Stop picking on the religious

A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Stop picking on the religious

It is not their fault they are differently abled.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:It is not

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is not their fault they are differently abled.

 

It is not 'fault' anyway.  It totally depends on the environment in which a person is raised and lived. 

I actually had a thought that atheists and theists are starting to form two different human species, but we may need a few thousand more years to say for sure.

 


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I actually had a

Quote:
I actually had a thought that atheists and theists are starting to form two different human species, but we may need a few thousand more years to say for sure.

 

Like H.G. Wells' The Time Machine or something?  If that happened, there really wouldn't be a clear winner.  Although, the Eloi race would be LIKE an atheist culture; just A LOT more advanced.

 

Problem with being an Eloi is that the Morlocks (theists) would occasionally try to scoop one of us up to drag below and feast upon our flesh.

 

We'd eventually fire bomb their dwellings, I suppose. 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote:Quote:I

Sage_Override wrote:

Quote:
I actually had a thought that atheists and theists are starting to form two different human species, but we may need a few thousand more years to say for sure.

Like H.G. Wells' The Time Machine or something?  If that happened, there really wouldn't be a clear winner.  Although, the Eloi race would be LIKE an atheist culture; just A LOT more advanced.

Problem with being an Eloi is that the Morlocks (theists) would occasionally try to scoop one of us up to drag below and feast upon our flesh.

We'd eventually fire bomb their dwellings, I suppose. 

You have that completely backwards -- it would be more like in the Planet of the Apes series where the humans have the bomb and the apes have guns.  We'd nuke your godless heathen asses until you glowed.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You have that

Quote:
You have that completely backwards -- it would be more like in the Planet of the Apes series where the humans have the bomb and the apes have guns.  We'd nuke your godless heathen asses until you glowed.

 

First of all, The Planet of the Apes was a TRILOGY; the TV series didn't come along until after the movies and didn't have the same timeline.

 

Second of all, even after all the centuries of bullshit we've suffered with religion at the hands of people like you, you'd still resort to violence in a primitive society to prove your points and assert dominance proving once and for all theists will NEVER learn. 

 

My analogy makes better sense anyway.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think we're obliged to

 

pick on the religious for our own safety if nothing else. 

And yeah, I agree they are differently-abled. Monotheists must have a certain sort of brain structure or chemical makeup that requires 'concrete' answers. Or any answers at all, regardless of their weaknesses, minus the hard work of experimentation.  

 

Ed: Shush, Furry. You're not a normal one-dimensional monotheist...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You have that

Quote:
You have that completely backwards -- it would be more like in the Planet of the Apes series where the humans have the bomb and the apes have guns.  We'd nuke your godless heathen asses until you glowed.

And Muslims would nuke your non Allah worshiping Heeb, Kike, Jew ass until you glowed.

And people like me realize all humanity has is a bunch of needlessly glowing humans. But what would I know? I piss both Jews and Muslims off because I don't buy an invisible friend and try to make naked assertions the center of the existence of all of humanity.

How about this? The "Apes" are the ones who confuse labels as being more important than the human condition?

Maybe if Jews and Muslims would stop seeing their labels as being the starting point, stop using those labels for justification for pissing in the sandbox over some bullshit "alpha male" mentality, both could seek common ground.

The "Apes" of humanity are the ones who think they are special. The ones who seek common ground are the ones who will help all of humanity, beyond labels or borders.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Atheistextremist wrote:

I think we're obliged to pick on the religious for our own safety if nothing else. 

And yeah, I agree they are differently-abled. Monotheists must have a certain sort of brain structure or chemical makeup that requires 'concrete' answers. Or any answers at all, regardless of their weaknesses, minus the hard work of experimentation.  

 

Ed: Shush, Furry. You're not a normal one-dimensional monotheist...

 

I know that dopamine has been linked to religiosity.  Average levels cause creativity, energy, sexual arousal, reward, etc.; but high levels cause psychotic symptoms like paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, illusions, superstition, etc.  That's different from your point about monotheists needing concrete answers, but I thought the dopamine theory was interesting.

It seems to me that although the knowledge in science isn't absolute, but provisional, it still provides a far higher level of certainty than religion and even philosophy.  The varieties of religions should drop the supernaturalist metaphysics and adopt a naturalist metaphysics; at that point they wouldn't be religions anymore, they would be naturalistic philosophies.  Then we could debate about the best morality to live by in naturalistic language, incorporating the best scientific data.

 

 

 


devilsadvoc8
devilsadvoc8's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2008-04-05
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

I think we're obliged to pick on the religious for our own safety if nothing else. 

And yeah, I agree they are differently-abled. Monotheists must have a certain sort of brain structure or chemical makeup that requires 'concrete' answers. Or any answers at all, regardless of their weaknesses, minus the hard work of experimentation.  

 

Ed: Shush, Furry. You're not a normal one-dimensional monotheist...

 

I know that dopamine has been linked to religiosity.  Average levels cause creativity, energy, sexual arousal, reward, etc.; but high levels cause psychotic symptoms like paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, illusions, superstition, etc.  That's different from your point about monotheists needing concrete answers, but I thought the dopamine theory was interesting.

It seems to me that although the knowledge in science isn't absolute, but provisional, it still provides a far higher level of certainty than religion and even philosophy.  The varieties of religions should drop the supernaturalist metaphysics and adopt a naturalist metaphysics; at that point they wouldn't be religions anymore, they would be naturalistic philosophies.  Then we could debate about the best morality to live by in naturalistic language, incorporating the best scientific data.

 

 

 

What religions should do is quite different from what they will or even can do.  Making the change you propose, while worthwhile, is impossible.  It would involve a heroically courageous leader to do so as it would essentially throw away centuries/millenia of doctrine.   It would also emasculate their power.  Is it the right thing?  Hell yeah.  But it won't happen.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchins


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

devilsadvoc8 wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

I think we're obliged to pick on the religious for our own safety if nothing else. 

And yeah, I agree they are differently-abled. Monotheists must have a certain sort of brain structure or chemical makeup that requires 'concrete' answers. Or any answers at all, regardless of their weaknesses, minus the hard work of experimentation.  

 

Ed: Shush, Furry. You're not a normal one-dimensional monotheist...

 

I know that dopamine has been linked to religiosity.  Average levels cause creativity, energy, sexual arousal, reward, etc.; but high levels cause psychotic symptoms like paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, illusions, superstition, etc.  That's different from your point about monotheists needing concrete answers, but I thought the dopamine theory was interesting.

It seems to me that although the knowledge in science isn't absolute, but provisional, it still provides a far higher level of certainty than religion and even philosophy.  The varieties of religions should drop the supernaturalist metaphysics and adopt a naturalist metaphysics; at that point they wouldn't be religions anymore, they would be naturalistic philosophies.  Then we could debate about the best morality to live by in naturalistic language, incorporating the best scientific data.

 

 

 

What religions should do is quite different from what they will or even can do.  Making the change you propose, while worthwhile, is impossible.  It would involve a heroically courageous leader to do so as it would essentially throw away centuries/millenia of doctrine.   It would also emasculate their power.  Is it the right thing?  Hell yeah.  But it won't happen.

 

Yeah, they wouldn't want to give up their power.  And a lot of them, if not most, believe their doctrine.  I don't know how many religious people are religious because of high dopamine or because of a lack of the wrong kind of education (or some other possibilities), but I don't see how a "heroically courageous leader" would help or be moral.  The change should be brought out by conversation, influence, debate, etc.  -- democratic means. 

Different people's brains lead them to different sorts of beliefs, so religiosity at some level appears to be permanent and the default human position.  That's where the mental prosthetics of science and reason come in.

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
pick on the religious for our own safety if nothing else. 

And yeah, I agree they are differently-abled. Monotheists must have a certain sort of brain structure or chemical makeup that requires 'concrete' answers. Or any answers at all, regardless of their weaknesses, minus the hard work of experimentation.

Ed: Shush, Furry. You're not a normal one-dimensional monotheist...

For their own good? Only monotheists are ordered to war by their god against those who believe differently. Polytheists have more sense than that. So the first priority should be to at least get back to the safer polytheism. I have searched for examples and the only polytheist example was Ramses II reporting a dream in which some god told him to extend his rule into the eastern Mediterranean. That is the nearest thing I can find and it had nothing to do with the religion of the people there.

Monotheists tend to consume themselves in the long term. Pussy openly flaunts rabbinical law, the oral tradition, with her presented lesbian relationship. Her's is the heresy of the Karaites who look to the written law only rejecting the claim of an oral law to rule the dumb shits who believe in rebbes. The first Spanish Inquisition was under the Moors by the Rabbinical Jews against the Karaite Jews. Talk about setting a good example for the second Spanish Inquisition ... and then having the balls to gripe about being imitated.

Be that as it may in Christianity it took first the 100 years war and then the 30 years war to end religion based wars. And that did not result in freedom of religion only a different basis for fealty and the rise of nationalism as a uniting principle.

Had we a polytheist west the specialized gods would have died off with each scientific discovery. Instead of lightning rods removing just one part of the current swiss army knive god it would have removed Zeus from the picture. Cupid vanishes with the discovery of hormones and the evolutionary basis for reproduction. LSD become a Muse on its own.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml