[ul]:rolleyes: [sup]That sure convinced me![/sup][/ul]
That was an authoritative declararion kniz =)
That’s a bit different than explaining how the concept of God doesn’t pan out in an overt sense. The God concept has marvelous applications in a covert sense though. It is only a matter of showing individuals who believe they are using the concept overtly, that in fact it is being used covertly, and that the assumed benefits are unrelated to the direct meaning of whether or not a God actually exists.
-Justhink
Oh yeah, as a side-note. I wouldn’t be suprized if many of the same fundamentals of thesitic judgements are transcribed to an inversion of creative theism.
The inversion being:
We create God, or rather, it is our destiny to create God. This would fundamentally shift the polarity of good and evil. Those who believe God already exists would be guilty of not fighting against the clock for the eternal redemption of sentience, they would be the idiots, the greedy, the sloths of society. I’m sure someone will get around towards creating this religion and infusing it with the general population. sigh
-Justhink
That’s exactly what I meant Justhink; “one day, everyone will be sensible and right, just like me”.
OK, show me that God doesn’t exist (in another thread if you like).
**everettmeyer wrote:
They did not create themselves. God did; in his image. Therefore hell is not the answer. This is just one of the inconsistencies I find with organized religion.**
CORRECTION: This is just one of the inconsistencies I find with Christianity.
Please stop using the term organized religion when what you really mean is Christianity. Many other organized religious systems don’t have the inconsistencies you’ve pointed out.
If you’re referring to Christianity, then say so. But Christianity DOES NOT equal all organized religion.
huh?
—I’m convinced that I can convince anybody on earth that God does not exist, or that if God exists, God is either an undesirable or meaningless entity.—
I’m an atheist, and not only do I very much doubt you can, but I think the very project is downright stupid.
Organized religion is not necessary in the sense that a given human being could not function entirely without it, or that it is a necessary part of life. But it IS a necessary part of many people’s lives in the sense that it is something extremely important to them. And it is ridiculous to speak about it as being something that MUST be from brainwashing, as opposed to being a sincere and thoughtful conviction, simply because you think it’s unverifiable. That is simply an all too common attempt to infantilize your opponents. I’m most familiar with this tactic in political debates: assert that the people who hold certain positions do so because of disinformation or fear, or whatever pop psychoanalysis you wish to make of them. But this tactic, I have found, is all too popular among both religious ideologues and the anti-religious.
I’ve noticed that everettmeyer hasn’t returned to answer my arguments against him (or anyone else’s, for that matter).
Zev Steinhardt
“”"“I’m an atheist, and not only do I very much doubt you can, but I think the very project is downright stupid.”"""
That’s the difference between an atheist and someone closer to the line of nihilism. I take it by stupid, you mean: “Unable to parse logically”?
“”""""""“But it IS a necessary part of many people’s lives in the sense that it is something extremely important to them.”"""""""""
I understand that generations of people will need to pass, in this sense. They are IMO, logically damaged… the resource required to repair this damage is not going to spring up anytime soon; it will be a gradual process. People are either making money off of the damage, or they are suffering from the damage. Either way, this segment of the population is too robust as history currently stands. If it is embedded into the primary indentured system, reversing the process will cause existential collapse. I am not some villan who seeks for everyone to be the same, or suffer withdraw symptoms from counter - conversion. I do counter - intellectual things all the time; I’m simply stating that I do not see how illogic will trump logic as history progresses, and more people learn about these mechanisms, and eventually are taught them at younger and younger ages.
“”"""""""“And it is ridiculous to speak about it as being something that MUST be from brainwashing, as opposed to being a sincere and thoughtful conviction, simply because you think it’s unverifiable. “””"""""""""""""
I know that it is unverifiable.
“”""""""""“That is simply an all too common attempt to infantilize your opponents.”""""""""""
Yes, it is. I also know that the religious thought virus is a necessity in order for one human being to intentionally kill another human being, or violate the trust of another human being. I do not appreciate human beings who kill others before themselves or just not killing anyone at all. It is not logical.
Some people do not have the ability to process information very quick; their cognitive age (maturity) cannot progress beyond a certain point via. this limitation. That’s why we have education systems that place the patterns in a rote sense. For those who have decent processing speeds, the arguments will be self - explanitory and undeniabley unassailable with relation to the external world.
“”"""""“I’m most familiar with this tactic in political debates: assert that the people who hold certain positions do so because of disinformation or fear, or whatever pop psychoanalysis you wish to make of them. But this tactic, I have found, is all too popular among both religious ideologues and the anti-religious.”""""""""""
Yes, I’m also sure that you’re used to both sides of the debate using religious thought forms to justify their positions.
-Justhink
—That’s the difference between an atheist and someone closer to the line of nihilism.—
From your previous posts, I have found that you have a very strange concept of both atheism and nihilism that I would ask you to explain better before using again. I am an atheist, and as far as I know, this has nothing to do with nihilism. I am not a nihilist.
In any case, your response is completely off-topic: it does not concern the matter of whether you can disprove “god.”
—I take it by stupid, you mean: “Unable to parse logically”?—
No, I mean pointless. The project of disproving a vague, endlessly mutable entity like “god” is a waste of time, and meanspirited to boot. Which god? All things that could be called god?
—They are IMO, logically damaged… the resource required to repair this damage is not going to spring up anytime soon; it will be a gradual process.—
But that is your central mistake, not to mention slander: thinking that people believe because they falsely think that it was logically proven to them, or even could be. This is simply not true.
—I’m simply stating that I do not see how illogic will trump logic as history progresses, and more people learn about these mechanisms, and eventually are taught them at younger and younger ages.—
Particular people’s characters are not “logical” or “illogical.” For many people, religious beliefs are part of their character, not truth claims. They only tangentially become truth claims when they try to justify their beliefs to others. But life isn’t a debate, and a given person’s practice of their religion is not premised on justifying their beliefs to others.
—I know that it is unverifiable.—
How? How can one know anything about something which they themselves claim nothing can be known about? Regardless of this silly claim, even if it were true, that STILL wouldn’t justify your assumption that believers were what they are only because of brainwashing.
—I do not appreciate human beings who kill others before themselves or just not killing anyone at all. It is not logical.—
Hunh? Actions are not logical or illogical, only arguments. Murder is not illogical: it is, in some people’s estimation, unethical.
i’m pure evil and I like hotdogs. Actually… not hotdogs, but i like hamburgers. Especially ones made from the meat of little children. 
Apos: you may or may not be aware of Justhink’s thread in which he is going to show me that God doesn’t exist (Showing Mangetout that God doesn’t exist in ‘another thread’).
It is not proceeding smoothly; I must be even more stupid than anyone had imagined.
“”""""""""“I am not a nihilist.”"""""""""""""
I wasn’t implying that you were. I was eluding (rather unclearly) to the idea that I am closer to nihilism than atheism, which may articulate why our ways of looking at the situation differ.
“”""""""""""“No, I mean pointless. The project of disproving a vague, endlessly mutable entity like “god” is a waste of time, and meanspirited to boot. Which god? All things that could be called god?”"""""""""""""""""
I offered a compelling point:
“I also know that the religious thought virus is a necessity in order for one human being to intentionally kill another human being, or violate the trust of another human being.”
If you consider moving in the direction of eradicating these things ‘mean-spirited’ or ‘illogical’ or ‘unable to be connected to logic in a meaningful way’; I disagree, and will be more than happy to explain why.
“”"""""""""""""""“But that is your central mistake, not to mention slander: thinking that people believe because they falsely think that it was logically proven to them, or even could be. This is simply not true. “””""""""""""""""""
Slander is only applicable in an instance where evidence does not back it up, or where the accusation is not pertinant to the line of inquiry. Are you making the assertation that people cannot be convinced of illogical things (absent of the education and exposure to ‘other’ ideas); that with simple exposure to logic, would obviously change their minds? You seem to think that having logical corruption implies ‘badness’ on the part of a human being; I see it as a matter of exposure and/or education … or a lack of. Information being withheld (or simply in limited resource), at the expense of the majority, if not all parties involved.
“”"""""""""“Particular people’s characters are not “logical” or “illogical.” For many people, religious beliefs are part of their character, not truth claims. They only tangentially become truth claims when they try to justify their beliefs to others. But life isn’t a debate, and a given person’s practice of their religion is not premised on justifying their beliefs to others.”""""""""""""""
I’m not talking about their charachters. I’m not talking about informed individuals paying money to play a role-playing game for logical simulations. I’m talking about real people, believing real thoughts, and as a result of those thoughts, being vulnerable to committing certain actions as a by-product of inhereting those thoughts. Particularly when the thoughts in question are corruptions of logic.
“”""""""""""""""“How? How can one know anything about something which they themselves claim nothing can be known about? Regardless of this silly claim, even if it were true, that STILL wouldn’t justify your assumption that believers were what they are only because of brainwashing.”""""""""""""""
I am stating that no overt (transparent) meaning can be derived from the ‘God concept’. It can be used in numerous ways, covertly to subvert the mechanism of logic in relation to action.
Actually, ‘brain-washing’ is the process of deleting the memory; it does not describe the process of synthesizing, inserting, harmonizing and integrating new memories with existing memory structure. Brain-washing is a slightly inaccurate term.
“”""""""""""“Hunh? Actions are not logical or illogical, only arguments. Murder is not illogical: it is, in some people’s estimation, unethical.”"""""""""""""
Actions are logical or illogical when one determines a means.
I want to have fun.
Jumping off this mile high cliff is supposed to be exhilerating; which is supposed to be fun.
I want to tell my friends about my experience of jumping of the cliff when I see them tommorrow in person.
The action is:
Jumping off cliff.
Desires (2):
1.) Fun
2.) Story to tell
Some data is missing here. Desires one and two are not congruent with each other. Jumping off a mile-high cliff requires protective gear of some sort or you will ‘splat’ on the ground. Maybe you prefer to jump off with a parachute instead eh?
Will that increase or decrease the excitement?
Before I go down much further here, it is worth noting that many aspects of logic are directly tied with every behavior in a meaningful way. People who do not have desires, do not commit any acts, and simply die from dehydration and malnutrition.
People who commit murder are using logic. That logic is corrupt, the clarity of it has been damaged… and somewhere, that logic is undeniably inconsistent. Logic directly influences actions profoundly, and to some degree can almost be argued as actions themselves. I imagine the word “belief” would be a closer synonym in this sense to “action”, then “logic” would.
Does any of that seem reasonable?
-Justhink
Can you demonstrate that the ‘religious thought virus’ inevitably results in killing or violating of trust?
“Oh,” said Detective Columbo, “there is just one more thing.”
To make a point about the ‘guilt’ of people who have corruption to this degree in logic.
The stuff I lived hard to learn in my life, will someday be a drop to the minds of a generation of primary school children. Does that make me evil or irrelevant? At some point, I think it is wise for everyone to consider the idea that everything they ever thought in their entire lives, everything they have ever done… can be absorbed, integrated and even inverted by other individuals to such an extent that you may as well have not even existed. There is more to it; but that idea in and of itself should help clarify my position on how ‘guilty’ I think all of us are in simply ‘being alive’.
-Justhink
“”"""""""“Can you demonstrate that the ‘religious thought virus’ inevitably results in killing or violating of trust?”""""""""""
5AM again =) Tommorrow morning.
Short answer:
No.
It can be ‘cured’, at which point, the risk is eliminated.
This ‘corruption of logic’ is necessary to elicit the response of intentional killing. Removing this virus, is an equivilent of removing the trigger from a loaded gun (not just putting it on ‘safety’).
‘Brainwashing’ is the mechanism of someone putting the ‘trigger’ on the ‘gun’ without your knowledge or consent (in fact they can write over your consent, and change the polarity of it; making you want to kill people and desiring a trigger on your gun, or not noticing that the trigger has been applied, or not telling you what the trigger does, but telling you exactly when to pull it.).
-Justhink
And some people have no desire to use their guns for killing…
“”"""""""""""""“It is not proceeding smoothly; I must be even more stupid than anyone had imagined.”"""""""""""""""
While still in limbo with the process, I thought I’d address simple comments to let you know I’m still here )
This naturally can reflect on me as easily as it can yourself =)
I don’t know how you feel about this, but I feel it is a priviledge that you are communicating with me. I have the opportunity to think, learn and have someone keep me intellectually honest. I only hope I can teach you as much, or that the feeling is somewhat reciprocal.
-Justhink