
so man in his own thinking, has brought the world to where it is now.( on the brink of destruction)
With the majority of the planet under the delusions of gods, you are quite wrong. The planet earth is under theist rule, or didn't you notice?
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 01:02 PM
What if hate breeds shitty people and love heals? Then are you not part of the problem by not loving?
I believe there is power in love and in hate, the fruit of which is manifest.
Sure a horrible enviroment makes people more likely to do horrible things, but what you are doing is basically taking the burden of responsibility off the person in question and saying if they shitty choices then its societies fault. No it is not, society may contribute to problems but when a person decides to haul off a rape and kill someone, the choice to preform such an action is the theres. Its you who has the power to question and judge what is right and wrong.
Not at all.
I don't bother with hate, I just like delusion.
Well, delusion doesn't have to be about love or hate.. One can be deluded about many things :p
Dywyddyr
10-26-09, 01:03 PM
One can be deluded about many things :p
Exactly. My delusion is that being deluded is a worthwhile state of affairs.
What if hate breeds shitty people and love heals? Then are you not part of the problem by not loving?
I believe there is power in love and in hate, the fruit of which is manifest.
No, if you don;t love that doesn't automatically mean you hate.
What with 'manifest'..?
Actually science ... can not demonstrate or show that evolution is correct.
Are you lying or is it that you simply don't know what you're talking about? Perhaps, you're about to tell us that your god created everything 6000 years ago?
hay_you
10-26-09, 01:20 PM
You have the ability to rule yourself to some degree, thinking you have no power in the happenings around you is just as bad as thinking you have absolute power.
....Evolution has been proven to be correct.....;)
Man has tried to rule himself for a long time. With as many types of governments that you can think of. And in the end it comes down to where we are now , on this planet. It is not over population, because all the people on the earth now could fit in the sate of Texas.( with a couple of yards around them)
Man tries to rule, and some governments are better than others( but that is subjective) But for all the people in the world, there has to be a world wide government, and people that will want to go along with that. The LN and UN have tried to do that , but it does not really work. For just one government, to be pretty good, is not good enough. You can't have some countries having everything and some nothing. Force does not work either. People in time always rebel.
Nationalism, is a dividing state of mind, for the world coming together.
Man on his own, does not have the ability rule. In all countries there are huge problems. Which eventually collapse a government and you have to start over. Even if a leader wants to help other nations, it often turns out badly.
The world left to mans thinking is doomed.
No, if you don;t love that doesn't automatically mean you hate.
What with 'manifest'..?
You don't think ambivalence is detrimental?
You experience the outcome of love and hate.
You don't think ambivalence is detrimental?
What does that have to do with anything?
You experience the outcome of love and hate.
So?
Dywyddyr
10-26-09, 01:24 PM
Man has tried to rule himself for a long time. With as many types of governments that you can think of. And in the end it comes down to where we are now , on this planet. It is not over population, because all the people on the earth now could fit in the sate of Texas.( with a couple of yards around them)
Where you can fit people says nothing about over population or otherwise. It's to do resources available where you are, or immediately available. to you
But for all the people in the world, there has to be a world wide government, and people that will want to go along with that.
Unsubstantiated drivel.
The LN and UN have tried to do that
Nope.
The world left to mans thinking is doomed.
Considering that's all we have then we must be doomed. :rolleyes:
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 01:25 PM
The world left to mans thinking is doomed.
Or, the process by which nations rise and fall could just be the evolution of our social and governmental systems?:shrug:
hay_you
10-26-09, 01:28 PM
Are you lying or is it that you simply don't know what you're talking about? Perhaps, you're about to tell us that your god created everything 6000 years ago?
You are talking about the Bibles statements on creation , there are other creation accounts also. But from the bibles point of view, days can refer to periods of time. ( not necessarily 24 hour days, like we have on earth)
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 01:29 PM
You are talking about the Bibles statements on creation , there are other creation accounts also. But from the bibles point of view, days can refer to periods of time. ( not necessarily 24 hour days, like we have on earth)
Can we stick to the topic at hand?
What does that have to do with anything?
I think that ambivalence is hateful and there is no in between.
So?
So it is manifest. Do you see the fruit of ambivalence? Do you experience it? Is is good?
hay_you
10-26-09, 02:14 PM
Considering that's all we have then we must be doomed.
If it were just up to man, that would be the case. Not necessarily , from wars, or bad government, but also from the ruining of the earth. This is something everyone has a responsibility for. But then there are some who have no control, over this, they all ready have nothing. But these ones are victims also.
Or, the process by which nations rise and fall could just be the evolution of our social and governmental systems?
It has been this way from very early times, even small tribes do things the same way as governments today. There is always friction between groups and even in a group. That is what man does.
As people that are interested in science, would you not have to agree that the evidence from all of man's governments to date, is that the world today is in more peril than in times past. Not just from military weapons, but from the destruction of the earth it'self. Governments have let this happen. Now how do they stop it. And will the people let them.
There maybe no governments left to evolve.
By the way, this is the same thing you would see if evolution ( of life) actually happened.
Where you can fit people says nothing about over population or otherwise. It's to do resources available where you are, or immediately available. to you
Yes this is correct. It really is distribution of people and material needs. What we have now is over abundance in some places and not enough in other places. Over population in some places and huge open areas in others. Governments are responsible for this. We are distributed ,, by factors of nationalism, ( this is ours and not yours), financial reasons, ( people go where the money is, which can be based on greed or just survival) some times it's just social thinking. Governments can not control all of that.
There is a limitation on what man can do when trying to rule. It won't work if people don't go along with what the governments thinks is best.
What man needs is something they all can agree upon, and is more important than anything else. It's a third party. Man will not trust another man or organization to rule the world. The UN has tried to fulfill this role at least as to wars. But if some country doesn't like what they say they just ignore it.
This third party, is built into man. There are so many examples of this.
Some turn to government to satisfy this , it is something they can come together with as a group, and some might chose another party and they go with that group. They will even die for this. For some it is religion, there are so many types of religions, that they will defend to the death. Even isolated tribes have some kind of religion. For some it is money, that will save them. For others it is other teachings , like science or atheism, something else.
The dictionary says a religion is:
re⋅li⋅gion
/rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
Use religion in a Sentence
See web results for religion
See images of religion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.....
This is why man will never to able to rule successfully. We need a third party, that we all can trust!
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 02:15 PM
Yes so far religion has done a bang up job of giving us that trusted third party......
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 02:16 PM
I think that ambivalence is hateful and there is no in between.
It is just plain delusional to think that the world works in such absolutes.
hay_you
10-26-09, 02:19 PM
Yes so far religion has done a bang up job of giving us that trusted third party......
That is absolutely true. But it is not only religion, there are many other things also.
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 02:20 PM
That is absolutely true. But it is not only religion, there are many other things also.
Care to elaborate?:)
Politics is a nice example.
hay_you
10-26-09, 02:30 PM
Can we stick to the topic at hand?
Yes.. you are right, this subject is about hate. So here is a thought.
Does nationalism promote hate? What I mean is, because you live in a certain country, does that make you any better than anyone else from other country?
In other words, are all other countries a potential enemy?
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 02:36 PM
Yes.. you are right, this subject is about hate. So here is a thought.
Does nationalism promote hate? What I mean is, because you live in a certain country, does that make you any better than anyone else from other country?
In other words, are all other countries a potential enemy?
Nationalism can promote hate or fear, I feel its an outdated concept used to divide humanity as a whole.
hay_you
10-26-09, 02:37 PM
Yes so far religion has done a bang up job of giving us that trusted third party......
That is absolutely true. But it is not only religion, there are many other things also.
As mentioned politics, but there are other things as well. Like , wealth, crime, knowledge and power.
All of these can cause wars, and hate.
shichimenshyo
10-26-09, 02:39 PM
As mentioned politics, but there are other things as well. Like , wealth, crime, knowledge and power.
All of these can cause wars, and hate.
Yes they can contribute to hate and wars, but ultimately its the human beings who decide who and what to hate.
hay_you
10-26-09, 02:50 PM
Nationalism can promote hate or fear, I feel its an outdated concept used to divide humanity as a whole.
Yes that is true also.
But governments use this all the time.
Here is an example.
Most people think killing some one is wrong. But yet when your country goes to war, for what ever reason. Then people think that killing some one is a good thing. To the point that even in the country that is a war, the citizens in that country that don't want to go, are considered traitors. And maybe imprisoned.
So people will hate even ones from their own country because of their stand.
Then governments also will make hero's out of ones that have done a good job of killing others. This is a total lack of getting the world together.
So it is not just religion, there are many other situations also. For some it is just the want of power. For others it maybe a lure of natural resources of another country. Sometime is just because of pride.
hay_you
10-26-09, 03:09 PM
It is just plain delusional to think that the world works in such absolutes.
With our imperfections, nothing man tries to do will succeed, to that extent. Because we don't work with or have such absolutes. That is exactly the point, man is unable to do this.
hay_you
10-26-09, 03:17 PM
Yes they can contribute to hate and wars, but ultimately its the human beings who decide who and what to hate.
And this is exactly, what makes the world the way it is.
There are some men with good intentions but what can they do?
Dywyddyr
10-26-09, 05:15 PM
If it were just up to man, that would be the case.
Unfortunately it is up to mankind. There is nobody else.
For some it is religion, there are so many types of religions, that they will defend to the death. Even isolated tribes have some kind of religion. For some it is money, that will save them. For others it is other teachings , like science or atheism, something else.
Science and atheism aren't religions.
The dictionary says a religion is:
Hmm slightly disingenuous of you to omit the critical parts.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
There is no set of beliefs for atheists, no observance, no rituals, and no "atheist moral code". (Which is NOT the same thing as saying atheists don't have morals).
You are talking about the Bibles statements on creation , there are other creation accounts also.
Yes, here's a Hindu account, equally mythical, magical and as unbelievable as any other:
"Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.'
A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.
The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.
The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation."
http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm
But from the bibles point of view, days can refer to periods of time. ( not necessarily 24 hour days, like we have on earth)
Yes, that must make it very confusing to anyone reading biblical accounts, wouldn't you say?
Of course, time factors aren't necessarily an important piece to the creationism puzzle. What is far more interesting are the explanations of supernatural intervention and the denial of evolution and abiogenesis in the face of facts.
Will you be filling threads with such enlightenment?
Most people think killing some one is wrong.
I'm sure that if I had been around in the late 30's in Europe and I killed Hitler just before he became Chancellor, it would have been wrong, especially if we never became privy to his later deeds. I probably would have been entered into history as a monster. Yet, give almost anyone a time machine and that would be one of the top ten things to do on most peoples list.
This is a total lack of getting the world together.
So it is not just religion, there are many other situations also.
But, would you agree that religion does in fact divide mankind?
hay_you
10-26-09, 05:32 PM
The dictionary says a religion is:
Hmm slightly disingenuous of you to omit the critical parts.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
There is no set of beliefs for atheists, no observance, no rituals, and no "atheist moral code". (Which is NOT the same thing as saying atheists don't have morals).
Actually there were a few more examples, but really they all encompass what religion means. It is the understanding of how we got here and what's it all about. Science does this by holding up all the scientific knowledge, they have learned , and they put their trust in that. Others through their study and research and writings, say there is a creator. There is really no difference. There are many religions that use a carving of some object and call that God. Others use knowledge as well and don't have a deity to follow but they follow the teachings of men. This is no different than science. It is really what you put your trust in.
Dywyddyr
10-26-09, 05:35 PM
Actually there were a few more examples, but really they all encompass what religion means. Science does this by holding up all the scientific knowledge, they have learned , and they put their trust in that. Others through their study and research and writings, say there is a creator. There is really no difference. There are many religions that use a carving of some object and call that God. Others use knowledge as well and don't have a deity to follow but they follow the teachings of men. This is no different than science. It is really what you put your trust in.
Oh, still wrong.
Quite wrong.
It is the understanding of how we got here and what's it all about.
That would be philosophy, which is also NOT a religion.
hay_you
10-26-09, 05:39 PM
Yes, that must make it very confusing to anyone reading biblical accounts, wouldn't you say?
Of course, time factors aren't necessarily an important piece to the creationism puzzle. What is far more interesting are the explanations of supernatural intervention and the denial of evolution and abiogenesis in the face of facts.
Will you be filling threads with such enlightenment?
There are many religions and many ideas in science. Some of these idea of science don't last, there have been many missing links and frauds, that later research has found as not factual.
Here is a dictionary quote on abiogenesis:
a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis
/ˌeɪbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnəsɪs, ˌζbioʊ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA
Use abiogenesis in a Sentence
See web results for abiogenesis
See images of abiogenesis
–noun Biology.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
this is really off topic, I should not there here!
There are many religions
That sure makes it difficult to acknowledge the concept of one god, don't ya think?
many ideas in science.
Yes, useful ideas, such as the internet connection and computer you now use.
Some of these idea of science don't last, there have been many missing links and frauds, that later research has found as not factual.
Such as what? Please explain these missing links and frauds? They must be very important if they discredit science.
Here is a dictionary quote on abiogenesis:
And, here is a link explaining what you have disingenuously bolded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Abiogenesis
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.