well said!! :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris1991
Printable View
well said!! :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris1991
If you take the letters "c", "t" and "a" and arrange them in every possible ways, it won't be long before we spell, "cat". It would not be fair to assume that it would be impossible to spell cat through random arrangement of the letters. In fact, it happens 1/6 of the time that the letters are randomly arranged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris1991
In sexual reproduction, genes are distributed randomly (50% of each parent's genes). However, the extent to which they become widely distributed in the population is not random. It is the product, over time, of natural selection. So the patterns we see are NOT “random”, although the process through which they evolved involves some randomness.
Hey guys, leave something for imbalance. So much balance is unbalanced.
You seem to miss the 'survival of the fittest' factor!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
If you do not consider them random who knows the intelligence behind the order of things? Your religious gurus or the scriptures invented by some fictitious pundits? Your source of all what you call cosmic or divine design is cultivated by someone. You are hard wired to believe their notions from the time you started questioning in awe and wonderQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris1991
It's easier to pick a fake thing to believe in than it is to have your mind ripped apart by questions that don't have definitive answers. Religion is a defense mechanism. It is certainly not proven by individual beliefs. It's born out of fear and sociocultural tradition. People cling very stubbornly to their norms.
The sky could open up and a giant talking silk worm could speak aloud to tell us that he's not a god and never was. He could say he never had sway in our personal lives, but that he simply spun the delicate strands of string holding our reality together. He could say there are lots more creatures like him and none of them have any idea who or what started it all, or what the point was. All of these ridiculous nonsense things I just made up could happen, and the masses would still call it a divine act from their loving lord and savior Jesus Christ.
My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain. It's not important what the story is or what the rules are, as long as it's popular. Debunk one cult and another will spring up, possibly a worse one.
You sound wise and I second your thoughts and you presented better what I myself wanted to say. Yes as you said we have cults springing up one after another. In this eon we have Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and the like and all these cults are likely to die out the way so many did in the past and another will come up with new cults and thoughts and we are simply dancing in the dark dungeonQuote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Thank you, Osho. :)
I think there is room for you to be appreciative of Nature, this Universe and its Creator. Nobody sticks to his religion because of so-called 'fear' ( we are not in the stone ages, are we??) or sociocultural bondage. Humans have been endowed with intellect ( where did it come from?? Nothing to do with Darwinism which is basically related to physical forms) and can choose his own way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
let the babies have their bottles is a nice way to get out of trouble but it's not the solution- the babies are now quite grown up and sensible!
These are not 'cults' nor they are dancing in the 'dark dungeon'. When you look in the mirror you only see your own face.Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
You cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone. that is too arrogant to say that.
We do not know our destiny and in fact I do not want to count on the ideas promulgated by religious theorists and do not want to draw upon scriptural sources and in fact I want to investigate if possible on my own without superstitiously relying on some stale thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
I want to carve out my own way without groping for someone or some religious trashes.
You can say I am spiritual or materialistic I do not care. I do not want to revert to the idea already scientifically proved baseless.
I think, in that case, you ought to stick to 'pure sciences' to satisfy your feelings. However, I don't think this world grew out of nothing....because even in science you ''need a seed for a tree to sprout'!! What is your 'seed' re this universe?? None so far....Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
We can keep on asking eternally and we can say God is the reason behind everything. What is behind the God that makes everything possible. Another God will emerge and there will be a series of Gods. Whose God is capable of holding this expanding / contracting? universe. If that God exists our mind or brains cannot fathom the depth of the design engineered by that God and I do not to look to religious thoughts to indoctrinate my minds and act foolishly. I want to think independently. I want to explore on my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
I do not want to side with any pre-thought and believed facts and these facts are based on some primordial imaginations and fears. That lead us to our savagery mindsets and I do not want to reverse the course of science.
Galileo had staked his life and was called heretic and today we worship his ideas and not the idea of the one who launched a campaign against his thoughts. You and I talk here on the Internet because those few scientists voiced against those outworn primitive philosophies
Homo sapiens are past Galileo days...but now the style of 'scientific savagery' rules the world. You are free to believe in anything but it is not fair to talk ill of other's beliefs without really understanding the Truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
Yes it is. Ideas can't be harmed. They can't be damaged or destroyed. They should be constantly tried, deconstructed, battered and generally undermined.
The problem comes when people identify so closely with an idea that they believe that an attack on the idea is an attack on themselves. This is a mistake. However, it's a mistake that's often made by those who think that their idea is not merely the truth, but that it deserves a capital T.
as many 'ideas' as there are minds! The number of planets keeps increasing.......Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Go through Aesop's fable: Father, son and donkey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
Well, yes. Exactly. That's why no truth has a capital T.
What do you mean they are not cults? What do you mean by "you cannot depict the birth or death of anything, anyone?" Ridiculous. The only thing Osho is not seeing is that they already died where the action is. They are all in a museum already and as he says, many are still victims of the mental vestiges they left lingering in the dungeons.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
It's more arrogant to claim to know the actions, intentions, and the mind of a god or "creator." In doing so people make themselves into little gods, or spokesmen for their deity and, recognizing that the deity is invisible and unproven in reality, "believers" are anything but "grown up and sensible." Whimsy and mythology have nothing to do with making sense. You say people aren't in sociocultural bondage, but I'll bet you wear clothes from time to time. Clothing and religion are man-made habits. There isn't a logical argument against what I just said. Please don't tell me people simply wear clothes and worship nonsensical sky men because they are adults. Having matured beyond that point, that argument can only be considered preposterous and a waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
Furthermore, if it wasn't a fear based notion, a lot more people would just relax and never once consider a space giant watching their every action. They wouldn't witness the slow torturous death of an infant with cancer and call it "God's will" or "God's plan." If you don't like the term "defense mechanism," I'll amend it to "coping mechanism." If anyone disagrees with that, then what is the point or benefit of fostering such delusion?
That's brilliant. You should be a famous person, Mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I'm going to beat my analogy to death by simplifying it.
Your parents put clothes on you from birth, and you've still got clothes on as an adult.
Tribal parents kept their children mostly naked from birth, and those children grew up with a general tendency to remain mostly naked.
Parents or society put religion on you from birth, and you still have it on you.
That's what sociocultural means. There isn't some logic that can deny you have been influenced by other people. Following that, you have zero ways of knowing whether you have been influenced by gods.
"Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are almost identical. I don't like saying, "survival of the fittest" because it suggests (to the naive) that "survival" and "fitness" are the key elements in natural selection. They aren't. Male Black Widow spiders spread their genes most effectively by failing to survive, and impoverished, third worlders are spreading their genes more effectively than rich Americans (who, by some definitions, might be more "fit").Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
In a later post, Varenne, you call religion a socio-cultural phenomenon. But here you use a reductionist explanation for religion – it’s a “defense mechanism” or psychological phenomenon. Of course, religion could be both. But the reductionist explanation seems trivial and silly (to me). Why do people “need” “definitive answers”?Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Varenne says:
This is not only rude, but silly. Faith may or may not be “soothing for the fragile brain” and it may or may not soothe the powerful mind. Methinks Varenne protests too much, and makes wild assertions she cannot support. How is the notion of eternal damnation (as just one example) “soothing”?Quote:
“My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain. It's not important what the story is or what the rules are, as long as it's popular. Debunk one cult and another will spring up, possibly a worse one.”
Varenne goes on in the same vein:
Of course this paragraph assumes that there must be some psychological “point or benefit” to religion. Why? Because it is a “delusion”, and therefore explicable only as a psychological defense mechanism, according to Varenne.Quote:
Furthermore, if it wasn't a fear based notion, a lot more people would just relax and never once consider a space giant watching their every action. They wouldn't witness the slow torturous death of an infant with cancer and call it "God's will" or "God's plan." If you don't like the term "defense mechanism," I'll amend it to "coping mechanism." If anyone disagrees with that, then what is the point or benefit of fostering such delusion.
Good grief! Isn’t this a literary discussion board? Is our attraction to the “delusions” of fiction only explicable through our “fragile brains'” inability to accept reality? Just as intelligent Christians must cringe reading the opinions of Literalists and Fundamentalists, I cringe reading the arguments of new atheists like Varenne, with their rude attacks and unsupported neo-Freudian theories.
What wild assertions did I make?
Why do people need definitive answers? Beats me. Ask religious people. I say religion is a defense mechanism because that's what it looks like. If people aren't doing it because it feels good, why are they doing it at all?
What part of what I said was rude? I didn't make anything personal. There are groups of people who get offended if they are not placated. They call it "respecting personal beliefs." I do respect the rights of the religious to their beliefs, in exactly the same way I respect the happy joy joy feeling Santa Claus gives to kiddos. For me, it can only be placating because I cannot genuinely give over to nonsense. You seem to see something wrong with both placating and NOT placating
So, you have called me rude, but you have in no way demonstrated how I have been rude. I apologize if I hurt your feelings. As you said, religion can be both sociocultural and a defense mechanism. It's not born of genetics and that has been proven many times over. If the unfamiliarity of psychological terms offends, I suggest taking psych courses. Happy Holidays. Love love.
You didn't hurt my feelings (since I'm an atheist), except inasmuch as I hate to see my own position (atheism) so badly defended.
This statement is rude, "My stance is to let the babies have their bottles, as the saying goes. Faith is soothing for the fragile brain." You are implying (incorrectly) that religion is for juvenile people with "fragile brains". This is both rude and obviously incorrect. Many of the world's greatest thinkers have been religious.
Varenne continues: "Why do people need definitive answers? Beats me. Ask religious people. I say religion is a defense mechanism because that's what it looks like. If people aren't doing it because it feels good, why are they doing it at all?"
It's strange that Varenne is unable to recognize the irony of her statements here. Who is it that "needs definitive answers"? The religious person? Or Varenne, who offers a "definitive answer" to the complicated question of why people are religious because "that's what it looks like". Well, maybe people believe in God because "that's what the world looks like" to them.
I do agree with Varenne about the socio-cultural aspect of religion. Many people believe in God for the same reason I believe in Darwinism -- it's the accepted reality of their parents and other people they respect and trust. That's how all of us come to learn things -- not through doing all the experiments ourselves, nor through reasoning from First Principles, but by accepting the “knowledge” of those we respect and trust. As G.K. Chesterton once said, “You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.” It’s easy to recognize the social aspect of knowledge in other people. Perhaps we should learn to recognize it in ourselves, as well.
(Sorry if I was rude, Varenne.)
When she says "babies" she could be talking about people that never grew up.
Great post.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I wasn't badly defending atheism. There is no reason to defend atheism. I might speak up for myself if you say you hate the type of atheist I am, because you don't know me or my "type" of atheism. My type of atheism is simply that I don't have faith in deities. If you hate that type of atheist, that's your issue and it doesn't bother me. I don't think you're rude. No offense taken.
I'm not unable to recognize irony. Are you, as an atheist person, unable to recognize that modern religion is in contradiction to the physical world? There seems such a strong opposition to criticism of religion, that I have to wonder what type of atheist would be so angry when they suspect someone of condescending. It may have escaped notice, but I was trying to give people an excuse for what I would consider to be completely inexcusable behavior if it were to come from me instead. I have an understanding that I don't know it all and CAN'T know it all. Religious people clinging to a specific religion do not have that understanding. I am trying to be nice by calling them naive. If they are not naive, it's a far more malicious insanity. I think it would be much more "rude" of me to call them insane.
People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool. That's nice. I don't think they could handle not having faith, and I think they would tell you the same thing. They need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs). It should make no atheist rise to their defense simply because this atheist does not need that sort of sustenance. I hope I have made myself clear.
Exactly right. Thank you, cafolini. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
I have also said nothing of the intelligence of Christians. Being naive and having delusions doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid. I used to be Christian. I don't think I was stupid then. I simply hadn't outgrown that attachment. If that's offensive, I don't know how to avoid offense.
Of course she was. The notion that religion is childish is, however, both insulting and incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Varenne continues in her former vein:
First of all, the notion that “religious people clinging to a specific religion (do not have the understanding that they don’t know it all and can’t know it all)” is naïve, silly and ridiculous. “For who can know the Mind of God?” asks the Bible, rhetorically. Christians accept that God is ineffable, and for Varenne to unfairly accuse them of being know-it-alls is ridiculous.Quote:
I'm not unable to recognize irony. Are you, as an atheist person, unable to recognize that modern religion is in contradiction to the physical world? There seems such a strong opposition to criticism of religion, that I have to wonder what type of atheist would be so angry when they suspect someone of condescending. It may have escaped notice, but I was trying to give people an excuse for what I would consider to be completely inexcusable behavior if it were to come from me instead. I have an understanding that I don't know it all and CAN'T know it all. Religious people clinging to a specific religion do not have that understanding. I am trying to be nice by calling them naive. If they are not naive, it's a far more malicious insanity. I think it would be much more "rude" of me to call them insane.
People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool. That's nice. I don't think they could handle not having faith, and I think they would tell you the same thing. They need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs). It should make no atheist rise to their defense simply because this atheist does not need that sort of sustenance. I hope I have made myself clear.
Varenne goes on to claim that religious people are either naïve or insane. Good one! This is both rude, and an ad hominem argument. It is belied by the fact that many religious people are obviously sane, and very sophisticated (although, like the rest of us, they may be wrong about some things).
Varenne continues with her reductionist “explanation” of religion: “People are soothing themselves. They are coping using myth as a tool.” Does she have any evidence for this? Of course not. Instead, she is merely spewing some psychological mumbo-jumbo. She claims the religious, “need their faith to sustain them (this is not my opinion, it is theirs).” But if the religious are either naïve or insane, why should we accept their opinion? Doubtless some religious people do say they need their faith to sustain them, but they also say that Jesus was the incarnation of God. Why does Varenne accept their (naïve or insane) opinion in the one case, but not in the other?
So, Varenne, you HAVE made your position clear. Unfortunately, it is you (not the religious) who are naïve and unsophisticated. By “explaining” a complicated, rich, human tradition as a manifestation of the psychological neediness of a naïve or insane group of emotionally immature babies, you have reduced one of the luminous achievements of mankind -- a tradition from which ethical wisdom, artistic beauty, and literary glories have sprung – to a trivial psychological defense mechanism for the juvenile.
I don’t buy it.
It's not an achievement, it's a hindrance. You've gone on such a rabid attack of me, Ecurb. You're not atheist, man. It's obvious. I have never heard of an atheist person worshipping religion so stringently. What is your motivation? To convince people that religion has been wonderful for mankind? I wholeheartedly disagree. If you love it so much, why are you atheist? I'm genuinely curious.
"Atheist" is a noun. Ecurb isn't an atheist.
It's also an adjective, Juniper. I've read some opinions that say it is ONLY an adjective, but I agree that it's a noun too because it's a label. It's been used in the descriptive form for a long time; "atheist leanings." Thank you for mentioning that though.
Hang on. Run the grammatical logic of that past me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
If it's a noun, why can't it take the indefinite (or indeed, definite) article. Why is he not an atheist?
I would hardly call my attack "rabid". You (not I) are the one who began insulting people in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Religion consists of myth, ritual and belief (among other things). It seems to me that those who participate on a literary discussion board would at least see the value of myth -- if not of ritual or belief. After all, myth is the foundation of literature -- or, at least, of history, fiction, and poetry. If religion is naive, childish, and needy, does that mean literature is naive, childish and needy?
At times it is. Obviously, that does not detract from its enjoyment, a point I made.
Again, who did I insult? It's not an insult to say that taking mythology seriously is naive. By your thinking, all naive beings should feel insulted simply because they are naive.
We are talking about Humans......Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
'survival' and 'fitness' are not the same as Natural Selection which is mainly concerned with adaptation and changes in physique. "Survival of the fittest"
as I get is,. is females looking for Alpha males for good propagation of genes.
The analogy drawn by you is fallacious in that it relates more to 'economic factors' than evolution. An ant can reproduce more than an elephant and even fell it!!
As the saying goes, When confused over a matter take the easier route'' Or ' when faced with a difficulty opt for a smaller error over the bigger one'....Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Unfortunately, the non-God believers are doing none.
I think when someone attacks a 'faith' he is doing the same as hurling an atom bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima without realizing that living ones live below!! And that's not fair!!Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable