Saint or Monster?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-07-2015, 09:15 AM
RE: Saint or Monster?
Welcome aboard, great to have you here! Big Grin

Religion has always liked to push it self as a moral authority (despite the fact that a lot of religious scripture has more bloodshed and moral injustices than your average horror novel)

The simple fact is that humans are fallible. The threat of prison doesn't always deter people from comitting crimes (wouldn't need them otherwise)
Likewise, the threat of damnation doesn't stop people from sinning (there would be no need for confessional booths if it did) this little aknowledgement/back up plan from the theists shows that it is a man made creation to me Wink

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too"? - Douglas Adams Bechased
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: Saint or Monster?
Hi Shelly,
I'm very new here too.

As I see it, we humans evolved to have a heightened fear of death, a fear that is extremely motivating in terms of intellectual development; i.e. finding ways to avoid death is probably programmed into our DNA and like any living thing, the basis of much of our development as a species.

The problem comes with sentience: the same instinct is still there (to avoid death) but now we use our intellect to solve this problem by inventing imaginary beings who can deliver us from death, or at least provide us with a viable alternative in an afterlife.

Religion is just a social construct that uses this deep-seated fear to motivate followers to do what the authority (religious or political) wants in return for "solving the problem of death". This explains the prevalence of religion worldwide, and why some find it impossible to shed such beliefs, especially those who are never taught critical thinking skills (sadly, the majority of the world's population).

At least, that's how I see it.

Your faith is not evidence, your opinion is not fact, and your bias is not wisdom
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 09:49 AM
Rainbow RE: Saint or Monster?
(10-07-2015 06:22 AM)7R0MM3L Wrote:  Welcome

Thank you 7ROOM3L for posting and that sincere welcome. I hope to converse with you often!! I will always try to respond. Thanks again. Shell Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 10:05 AM
Rainbow RE: Saint or Monster?
(10-07-2015 09:07 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 08:59 AM)ShellShilo Wrote:  Relative truth must withstand scientific enquiry. It must be challenged, accepted, or disproved. This is why it will always be relative, until it is proven untrue. Truth is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of acceptance.

I think your use of "relative" is confusing since that implies that it can be different for different people or situations. I agree that our understanding of what is true is tentative, but not relative.
Thank you, unfogged, for your contribution. Lets go with tentative. The truth, as it relates to science and survival will always be tentative, until something better comes along. The truth in science in the mind of a theist, is certainly relative. thanks again!! Shell Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 10:32 AM
Rainbow RE: Saint or Monster?
(10-07-2015 09:15 AM)LostLegend Wrote:  Welcome aboard, great to have you here! Big Grin

Religion has always liked to push it self as a moral authority (despite the fact that a lot of religious scripture has more bloodshed and moral injustices than your average horror novel)

The simple fact is that humans are fallible. The threat of prison doesn't always deter people from comitting crimes (wouldn't need them otherwise)
Likewise, the threat of damnation doesn't stop people from sinning (there would be no need for confessional booths if it did) this little aknowledgement/back up plan from the theists shows that it is a man made creation to me Wink

Thank you lostlegend for your response and sincere welcome. Using fear to control the masses was abandoned in favour of controlling how the masses think. Have you taken a closer look all the packaged entertainment, TV programmes, product marketing, and formula print media, that exist? They are designed to illicit a certain action from the masses. There are more psychologist employed in the marketing and television industry alone, then in private practice. Thanks for listening. Shell Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 10:33 AM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 10:42 AM by Szuchow.)
RE: Saint or Monster?
(10-07-2015 08:59 AM)ShellShilo Wrote:  Thank you Szuchow for your comments. Truth, in our reality, can only be relative. It is an explanation of facts that closely relates to our reality. The truths that you are commenting on are, the abstract (logical), and the absolute(exists outside the mind). I'm not interested in them because they are based on belief and not facts. Relative truth must withstand scientific enquiry. It must be challenged, accepted, or disproved. This is why it will always be relative, until it is proven untrue. Truth is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of acceptance.

Relative to what? How? Hitler was chancellor of III Reich - what is relative in that statement? How truth of this statement is matter of acceptance? It is true regardeless of what anyone think about it; truth doesen't go away cause someone is unwilling to believe in it and belief had nothing to do with it.

Maybe it would be better to say tenative as Unfogged state? But it's worth remebering that some truths are as definite as possible, i.e. Hitler being III Reich chancellor.

Or we talk about different things?

(10-07-2015 08:59 AM)ShellShilo Wrote:  Now, if you disagree, then you must believe that truth does not conform to our reality, should not withstand scientific scrutiny, and should only be a matter for belief only.

Must I? I'm not bound by your beliefs about what I must. For me truth is (more or less): Truth, in metaphysics and the philosophy of language, the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case.

(10-07-2015 08:59 AM)ShellShilo Wrote:  Not sure of your comment on deities, death, and fear. All tribes, groups or nations, since the dawn of mankind, have created their own deities as part of their burial rituals. If they didn't care what happens when you die, there would be no rituals performed, or no deities to pray to. I think it is more an attempt to understand the unknown, then a fear of death. Not familiar with Epicurus, but my own feeling is... I've been dead for about 13.6 billion years and I'm not aware of it. Whether I come back or not come back, I still won't be aware of it. Think about it, if we could live forever, there would not be a need for a god or a fear of death. Huh

It was quite literal statement. I don't have to stop creating deities or believe in them as I'm not created even one - I'm not interested in making up new religion - nor I believe in such things. I care not for what societies thought they must create, or for theirs funeral rites.

As for living forever - I don't need a god nor I'm afraid of death so I have no need to dream about something probably unachievable.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 10:43 AM
Rainbow RE: Saint or Monster?
(10-07-2015 09:46 AM)Reducetarian Wrote:  Hi Shelly,
I'm very new here too.

As I see it, we humans evolved to have a heightened fear of death, a fear that is extremely motivating in terms of intellectual development; i.e. finding ways to avoid death is probably programmed into our DNA and like any living thing, the basis of much of our development as a species.

The problem comes with sentience: the same instinct is still there (to avoid death) but now we use our intellect to solve this problem by inventing imaginary beings who can deliver us from death, or at least provide us with a viable alternative in an afterlife.

Religion is just a social construct that uses this deep-seated fear to motivate followers to do what the authority (religious or political) wants in return for "solving the problem of death". This explains the prevalence of religion worldwide, and why some find it impossible to shed such beliefs, especially those who are never taught critical thinking skills (sadly, the majority of the world's population).

At least, that's how I see it.

Thank you reducetarian for your response. I can only say, "well said". Shell Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 12:39 PM
Rainbow RE: Saint or Monster?
(10-07-2015 10:33 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 08:59 AM)ShellShilo Wrote:  Thank you Szuchow for your comments. Truth, in our reality, can only be relative. It is an explanation of facts that closely relates to our reality. The truths that you are commenting on are, the abstract (logical), and the absolute(exists outside the mind). I'm not interested in them because they are based on belief and not facts. Relative truth must withstand scientific enquiry. It must be challenged, accepted, or disproved. This is why it will always be relative, until it is proven untrue. Truth is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of acceptance.

Relative to what? How? Hitler was chancellor of III Reich - what is relative in that statement? How truth of this statement is matter of acceptance? It is true regardeless of what anyone think about it; truth doesen't go away cause someone is unwilling to believe in it and belief had nothing to do with it.

Maybe it would be better to say tenative as Unfogged state? But it's worth remebering that some truths are as definite as possible, i.e. Hitler being III Reich chancellor.

Or we talk about different things?

(10-07-2015 08:59 AM)ShellShilo Wrote:  Now, if you disagree, then you must believe that truth does not conform to our reality, should not withstand scientific scrutiny, and should only be a matter for belief only.

Must I? I'm not bound by your beliefs about what I must. For me truth is (more or less): Truth, in metaphysics and the philosophy of language, the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case.

(10-07-2015 08:59 AM)ShellShilo Wrote:  Not sure of your comment on deities, death, and fear. All tribes, groups or nations, since the dawn of mankind, have created their own deities as part of their burial rituals. If they didn't care what happens when you die, there would be no rituals performed, or no deities to pray to. I think it is more an attempt to understand the unknown, then a fear of death. Not familiar with Epicurus, but my own feeling is... I've been dead for about 13.6 billion years and I'm not aware of it. Whether I come back or not come back, I still won't be aware of it. Think about it, if we could live forever, there would not be a need for a god or a fear of death. Huh

It was quite literal statement. I don't have to stop creating deities or believe in them as I'm not created even one - I'm not interested in making up new religion - nor I believe in such things. I care not for what societies thought they must create, or for theirs funeral rites.

As for living forever - I don't need a god nor I'm afraid of death so I have no need to dream about something probably unachievable.

It would appear Szuchow that I may have hit a nerve. Let me give you an example of what I am trying to say. There is a small minority of people that do not believe that President Obama is the President of the United States, no matter how much evidence you can show them. But, the evidence (facts) is enough to convince the majority of the people that he is the President. However, if the majority of people did not accept that President Obama is the President, it would mean that there was insufficient facts to make this a truth claim. Obviously, this could not happen since the majority of people have accepted the evidence, and can make the truth claim that he is indeed the President. I use the word relative to show how well the truth conforms to reality. But in the future I will use tentative instead. In other words, nothing is true until it is proven true, and if the facts change, so does the truth. Certainty claims that have already been proven true, can't be relative. It would be irrelevant if people disbelieved or not accepted that Hitler was the Chancellor. There are other ideas and thoughts where the truth is not so certain, and for now, must be tentative or relative.

I'm glad that you don't create Deities or spend your life dreaming of living forever. That was not my intention, and you seem far to intelligent to do so. You may not care about the history of mans early rituals, and Deity worshipping, or even how this history of mans evolution have affected society, but it would be in your best interest, since you are also part of that same society.

As I have stated before, I'm not into absolute or abstract truth. The first I don't believe exists, and the second can provide a logical argument that would make shit sound good enough to eat. Drooling Thanks for Listening Shell Heart

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 01:30 PM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 01:41 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: Saint or Monster?
(10-07-2015 12:39 PM)ShellShilo Wrote:  It would appear Szuchow that I may have hit a nerve. Let me give you an example of what I am trying to say. There is a small minority of people that do not believe that President Obama is the President of the United States, no matter how much evidence you can show them. But, the evidence (facts) is enough to convince the majority of the people that he is the President. However, if the majority of people did not accept that President Obama is the President, it would mean that there was insufficient facts to make this a truth claim. Obviously, this could not happen since the majority of people have accepted the evidence, and can make the truth claim that he is indeed the President.

He is President regardless of opinion of people. Even majority disbelieving his presidency doesen't change a thing for he is President. It's simply true and only idiot disregard this fact.

(10-07-2015 12:39 PM)ShellShilo Wrote:  I use the word relative to show how well the truth conforms to reality. But in the future I will use tentative instead. In other words, nothing is true until it is proven true, and if the facts change, so does the truth. Certainty claims that have already been proven true, can't be relative. It would be irrelevant if people disbelieved or not accepted that Hitler was the Chancellor. There are other ideas and thoughts where the truth is not so certain, and for now, must be tentative or relative.

I would say relative don't fit the example in the slightest. There is nothing relative about Obama presidency. He is President now and if world don't suddenly change at some time he won't be President anymore. Latter would be true someday but then there will be nothing relative in it.

(10-07-2015 12:39 PM)ShellShilo Wrote:  I'm glad that you don't create Deities or spend your life dreaming of living forever. That was not my intention, and you seem far to intelligent to do so.

Sorry but I don't need you saying that. Especially considering that you don't know me so it's only empty words. What I was getting at was your unwarranted use of "we". "We" don't need to stop anything, I'm capable of thinking for myself and I don't even do what "we" were supposed to stop.

(10-07-2015 12:39 PM)ShellShilo Wrote:  You may not care about the history of mans early rituals, and Deity worshipping, or even how this history of mans evolution have affected society, but it would be in your best interest, since you are also part of that same society.

In my best interest? How do you know what is in my best interest? And why it's that and not good job, happy life or degree? I don't give a damn about burial rituals and I don't think that caring about them is in my best interest.

(10-07-2015 12:39 PM)ShellShilo Wrote:  As I have stated before, I'm not into absolute or abstract truth. The first I don't believe exists, and the second can provide a logical argument that would make shit sound good enough to eat. Drooling Thanks for Listening Shell Heart

As for the first Hitler being chancellor of the III Reich is as absolute truth as we can get, similar to Obama presidency, though I do not describe truth as absolute for it is redundant. As for the second I doubt that or rather I could believe that one can spin some absurd story in which everything is justified/sounds good but such absurd stories tend to fail when confronted with reality.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 04:03 PM
RE: Saint or Monster?
(10-07-2015 01:30 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 12:39 PM)ShellShilo Wrote:  It would appear Szuchow that I may have hit a nerve. Let me give you an example of what I am trying to say. There is a small minority of people that do not believe that President Obama is the President of the United States, no matter how much evidence you can show them. But, the evidence (facts) is enough to convince the majority of the people that he is the President. However, if the majority of people did not accept that President Obama is the President, it would mean that there was insufficient facts to make this a truth claim. Obviously, this could not happen since the majority of people have accepted the evidence, and can make the truth claim that he is indeed the President.

He is President regardless of opinion of people. Even majority disbelieving his presidency doesen't change a thing for he is President. It's simply true and only idiot disregard this fact.

(10-07-2015 12:39 PM)ShellShilo Wrote:  I use the word relative to show how well the truth conforms to reality. But in the future I will use tentative instead. In other words, nothing is true until it is proven true, and if the facts change, so does the truth. Certainty claims that have already been proven true, can't be relative. It would be irrelevant if people disbelieved or not accepted that Hitler was the Chancellor. There are other ideas and thoughts where the truth is not so certain, and for now, must be tentative or relative.

I would say relative don't fit the example in the slightest. There is nothing relative about Obama presidency. He is President now and if world don't suddenly change at some time he won't be President anymore. Latter would be true someday but then there will be nothing relative in it.

(10-07-2015 12:39 PM)ShellShilo Wrote:  I'm glad that you don't create Deities or spend your life dreaming of living forever. That was not my intention, and you seem far to intelligent to do so.

Sorry but I don't need you saying that. Especially considering that you don't know me so it's only empty words. What I was getting at was your unwarranted use of "we". "We" don't need to stop anything, I'm capable of thinking for myself and I don't even do what "we" were supposed to stop.

(10-07-2015 12:39 PM)ShellShilo Wrote:  You may not care about the history of mans early rituals, and Deity worshipping, or even how this history of mans evolution have affected society, but it would be in your best interest, since you are also part of that same society.

In my best interest? How do you know what is in my best interest? And why it's that and not good job, happy life or degree? I don't give a damn about burial rituals and I don't think that caring about them is in my best interest.

(10-07-2015 12:39 PM)ShellShilo Wrote:  As I have stated before, I'm not into absolute or abstract truth. The first I don't believe exists, and the second can provide a logical argument that would make shit sound good enough to eat. Drooling Thanks for Listening Shell Heart

As for the first Hitler being chancellor of the III Reich is as absolute truth as we can get, similar to Obama presidency, though I do not describe truth as absolute for it is redundant. As for the second I doubt that or rather I could believe that one can spin some absurd story in which everything is justified/sounds good but such absurd stories tend to fail when confronted with reality.

Thanks for that. However now, I think I do know you. So ĂšNCLE!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: