The Grand Theory of All Religions

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The Grand Theory of All Religions

All religions are based on faith.

All religions cancel out the faith of all other religions and vice versa.

All religions are false.

 

The theory is based on the statement "All religions are either false or they are true".

This statement came to me when I was debating with myself which religion was true and which one was false. You might remember a while back I was trying to learn better debating skills. One or actually several of you said for me to take the side of my opponent. When I did this the truth then came to me instantly.

Since all religions are based on faith of their "creator", it makes them opinions. One or more religions cancel out all other religious faiths and vice versa. If all religions are true then they cancel all other faiths.

Therefore all religions are false.

 

My form might be off, but I think I did a good job of conveying the meaning.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:One or

digitalbeachbum wrote:

One or more religions cancel out all other religious faiths and vice versa. If all religions are true then they cancel all other faiths.

                                          ...like matter coming into contact with anti-matter.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13157
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Not being big on formal

Not being big on formal logic, I have really nothing to say one way or the other here. Well.. other than: interesting.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

One or more religions cancel out all other religious faiths and vice versa. If all religions are true then they cancel all other faiths.

                                          ...like matter coming into contact with anti-matter.

Yeah.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Not being big

Vastet wrote:
Not being big on formal logic, I have really nothing to say one way or the other here. Well.. other than: interesting.

I've been carrying this around with me along with another theory for several months. I think the time I spent up in the mountains of Costa Rica helped me debate it more. I recall sitting up in the cabin while this amazing rain storm rolled through. The roof is metal so the sound was was like a giant white noise maker.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Speaking from just a

 Speaking from just a formal logic perspective, you have either a huge assumption or a huge logical failure. I am way too drunk to explain why right now. Will try to get to this tomorrow. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Speaking from just a formal logic perspective, you have either a huge assumption or a huge logical failure. I am way too drunk to explain why right now. Will try to get to this tomorrow. 

I accept any critical review of this by my peers. I figured the logic might be off, but the premise is the same.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
1. All religions are based

1. All religions are based on faith.

Meh, for the sake of argument I will agree. I don't think this is a given though. Many religions don't actively believe their stories. 

 

2. All religions cancel out the faith of all other religions and vice versa.

Bifurcation. The Abrahamic religions are mutually exclusive with all other religions because they claim one and only one god. Many religions allow for multiple deities and don't necessarily conflict. 

 

3. All religions are false.

Non sequitur. Even if 2 was a legitimate dillema, your formal syntax would be

If A then Not B

If B then Not A

Therefore neither A nor B.

It doesn't follow, on the premises provided, either A or B could be true, we just don't know which.   

 

Quote:

The theory is based on the statement "All religions are either false or they are true".

Which is completely inconsistent with your premise. Your premise (2) says only one religion can be true. If only one can be true, then logically all religions can't be true. 

 

Quote:

Since all religions are based on faith of their "creator", it makes them opinions.

Irrelevant. Just because someone believes something based on faith bears no relation to whether or not it is factual. I have faith that life exists on other planets. I have absolutely no proof and absolutely no way of providing proof or even a decent chance to attempt to get proof during my lifetime. My inability to get proof bears no relation to the fact of whether or not life exists on other planets. 

 

Quote:

 1. One or more religions cancel out all other religious faiths and vice versa. 

 2. If all religions are true then they cancel all other faiths.

 3. Therefore all religions are false.

Your premises negate each other. If premise 1 is true, then premise 2 is impossible because by definition under premise 1 all religions can't be true. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:All

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All religions are based on faith.

All religions cancel out the faith of all other religions and vice versa.

All religions are false.

 

The theory is based on the statement "All religions are either false or they are true".

This statement came to me when I was debating with myself which religion was true and which one was false. You might remember a while back I was trying to learn better debating skills. One or actually several of you said for me to take the side of my opponent. When I did this the truth then came to me instantly.

Since all religions are based on faith of their "creator", it makes them opinions. One or more religions cancel out all other religious faiths and vice versa. If all religions are true then they cancel all other faiths.

Therefore all religions are false.

 

My form might be off, but I think I did a good job of conveying the meaning.




i'll let beyond criticize the logic, as he's much more competent in western logic than me (my knowledge is indian). however, some of your premises are flawed--at least, if you're drawing your premises from what religions say about themselves.


first of all, not all religions accept a true/false dichotomy in any absolute sense, the most notable being jainism, but pretty much no hindu or buddhist tradition accepts it either. the jains believe that the truth or falsehood of any premise is purely situational. this view is known in sanskrit as "anekantavada," which literally means "not one viewpoint." in english, it's usually rendered "non-absolutism." in the mimamsa school of hindu thought, all knowledge is considered valid in the moment it is apprehended, even if it is falsified by later knowledge.


not all religions by any means are based on faith in a "creator." most indian religions, except perhaps for the very theistic bhakti traditions, have no "creator" at all--certainly not creatio ex nihilo. not all religions require any sort of "faith." again, most indian religions do not. i'm fairly certain chinese and japanese do not either, except perhaps for the hyper-devotional forms of japanese buddhism (pure land, nichiren). most jewish traditions don't either, as a matter of fact. pretty much the only religions "based on faith" are christianity and islam, and it's my hypothesis that devotional hinduism and buddhism were strongly influenced by their host traditions' contact with muslim conquerors and/or christian missionaries.


there is a middle road between truth and falsehood. i don't know of any respectable logical tradition that takes absolute truth or absolute falsehood seriously.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1520
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Not a bad deduction at all on your part--BUT

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All religions are based on faith.

All religions cancel out the faith of all other religions and vice versa.

All religions are false.

 

The theory is based on the statement "All religions are either false or they are true".

This statement came to me when I was debating with myself which religion was true and which one was false. You might remember a while back I was trying to learn better debating skills. One or actually several of you said for me to take the side of my opponent. When I did this the truth then came to me instantly.

Since all religions are based on faith of their "creator", it makes them opinions. One or more religions cancel out all other religious faiths and vice versa. If all religions are true then they cancel all other faiths.

Therefore all religions are false.

 

My form might be off, but I think I did a good job of conveying the meaning.

In the Old Seers analysiis of things concerned all belief is religion and all religion is belief. Civilizatiion is a religion of belief inn --that a few can make decisions for all others. They ultimately decide all good and evil, all right and wrong etc. So, if one belief system is religion then all belief systems have to be religion. There-fore, all that is believed is religion. The few that operate civilization decide what is legal and what is illegal which in turn is creating right anrd wrong according to their points of view. So then, they preside over a religion no different the the clergy do, as the clergy also decide for thier followerd what is right and what is wrong. So, instesd of an invisible entity (whom the clergy they say enlightens them) civilization has people who believe in and are members of religions. (do you see the hypocacy) The ones operating civilization aren't doing (and never will) any better job at reality the the clergy. One belief cannot be religion and another one not, all belief does the same and has the same effects. Would then, civilization be a false religion---if---the one's running it rely on lies to keep it going. Would an Atheist few running a civilization do any different then the "so refered to" as the religious ones.  And, would the book be correct where it points to--civil leaders take the place of God. What sayeth ye.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to try and respond

I'm going to try and respond to each of you in the same post:

 

1 - Brian, WTF? No offense dude. I usually avoid your posts, but why do you always post similar responses. Can't you stay within the context of the original post?

 

2 - Beyond:

 a - I agree, however after looking at the list of religions (Abrahamic, Hindu, Buddhism, etc) I find they all take faith in some form or fashion at different levels.

The list is actually very long but as a small example, "How the Universe was created", "How the Universe will end", "What happens when you die"

All of these, and more, are all faith based.

 b - I agree, however their belief in those beings/gods/whatever, conflict with one or more of another religion.

  All Abrahamic religions follow one specific god, however, all other non-Abrahamic religions don't follow the same specific god, thus the conflict is created.

  There are more examples, but I want to avoid too much detail

 c - It is the faith which negates all other religions while supporting your own religion. Yes, not all parts of the faith conflict but any part of the whole spoils the rest. This is why Judism, Chrisitanity and Islam all negate each other even if they believe in the same god. There are too many other parts of the faith which conflict with the others, thus making them untrue.

Thus while one person believes their faith is true, they disbelieve all other faiths because one part or the whole is not true.

 

3 - Iwbiek

 a - It doesn't matter what they follow or believe. All religions are either true or they are false. In order to have a middle ground there must be one which is completely true. If they are not completely true they they are false.

Example: All religions have a belief about life after death. All beliefs about life after death are based on faith.

 b - The creator isn't the issue. It's the "faith" part which I'm focusing on.

If a person believes that when you die you go to a place call Valhalla their belief conflicts with a Christian who doesn't believe in Valhalla. It does not matter if that person believes in Valhalla then but later changes their view to "heaven" because they convert to Christianity. Once they convert to Christianity then all other people who believe in Valhalla are now in conflict with the Christian belief.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All religions are based on faith.

All religions cancel out the faith of all other religions and vice versa.

All religions are false.

 

The theory is based on the statement "All religions are either false or they are true".

This statement came to me when I was debating with myself which religion was true and which one was false. You might remember a while back I was trying to learn better debating skills. One or actually several of you said for me to take the side of my opponent. When I did this the truth then came to me instantly.

Since all religions are based on faith of their "creator", it makes them opinions. One or more religions cancel out all other religious faiths and vice versa. If all religions are true then they cancel all other faiths.

Therefore all religions are false.

 

My form might be off, but I think I did a good job of conveying the meaning.

In the Old Seers analysiis of things concerned all belief is religion and all religion is belief. Civilizatiion is a religion of belief inn --that a few can make decisions for all others. They ultimately decide all good and evil, all right and wrong etc. So, if one belief system is religion then all belief systems have to be religion. There-fore, all that is believed is religion. The few that operate civilization decide what is legal and what is illegal which in turn is creating right anrd wrong according to their points of view. So then, they preside over a religion no different the the clergy do, as the clergy also decide for thier followerd what is right and what is wrong. So, instesd of an invisible entity (whom the clergy they say enlightens them) civilization has people who believe in and are members of religions. (do you see the hypocacy) The ones operating civilization aren't doing (and never will) any better job at reality the the clergy. One belief cannot be religion and another one not, all belief does the same and has the same effects. Would then, civilization be a false religion---if---the one's running it rely on lies to keep it going. Would an Atheist few running a civilization do any different then the "so refered to" as the religious ones.  And, would the book be correct where it points to--civil leaders take the place of God. What sayeth ye.

I guess what you are saying is that if you believe in any thing then that is a religion?

I think you are off base with the actual term of religion. A person who is an empty Wall Street broker who only wants to make money, snort cocaine from the tits of a $2000 an hour hooker and then fly to Europe every weekend to work on their tan is not following their "daily life" as a religion.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Old

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All religions are based on faith.

All religions cancel out the faith of all other religions and vice versa.

All religions are false.

 

The theory is based on the statement "All religions are either false or they are true".

This statement came to me when I was debating with myself which religion was true and which one was false. You might remember a while back I was trying to learn better debating skills. One or actually several of you said for me to take the side of my opponent. When I did this the truth then came to me instantly.

Since all religions are based on faith of their "creator", it makes them opinions. One or more religions cancel out all other religious faiths and vice versa. If all religions are true then they cancel all other faiths.

Therefore all religions are false.

 

My form might be off, but I think I did a good job of conveying the meaning.

In the Old Seers analysiis of things concerned all belief is religion and all religion is belief. Civilizatiion is a religion of belief inn --that a few can make decisions for all others. They ultimately decide all good and evil, all right and wrong etc. So, if one belief system is religion then all belief systems have to be religion. There-fore, all that is believed is religion. The few that operate civilization decide what is legal and what is illegal which in turn is creating right anrd wrong according to their points of view. So then, they preside over a religion no different the the clergy do, as the clergy also decide for thier followerd what is right and what is wrong. So, instesd of an invisible entity (whom the clergy they say enlightens them) civilization has people who believe in and are members of religions. (do you see the hypocacy) The ones operating civilization aren't doing (and never will) any better job at reality the the clergy. One belief cannot be religion and another one not, all belief does the same and has the same effects. Would then, civilization be a false religion---if---the one's running it rely on lies to keep it going. Would an Atheist few running a civilization do any different then the "so refered to" as the religious ones.  And, would the book be correct where it points to--civil leaders take the place of God. What sayeth ye.

I guess what you are saying is that if you believe in any thing then that is a religion?

I think you are off base with the actual term of religion. A person who is an empty Wall Street broker who only wants to make money, snort cocaine from the tits of a $2000 an hour hooker and then fly to Europe every weekend to work on their tan is not following their "daily life" as a religion.

 

Do you want the common definition, or what it really shotuld be dfined as? It's litteral root means "ligature" meaning "to bind". Is it wise to bind yourself to claims you have no evidence for?, Maybe for short term group survival, but that does not constitute knowledge.

Things that are provable do not have to merely be believed, things that are provable constitute knowledge. Provabel things can be tested and falsified and do not merely have to be believed.

"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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I was thinking  more

 I was thinking  more along the lines of tribal religions where they readily accepted that different tribes would have different deities. They often view their mythology as parable not truth. Much like American mythology about Washington cutting down the cherry tree that pretty much everyone knows is factually false, but the story still has a lesson the truth doesn't matter. One of the things that missionaries have run into is Jesus being incorporated as another deity with a parable, because while Christianity is exclusive, many tribal religions are not. They expect other people to have other gods. And even if you could prove a certain story didn't happen, it would not make the belief false.   They don't actually believe the stories are true.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I was

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I was thinking  more along the lines of tribal religions where they readily accepted that different tribes would have different deities. They often view their mythology as parable not truth. Much like American mythology about Washington cutting down the cherry tree that pretty much everyone knows is factually false, but the story still has a lesson the truth doesn't matter. One of the things that missionaries have run into is Jesus being incorporated as another deity with a parable, because while Christianity is exclusive, many tribal religions are not. They expect other people to have other gods. And even if you could prove a certain story didn't happen, it would not make the belief false.   They don't actually believe the stories are true.

 

You can find morality in fiction too that does not make fantastic claims true. Our speices ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not the articial clubs we concoct. I can find morality in Harry Potter and Star Wars but that doesn't mean little boys can fly around on brooms nor does it make "the force" real.

All religions exisisting means is that people hold beliefs, it does not make that group the patent holder of our existence much less our species morality.

 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: They don't

 

Quote:
 They don't actually believe the stories are true.

Right, that is how religious people end up cherry picking. If you don't litterally believe in a 6 day earth then there is no reason to believe in magic babies or zombie gods.

 

"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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I was thinking  more along the lines of tribal religions where they readily accepted that different tribes would have different deities. They often view their mythology as parable not truth. Much like American mythology about Washington cutting down the cherry tree that pretty much everyone knows is factually false, but the story still has a lesson the truth doesn't matter. One of the things that missionaries have run into is Jesus being incorporated as another deity with a parable, because while Christianity is exclusive, many tribal religions are not. They expect other people to have other gods. And even if you could prove a certain story didn't happen, it would not make the belief false.   They don't actually believe the stories are true.

 

You can find morality in fiction too that does not make fantastic claims true. Our speices ability to be cru.el or compassionate is in our evolution, not the articial clubs we concoct. I can find morality in Harry Potter and Star Wars but that doesn't mean little boys can fly around on brooms nor does it make "the force" real.

All religions exisisting means is that people hold beliefs, it does not make that group the patent holder of our existence much less our species morality.

That is my point dumbass. You can worship, observe and ritualize something even while admitting it does not physically exist. The idea that the stories are 100% Truth seems to me to be a uniquely abrahamic and European concept. At least my experience celebrating Diwali with some hindu friends led me  to believe the rituals were more for social    purposes than an affirmative belief that Lakshmi  actually exists somewhere. Lies have value, that is why we have fiction.   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

You know Brian, there are people out there who don't fit neatly into you preconceived notions. You should get out and meet them. Aren't leftist nuts supposed to support diversity? Oh, yeah, it is only 'diverse' if  they fit one of your labeled groups.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I was thinking  more along the lines of tribal religions where they readily accepted that different tribes would have different deities. They often view their mythology as parable not truth. Much like American mythology about Washington cutting down the cherry tree that pretty much everyone knows is factually false, but the story still has a lesson the truth doesn't matter. One of the things that missionaries have run into is Jesus being incorporated as another deity with a parable, because while Christianity is exclusive, many tribal religions are not. They expect other people to have other gods. And even if you could prove a certain story didn't happen, it would not make the belief false.   They don't actually believe the stories are true.

 

You can find morality in fiction too that does not make fantastic claims true. Our speices ability to be cru.el or compassionate is in our evolution, not the articial clubs we concoct. I can find morality in Harry Potter and Star Wars but that doesn't mean little boys can fly around on brooms nor does it make "the force" real.

All religions exisisting means is that people hold beliefs, it does not make that group the patent holder of our existence much less our species morality.

That is my point dumbass. You can worship, observe and ritualize something even while admitting it does not physically exist. The idea that the stories are 100% Truth seems to me to be a uniquely abrahamic and European concept. At least my experience celebrating Diwali with some hindu friends led me  to believe the rituals were more for social    purposes than an affirmative belief that Lakshmi  actually exists somewhere. Lies have value, that is why we have fiction.   

I did not miss your point dumbass, I am telling you it does no good allowing excuses for such things. YES people can like stories without litterally believing in them. But that is still a fucking excuse because what one part of of a holy book one person may not take litterally does not prevent others from taking it litterally. You can believe all the fuck you want that the Yankees play ice hockey, it doesn't make it true. Not getting violent over  that still absurd claim would not make it true.

"Who are they hurting" is PC bullshit. Most importantly for the self, you prevent yourself from finding facts. More importantly for humanity you allow humans to be divided over fairy tales. You can find nice pretty stories in all religous traditions. That says to me, not that the relgion is required, but that humans are the cause, not the clubs they invent or the comic books they read.

"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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5427
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 A lot of religions don't

 A lot of religions don't HAVE  a holy book. And many are non violent. Most are less violent than you. Some are pascifist. You are so damn ignorant you only  view religion   through the prism of Abrahamic ones. Most religions are not Abbrahamic.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: A lot

Beyond Saving wrote:

 A lot of religions don't HAVE  a holy book. And many are non violent. Most are less violent than you. Some are pascifist. You are so damn ignorant you only  view religion   through the prism of Abrahamic ones. Most religions are not Abbrahamic.

NO, alot of religious people are non violent, yes. But there is not one religion or one one location on the face of the planet much less our entire species history where religion has been the path to any type of lasting peace. 

Hinduism and buddhism have had their sectarian infighting as well. The orient has its own religions and superstitions and has also had its own infighting.

NO, god fucking damn it. I deal with the Abrahamic ones the most. And right now at this period in human history they are the biggest trouble makers. That does not make other religions the patent holders of human morality.

Again, our species capability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not the clubs we invent. 

You are not taking into account our entire species history. We as a species are BOTH violent and compassionate and the less we put our human concocted labels as a priorty and understand our behavior is universal, both in the good and bad we do, the more we can manage our differences.

 

 

 

 

"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


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 Are there rules against

 Are there rules against derailing a thread? Because I logged in after 90 minutes and there was 16 new messages most of them from Brian and having nothing to do with the original post.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: Are

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 Are there rules against derailing a thread? Because I logged in after 90 minutes and there was 16 new messages most of them from Brian and having nothing to do with the original post.

Hinduism, buddhism, Christianity, Islam ect ect ect are religions. Since the topic title uses the word religion in it, I don't see how that constitues derailing the thread merely because I cut to the chase.

There is no "theory" to religion. I gave you the evolutionary cause of why people make them up. Causes that evolutionary biologist and scientist Dawkins explains. And Victor Stenger also explains the overlap in religion in his book "The New Atheism".

It does not take a rocket scientist to accept that, for example, the Egptians falsely believed that their polytheistic gods were real. They were successful for 3,000 years centered around those false beliefs. There is no "theory" to religion. There is an evolutionary explination as to why people come to false conclusions.

You'd also know that if you had watched the entire new COSMOS series where Neil Degrees  Tyson explains how far too often humans throughout our species history hid behind their superstitions and religions only to have those social norms fall due to inquery.

The explination for why religion exists is simple. It is a placebo, a sugar pill. The downside to it is it is used to distort our existence to comic book levels at a very divisive political level.

 

"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


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 Are there rules against derailing a thread? Because I logged in after 90 minutes and there was 16 new messages most of them from Brian and having nothing to do with the original post.

Hinduism, buddhism, Christianity, Islam ect ect ect are religions. Since the topic title uses the word religion in it, I don't see how that constitues derailing the thread merely because I cut to the chase.

There is no "theory" to religion. I gave you the evolutionary cause of why people make them up. Causes that evolutionary biologist and scientist Dawkins explains. And Victor Stenger also explains the overlap in religion in his book "The New Atheism".

It does not take a rocket scientist to accept that, for example, the Egptians falsely believed that their polytheistic gods were real. They were successful for 3,000 years centered around those false beliefs. There is no "theory" to religion. There is an evolutionary explination as to why people come to false conclusions.

You'd also know that if you had watched the entire new COSMOS series where Neil Degrees  Tyson explains how far too often humans throughout our species history hid behind their superstitions and religions only to have those social norms fall due to inquery.

The explination for why religion exists is simple. It is a placebo, a sugar pill. The downside to it is it is used to distort our existence to comic book levels at a very divisive political level.

 

To all other members of RRS,

I apologize for all these years of thinking that you were being too harsh on Brian. Please forgive me. I apologize for presuming that you were all being dickheads for no good reason. I now see why he deserves to be ridiculed.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 Are there rules against derailing a thread? Because I logged in after 90 minutes and there was 16 new messages most of them from Brian and having nothing to do with the original post.

Hinduism, buddhism, Christianity, Islam ect ect ect are religions. Since the topic title uses the word religion in it, I don't see how that constitues derailing the thread merely because I cut to the chase.

There is no "theory" to religion. I gave you the evolutionary cause of why people make them up. Causes that evolutionary biologist and scientist Dawkins explains. And Victor Stenger also explains the overlap in religion in his book "The New Atheism".

It does not take a rocket scientist to accept that, for example, the Egptians falsely believed that their polytheistic gods were real. They were successful for 3,000 years centered around those false beliefs. There is no "theory" to religion. There is an evolutionary explination as to why people come to false conclusions.

You'd also know that if you had watched the entire new COSMOS series where Neil Degrees  Tyson explains how far too often humans throughout our species history hid behind their superstitions and religions only to have those social norms fall due to inquery.

The explination for why religion exists is simple. It is a placebo, a sugar pill. The downside to it is it is used to distort our existence to comic book levels at a very divisive political level.

 

To all other members of RRS,

I apologize for all these years of thinking that you were being too harsh on Brian. Please forgive me. I apologize for presuming that you were all being dickheads for no good reason. I now see why he deserves to be ridiculed.

 

For what? Quoting scientists who know more than you do? Sorry Dawkins, you got a PHD in evolution for nothing.. Sorry Victor Stenger, you wasted your life on science too. Neil, you wasted your time making COSMOS. Digital knows more than you guys do.

Digital, your reaction to me is really nothing more than your evolutionary sense of empathy and sense of fairness. You don't like me picking on religion. If religion never got critized or blasphemed we'd still be stuck in the dark ages as a species. Your lack of understanding their arguments is not my baggage.

I'll will say it one last time. Religion is human invented, nothing more. It is a result of our species flawed perceptions. It may create safety in numbers, and get humans to the point of reproduction, but it is still ultimately a placebo. It does not hold a patent on our species ability to be cruel or compassionate. Our behavior in our species history is a product of evolution.

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:;a -

digitalbeachbum wrote:
;a - It doesn't matter what they follow or believe. All religions are either true or they are false. In order to have a middle ground there must be one which is completely true. If they are not completely true they they are false.



oh please. they can be partially true or partially false, depending on their ability to lead one to moksha, liberation, salvation, whatever you want to call it. that's what religion is: moksha-shastra, a method toward liberation. religion is not a system, it's a method. did it ever occur to you that what leads one person to salvation might be totally ineffectual to another?


digitalbeachbum wrote:
Example: All religions have a belief about life after death.



no, they don't.


digitalbeachbum wrote:
It's the "faith" part which I'm focusing on.



as i said, not all religions require what is commonly meant by "faith." i even gave you examples. if you don't want to take my word for it, i'd be happy to refer you to some primary and secondary sources.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1520
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
How can

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All religions are based on faith.

All religions cancel out the faith of all other religions and vice versa.

All religions are false.

 

The theory is based on the statement "All religions are either false or they are true".

This statement came to me when I was debating with myself which religion was true and which one was false. You might remember a while back I was trying to learn better debating skills. One or actually several of you said for me to take the side of my opponent. When I did this the truth then came to me instantly.

Since all religions are based on faith of their "creator", it makes them opinions. One or more religions cancel out all other religious faiths and vice versa. If all religions are true then they cancel all other faiths.

Therefore all religions are false.

 

My form might be off, but I think I did a good job of conveying the meaning.

In the Old Seers analysiis of things concerned all belief is religion and all religion is belief. Civilizatiion is a religion of belief inn --that a few can make decisions for all others. They ultimately decide all good and evil, all right and wrong etc. So, if one belief system is religion then all belief systems have to be religion. There-fore, all that is believed is religion. The few that operate civilization decide what is legal and what is illegal which in turn is creating right anrd wrong according to their points of view. So then, they preside over a religion no different the the clergy do, as the clergy also decide for thier followerd what is right and what is wrong. So, instesd of an invisible entity (whom the clergy they say enlightens them) civilization has people who believe in and are members of religions. (do you see the hypocacy) The ones operating civilization aren't doing (and never will) any better job at reality the the clergy. One belief cannot be religion and another one not, all belief does the same and has the same effects. Would then, civilization be a false religion---if---the one's running it rely on lies to keep it going. Would an Atheist few running a civilization do any different then the "so refered to" as the religious ones.  And, would the book be correct where it points to--civil leaders take the place of God. What sayeth ye.

I guess what you are saying is that if you believe in any thing then that is a religion?

I think you are off base with the actual term of religion. A person who is an empty Wall Street broker who only wants to make money, snort cocaine from the tits of a $2000 an hour hooker and then fly to Europe every weekend to work on their tan is not following their "daily life" as a religion.

 

a particular belief be religion and another belief not be. belief can only be of one foundation not two or more. If civil entities create a law from what is considered a religious belief--it it still religion or is it secular. We say there is no secular--it is all religion. What is considered secular is nothing more then the religion that believes a few should rule the many. If a religion is of a few that rule the many --what is the difference if both a done in belief. If a religion is the rule of the people--is it secular. If a rule made by a religion is religious and a civil authority makes a same rule --is it secular or religion. Or- is what we believe merely inherited and the ancients were wrong--or were the ancients right. There is no separation of religion and state--it is belief that laws are made from and of. There cannot be a secular law and and a religious law--there can only be one----or some one in the past fooled some one or every one. Govermnents as understood  exist on the same laws that religions do---how can one not be the same as the other. Someone in the past merely said so, but saying so doesn't make it so. Religion can be anything--as proof--there are many religions with different beliefs, so, how can religions with different beliefs not be secular in nature. What is considered a religious government (such as Islam) then, cannot be considered a government because it is a religion. If the US government is secular and Isam isn't, then how can islam be considerd a government. Under the going processes in the world from a global look religions that rule the land aren't governments--when they are governing. That means the term "secular doesn't make sense. That would mean that a country run by a clergy aren't ligitimate governmnets when they are considered as such. One country then, that is secular has the same laws that one that isn't--but one is religion and the other isn't. If that's the case then--what is considered a secular government cannot make laws that mimic or are the same as religious law, but they do. What is the difference from secular law and religious law. There is none. Each can make the same laws. A religion can make a law that says all of its followers must stop for a red traffic light, but. it cannot enforce it--right. so the only difference is---one has a police force and the other doesn't. So, secular then---means we got guns and you don't.

 

If a considered religious government makes a law that all must stop for a red traffic light--did they make a religious law or a secular. To stop for a red light can also be a matter of religious belief.  That puts it back to---a long time ago someone fooled someone. Logic dictates that belief and belief are belief. But now you can say --"we're fooled"----are you sure.   Smiling 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
hey brian, still waiting for

hey brian, still waiting for you to grow some balls and admit your assertions about marx were patently WRONG, you unbelievable fucking chicken-shit.


BRIAN, YOU'RE A FUCKING COWARD.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
;a - It doesn't matter what they follow or believe. All religions are either true or they are false. In order to have a middle ground there must be one which is completely true. If they are not completely true they they are false.

oh please. they can be partially true or partially false, depending on their ability to lead one to moksha, liberation, salvation, whatever you want to call it. that's what religion is: moksha-shastra, a method toward liberation. religion is not a system, it's a method. did it ever occur to you that what leads one person to salvation might be totally ineffectual to another?
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Example: All religions have a belief about life after death.

no, they don't.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
It's the "faith" part which I'm focusing on.

as i said, not all religions require what is commonly meant by "faith." i even gave you examples. if you don't want to take my word for it, i'd be happy to refer you to some primary and secondary sources.

 

Is any one else having issues with editing the messages? I can't even use spell check.

 

Yes, they can be truthful about items concerning human nature such as helping others in need but that isn't faith in religion. That's being a humane individual. Faith in religion is believing in a god, a savior, a ghost, angels, life after death.

It is part of my theory that all faith related items of religion are false. They are the gods, the saviors, the ghosts, the angels and the life after death.

Which religions do not have a belief in life after death?

I'd like to know which religions exist with out using faith in some aspect of their dogma.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:a particular

Old Seer wrote:

a particular belief be religion and another belief not be. belief can only be of one foundation not two or more. If civil entities create a law from what is considered a religious belief--it it still religion or is it secular. We say there is no secular--it is all religion. What is considered secular is nothing more then the religion that believes a few should rule the many. If a religion is of a few that rule the many --what is the difference if both a done in belief. If a religion is the rule of the people--is it secular. If a rule made by a religion is religious and a civil authority makes a same rule --is it secular or religion. Or- is what we believe merely inherited and the ancients were wrong--or were the ancients right. There is no separation of religion and state--it is belief that laws are made from and of. There cannot be a secular law and and a religious law--there can only be one----or some one in the past fooled some one or every one. Govermnents as understood  exist on the same laws that religions do---how can one not be the same as the other. Someone in the past merely said so, but saying so doesn't make it so. Religion can be anything--as proof--there are many religions with different beliefs, so, how can religions with different beliefs not be secular in nature. What is considered a religious government (such as Islam) then, cannot be considered a government because it is a religion. If the US government is secular and Isam isn't, then how can islam be considerd a government. Under the going processes in the world from a global look religions that rule the land aren't governments--when they are governing. That means the term "secular doesn't make sense. That would mean that a country run by a clergy aren't ligitimate governmnets when they are considered as such. One country then, that is secular has the same laws that one that isn't--but one is religion and the other isn't. If that's the case then--what is considered a secular government cannot make laws that mimic or are the same as religious law, but they do. What is the difference from secular law and religious law. There is none. Each can make the same laws. A religion can make a law that says all of its followers must stop for a red traffic light, but. it cannot enforce it--right. so the only difference is---one has a police force and the other doesn't. So, secular then---means we got guns and you don't.

 

If a considered religious government makes a law that all must stop for a red traffic light--did they make a religious law or a secular. To stop for a red light can also be a matter of religious belief.  That puts it back to---a long time ago someone fooled someone. Logic dictates that belief and belief are belief. But now you can say --"we're fooled"----are you sure.   Smiling 

 

I disagree with you.

As for the red light, it depends if their god told them to do it.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Which

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Which religions do not have a belief in life after death?

theravada buddhism, jehovah's witnesses, nation of islam, rastafarianism, certain sections of judaism.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
I'd like to know which religions exist with out using faith in some aspect of their dogma.

 


theravada buddhism, hinduism except perhaps the bhakti movements, certain sections of judaism.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1520
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok

What you're saying is, two people with the same state(presence) of mind, making the same decisions, one is secular and one is religious. A civil mind (person) who goes to church, belonging to a religion, is not incorporating into decisions what his/her religion believes. I would say that it can't be. Let's say that the entire city councel is Atheist, would they not have to make the same decisions from what is considered religion would be. The red light again--- We know that "God" (super human somebody) isn't going to tell a clergyman to make a law, He/she just believes that. The clergyman would have to make the decision from the same insight any other would have to make--right. What makes his a religious decision as compared  another who with no God inference attached. Just because he says "God" doesn't make it a religious decision. What I'm seeing is both have the same religion,one syas there's God the superhuman, and the other is say no there,s not. What difference does it make god or no god if both make the same decision. What we're seeing is--everyone on the planet has the same root beliefs. The fight is because of disagreement of the fine points. All civilizations produce the same result. There-fore then all are contrived from the same states of mind, which has to be because the results of all are the same. So, then (our observation) eveyone has the same religion-------god or no god. If a religion produces the same results as secular, then either secular is not true, or it is another religion, and if it's not, then neither is what is refered to as religion. If this were not true ---secular would have to produce different social results then religion----it doesn't. The only thing that happens is (if secular is valid) secular keeps the clergy from running the country---but secular can do no better. It all turns out that it's a neat trick to keep one religion from dominating the others------and that brings us to your OP. None of them are correct and have to be false---agreed. What you have then, is a religion (Atheism) that has no super human entity making decisions---Very good. That's step one to solving the world's problems.  

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Which religions do not have a belief in life after death?
theravada buddhism, jehovah's witnesses, nation of islam, rastafarianism, certain sections of judaism.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
I'd like to know which religions exist with out using faith in some aspect of their dogma.

 

 

theravada buddhism, hinduism except perhaps the bhakti movements, certain sections of judaism.

Maybe I should be clear about "life after death" because I used it as a blanket term. Life after death for me includes any person who has faith that they are part of a greater being, rebirth or any other thought other than being worm food. In other words,  any non-atheist view.  I do not associate the life after death term with going to heaven exclusively.

Theravada believes in rebirth, Rasta's believe they are already part of god and return to the source when their body dies, Jehovah's do believe in life after death because only the selected ones go to heaven, Nation of Islam, well, after some research I gave up because I found out what the "Mother Plane" was and I just had to say "fuck this". It reminded me of Scientology and dropping bombs in to volcanoes.

Gotta run


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Theravada believes in rebirth

theravada believes in the rebirth of an unconscious, egoless, identity-less bundle of impulses. there is emphatically no soul, conscious or unconscious, in theravada. if you want to call that life after death, i'm sorry, that's stretching it to the point of meaninglessness. i think you're just straining to apply your syllogism here.
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Rasta's believe they are already part of god and return to the source when their body dies

which means becoming worm food. both rastafarianism and n.o.i. are religions with no significant metaphysical or supernatural component. they do not believe in a soul, a heaven, a spiritual god, a resurrection, or a conscious afterlife of any kind. they reject it emphatically as white devil propaganda used to fool their slave forefathers into docility. you get one shot on earth and that's why you should fight for the best conditions possible.
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Jehovah's do believe in life after death because only the selected ones go to heaven

my grandmother was a j.w. i've read most of their books. they also reject a soul and a heavenly afterlife. when someone dies, they cease to exist completely. then, after christ's return, all the faithful will be resurrected into new, immortal bodies--immortal, but still corporeal. 144,000 of the chosen will rule with christ in the new jerusalem (only referred to as "heaven" euphemistically). the rest will live forever in an earthly paradise. yes, it is life after death in a sense, but stripped of almost all spiritual components.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Theravada believes in rebirth
theravada believes in the rebirth of an unconscious, egoless, identity-less bundle of impulses. there is emphatically no soul, conscious or unconscious, in theravada. if you want to call that life after death, i'm sorry, that's stretching it to the point of meaninglessness. i think you're just straining to apply your syllogism here.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Rasta's believe they are already part of god and return to the source when their body dies
which means becoming worm food. both rastafarianism and n.o.i. are religions with no significant metaphysical or supernatural component. they do not believe in a soul, a heaven, a spiritual god, a resurrection, or a conscious afterlife of any kind. they reject it emphatically as white devil propaganda used to fool their slave forefathers into docility. you get one shot on earth and that's why you should fight for the best conditions possible.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Jehovah's do believe in life after death because only the selected ones go to heaven
my grandmother was a j.w. i've read most of their books. they also reject a soul and a heavenly afterlife. when someone dies, they cease to exist completely. then, after christ's return, all the faithful will be resurrected into new, immortal bodies--immortal, but still corporeal. 144,000 of the chosen will rule with christ in the new jerusalem (only referred to as "heaven" euphemistically). the rest will live forever in an earthly paradise. yes, it is life after death in a sense, but stripped of almost all spiritual components.

Which all works in my theory because it is all faith.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13157
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
digitalbeachbum wrote:To all

digitalbeachbum wrote:
To all other members of RRS,

I apologize for all these years of thinking that you were being too harsh on Brian. Please forgive me. I apologize for presuming that you were all being dickheads for no good reason. I now see why he deserves to be ridiculed.

Quite alright. I was in the same boat as you until fairly recently.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Is any one else having issues with editing the messages? I can't even use spell check.

I don't know about spell check. But regarding editing messages, you can only do that up to the point someone else puts in a response.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Are there rules against derailing a thread? Because I logged in after 90 minutes and there was 16 new messages most of them from Brian and having nothing to do with the original post.

Well rules are pretty lax here, but derailing is in there. If you like, I can go and trim everything out of this topic which doesn't pertain to the topic and throw it into a separate topic. It has been done before on occasion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Theravada believes in rebirth
theravada believes in the rebirth of an unconscious, egoless, identity-less bundle of impulses. there is emphatically no soul, conscious or unconscious, in theravada. if you want to call that life after death, i'm sorry, that's stretching it to the point of meaninglessness. i think you're just straining to apply your syllogism here.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Rasta's believe they are already part of god and return to the source when their body dies
which means becoming worm food. both rastafarianism and n.o.i. are religions with no significant metaphysical or supernatural component. they do not believe in a soul, a heaven, a spiritual god, a resurrection, or a conscious afterlife of any kind. they reject it emphatically as white devil propaganda used to fool their slave forefathers into docility. you get one shot on earth and that's why you should fight for the best conditions possible.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Jehovah's do believe in life after death because only the selected ones go to heaven
my grandmother was a j.w. i've read most of their books. they also reject a soul and a heavenly afterlife. when someone dies, they cease to exist completely. then, after christ's return, all the faithful will be resurrected into new, immortal bodies--immortal, but still corporeal. 144,000 of the chosen will rule with christ in the new jerusalem (only referred to as "heaven" euphemistically). the rest will live forever in an earthly paradise. yes, it is life after death in a sense, but stripped of almost all spiritual components.

Which all works in my theory because it is all faith.




in what way? a theravadin isn't required to believe in any of buddhism's cosmology or metaphysics. neither are hindus (i know of at least one respected dasanami sannyasin who was both an atheist and did not believe in reincarnation or supernatural events of any kind). jews are not required to believe in anything either. of course, many hindus, buddhists, and jews do, but it isn't required, therefore you can't say those religions are "based on" faith. find me one passage in the vedas or the pali canon that tells the reader to "believe in" something or "have faith in" something. those are "do-it-yourself" methods; there is no god to have faith in. of course, you can say one has to have faith that the method will work, but that still doesn't fit your syllogism, because none of those methods insists on exclusive efficacy. and what metaphysic exactly do rastas have faith in? you're overgeneralizing when it comes to religions.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
To all other members of RRS, I apologize for all these years of thinking that you were being too harsh on Brian. Please forgive me. I apologize for presuming that you were all being dickheads for no good reason. I now see why he deserves to be ridiculed.
Quite alright. I was in the same boat as you until fairly recently.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Is any one else having issues with editing the messages? I can't even use spell check.
I don't know about spell check. But regarding editing messages, you can only do that up to the point someone else puts in a response.
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Are there rules against derailing a thread? Because I logged in after 90 minutes and there was 16 new messages most of them from Brian and having nothing to do with the original post.
Well rules are pretty lax here, but derailing is in there. If you like, I can go and trim everything out of this topic which doesn't pertain to the topic and throw it into a separate topic. It has been done before on occasion.

As for the editing, it's weird because all replies are now scrunched up in to one giant paragraph. I can't insert pictures or cut and past as previously.

I'm going to ignore him as I used to do. It's easier than editing the thread.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13157
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Is there anything I can do

Is there anything I can do for the editing?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
honestly, i think some

honestly, i think some justified pruning of threads might teach brian a lesson that no amount of wasted words will. if that means my replies to him disappear too, so be it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13157
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Nothing would disappear, it

Nothing would disappear, it would simply be removed from the topic & placed into a new one. I took a quick peek at it and it looks like pruning one post will take more than half of the off topic stuff out. I'm going to do it and see how well it works. Seeing as how it fits within my job description I should be confident in doing such a thing, and only actually doing it will give me that confidence.

Edit:

Looks like it went fairly well. I can prune more out but deciding what is and isn't on topic gets a little more tricky at this point. I'll leave the rest for now.

The removed posts can be found here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34619

From this point on I'll ask we remain on-topic here, and yes that applies to myself as well. I too took part in the derailing and I shouldn't have. To refresh everyone, the topic is Digitalbeacbums logic assertion. Not religion in general.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Which

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Which all works in my theory because it is all faith.

iwbiek wrote:

in what way? a theravadin isn't required to believe in any of buddhism's cosmology or metaphysics. neither are hindus (i know of at least one respected dasanami sannyasin who was both an atheist and did not believe in reincarnation or supernatural events of any kind). jews are not required to believe in anything either. of course, many hindus, buddhists, and jews do, but it isn't required, therefore you can't say those religions are "based on" faith. find me one passage in the vedas or the pali canon that tells the reader to "believe in" something or "have faith in" something. those are "do-it-yourself" methods; there is no god to have faith in. of course, you can say one has to have faith that the method will work, but that still doesn't fit your syllogism, because none of those methods insists on exclusive efficacy. and what metaphysic exactly do rastas have faith in? you're overgeneralizing when it comes to religions.

This is where my learning disabilities kick in, so bear with me, I can see things in my head but can't get them in to words.

I'll need a time when I'm not so tired to respond in a proper manner.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Nothing would

Vastet wrote:
Nothing would disappear, it would simply be removed from the topic & placed into a new one. I took a quick peek at it and it looks like pruning one post will take more than half of the off topic stuff out. I'm going to do it and see how well it works. Seeing as how it fits within my job description I should be confident in doing such a thing, and only actually doing it will give me that confidence. Edit: Looks like it went fairly well. I can prune more out but deciding what is and isn't on topic gets a little more tricky at this point. I'll leave the rest for now. The removed posts can be found here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34619 From this point on I'll ask we remain on-topic here, and yes that applies to myself as well. I too took part in the derailing and I shouldn't have. To refresh everyone, the topic is Digitalbeacbums logic assertion. Not religion in general.

Thanks.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: in what way?

iwbiek wrote:

in what way? a theravadin isn't required to believe in any of buddhism's cosmology or metaphysics. neither are hindus (i know of at least one respected dasanami sannyasin who was both an atheist and did not believe in reincarnation or supernatural events of any kind). jews are not required to believe in anything either. of course, many hindus, buddhists, and jews do, but it isn't required, therefore you can't say those religions are "based on" faith. find me one passage in the vedas or the pali canon that tells the reader to "believe in" something or "have faith in" something. those are "do-it-yourself" methods; there is no god to have faith in. of course, you can say one has to have faith that the method will work, but that still doesn't fit your syllogism, because none of those methods insists on exclusive efficacy. and what metaphysic exactly do rastas have faith in? you're overgeneralizing when it comes to religions.

My point is that you have religions that all make claims. Most claims contradict each other; as simple example would be one which said their god was the creator of the Universe.

I'm not saying ALL religions have gods, but the ones which do contradict each other in some form or fashion. None of them are the same gods even if they say their god is the god of Abraham. Even in all the different branches of Christianity they all have different interpretations of the bible. I've even seen Christians argue with each other over specifics concerning this subject. With that in mind, my theory is that their belief systems cancel each other out.

As for faith, you seem to think that as humans we all speak and dance in the same way. However I know this isn't true and even those who aren't supposed to have faith still do. There is always a counter belief or counter faith.

Sure they aren't required to believe it, but do those Buddhist have faith that the Buddha really ended his rebirth? or was it just a bunch of bullshit?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Sure

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Sure they aren't required to believe it, but do those Buddhist have faith that the Buddha really ended his rebirth?



sure, but faith is not always faith. i mean to say, "faith" can be defined in myriad ways. the "faith" of a theravadin is much more akin to the western man's "faith" that his scientific model of the universe is generally reliable, and will continue to be generally reliable, rather than the "faith" of the christian that jesus rose from the dead.


you have to understand that by the time of the buddha, reincarnation, moksha, etc., were not matters of "faith" in india. they were generally accepted as facts of life. if you read the upanishads (and the buddha by most estimates was contemporaneous with the middle upanishads), you will find them to be methodological documents, and in them a person who has attained moksha, mukti, nirvana, kavalya, or what have you, is said to exhibit certain characteristics. these characteristics were not dictated by some god or prophet, but were identified through trial and error (please remember i'm speaking from the point of view of the sages). shakyamuni was accepted as the buddha precisely because he exhibited those characteristics. in other words, he had his credentials in order (and of course, "credentials" literally implies "you can believe me"). he was followed as a doctor, not as a prophet or an avatar.


yoga, i.e. the method of attaining moksha, is scientific in a methodological and theoretical sense. of course, it does not qualify as western science because it has far too many presuppositions--but these presuppositions exist in buddhism, hinduism, and jainism precisely because they were considered accepted facts, not because they were revealed articles of faith.


so if you're going to apply the broadest definition of "faith" possible to your syllogism, i.e. any basis of a worldview other than direct perception (and honestly we have "faith" in our direct perception as well), then you might as well throw empiricism in there with religion.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Sure they aren't required to believe it, but do those Buddhist have faith that the Buddha really ended his rebirth?

sure, but faith is not always faith. i mean to say, "faith" can be defined in myriad ways. the "faith" of a theravadin is much more akin to the western man's "faith" that his scientific model of the universe is generally reliable, and will continue to be generally reliable, rather than the "faith" of the christian that jesus rose from the dead.
you have to understand that by the time of the buddha, reincarnation, moksha, etc., were not matters of "faith" in india. they were generally accepted as facts of life. if you read the upanishads (and the buddha by most estimates was contemporaneous with the middle upanishads), you will find them to be methodological documents, and in them a person who has attained moksha, mukti, nirvana, kavalya, or what have you, is said to exhibit certain characteristics. these characteristics were not dictated by some god or prophet, but were identified through trial and error (please remember i'm speaking from the point of view of the sages). shakyamuni was accepted as the buddha precisely because he exhibited those characteristics. in other words, he had his credentials in order (and of course, "credentials" literally implies "you can believe me&quotEye-wink. he was followed as a doctor, not as a prophet or an avatar.
yoga, i.e. the method of attaining moksha, is scientific in a methodological and theoretical sense. of course, it does not qualify as western science because it has far too many presuppositions--but these presuppositions exist in buddhism, hinduism, and jainism precisely because they were considered accepted facts, not because they were revealed articles of faith.
so if you're going to apply the broadest definition of "faith" possible to your syllogism, i.e. any basis of a worldview other than direct perception (and honestly we have "faith" in our direct perception as well), then you might as well throw empiricism in there with religion.

Awesome post! I enjoyed reading it very much.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13157
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:From this point

Vastet wrote:
From this point on I'll ask we remain on topic here. To refresh everyone (Brian37), the topic is Digitalbeacbums logic assertion. Not religion in general.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digital,by chance

digital,


by chance yesterday i was reading an essay by ninian smart, one of the 20th century's greatest scholars of comparative religion, one of the founders of modern secular religious studies, and a great scholar of sanskrit and indian religions. the essay appears in the craft of religious studies, edited by jon r. stone, new york: palgrave, 2000. in it were these passages on the impact of the study of theravada buddhism on how westerners view religion. it strongly reminded me of our discussion. i'm quoting from page 25. the emphases are mine.


smart wrote:
A major motif of my thinking since early days has been the impact of Theravadin studies on religious history and theory. Because of a great deal of ignorance about the actual history of religions among otherwise sophisticated scholars and even among people who regard themselves as experts in religion, various theories which appear to be called into question by Buddhism and by Theravada Buddhism in particular can survive unmodified long after they should have been altered or abandoned. The main point about Theravada is that because it does not involve belief in an Absolute or God, various concepts do not work, such as the notion of a unio mystica (mystical union), the importance of sacrifice, the image of a Father figure, theophanies and kratophanies, a single ultimate focus of religions, the centrality of the concept of faith, and various Western stereotypes of religion. Other traditions than Theravada might have an equally alarming effect on received opinion. But for me my early experiences in Ceylon and subsequent Pali studies opened my eyes.


"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digital, by

iwbiek wrote:
digital,


by chance yesterday i was reading an essay by ninian smart, one of the 20th century's greatest scholars of comparative religion, one of the founders of modern secular religious studies, and a great scholar of sanskrit and indian religions. the essay appears in the craft of religious studies, edited by jon r. stone, new york: palgrave, 2000. in it were these passages on the impact of the study of theravada buddhism on how westerners view religion. it strongly reminded me of our discussion. i'm quoting from page 25. the emphases are mine.


smart wrote:
A major motif of my thinking since early days has been the impact of Theravadin studies on religious history and theory. Because of a great deal of ignorance about the actual history of religions among otherwise sophisticated scholars and even among people who regard themselves as experts in religion, various theories which appear to be called into question by Buddhism and by Theravada Buddhism in particular can survive unmodified long after they should have been altered or abandoned. The main point about Theravada is that because it does not involve belief in an Absolute or God, various concepts do not work, such as the notion of a unio mystica (mystical union), the importance of sacrifice, the image of a Father figure, theophanies and kratophanies, a single ultimate focus of religions, the centrality of the concept of faith, and various Western stereotypes of religion. Other traditions than Theravada might have an equally alarming effect on received opinion. But for me my early experiences in Ceylon and subsequent Pali studies opened my eyes.



Thanks for posting that, I'm going to research it more.

I was going to post again today on a similar subject but you beat me to the punch. What I was going to say was that while Theravada doesn't require a god then it does require some form of faith in the practices. Is it not the goal of their teachings to reach Nirvana?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Is it

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Is it not the goal of their teachings to reach Nirvana?




yes, but this goes back to what i was saying before. the "faith" of the buddhist in the eightfold path is more like the "faith" of the patient that the prescribed treatment will cure his illness than the faith of the christian in the efficacy of christ's sacrifice. the buddha does not dictate like a prophet--his appearance and character prove he has attained nirvana. "proved" not in the context of western empiricism, surely, but proved in the context of ancient indian thought. as i'm sure you know, the buddhist scriptures compare the buddha to a physician probably more than anything else.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Is it not the goal of their teachings to reach Nirvana?

yes, but this goes back to what i was saying before. the "faith" of the buddhist in the eightfold path is more like the "faith" of the patient that the prescribed treatment will cure his illness than the faith of the christian in the efficacy of christ's sacrifice. the buddha does not dictate like a prophet--his appearance and character prove he has attained nirvana. "proved" not in the context of western empiricism, surely, but proved in the context of ancient indian thought. as i'm sure you know, the buddhist scriptures compare the buddha to a physician probably more than anything else.

I know what you are saying, however my attempt at showing how each opinion cancels out other opinions (or faith or what ever you want to call it) failed.

I was attempting to show that if there is a religion that believes the Universe was created in X manner, then there is another religion which has Y belief to counter X. If a religion tells a follower A set of rules for getting in to heaven, there will be another religion which tells their follower B set of rules to get in to heaven.

Did you see that movie that was out a few months ago called "Heaven is real"? The experience the kid gave is cancelled out by all the other experiences of non-christians who didn't see jesus. There are hindu's, buddhists, et who have experienced that stuff while near death, but no jesus or christian god.

I had a brother in law who had a NDE. It had two people in it and they told him if he wanted to go back he had to touch the tree of healing. He turned and saw this giant tree and he touched it. Then he woke up in the hospital. Guess what he job was? He was a tree surveyor for a big Canadian paper company. He would go out in to the woods by himself, deep in to the woods for weeks at a time to survey if trees were ready to be cut.

Funny thing. The christians I speak to always think they have the market cornered on religion. They refuse to acknowledge there are 5 billion other people in this world who believe in something other than what they believe in; or they say those other people are wrong.

In science there was an experiment where they put a "god helmet" on the subject then sent impulses to the area of the brain which was connected to spirtuality. Each person who went in had an experience which was different to each other, some nothing.

Why then is their god not universal? why are their experiences limited only to christians.

What this all proves is that their opinions, their faith, is countered by the opinions or faiths of other religions. A christian can't prove their god exists any more than they can disprove a god of a hindu; those gods cancel each other out.