Understanding Religion's Relationship To Human Social Systems

Someone who isn't a Christian  asked: "Why can't your supposed "god" just show up and tell me himself in an actual conversation? Why is it ALWAYS other humans having to tell me about "god"? I know, I know, things just don't work that way, right? Same reason Santa Clause never actually showed up and other people had to tell me about him and bring the presents." ------------------------------ A Christian replied with: "maybe, try this , Go humble before Jesus and God like a little child , and ask him he will show you something. It has to be prayer." ------------------------------ My reply to this conversation (directed at the Christian).  It's almost as if you didn't understand his point. What you are suggesting is that he fist ASSUME that a long list of specific religious claims are true, and then: after adopting that mindset, without any rational available reason to do so, ... (next) put himself also into the mindset of a help

 [Originally written as a reply to a Christian-religious fundamentalist] Asking a fellow fallible human about the existence, nature, and will of a literal "God" would make no sense. It would be like asking you if Super-Intelligent aliens exist, what they want from me, and if I should submit to them (whichever religious person) ... as an authorized voice of those aliens. Even if you had a fantastic story about being abducted and probed, ... Me hearing it does not = me "knowing" it. You can't function as a surrogate me. If you experientially know something, you can't pass that on as "knowledge". You could only pass it on as a claim. If your evidence is lousy, then that's not my problem. If your claim is non-credible, that's not my problem either. If I don't believe you, ... EVEN IF it's all true, ... I have not morally ~wronged~ nor "rejected" your favorite alien. --- If I eventually get abducted and probed too, ... I would

  It would mean that a Super-Being *intended* that only the impressively lucky and impressively clever could arrive at all the correct-enough conclusions about that "message", before the random timer on their earthly life expires. Meanwhile, it would also mean that Super-Being intended for this lucky winners to go around judging everyone else as morally deficient. After all, one MUST take that position, if one assumes that failing to arrive ~correctly enough~ at all the essential conclusions is a fair standard to judge people by. They'd have to assume everyone getting the wrong answers (including: not ~correct enough~ answers) has only themselves to blame. -And that it has something to do with their moral character. --- There are just so many layers of unfair/un-just bullshit to that entire proposition. Any Super-Being who may (theoretically) have orchestrated that as their "Grand Plan" ... cannot be assessed as rational, compassionate, accountable, or "

This review is for the video discussion between Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer at this link.  Title of video: "Stephen Meyer—Return of God Hypothesis: 3 Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe" --------------------------   There's simply never going to be a need for anyone to get creatively unique and complex ... when pointing out a simple factual error, logical error, or a simple absurdity. Nor does anyone need to prove their fairness and reasonability by showing token respect to clinically narcissist religiosity. --- In any event, ... Meyer keeps: * appealing to Magic and Magic-Man, * pretending those are "scientific" theories, * willfully mispresenting the actual science, (ie. trying to mislead his audience, by claiming that: * primary cosmological theories and competing cosmological theories agree on a true beginning of our universe (including all that it consists/subsists of). And * falsely inferring that there is a conse

Post was this: "You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Galatians 5:13-14 (NIV) Christians and their most ardent supporters kept saying they don't see the problem with posting that in a "Stoicism" group. Meanwhile, many group members continued to object to it. My thoughts about it:  Regarding the OP we're posting under. ----- The OP's meme image is fine, by itself. The quote contained in the image is a mix of a.) rational/healthy and b.) irrational/toxic sentiments. (I'll explain which part of the image-quote is problematic, in a moment). Meanwhile, the person posting the image/meme used it to advertise for his religion and his religion's special book. The passage he quoted is of: * specifically-religious people talking to * people in their religion a

Someone claimed "You cant be an atheist while being a Stoic.".   My response was this: "You can't rationally justify that position."   His next response was this: "Read Meditation by Marcus Aurelius himself on the respects for God".  To this, I offered: There is a lot to unpack there. As such, I can understand why you didn't try to, in these little boxes of text. -- If we go back far enough, to before recorded history, we can logically deduce that religion helped less developed people bond, survive, and thrive. We also see examples of that in ~recorded history~. I certainly don't condemn them for that. However,  these were ~training wheels~. What once helped us now hinders us. Religion is not the belief that a "God" exists. Religion, instead, is that belief that a "God" (or: something external and greater than us) attempts to inform our values and direct our actions; and that we humans should obey. So then, a "deist&quo

A Christian wrote: "To enjoy Gods creation is an accepted form of worship as long as your heart is directed towards him, he wants to be acknowledged in all things which is a delightful, maturing and refining experience, he is the artist that enjoys your wonder and awe as your appreciation is a part of his masterpiece and the more you love it the more he shows it off, its all about the heart, if your heart goes to the ocean more than it goes to God then yes you are committing idolatry but if your heart is grateful to God for the ocean then its in its right place... Whenever you are amazed you are having a taste of what he is really like and what it is like knowing him, all the time." --------------------------------------------- My thoughts on this: -- I realize that your "God" lives. But only in your mind. He started there, in the garden of your mind, as an idea; a seed planted by other humans. Your environment watered and fed that idea, while that same social env

  Tony Swanson re "There are a few denominations of Christianity, but they all agree in what matters. (Example)  That hell is a separation from God is universal." --- Only a few? Really? There are  tens of thousands. And that doesn't even count all the rogue independents. Meanwhile, no. They do not all agree on anything (let alone everything) meaningful. Defining Hell as "separation from God" is like describing what it's like for a child in the foster care system as "separation from parents".   Or to describe what it's like to go sky diving as "separation from plane".  It's a straight-up dodge to avoid talking about the fact that various Christian sects have different claims about what "Hell" is like. Various sects use ~mostly~ the same religious language. But the words mean something different between sects. Thus, the doctrines are not really the same. Mormons teach that we can get our own planet to rule over, as a

Literally everything we ever choose to do is carrot and stick, on some level. - Gratitude is a different dimension of thought and feelings. It does nothing to negate the carrot and stick nature of our motivations. Adding or substracting gratitude simply doesn't effect that part of the equation. If a religious person desires the benefits promised to them, then it makes sense they are making life-choices, sacrifices, efforts, etc towards that carrot. -AND are grateful for the opportunity. Additionally, ... If a religious person was ~ever~ given something extreme to fear for non-compliance, then, of course, they would want to avoid that stick. --- Meanwhile, if a "God" didn't want would-be-converts, newly converted, or those indoctrinated as children, or any other believers/obeyers concerning themselves with a dramatic stick, ... then: That "God" could only demonstrate that by: never mentioning any severe stick. Once the threat is made, the source (no ma

The rational default is that an all-powerful boogeyman does not exist . Taking the position that one "could exist", is to leave one's mind vulnerable to superstition and con artists. Thus, it would be an irresponsible example to set for children and vulnerable-others. It would also be a reckless indulgence in personal vulnerability, for those whom have had to work hard to kill the stubborn ghost of the "God" planted deep into their psyche by former indoctrinators.  For the sake of health and personal responsibility, the needed position is "no"; rather than "unconvinced".  Meanwhile, ... I've noticed that Abrahamics do not claimed to be agnostics about ~all other alleged World-Creating Super-Beings~; - which they technically can't prove don't exist. So if anyone's going to give an anti theist grief about the burden of proof, it had better not be a monotheist; not even a singular-"God"-deist.  I've also noticed t

A Muslim asked if there's any reason to doubt the Quran as the words of Allah. Some people listed various horrible things in Qurans; like telling believers to kill people who try to leave the religion. I went a different route; to make points that can be made equally about Bibles. --- It would be morally irresponsible to use that method to communicate important messages. 1. No one has a reason to even start reading it. Finding reasons WHILE reading it ... doesn't count as reasons to start reading it. 2. The reasons (random) people (sometimes) have to start reading so-called "holy books" ... are morally irrelevant; including: boredom, curiosity, being desperate, and being already somewhat indoctrinated by parents or culture. These things don't arise as manifestations of moral character. Nor do all humans experience these things as ~reasons to start reading/looking~ into religions. 3. Qurans are ~Rumors~. That's all it is. Same as Bibles, and the Book of Mor