The virtue of materialism

It was a metaphor...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And what I'm saying has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

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

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

Ok. We are sort of discussing two different things here. Still, my point stands. Materialism is still dangerous because of the greed and selfishness generated by the system. There's no virtue in such a thing. It makes you completely dependent on the exterior world. Of course we do need some things, but it is possible to be very happy with little. Materialism shouldn't be used for the purposes it is actually used. Unfortuantely, it is.

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

Both are euqually dangerous if used for selfish purposes. Materialism can easily create violence and hopelessness.

Superficial? I go way beyond what you have gone so far. Besides, my point is completely unbiased and impartial.

I thought he had memory.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

I have. They do.

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

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

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

But you just said "one doesn't have to do anything". Make up your mind!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps there's some miscommunication.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that's kind of silly.

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

So there's no validity to the frustration?

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

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

Our judgement is a reflection of our perspective.

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

Yup.

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

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

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

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

True enough.

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

Sounds pretty non-viable.

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

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

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

Okay then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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

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

You're quite welcome.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How would you know?

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

Who said it isn't?

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

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

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

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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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

Please, shut up and learn something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

Godless.

 

Did you read what I wrote? :bugeye:

 

Yes, this is always the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I take you are thinking specifically of Islam, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are exceptions and extremes everywhere. The bell curve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

 

I'm irrelevant to anyone that cannot think properly. It's a simply metaphor; man!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes. Great argument.

The CPI (Consumer Price Index) of Canada is a list of about 500 products that are sold and bought in the contry. How many of those do you think you need?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Irrelevant comment........ keep going....

The only things I watch in television is "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy", and I only watch them cause they make me think about the society we live in. What about you?

You want more every day. The ads make you buy stuff. That's why they are there. Companies would waste millions of dollars with ads if they didn't work. Materialism not only creates greed and selfishness through useless consumption, but it also creates lots of waste. For example, have you seen how many ads of cars you see on tv/internet/etc? And then they come up with a newe model, that is basically the same from last year. That's because they want to raise the demand. Then people either sell their old models or just get rid of them. They also become more greedy, wanting to get the latest model. Do you see the cycle? Hopefully....

My points are still relevant to the discussion anyways.... I just explained how materialism generates greed.

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

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

It is used for selfish purposes. It should be used only to sustain people.

I thought you didn't know that. Well... are your thoughts physical?

Well... we experience feelings physically. Like... when we get nervous we feel kinda sick in the stomach. But two distinct feelings can have the same manifestation. We still label them differently. So there must be something else.

No? Well... depending on how you use it, it can be dangerous or even good. So it does seem relevant.....

Order, easy to comprehend, tangible....

I think it can be really that simple. I can always expand on it...

No. I've been told the exact opposite. So I did advance my comprehension....

Naaah... that's irrelevant to the discussion...

Ahhhh.... I gave a lot of reasons......... :bugeye:

 

[

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

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

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

Agreed, but you see what I mean now.

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

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

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

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

You said:

To which I retorted:

You replied:

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

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

Some for sure… but many? Yeah maybe.

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

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

Actually for the majority of the players, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True.

True.

Sure.

Sure.

- but for any scenario there are consequences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s true.

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

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

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

I think that many of their frustrations are valid. See?

Exactly – but it’s not the logic that’s the problem, it’s that they believe it.

Bullshit. I call them it if I smell it. If it turns out I’m wrong, I’ll apologize and deal with the consequences.

In some perfect world maybe, but in reality? Are you kidding?

I agree with the first part, but that’s definitely not the end of the story. In fact, that’s where the topic of this portion of the conversation begins.

No, you couldn’t. You’d just be more susceptible to believing the pile of horseshit they spew. That you have similar beliefs doesn’t tell you anything of what they really know.

Well, every perspective has a cost. Part of the cost of my own is that those people are a threat to it. The justifications matter because they could be changed with thought. The actions matter because they stem from the beliefs that lead to the justification.

And I was going for the direction that it doesn’t matter – people judge based on what they deem to be true – regardless of whether or not they are informed. Not only that, but they’ll do so vehemently.

Too true.

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

These:
The Call
I am the LORD your God, you shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain.
Keep holy the Sabbath day.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not kill.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness.
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

See, no love at all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, it’s a threat because it continually demands me, someone outside of it to adhere to it. Generally, it’s not much of a threat (depending on what context I consider at the time), but it certainly can be a big one if for instance, you want to kill me because I’m not religious.

I don’t think it’s “just a coat”. I think it’s what people are, but people can change. It simply requires honesty.

And the mask IMO, is far less dangerous than the “true believer”, depending on the actions of the true believer. Bush’s actions for instance, aren’t particularly dangerous to ME, but many people disagree.

Sure you could. It’d be kind of dumb, but I’m sure it’s been done.

Hmm.. well, I’d say that’s cyclical and agree I suppose. Contradictions are eventually purged one way or another. I suppose that’s the meat of the matter really. I think that’s the thing behind culture clash I suppose.

Well, that’s generally a matter of intellectual honesty.

Yes, they can. One can choose to endeavor towards consistency – or not. That is some level of conscious control.

You’re killing me.  I’ll look forward to your response.

 

Pay attention, they are 72!.

And more people die for they God/nation/ideology than Muslims.

Also one does not just decide, out of the blue to end his life to get 72 virgins. The phenomenon only has a chance of occuring when done for the greater good -in war. That is called dying for a cause. (I am not sure suicideboming is permissible in Islam, though).

On the hole, a very simplistic approach.

:m:

 

Materialism also makes one more inclined to shoot up schools, then shoot oneself. If you aren't enjoying the material world, why the hell should anyone?

Yeah, you're right. It lowers the chances of killing people for the sake of a god, but it raises the chance of killing people for the sake of pointlessness.

 

Good point b1.

So you think materialism breeds disfunction moreso than religion does? That's a tough call, but it'd be difficult to argue either way I suppose. I dunno. Hmm.

I guess each doodad has it's own characteristics that if injected into a certain type of psyche, will result in murderous behavior.

 

So the same argument has validity when is presented by one person but has no validity when presented by the other?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Materialism in contrast to dualism has virtue.

Materialism alone... rapidly translate into material comfort being more important than ideals.

That's sick.

Christianity changed Judaism to be non-materialistic, but then picked ultimately materialist ideals.

In another 500 years, it will be closer to Buddhism.

Another 500 after that, if anyone's left, it may be close to Vedanta.

 

No. It's just that pretty much anything that comes from you, is so confused and confounded I just ignore it or scorch it for the retarded tripe that it is.

Your point is the astounding hypothesis "materialism = bad". That is not equivalent to B1's point, which is either that materialism is a little worse than theism, or perhaps that they are equal.

That you would equate your words with his is a testament to either my complete inability to understand what you mean, your complete inability to say what you mean, or your complete inability to use your brain for more than an insulated hat rack. I'm pretty sure it's the last one.

I really, really wish you would either grow a brain or put me on your ignore list. I don't have anything to say to you. Communication between us is apparently impossible and I'm tired of the effort of trying to smack some sense into you, so please leave me alone and stop replying to my posts. Since I know you won't, I'll just call you an asshat now to be one ahead of the game. Asshat.

 

What is "Vedanta"? Never heard of it.

 

I said exactly what he said. :bugeye:
I just went way deeper then just that...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or your complete inability to understand something simple and straightforward.

Oh. So this is a game?
Well... that should say a lot about you and what you say...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you reverse logic and call deep "incredibly muddled and shallow" then of course. That withstanding, I have no idea what makes you think you're in any way "deep". From my perspective, your words completely lack coherence. You sound like an idiot.

Whatever you have to tell yourself.

It's not really a "fun" game so much, but I did pretty much predict your reaction. Not to say that was much of a challenge.

No moron, it says a lot about what I think of you. See what I mean, you don't even understand the simple differentation between you and everyone. That you would think the way I act towards you must necessarily reflect my attitude towards people in general, is a classic example of why I continually call you idiot and moron. I find it morbidly fascinating that despite your brain impedement, you still consider yourself "deep". The ego's demands of some individuals (like yourself) fascinates and simultaneously repulses me.

Hmm. I was going to ask you to leave me alone, but that wouldn't be fair because when I stumble across the horseshit you write, I reserve the right to point out to you how stupid you are. I do realize that the endeavor as directed to you is pointless, as you are not able to acknowledge the truth you claim to seek. I do however, find it somewhat entertaining to spell things out for you plainly and then watch you flailing in the muck you create from it.

 

Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, Wes.

I don't have time to decipher Truthseeker's post, so I'll just agree with Wes. My guess is that he's trying to say that materialism is shallow. I tend to agree.

What does that mean?

I tend to think that everything is ultimately material. I don't believe in the supernatural - as soon as we discover the "supernatural", we justify it according to natural laws. Quantum mechanics is as supernatural as anything. Gravity also - an unseen force wrenching things through space? What the hell is natural about that? Electricity, neurons, hormones, ect. All are based in the material world. All that exists is, necessarily material.

But we have to distinguish between a philosophy of living for shallow physical pleasures and a philosophy of seeing the universe as wholly material - the immaterial simply does not exist.

As far as personal philosophy, materialism can rationally lead to amoral or downright immoral ways of living your life. It can lead to a morality of complete self-interest, which is completely opposite to the conventional morality of treating others fairly. It can lead to amoral science. It can lead to nihilism. It can lead to hedonism. Ect, ect. I tend to think the greatest pleasures are material in origin, but are spiritual in nature: friendship, love, satisfaction, music, and philosophy. There's a mystery behind the power of these things that entrances people. You can rationalize it scientifically, but you can't exactly destroy it's allure. Humans are spiritual as well as material.

I personally think Buddha, Jesus, and Nietzche are the greatest spiritual philosophers. I have a lot of respect for people with spiritual depth.

 

My post is so hard to "decipher"? So... why have you already done it...? :bugeye:

 

That's exactly what I said...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well...maybe not Nietzche. He was too individualist. He valorized power over other people way too much...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!