Religious Absurdity And Modern Psychological Baggage.

[islandclimber]

generalizations obviously have exceptions.. but what good does it do for people to come into a section about religious texts to say they are atheists and that all religious people or people who have faith in things outside of sacience, are delusional and insane, and basically stupid?? I've been called stupid in politer terms in this section multiple times... and each and every time it is by someone who is talking about how they are an atheist and how only science has any real value and how faith in any religion or supernatural idea is stupid and absurd.. very constructive argument that one.. very helpful and of course I will definitely abandon my ideas, my values and my faith now, because someone called me delusional... if you just want to come here and argue that theists are delusional, what exactly is the point?? please do let me know??


good point weltanschauung.. foucault has written some very interesting things on insanity... I haven't read any erasmus but I may have to take a look... as you say no we cannot define insanity or point at it when we see it, because who is to say what is insane or not.. you can say the majority is sane and the minority is not, but there are many cases where the majority is wrong, or you could say that scientific explanations for the world are sane, and religious explanations are not.. but then let us know when science can explain how something can be infinite, how the world began.. let us know when science can even have a clue of how the universe all of a sudden began for no reason, or if not how it is has always been here without end... insanity is a ridiculous term that just used to describe people who exist in alternate realities.. what's to say you are right and they are not?

[Drkshadow03]

the threads in this section, or at least quite a few seem to be all about trying to start arguments with people who are religious... and conversely there are some that are meant to do the opposite...

and then we get off into long winded arguments about abortion.. why don't you take that into the general chat section.. seems like it would fit better there.. for it does not have a whole lot to do with religious texts and literature...

but seriously, why in a religious text section is there a thread called the atheists corner..... what does that have to do with religious texts and the discussion of them...

same with most of the threads in this section, I mean look at the arguments going back and forth here.. it is basically just personal opinions and biases flying back and forth with no justification or explanation at all.. arguments like "that is wrong and I don't need to explain why"... maybe it is because you can't refute it, it is just your personal opinion that it is wrong... just a thought... humans see reality differently always, and arguing over who's reality is right or wrong is silly and has nothing to do with religious texts...

secondly those who generally call themselves atheists and like to run around telling everyone they are atheists, are for the most part just trying to create a polemic against religion... they just want to attack religion and faith in the supernatural every chance they get... and I agree religion can deserve it at times (and so can science and atheism) but attacking the very idea of faith in things we can't perceive is absurd... you can attack certain points of a religion as they can be harmful at times (and again so can science, which imo has done more to damage the world than religion by far), but attacking the very idea of religious faith and that infinite love that most religion's are supposed to have at their very essence is ridiculous... that is just making inflammatory comments with no other purpose than to ridicule other's beliefs and ideas, and to try to create arguments and fights over things that are personal beliefs and should therefore be respected as such... you can be an atheist who hasn't experienced anything out of the ordinary, anything supernatural, anything that breaks all ideas of science and therefore it is your choice to choose not to have faith or believe in any god/godhead/supernatural entity.. but I may have experienced things beyond the realm of science, I may have experienced the supernatural, and that is my basis and my reason for having faith... so why do you feel the need to ridicule this... are you that insecure in your own beliefs that you need to have everyone think the exact same way as you... seriously...

theism versus atheism will never end, as people always feel the need to attack other people's beliefs, but maybe take it out of the religious text section as this is supposed to be where we discuss religious texts... not where we attack each other's personal beliefs... again, this is just a thought...

But this misses my point. We shouldn't be talking about the merits of religion X or the evils that sometimes get committed in the name of religion Y. We shouldnt be talking about subjective/uncertain questions like: "where does evil come from? Okay, discuss among yourselves and provide me with an answer." We shouldn't be discussing theology.

We should be talking about typology and symbolism and characterization and structure and inter-textual allusions and style. Questions like "where does evil come from?" should be confined strictly to intellectual discussions of what the various biblical books are trying to say textually. After all the theodicy question is central to the Book of Job. It doesn't matter whether you personally believe in evil or not, but rather it's more important to figure what the book is trying to say, how the poetics express it, who may have written the book and why, etc.

Perhaps we should start a book club dedicated strictly to doing this kind of critical analysis. We could discuss a section in small chunks (Genesis 1-3) every weekend. Then eventually we could move on to different religious books in the same format. I imagine the Bible itself in this small portion format will take some time to get through.

But if people want to keep arguing the merits or problems with abortion, whether religious people are nuts, or if religion = teh stupidz or teh awesomz be my guest.

Anyone who may be interested in the bookclub PM me. If I think we have enough core people, I'll make a thread to announce our intentions to anyone who wants to follow along and isn't reading this thread (though, you need not formally join).

[weltanschauung]

religious argument, imo, always loses credibility because it often brings about the image of jehovah frankenstein into it. good and bad and evil and sin and damnation, all these images are always and only used in order to manipulate by terror or fear, because its the easiest and quickest way to submit others. the question of "what is right and what is not" could be easily answered with "if everyone did this, would it be a good thing?", instead of any bizarre and comical argument used by the saviours of the world to submit those who are only waiting for a leader to take them wherever, place which often is "collective existencial shipsink auschwitz".

[Jozanny]

but seriously, why in a religious text section is there a thread called the atheists corner..

Because atheism is the antithesis of theism. You do not have the one without the other; I am still interested in modern atheism as a cultural phenomenon, but my opening post that started The Corner was too reactionary and the thread itself never settled between abstract thesis and social commentary. Though I may still reference it if I am pitching to an editor of a publication like Reason Magazine and similar markets. I admire American Atheist, but the magazine doesn't pay.

But this misses my point. We shouldn't be talking about the merits of religion X or the evils that sometimes get committed in the name of religion Y. We shouldnt be talking about subjective/uncertain questions like: "where does evil come from? Okay, discuss among yourselves and provide me with an answer." We shouldn't be discussing theology.

We should be talking about typology and symbolism and characterization and structure and inter-textual allusions and style. Questions like "where does evil come from?" should be confined strictly to intellectual discussions of what the various biblical books are trying to say textually. After all the theodicy question is central to the Book of Job. It doesn't matter whether you personally believe in evil or not, but rather it's more important to figure what the book is trying to say, how the poetics express it, who may have written the book and why, etc.

Perhaps we should start a book club dedicated strictly to doing this kind of critical analysis. We could discuss a section in small chunks (Genesis 1-3) every weekend. Then eventually we could move on to different religious books in the same format. I imagine the Bible itself in this small portion format will take some time to get through.

Exactly--but do we have more than the Bible to examine? I would be as much interested in textual diversity, and even similar motifs--if I remember there is an alternate polytheist flood myth in conjunction to the Noah tale.

I would be interested in such a club Drk; I will pm when I feel more well than I do this evening.

[islandclimber]

so buddhism manipulates by inspiring fear and terror in the masses??? that's a pretty sweeping generalization to make about all religion...

Drk, I agree with you... I wasn't saying we should be comparing religions and deciding which one is the best... or deciding where evil comes from.. you missed my point.. I was saying we should be discussing religious texts here, or religious questions with regard to religious texts, not just our own often biased personal opinions... but no matter...

[Redzeppelin]

religious argument, imo, always loses credibility because it often brings about the image of jehovah frankenstein into it.

Anyone who presents God like this has obviously not read the Bible very closely.

good and bad and evil and sin and damnation, all these images are always and only used in order to manipulate by terror or fear, because its the easiest and quickest way to submit others.

THe terms you quoted are not "images"; rather, they are concepts that religions are generally concerned with. First, no one converted out of fear stays converted for long. Second, if you read the Bible, it makes it very clear that manipulation is not an acceptable way to evangelize. Third, it is not manipulation to tell people the consequences of their choices. If you are smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day, it is not manipulation for me (your doctor) to tell you that your habit will eventually kill you. If you don't believe that I have any knowledge about health, you might assume I'm just trying to manipulate you. But if I'm telling you the truth, it's a caution rather than a manipulation.

the question of "what is right and what is not" could be easily answered with "if everyone did this, would it be a good thing?", instead of any bizarre and comical argument used by the saviours of the world to submit those who are only waiting for a leader to take them wherever, place which often is "collective existencial shipsink auschwitz".

Without a transcendent morality (one that exists beyond human creation and revision), there is no reason for any law of human beings to be binding on each other. While Kant's categorical impreative is a handy tool, it presupposes that people actually bother to consider the ramifications of their behavior multiplied out through all humanity. It doesn't account for the existence of selfish people who do not bother with reflective questions about the consequences of their behavior; they feel entitled and do not bother with the reality that they would not like their behavior committed against them; if they actually thought about it, they might refrain; or they might not.

[The Atheist]

Of course - you never need explain your position on anything. Your simple assertion of rightness is apparently sufficient to quell all doubt.

That, and it being a clearly failed analogy. If I need to explain things that simple, I don't bother.

Once again - you deliver a judgment, but can provide no basis for it. If you were a lawyer, your client would be doomed.

What an extraordinary statement. Why would I have any regard for the working of a court of law during a discussion on the internet?

I'll give you a small hint on this one - what is "masculinity"? How is it desirable and how do fathers teach it?

Don't bother answering, they are questions for you to consider before you have children, I'm not going to offer opinions on them.

Are you, good sir, being intolerant of my view of childraising without being able to offer any legitimate criticism of it?

Not so much intolerant as completely dismissive. You are clearly not a parent and I have no regard whatsoever for your philosophical position on something you have no experience of. Sorry, but I have kids [almost certainly] your age.

I tell my students that "X is right because I say so" is never a legitimate form of argument. If it's wrong, articulate an argument. A failure to even attempt to do so is - in my book - an admission of having no argument at all.

That's fine. As I'm sure you're aware, I have no regard for what you have in your book. What you tell your students is immaterial. (I'm sure you actually know that.)

It is clear you're in a corner because the question is not a difficult one - you, surely, know how to answer hypothetical questions. I need not provide real-life examples for you to consider a hyptothetical question.

Unfortunately, you do if you want to pursue it. I don't bother with hypothetical questions which are meaningless. I'm a prgamatist above all and see no need to dispute positions which can't arise. Did you not see my Martian analogy? If you want to discuss, find a real world example. Otherwise, why would I waste carbon on it?

The humor is not funny to all women...for those in an verbally abusive relationships who are told that they are "illogical," your attempt at humor might be well nigh offensive.

Well, when a woman complains about it, I'll let it worry me. Regardless of gender, race, religion or species, anyone unable to laugh at him/herself gets short shrift from me.

Sorry, but I do see just a touch of irony in these two bits:

I tell my students that "X is right because I say so" is never a legitimate form of argument.

Without a transcendent morality (one that exists beyond human creation and revision), there is no reason for any law of human beings to be binding on each other.

[Jozanny]

This is from an Emily Yoffe behavioral piece at Slate, and it is much more in sync with what I care to examine in both believers and non-believers, and the models we use, as opposed to saying "religious group X is nuts" or giving atheists positive or negative attributes:

Many of the researchers studying the origins of human moral emotions and behaviors say religion does not create morality; it is building on pre-existing patterns. University of Cambridge scientist Robert Hinde notes in Why Gods Persist that every human society has a code of conduct, and that code is usually "legitimated, purveyed, and stabilised by the religious system." Both Hinde and Haidt warn of the dangers of believing that new research on evolutionary morality means science has made religion obsolete. Haidt writes that natural selection must have "favored the success of individuals and groups that found ways (genetic or cultural or both) to use these gods to their advantage, for example as commitment devices that enhanced cooperation, trust, and mutual aid."

I have been thinking a great deal about ridicule and the personality driven columnist, like Hitchens, since I have become a regular in these forums as opposed to working (and conversely despise myself for this, in all honesty, as I know I'm a powerful author capable of better than I am doing here in juvie-land)...and I am wondering if ridicule is actually the bonding force for the non-believer, almost a safe-guard, of sorts, since religious extremism can be frightening. I have no firm conclusions to offer, not yet.

[The Atheist]

This is from an Emily Yoffe behavioral piece at Slate, and it is much more in sync with what I care to examine in both believers and non-believers, and the models we use, as opposed to saying "religious group X is nuts" or giving atheists positive or negative attributes:

Good article. I've always seen religious texts written that way; men using the authority of a deity to impose their own morality.

This piece goes a step too far:

Haidt writes that natural selection must have "favored the success of individuals and groups that found ways (genetic or cultural or both) to use these gods to their advantage, for example as commitment devices that enhanced cooperation, trust, and mutual aid."

I think this is drawing conclusions from casual connections rather than causal ones. I'd agree that the cohesive factors are probably societally beneficial, but whether it's the driver for success is just a little too big a gap to bridge just yet.

I have been thinking a great deal about ridicule and the personality driven columnist, like Hitchens, since I have become a regular in these forums as opposed to working (and conversely despise myself for this, in all honesty, as I know I'm a powerful author capable of better than I am doing here in juvie-land)...

?

Jo.

I can only be up-front here and say what I feel.

If you're this bitter about it, it might be better for you to take the plunge and not come back here.

Red and I might snip at each other's heels, but neither of us is going to budge an inch and I really don't think either of us is going to cry into our beer (or whatever Red drinks) over it. I dunno about Red, but it's a just a game to me. You know that anyway.

In case you hadn't noticed, Pen has managed to gain my respect in this very thread, and that ain't an easy task for a bloke who's not just a bible-thumper, but a damn preacher/pastor as well! That alone shows the value of things like this forum, and neither Pen nor myself is any kind of juvie.

On that basis, I think you're too emotionally charged on the subject - and mostly at how you view your own involvement - to really get anything beyond further grief out of these threads.

Just take a step back and see where you want to be and whether this is that place.

My main involvement with LitNet is helping out kids in the Orwell forums - even now teachers are still askin' dumb questions about George. I don't know whether you do other forums here, but maybe if you could get involved in the more positive side of the place.

Just my thoughts - please take with a grain of salt as required.

You're a top chick; don't let it get to you.

and I am wondering if ridicule is actually the bonding force for the non-believer, almost a safe-guard, of sorts, since religious extremism can be frightening. I have no firm conclusions to offer, not yet.

It might well be.

When reason and rationality don't work, I often think scorn & derision are all we have.

On that basis, I can't wait to see Religulous.

[Jozanny]

Jo.

I can only be up-front here and say what I feel.

If you're this bitter about it, it might be better for you to take the plunge and not come back here.

Context man, context The *despise* isn't about lack of topic discipline. One gets that surfing anywhere, and my poor group suffers because I won't let the crips who want to rant about activism rant about activism without applying activism to the topic, which is disability in the fine arts.

I am nearly 46. I have done some fine things, but at the moment I cannot stop surfing my political sites and/or shut my posting mouth and bunker down. Like the say about the fellow himself, I have a relentless internal narrative driving me, and that is all fine and dandy but I am 46 and no doubt have an occlusion I am neglecting along with other physical-wearing obsessions. It is my own behavior that I am hard on A. Context.

[Redzeppelin]

That, and it being a clearly failed analogy. If I need to explain things that simple, I don't bother.

Like saying "I can lift that 500 pound weight with one hand, but since that's no real challenge for me, I'm not doing it. I only accept real challenges."

Ho-hum. Perhaps the reality is you have no refutation.

What an extraordinary statement. Why would I have any regard for the working of a court of law during a discussion on the internet?

Red Herring. I made an analogy assessing your argumentative ability. Would you like to explain how an analogy works?

I'll give you a small hint on this one - what is "masculinity"? How is it desirable and how do fathers teach it?

I think it makes sense that the difference in genders means that - at its core - both masculinity and femininity are difficult for the opposite genders to understand. If women could confir masculinity on their sons and fathers femininity on their daughters, I don't think you'd see the "battle of the sexes" we see in cultures around the world. Men and women don't understand each other very well. That's why women can't make boys into men, and men can't make girls into women.

Don't bother answering, they are questions for you to consider before you have children, I'm not going to offer opinions on them.

You are far from qualified to give me advice about parenting.

And again, your refusal to engage is simply another forfeit disguised as a "this is beneath me and I am above responding" comment.

Not so much intolerant as completely dismissive. You are clearly not a parent and I have no regard whatsoever for your philosophical position on something you have no experience of. Sorry, but I have kids [almost certainly] your age.

Here's where you get to be wrong again. I am a parent of three boys - so you would be clearly wrong on your assumption. I've got plenty of experience.

And, "dismissing" a point without showing the basis of that dismissal would simply be another tactical retreat.

That's fine. As I'm sure you're aware, I have no regard for what you have in your book. What you tell your students is immaterial. (I'm sure you actually know that.)

But unless you can produce some convincing argument at to why "my book" ought not be regarded, you're simply spouting off your opinions, which in and of themselves carry no weight whatsoever.

Unfortunately, you do if you want to pursue it. I don't bother with hypothetical questions which are meaningless. I'm a prgamatist above all and see no need to dispute positions which can't arise. Did you not see my Martian analogy? If you want to discuss, find a real world example. Otherwise, why would I waste carbon on it?

Same old song and dance: you avoid dealing with my arguments by dismissing them as irrelevant, silly, meaningless - the tactic you use most often in these dialogues with me - but you never bother to prove to me (or anybody else here for that matter) that basis of your dismissal. I'm sorry, my friend, you seem like an intelligent man, but this constant retreat under the guise of "your arguments are not even worth considering" is tiresome and I will now respectfully leave our discussion - it's clear you have no real defense, no real argument, no legitimate refutation, and no clear basis for any of your comments. I had hoped for better. In my book (the one you dismiss), anybody who comes out with such strong opinions/denunciations/judgments as yourself ought to be ready to be called upon those and bring forth a convincing and cogent defense.

You have not done so, and I'm disappointed. Thanks anyway.

[weltanschauung]

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;630732]Anyone who presents God like this has obviously not read the Bible very closely.[QUOTE]

anyone who uses that as an argument obviously is the one who knows more about anything.


" we know that the great majority of people have a strong need for authority which they can admire, to which they can submit, and which dominates and sometimes even ill-threats them. we have learned from the psychology of the individual whence comes this need of the masses. it is the longing for the father that lives in each of us from his childhood days, for the same father whom the hero of legend boasts of having overcome. and now it begins to dawn on us that all the features with which we furnish the great man are traits of the father, that in similarity lies the essence, which so far has eluded us, of the great man. the deciveness of thought, the strength of will, the forcefulness of his deeds, belong to the picture of the father; above all other things, however, the self-reliance and independence of doing the right thing, which may pass into ruthlessness. he must be admired, he may be trusted, but one cannot help also being afraid of him. we should have taken a cue from the word itself; who else but the father should in childhood have been the great man?

without doubt it must have been a tremendous father imago that stooped in the person of moses to tell the poor jewish labourers that they were his dear children. and the conception of a unique, eternal, omnipotent god could not have been less overwhelming for them; he who thought them worthy to make a bond with him promised to take care of them if only they remained faithful to his worship. probably they did not find it easy to separate the image of the man moses from that of his god, and their instinct was right in this, since moses might very well have incorporated into the character of his god some of his own traits, such as his irascibility and implacability. and when they killed this great man they only repeated an evil deed which in primeval times had been a law directed against the divine king and which, as we know, derives from still older prototype." (freud- moses and monotheism)

from the holy bible, i can quote:
"34:13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves
34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: " (exodus)


"It shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of the body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine and the flocks of thy sheep. Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation and rebuke in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do. The Lord shall smite thee with consumption, and with a fever, with blasting and mildew; etc. In the morning thou shalt say: Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say: Would God it were morning!"--Deut.xxviii:15-29, 67.


"Enter ye in at the strait gate, for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because, strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."Matt. vii:13,14.


"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world, the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from the just; and shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.--Matt.xiii:47-50.

etc etc etc.
goDzilla-jehovah fails. that kind of argument is the typical kind of threat we use to submit children.

[Drkshadow03]

from the holy bible, i can quote:

Congratulations. But uhm, what exactly are you trying to prove by your endless quoting?

[The Atheist]

Context man, context The *despise* isn't about lack of topic discipline. ...
It is my own behavior that I am hard on A. Context.

I did realise that, which is what I think you should ease up on.

You'll be right.

Like saying "I can lift that 500 pound weight with one hand, but since that's no real challenge for me, I'm not doing it. I only accept real challenges."

Red, the analogy is simply wrong. If you need me to tell you why rape and plastic surgery are different, then you shouldn't be writing on the internet. Interestingly enough, the only person I know of who claims to be able to lift enormous weights but refuses to show evidence is Pat Robertson, a well-known christian.

Red Herring. I made an analogy assessing your argumentative ability.

You seem to be in love with poor analogies. I'm not about to pander to your whims on them.

If you don't like my style of writing, don't bother commenting.

Men and women don't understand each other very well. That's why women can't make boys into men, and men can't make girls into women.

That is one of the scariest statements I've ever read on the internet, in the context of the next statement:

I am a parent of three boys - so you would be clearly wrong on your assumption. I've got plenty of experience.

Apologies for the incorrect assumption.

And, "dismissing" a point without showing the basis of that dismissal would simply be another tactical retreat.

You mean the way you've completely overlooked the double-quote of yours I posted?

This is what really scares me about you, Red, you complain about absolutism while making the most outrageous abnsolute statements yourself. The two I quoted were completely contradictory posts, one after the other - and the contradiction in them is far more important than the small fish we've been chasing.

[weltanschauung]

Congratulations. But uhm, what exactly are you trying to prove by your endless quoting?

hm, i dont know, i guess im trying to prove im talking about stuff i have no idea about!