Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religious Morality?

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 9:48:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A Quick Rant On Religious Ethics

The problem with religious ethics is not that the vast majority of religious precepts are bad; clearly many ethical precepts that can be found in religion are unobjectionable. I happen to think that the golden rule represents an excellent heuristic to safeguard the wellbeing of humans. However, it is clear that this is not true across the board. Consider the following ethical propositions.

1. Homosexuality is wrong.
2. It's wrong to be needlessly cruel to people.
3. Murdering innocent strangers for money is wrong.

One of these claims is not like the other: can you guess which one? Lets put up a second list and see if you can't find something wrong with the following claims.

1. Drinking coffee is wrong. (I'm calling you out, Mormons.)
2. Honor killings are wrong.
3. Slavery is unethical.

Hopefully, everyone will realize that claim #1 is arbitrary, stupid and pointless – as it has absolutely nothing to do with any claim about how to produce human wellbeing. Now, it is worth pointing out that many religious patriarchs thought that they encountered moral wisdom because they got this wisdom from burning bushes or voices inside their head. In all likelihood, they didn't get this ‘wisdom' from making intelligent evaluations about the way in which actions affect the conscious experience of other humans. This is why Christians can be more concerned with abortion than the genocide in Darfur. This is why we can waste millions of dollars each year trying to ban gay marriage when 15,000,000 children die every year of hunger etc. My point is, of course, that many people in the world have a perverse (one might say psychotic) misunderstanding about what constitutes ethical behavior and moral reasoning.

I defy any of the Christians or Muslims on DDO to make a coherent ethical claim that is not in some way predicated upon a claim about human or animal wellbeing. If you end up with such a claim, then it will be no more intelligent or worthy of respect than the notion that drinking coffee is wrong. It will be arbitrary and probably ridiculous. Of course, it would be unfair to set aside deontological ethics, but I'm going to do so for the moment. I will do this because it seems clear to me that even Kantian ethics, for example, are still based upon claims about the way behaviors, actions, thoughts etc. lead to changes for the greater good.

Of course, it is possible to ask: Why is human wellbeing important to morality? The question can be posed, but it merely demonstrates confusion, not a serious challenge to moral realism. If we mean anything by the term morality, we are refereeing to behaviors, thoughts and actions that lead to – or can potentially lead to – changes in the conscious experience of beings. And even if you think that God exists and dictates morality, then you are still following his commands because you want to avoid or gain certain states in consciousness (e.g. going to heaven or hell).

Ok, I'm done. :)
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 9:52:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
to be fair, all those claims probably ARE intended to produce human wellbeing. some are just hopelessly inaccurate :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 10:22:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Erm, ok. Thanks for sharing, I guess. I'd just like point out that...

At 5/17/2010 9:48:48 PM, Freeman wrote:
This is why Christians can be more concerned with abortion than the genocide in Darfur.

....many Christians consider 99.9% of abortions a kind of genocide.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 11:01:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 10:22:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Erm, ok. Thanks for sharing, I guess. I'd just like point out that...

At 5/17/2010 9:48:48 PM, Freeman wrote:
This is why Christians can be more concerned with abortion than the genocide in Darfur.

....many Christians consider 99.9% of abortions a kind of genocide.

Those Christians are very ignorant (i.e., those sorts of beliefs cannot be justified given what we know about psychology, neuroscience and the nature of consciousness). If they were well informed, then they wouldn't think like that.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 11:18:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 9:52:40 PM, belle wrote:
to be fair, all those claims probably ARE intended to produce human wellbeing. some are just hopelessly inaccurate :P

No. They were deliberately created to control people. Probably as a social experiment to see if humans would blindly follow senseless tenets.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 11:37:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 11:01:38 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 5/17/2010 10:22:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Erm, ok. Thanks for sharing, I guess. I'd just like point out that...

At 5/17/2010 9:48:48 PM, Freeman wrote:
This is why Christians can be more concerned with abortion than the genocide in Darfur.

....many Christians consider 99.9% of abortions a kind of genocide.

Those Christians are very ignorant (i.e., those sorts of beliefs cannot be justified given what we know about psychology, neuroscience and the nature of consciousness). If they were well informed, then they wouldn't think like that.

It looks like someone hasn't seen a real Pro Life argument...
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 11:41:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 11:18:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/17/2010 9:52:40 PM, belle wrote:
to be fair, all those claims probably ARE intended to produce human wellbeing. some are just hopelessly inaccurate :P

No. They were deliberately created to control people. Probably as a social experiment to see if humans would blindly follow senseless tenets.

An "interessting" Biologist... E.O._Wilson

The predisposition to religious belief is an ineradicable part of human behavior. Mankind has produced 100,000 religions. It is an illusion to think that scientific humanism and learning will dispel religious belief. Men would rather believe than know... A kind of Darwinistic survival of the fittest has occurred with religions... The ecological principle called Gause's law holds that competition is maximal between species with identical needs... Even submission to secular religions such as Communism and guru cults involve willing subordination of the individual to the group. Religious practices confer biological advantage. The mechanisms of religion include (1) objectification (the reduction of reality to images and definitions that are easily understood and cannot be refuted), (2) commitment through faith (a kind of tribalism enacted through self-surrender), (3) and myth (the narratives that explain the tribe's favored position on the earth, often incorporating supernatural forces struggling for control, apocalypse, and millennium). The three great religion categories of today are Marxism, traditional religion, and scientific materialism... Though theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline, religion will endure for a long time to come and will not be replaced by scientific materialism.

He calls it "provisional deism", win for gnosticism.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2010 11:45:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 11:40:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Religious morality is an oxymoron.

Not funny and Idiotic, your current ethic is based on Christianity anyway. [M.Weber 1930 - J.J.Rousseau 1762]
'sup DDO -- july 2013
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 2:27:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 11:45:34 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/17/2010 11:40:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Religious morality is an oxymoron.

Not funny and Idiotic, your current ethic is based on Christianity anyway. [M.Weber 1930 - J.J.Rousseau 1762]

His statement isn't as idiotic as the one you just made. My ethic and probably Freedos, is Nihilistic. Would you really claim that is based on Christianity?

Btw, Christian "ethics" can hardly be considered ethical. Don't worship other gods, don't make graven images, don't work on the Sabbath, and slaughter nonChristian tribes.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 2:39:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 2:27:08 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/17/2010 11:45:34 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/17/2010 11:40:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Religious morality is an oxymoron.

Not funny and Idiotic, your current ethic is based on Christianity anyway. [M.Weber 1930 - J.J.Rousseau 1762]

His statement isn't as idiotic as the one you just made. My ethic and probably Freedos, is Nihilistic. Would you really claim that is based on Christianity?
Yes, Western Ethic is a deviation of the Protestant ethic.

Lol, nobody except people with Bipolar Moral Nihilism are nihilist, your humanity won't let you.

Btw, Christian "ethics" can hardly be considered ethical. Don't worship other gods, don't make graven images, don't work on the Sabbath, and slaughter nonChristian tribes.
See what I said on belle's post.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 2:41:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Your Buddhist.

Buddhism in incompatible with nihilism.

If your fully nihilist you would have no reason to do anything, no wants, no loves no anything that makes you human.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 2:51:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 2:41:25 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Your Buddhist.


Buddhism in incompatible with nihilism.

If your fully nihilist you would have no reason to do anything, no wants, no loves no anything that makes you human.

I'm nihilist in terms of "ultimate Meaning"...

But I know I care! :p
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 3:22:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 2:41:25 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Your Buddhist.


Buddhism in incompatible with nihilism.

One of the main criticisms of Buddhism is that it is nihilistic. Buddhists repeatedly deny this, but the true implications of its philosophy are nihilistic.

"Buddhist teachings of dependent origination using positive language instead, to prevent people from being turned away from Buddhism by a false impression of nihilism." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Zen patriarch, Bodhidharma said this:

"The wise are awakened to the Truth, and choose reason over convention; even though their forms follow the law of causality, their minds are at peace and empty of effort. Since all existence is empty, there is nothing to be desired." - Bodhidharma

And...

"Friedrich Nietzsche, although himself dismissive of Buddhism as yet another nihilism" - http://en.wikipedia.org...

If your fully nihilist you would have no reason to do anything, no wants, no loves no anything that makes you human.

In Buddhism, it emphasizes that one be compassionate and act peacefully and respectfully towards others, only to make this illusory reality more enjoyable.

So you have to look at from different levels. On one level, we want to do good in the world and make it a better place for everyone, but ultimately, the world is illusory and it does not matter what actually happens because all existence is empty.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 7:20:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 2:27:08 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
My ethic and probably Freedos, is Nihilistic. Would you really claim that is based on Christianity?

That's a contradiction in terms. Nihilism is the absence of an ethical standard.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 8:15:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 11:01:38 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 5/17/2010 10:22:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Erm, ok. Thanks for sharing, I guess. I'd just like point out that...

At 5/17/2010 9:48:48 PM, Freeman wrote:
This is why Christians can be more concerned with abortion than the genocide in Darfur.

....many Christians consider 99.9% of abortions a kind of genocide.

Those Christians are very ignorant (i.e., those sorts of beliefs cannot be justified given what we know about psychology, neuroscience and the nature of consciousness). If they were well informed, then they wouldn't think like that.

I'm one of those Christians and I'm quite sure that I know enough about anatomy, neurology, political science, and the fact that if I was an unborn, unwanted child, I would still want to be born, regardless of the circumstances of my pre-birth life.

By the way, could you refrain from insulting other members of this site. It is a place for friendly debate.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 8:15:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 11:40:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Religious morality is an oxymoron.

Logically explain or keep your trap shut.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 8:16:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/17/2010 11:18:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/17/2010 9:52:40 PM, belle wrote:
to be fair, all those claims probably ARE intended to produce human wellbeing. some are just hopelessly inaccurate :P

No. They were deliberately created to control people. Probably as a social experiment to see if humans would blindly follow senseless tenets.

Wow... No one conspired to create them. Religion can have its origins explained through anthropology. Religion was the language game that evolved in human societies that helped people to cope with their fear of death and various other anxieties. So, in some ways, it helped certain populations fight disease and stress among other things. Ergo, it can give populations a reproductive advantage. Additionally, the patterns of subsistence any society adopts can accurately predict what type of religion they will adopt. For example, hunters and gathers almost always believed in some form of animism. Societies that farmed high yield crops like wheat were likely to worship one God (i.e. they would be monotheistic). No one conspired, Geo, to create religion. Religion is simply a natural phenomenon. You should look into the literature surrounding this topic if you don't believe me; it's quite fascinating.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 10:53:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 3:22:06 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/18/2010 2:41:25 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Your Buddhist.


Buddhism in incompatible with nihilism.

One of the main criticisms of Buddhism is that it is nihilistic. Buddhists repeatedly deny this, but the true implications of its philosophy are nihilistic.
Premise.

"Buddhist teachings of dependent origination using positive language instead, to prevent people from being turned away from Buddhism by a false impression of nihilism." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Zen patriarch, Bodhidharma said this:

"The wise are awakened to the Truth, and choose reason over convention; even though their forms follow the law of causality, their minds are at peace and empty of effort. Since all existence is empty, there is nothing to be desired." - Bodhidharma
Buddhists don't follow that. At least the mainstream Buddhists, the other tier, don't.

Your saying Buddhists have beaten their humanity? This tier of Buddhism. Still... It doesn't suprise me, remember Thich Quang Duc?

And...

"Friedrich Nietzsche, although himself dismissive of Buddhism as yet another nihilism" - http://en.wikipedia.org...

He was wrong.
If your fully nihilist you would have no reason to do anything, no wants, no loves no anything that makes you human.

In Buddhism, it emphasizes that one be compassionate and act peacefully and respectfully towards others, only to make this illusory reality more enjoyable.
If you pursue passion, "enjoyment", you're not nihilist.
So you have to look at from different levels. On one level, we want to do good in the world and make it a better place for everyone, but ultimately, the world is illusory and it does not matter what actually happens because all existence is empty.
The level's are contradictory, hence stupid.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 11:33:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 8:16:51 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 5/17/2010 11:18:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/17/2010 9:52:40 PM, belle wrote:
to be fair, all those claims probably ARE intended to produce human wellbeing. some are just hopelessly inaccurate :P

No. They were deliberately created to control people. Probably as a social experiment to see if humans would blindly follow senseless tenets.

Wow... No one conspired to create them. Religion can have its origins explained through anthropology.

Oh dear God. The dreaded anthropological sociological theory of religion garbage. This is the one aspect I disagree with Dawkins on.

Religion was the language game that evolved in human societies that helped people to cope with their fear of death

Jews don't believe in the afterlife, Taoists don't believe in the afterlife, and many other Eastern religions don't as well. And I doubt that Hell is very comforting to those who fear death. A death of nothingness beats Hell (and in my opnion, Heaven too.).

and various other anxieties. So, in some ways, it helped certain populations fight disease and stress among other things.

Fight stress? Are you serious? I was a Christian and was consistently paranoid about committing too many sins (I had a sin counter for a while) and going to Hell, though I concluded I would end up in purgatory. I feared judgment an the fact that God could see me no matter what.

And if you really want to stress someone out, just read them Deuteronomy or Leviticus. Hundreds of laws, many of which that include brutal stonings as punishment. If that's their way of coping with stress, they fail miserably.

Ergo, it can give populations a reproductive advantage. Additionally, the patterns of subsistence any society adopts can accurately predict what type of religion they will adopt. For example, hunters and gathers almost always believed in some form of animism. Societies that farmed high yield crops like wheat were likely to worship one God (i.e. they would be monotheistic). No one conspired, Geo, to create religion.

It's scholarly accepted that Constantine used Christianity to rule his empire with one religion. He had a dream that he would rule with the cross. And get this! He was a lifelong pagan! He didn't even believe the stuff he created (Orthodox Christianity). It's also well known that the the Council of Nicea edited the Bible and omitted the genuine books like the Gnostic Gospels.

Not to mention King James and the Rosicrucian Illuminist, Fancis Bacon edited the Bible as well. Bacon wasn't even a Christian and James was a King was obviously into ruling people.

Much can be said for Islam as well.

Religion is simply a natural phenomenon.

I would admit religion had divine origin before I would say natural phenomenon.

And for those who say religion was out primitive first attempt at philosophy, explain Scientology.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 12:06:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 7:20:00 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/18/2010 2:27:08 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
My ethic and probably Freedos, is Nihilistic. Would you really claim that is based on Christianity?

That's a contradiction in terms. Nihilism is the absence of an ethical standard.

You fail. That's not Nihilism. "Nihil" comes from the Latin meaning "nothing."

"Nihilism: the philsophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life." - Wikipedia

Nihilists can still be ethical even if such acts are meaningless.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 12:35:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 11:33:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/18/2010 8:16:51 AM, Freeman wrote:
At 5/17/2010 11:18:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/17/2010 9:52:40 PM, belle wrote:
to be fair, all those claims probably ARE intended to produce human wellbeing. some are just hopelessly inaccurate :P

No. They were deliberately created to control people. Probably as a social experiment to see if humans would blindly follow senseless tenets.

Wow... No one conspired to create them. Religion can have its origins explained through anthropology.

Oh dear God. The dreaded anthropological sociological theory of religion garbage. This is the one aspect I disagree with Dawkins on.

Religion was the language game that evolved in human societies that helped people to cope with their fear of death

Jews don't believe in the afterlife, Taoists don't believe in the afterlife, and many other Eastern religions don't as well. And I doubt that Hell is very comforting to those who fear death. A death of nothingness beats Hell (and in my opnion, Heaven too.).

and various other anxieties. So, in some ways, it helped certain populations fight disease and stress among other things.

Fight stress? Are you serious? I was a Christian and was consistently paranoid about committing too many sins (I had a sin counter for a while) and going to Hell, though I concluded I would end up in purgatory. I feared judgment an the fact that God could see me no matter what.

And if you really want to stress someone out, just read them Deuteronomy or Leviticus. Hundreds of laws, many of which that include brutal stonings as punishment. If that's their way of coping with stress, they fail miserably.

Ergo, it can give populations a reproductive advantage. Additionally, the patterns of subsistence any society adopts can accurately predict what type of religion they will adopt. For example, hunters and gathers almost always believed in some form of animism. Societies that farmed high yield crops like wheat were likely to worship one God (i.e. they would be monotheistic). No one conspired, Geo, to create religion.

It's scholarly accepted that Constantine used Christianity to rule his empire with one religion. He had a dream that he would rule with the cross. And get this! He was a lifelong pagan! He didn't even believe the stuff he created (Orthodox Christianity). It's also well known that the the Council of Nicea edited the Bible and omitted the genuine books like the Gnostic Gospels.

Not to mention King James and the Rosicrucian Illuminist, Fancis Bacon edited the Bible as well. Bacon wasn't even a Christian and James was a King was obviously into ruling people.

Much can be said for Islam as well.

Religion is simply a natural phenomenon.

I would admit religion had divine origin before I would say natural phenomenon.

And for those who say religion was out primitive first attempt at philosophy, explain Scientology.

Scientology and Mormonism are just rackets, plain and simple.

Consider, by analogy, the difference between natural selection and artificial selection. Some religions were created by human culture and nature, and some religions were purposely engineered to extort people of their time and money.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 12:54:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 11:33:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/18/2010 8:16:51 AM, Freeman wrote:
Religion was the language game that evolved in human societies that helped people to cope with their fear of death
Taoists don't believe in the afterlife, and many other Eastern religions don't as well.

Taoist religion IS obsessed with living forever though :-P
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 12:55:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 12:54:00 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/18/2010 11:33:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/18/2010 8:16:51 AM, Freeman wrote:
Religion was the language game that evolved in human societies that helped people to cope with their fear of death
Taoists don't believe in the afterlife, and many other Eastern religions don't as well.

Taoist religion IS obsessed with living forever though :-P

What do Taoists actually believe? I always thought it was some kind of ancient Chinese belief system that believes in spirits and such. I could be wrong though.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 1:02:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 12:55:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/18/2010 12:54:00 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/18/2010 11:33:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/18/2010 8:16:51 AM, Freeman wrote:
Religion was the language game that evolved in human societies that helped people to cope with their fear of death
Taoists don't believe in the afterlife, and many other Eastern religions don't as well.

Taoist religion IS obsessed with living forever though :-P

What do Taoists actually believe? I always thought it was some kind of ancient Chinese belief system that believes in spirits and such. I could be wrong though.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

srsly
'sup DDO -- july 2013
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 1:04:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 1:02:16 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/18/2010 12:55:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/18/2010 12:54:00 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/18/2010 11:33:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/18/2010 8:16:51 AM, Freeman wrote:
Religion was the language game that evolved in human societies that helped people to cope with their fear of death
Taoists don't believe in the afterlife, and many other Eastern religions don't as well.

Taoist religion IS obsessed with living forever though :-P

What do Taoists actually believe? I always thought it was some kind of ancient Chinese belief system that believes in spirits and such. I could be wrong though.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

srsly

My friends say to never trust Wikipedia, but whatever. F*ck them. ;P
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 1:08:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/18/2010 12:54:00 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/18/2010 11:33:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/18/2010 8:16:51 AM, Freeman wrote:
Religion was the language game that evolved in human societies that helped people to cope with their fear of death
Taoists don't believe in the afterlife, and many other Eastern religions don't as well.

Taoist religion IS obsessed with living forever though :-P

Death is meaningless to Taoists. It doesn't even exist to them because they were never alive to begin with. Like a leaf that sprouts from a branch and falls to the ground and eventually whithers away. They don't believe in living forever because there is no soul.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 1:08:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago

I'm one of those Christians and I'm quite sure that I know enough about anatomy, neurology, political science, and the fact that if I was an unborn, unwanted child, I would still want to be born, regardless of the circumstances of my pre-birth life.

By the way, could you refrain from insulting other members of this site. It is a place for friendly debate.

If you were an unborn child, you wouldn't want anything. You wouldn't have the ability.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2010 1:09:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
BAMP

My Gnosticism is based on Logic and Metaphysics. I don't belive in contact with the Primum movens, I don't even know if he's living.

At 5/17/2010 11:41:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
An "interessting" Biologist... E.O._Wilson

The predisposition to religious belief is an ineradicable part of human behavior. Mankind has produced 100,000 religions. It is an illusion to think that scientific humanism and learning will dispel religious belief. Men would rather believe than know... A kind of Darwinistic survival of the fittest has occurred with religions... The ecological principle called Gause's law holds that competition is maximal between species with identical needs... Even submission to secular religions such as Communism and guru cults involve willing subordination of the individual to the group. Religious practices confer biological advantage. The mechanisms of religion include (1) objectification (the reduction of reality to images and definitions that are easily understood and cannot be refuted), (2) commitment through faith (a kind of tribalism enacted through self-surrender), (3) and myth (the narratives that explain the tribe's favored position on the earth, often incorporating supernatural forces struggling for control, apocalypse, and millennium). The three great religion categories of today are Marxism, traditional religion, and scientific materialism... Though theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline, religion will endure for a long time to come and will not be replaced by scientific materialism.

He calls it "provisional deism", win for gnosticism.
'sup DDO -- july 2013