Atheism, the discussion

[fiksal]

Ignorance of the Law is no defence

Hehe. It's not law of the people though )

Which would be my next objection if the said god would actually exist. Humans dont need a master.

Preacher in the DRC goes to some rural villages to do a bit of the old "laying on of hands healing". Preacher catches ebola. Preacher returns to Goma, with a population of 1 million.

Good job religion, good job superstition, good job not believing in a science based approach.

Said preacher repeatedly gave false names when going through checkpoints, and took lots of paracetamol to keep his temperature down, all to evade being quarantined. Fine, moral and upstanding man that he obviously was, he's now dead . Oh and Goma has a population of 2m, not 1m as I said above, and is right on a very porous border with Rwanda.

That's one crazy person

[mrbadger]

Not within his own frame of reference however. You should keep this in mind.

To him laying on of hands would have been a valid means of healing, his god was demanding he take these risks. He wasn't crazy, just mistaken in our view.

No doubt there are many people who who would consider his actions to be completely rational.

[pjknibbs]

Not within his own frame of reference however. You should keep this in mind.

To him laying on of hands would have been a valid means of healing, his god was demanding he take these risks. He wasn't crazy, just mistaken in our view.

But when he's taking high doses of paracetamol to hide his high temperature, as somebody above said he did, I think it's gone a bit dodgy. No matter how high your faith in your ability to "lay on hands" you don't risk infecting other people when you know you have something wrong yourself.

[mrbadger]

You're not wrong, but people will justify all sorts of things to themselves and their logic will seem flawless, if it's not subject to external questioning.

Since he wasn't caught at the time it wasn't.

I'm not defending him, what he did was absolutely terrible, and he acted as an infection vector, there's no doubt about that. I'm just saying he almost certainly didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

This is one of the problems with blind faith. In his case it was most certainly blind, because he wasn't acting on the basis of any facts.

[Usenko]

Geeze, I disappear for a few weeks (accidentally in this case!) and look what winds up happening?!

[Alan Phipps]

I hope the 'accident' was not too traumatic (so not an 'Act of God' incident), but welcome back anyway!

[fiksal]

Geeze, I disappear for a few weeks (accidentally in this case!) and look what winds up happening?!

Good day to you, sir


EDIT: wait I was kind of expecting a longer reply

[Grim Lock]

So i guess i'll chime in with a known brain teaser.

So if one believes a certain religous doctrine, one knows that they have behave a certain way and mind certain rules to get into heaven, if they don't they go to hell (in a nutshell), what value do any of the "good deeds" or not breaking any "cardinal rules" if it is done for the biggest reward humanly possible (eternal bliss) or to avoid the biggest punishment (eternal punishment), What moral value does anything actually have? It's seems to me it's gonna be very hard for people living in that doctrine to simply be good cuz it's the right thing to do?

So probably didn't write that out as good as i could have, but it hink you all know what i mean, im genuinely curious on your thoughts.

[Ketraar]

Yes its a thing I'm intrigued a lot myself and from what I gather from own experience, people seldom do the right thing just because its the right thing to do. Most people I come across will ingore the right thing if there is short term benefit, be it direct or indirect. Many more will only do the right thing out of fear, be it legal or religious penalty.

Even making up excuses to justify not doing the morally right is very popular, people will go far, such as twist reality, lie to themselves and others, to make up grounds for their misconduct. Hypocrisy is strong in most of us, but many are oblivious to it, both intentionally and not. I think our selfish nature requires effort to not give in to do the easy part and more often then not, doing the right thing will make you stand out from the crowd, since what people hate more then anything is being called out on their hypocrisy and "wake them up" from the twisted reality.

I hope this was in line as to what you pointed out, if not I apologize for having misread it and call it a rant.

MFG

Ketraar

[Observe]

Suppose ones religion teaches that you will go to hell if you cut your arm off. Do you say to yourself "I guess I better not cut my arm off, because my religion tells me I will go to hell if I do so"? No. How about my religion tells me I will go to heaven if I regularly nourish my body with food. Would I starve to death if not for my religion? No.

Same with morality, ethics, compassion etc. How we conduct ourselves is mostly dependent on what kind of person we are - irrespective of religious or legal dictate. Generally, we like to like ourselves. Sometimes we do bad things because we hate ourselves, or we hate ourselves for doing bad things. It can be a vicious or it can be a virtuous cycle.

Anyway, regardless of laws, we know what is right and wrong. Such knowing is built into our common DNA and has been custom designed for the human social animal. Our moralities are build around the pragmatic realities that give us the best chance to 'live long and prosper'.

[Grim Lock]

@Ketraar those are the musings is meant and have sometimes myself.

@observe, I agree with what you are saying too, though that kinda leads into one of the problems with religion, some of the "rules" seem very counter-human nature in general, sure there are people who more or less automaticly comply with those rules, but for many they will have to deny their nature (gays f.e.) to conform. Imo that leads to all sorts of dangerous problems.

Thinking there's someone taking notes of what you do and don't do in the bedroom just seems unhealthy to me.

[Observe]

...but for many they will have to deny their nature (gays f.e.) to conform. Imo that leads to all sorts of dangerous problems.

Yes, but those sort of things also apply to non-religious groups as well. Regarding gays, I can see how they might not be able to comply with the edict "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it". Other religions besides Christianity have similar commandments. Hence, gays can not be part of the congregation. At least that's how some see it.

Of course, religions always must adapt to the times, or they risk becoming irrelevant. It is now common for churches to have rock and roll bands. Can you imagine such a thing? Some no doubt think their churches are going to hell as a result! More and more churches are accepting gays and others, who not long ago were categorically ostracized.

[Mightysword]

Question but is there a source of original texts for Christianity dated back to the time of the first founding? Almost all religions originally are founded as a mental support and succor for the downtrodden. To be fair, I don't see a lot of differences in the 'core' tenets of each major religions, and they're mostly good. But what usually happens is as religion hold more influence over the mass, they started getting adopted by the ruling classes, become ruling tools and acquire unwanted flavors over the course of history.

I can only speak for my own religion: Buddhism. Most of the popular branches of modern Buddhism are rooted from China. Many centuries ago when Buddhism arrived at China, there were a long period when it was embraced by several dynasties and became almost like a state religion. Many of the current religious text for Buddhism originated from this period, from China instead of from the original birth place of Buddhism in South Asia, and thus carried many of the cultural flavor of ancient China, and some of them is just outright contra-Buddhism.

As a kid growing up I was always taught and under the impression Buddhism is a belief in compassion and forgiveness. When I get older and start reading some of the text myself, I was surprised at the amount of "brutality" reflected in them. Like ... instead of forgiveness, it cites examples and punishment that can be said "I wouldn't wish this fate on my worst enemy". And if someone is also familiar with classical Chinese literature of the time, it's fairly easy to spot the similarity. Once I became an adult I actually brought these contradictions with some of the religious leaders myself, how I think the "texts" seems to be a betrayal of the very essence of Buddhism. Tbh I never really get a satisfied answer, but I did get the acknowledgement that most of the current text are written by "followers" of Buddha hundred if not thousands of years after Buddha passing. One monk even suggested that the extreme brutality in the text is a way to compel people to follow the tenets more rigorously. Putting in the laymen term: a lot of Buddhism text are words written by overzealous disciples that had imposed their own ideal on the tenets of the faith.

Luckily though, there are way to trace other sources of Buddhism outside the China's branch which I think is a bit closer to the original and more agreeable with the original spirit of the faith, so I wonder if there exist such option for Christianity?

[Grim Lock]

...but for many they will have to deny their nature (gays f.e.) to conform. Imo that leads to all sorts of dangerous problems.

Yes, but those sort of things also apply to non-religious groups as well. Regarding gays, I can see how they might not be able to comply with the edict "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it". Other religions besides Christianity have similar commandments. Hence, gays can not be part of the congregation. At least that's how some see it.

Of course, religions always must adapt to the times, or they risk becoming irrelevant. It is now common for churches to have rock and roll bands. Can you imagine such a thing? Some no doubt think their churches are going to hell as a result! More and more churches are accepting gays and others, who not long ago were categorically ostracized.

Also agreed however, religion in general has always given it's followers extra rules to follow opposed to non-religious folk, and well it's a fact that the religous groups have a lot more difficulty adapting to modern times, there's pretty much always first a period of loud disaproval of changing the rules, a lot of people get damaged during that period, and well it's not like we're there yet, the most vocal groups against changing the way we treat certain groups of people are mostly the organized religous groups.

Human law however changes much faster (in many cases still too slow, granted) Though the big difference between religion and human law is that human law only tells us what NOT to do and leaves what we can do up to us, religion does both, that seems restricting to me, and there's plenty of examples of what this can lead to.



On a completely different track, another question: How do you guys think heaven/hell would work? I don't believe humans can deal with "eternal bliss" or stuf like that, im very much of the ying-yang principle, so how would "eternal bliss" work? wouldn't a human psyche need to be modified to deal with both heaven and hell? And if that's the case what's the point, you wouldn't be "you" anymore.

[Observe]

I can only speak for my own religion: Buddhism. Most of the popular branches of modern Buddhism are rooted from China.

Just to clarify, Buddhism has two main branches: Theravada and Mahayana. There is also the Vajrayana branch, but is is less prominent than the other two.

The branch that influenced you the most, is Mahayana; which is primarily practiced in China, Tibet, Japan, Korea and Vietnam. There are many offshoots of Mahayana, including Zen Buddhism. This accounts for some of the ideas you attribute to Buddhism, but actually originate from diverse non-Buddhist cultural influences; rather than from teachings of Buddha per se.

The other branch (Theravada), is the oldest and most conservative. They follow teachings from what is known as the Pali Cannon. Theravada is practiced in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand and a few others in that region.

As for which is most popular, it is hard to say. Mahayana has so many variations, that it is likely a person can find one that fits. Theravada has less deviations and so, there is less wriggle room in it. Most everyone these days, has heard of Mindfulness meditation. This derives from the Theravada branch.

Anyway, all that is a bit off-topic, but I thought it worth mentioning, because just as with other religions, Buddhism means different things to different people.

[Observe]

On a completely different track, another question: How do you guys think heaven/hell would work? I don't believe humans can deal with "eternal bliss" or stuf like that, im very much of the ying-yang principle, so how would "eternal bliss" work?

The phrase 'eternal bliss' is a strange one to consider. Bliss is a sensation. All sensations are temporary. I'm not sure that eternal change is what bliss-seekers are after, because change represents eventual loss of everything that we are attached to - including our self-identity.

[Mightysword]

I can only speak for my own religion: Buddhism. Most of the popular branches of modern Buddhism are rooted from China.

Just to clarify, Buddhism has two main branches: Theravada and Mahayana. There is also the Vajrayana branch, but is is less prominent than the other two.

I know what you're saying and it's not what I'm talking about though. What you're talking is the methods, or "path to enlightenment". Within Buddhism itself already outline many different paths, it also goes as far as as acknowledging there are paths outside of Buddhism belief to reach enlightenment so there is no conflict or debate there. What I meant was the "flavor" of the text that had transformed over time, and you can find this difference even within the same branch. Here is a few example of what I'm talking about:

- The same action, but in one text is described as "do this and it helps you on the path of enlightenment" while in another it's "do this or you go to hell".
- There is no dispute in the original of Buddha: a prince who left behind everything to become a hermit, so in spirit of that the old teaching has always about minimizing attachment both emotional and physical matter over doing good. In fact, loosely translate one of the most famous belief is this: saving one life gives more karma then building 3 temples. Yet it's quite a big popular belief these days that "donate money to build big temple, erect big statues will earn you great karma". Not much different than the "affluence" belief in some of the church.
- Being a Buddhist is to practice humble and never put yourself above others, and this applies to Buddha himself. Yet again, it's very common these day for people to have the belief that Buddha is #1.

These are what I meant by contradiction to the original spirit of the faith. And I don't think this is off topic at all. We're talking about Atheism and in my experience, people can turn to it for various reason. Some is Atheism as the default state simply due to their disbelief in supernatural or absolute belief in modern Science. But also I have seen many turned to Atheism after becoming "disillusion" about the original faith, after seeing the corruption or similar things that make their belief strayed from the core value. What I'm saying here is when that happens, it maybe worth it to take a step back and review what one's faith is "truly" about vs the "institutionalized" belief they are told or seen practice.

I don't consider myself a good-natures person. And I can say that many times I have both done good thing and refrain from doing bad things due to the believe in the teaching of my faith, so it has an overall positive influence on me. But also I am critical enough about it that I don't listen or believe value that I feel contradict with what I believe the spirit of the faith, but that doesn't mean I would have to totally renounce it either.

[Observe]

I know what you're saying and it's not what I'm talking about though. What you're talking is the methods, or "path to enlightenment". Within Buddhism itself already outline many different paths, it also goes as far as as acknowledging there are paths outside of Buddhism belief to reach enlightenment so there is no conflict or debate there.

You are right. The "path to enlightenment" is essentially the path of purification. If a person is able to remove all their defilements/impurities, that person will become "enlightened" and fully "liberated". Technically, this does not require knowledge of Buddha or his teachings, because truth is based on universal principles - not on any single individual.

What I meant was the "flavor" of the text that had transformed over time, and you can find this difference even within the same branch. Here is a few example of what I'm talking about:
- The same action, but in one text is described as "do this and it helps you on the path of enlightenment" while in another it's "do this or you go to hell".

No contradiction really. Buddhist doctrine outlines 31 planes of existence. Some of those are known as "hell realms". Human beings reside in the fifth "plane" in the third "realm" known as the "sensuous world". Supposedly, humans can be reborn in lower as well as higher realms - depending on their behavior.

- There is no dispute in the original of Buddha: a prince who left behind everything to become a hermit, so in spirit of that the old teaching has always about minimizing attachment both emotional and physical matter over doing good. In fact, loosely translate one of the most famous belief is this: saving one life gives more karma then building 3 temples. Yet it's quite a big popular belief these days that "donate money to build big temple, erect big statues will earn you great karma". Not much different than the "affluence" belief in some of the church.

Very true. Buddhists are subject to these kind of absurdities as well as anyone else. This was true before, during and after the life of Buddha.

- Being a Buddhist is to practice humble and never put yourself above others, and this applies to Buddha himself. Yet again, it's very common these day for people to have the belief that Buddha is #1.

Such beliefs are the nature of ego. We all have one.

And I can say that many times I have both done good thing and refrain from doing bad things due to the believe in the teaching of my faith, so it has an overall positive influence on me. But also I am critical enough about it that I don't listen or believe value that I feel contradict with what I believe the spirit of the faith, but that doesn't mean I would have to totally renounce it either.

[RegisterMe]

Geeze, I disappear for a few weeks (accidentally in this case!) and look what winds up happening?!

"Geeze", where to start?

(ok, I'm in a stroppy mood, but you can do better than that)

[fiksal]

If you got time and interest, this is somewhat interesting.

I skipped a few monologues, as it gets more interesting when they talk to each other directly.

Lawrence Krauss vs Hamza Tzortzis - Islam vs Atheism Debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI&t=4620s


Personally, I prefer to talk about Atheism in two distinct perspectives:
- whether we know that a god or gods exist
- and whether we should worship one.

The first option relies on knowledge, which in our case, mathematic's based sciences. I'd not defend science using Atheism, but I'd use science to defend Atheism. Not how Krauss approached this.

The second option is maybe more philosophical and not strictly Atheism's concern.