DeepSight:
Beautifully written and I wholly agree

Thanks

DeepSight:
I would not say that a longing for immortality is all there is to the instinct which has driven mankind to religion.

Mankind was driven to religion by those seeking power and wealth, the ones who created the religion.

DeepSight:
I feel certain that a search for meaningfulness is central to it, and that this need for meaningfulness is pretty important to the average human being.

And it just so happens this is exactly what the priesthood tell us to believe.

DeepSight:
Religion has served that need for most...

It was religion that gave us that need in the first place. You are buying a cure for a disease from the people who gave you the disease.

DeepSight:
...even if I am compelled to add that it must take a significant degree of thoughtlessness to be satisfied with that which is offered up by most religious thought.

"Most" religious thought. And the exceptions are?

DeepSight:
The second thought is that while one can quite validly discount the gods conjured by most religious thought

See above

DeepSight:
I doubt that one can as easily discount the philosophical imperative of something sitting at the root of this reality, rather than nothing.

It's actually quite easy. Trivially easy.

DeepSight:
And it is this simple thought - which springs quite naturally even to the minds of little children - which forms the basis for the larger idea of GOD.

Strongly disagree. A child's mind is a blank slate to be written on. Unfortunately in our societies it's the priests via their parents that do much of the writing. Be careful what you put into a child's head because you will never get it out again.

TammieJo:

The religious use the term "transcend" an awful lot. It's nothing more than a flim flam expression, a magic wand that spreads pixie dust and renders their arguments unfalsifiable, and as we know, anyone who attempts to make their arguments unfalsifiable is not interested in honest debate.

Again, I find little to quibble with, and quite heartily agree, "falsifiability" being the hallmark of a worthy argument, whereas unfalsifiable arguments are clear non-starters. Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophical, I do think there is some reasonable remit for certain factors which may be said to transcend the universe. And therefore its laws. The immediate example that springs to mind for me concerns time and space. Current scientific thought generally tends to ascribe time and space to be factors of the universe - to have been "created" at the moment of the big bang. I could not disagree more however, for I believe that both time and space necessarily pre-exist the bang - for in the case of time, there must perforce be a timeline of some sort or the other for the event to occur, and in the case of space - into what is the universe expanding if not already existent space?

While I concede that the scientists are possibly using those words in a different way - hence "spacetime" - as they have conceived it, the questions above remain, and this would lead me to propound perhaps the existence of that transcendent timeline and such transcendent space into which the event of the bang could conceivably be interpolated. Dealing with that, we step already into the realm of the eternal and the infinite: core foundational precepts of that which is often described as GOD.

TammieJo:


Mankind was driven to religion by those seeking power and wealth, the ones who created the religion.
And it just so happens this is exactly what the priesthood tell us to believe.
It was religion that gave us that need in the first place. You are buying a cure for a disease from the people who gave you the disease.

To say that there isn't an inherent or fundamental metaphysical curiosity within mankind which drives the search for spiritual meaningfulness would be very wrong in my view - and I would even add that such a stance definitely takes something fundamental away from the nature of the human.

Now this does not stand in contradiction to the fact that religion is of course created by man - and you are right when you say it is molded by a priestly-political-economic elite for purposes of power, control and mass manipulation. People of power play on essential needs - such as the need for security for example. Do they manipulate the masses with such? - of course - but it would be erroneous to claim that the need does not exist in the first place. Indeed, there would be little traction with religion if there wasnt a seething need reaching out for meaningfulness at the root of the human being in the first place.

The search for meaningfulness is a vital part of the human story and it cannot be so lightly wished away.

It's actually quite easy. Trivially easy.

Now this took me aback. Trivially easy to answer the question - why something instead of nothing? Okay, please give me your take on it then.

Strongly disagree. A child's mind is a blank slate to be written on. Unfortunately in our societies it's the priests via their parents that do much of the writing. Be careful what you put into a child's head because you will never get it out again.

This is a mish-mash of thoughts that I agree with and disagree with. I dont believe a child's mind is a blank slate. The very fact that people are born with genetic predispositions is sufficient to disprove such a view of things. Furthermore the very fact that most children will tire you out with an endless stream of "why" questions points to an inherent curiosity about the cause of their reality. Thus it is fair to say that humans arrive with an inherent assumption of the reality of causality in this world. Otherwise there would be no "why" questions.

However you are right that it is indeed the society that plants much of its orthodoxies there and your last sentence is an absolutely precious admonition.

LordReed:


I was like this too especially when I first gave up religion. I was still inclined toward believing that the universe had some kind of mystical aspect to it that responds like a wish granting genie, you might have heard of this type of philosophy from the likes of Deepak Chopra or the guy who wrote The Source. I had to ask myself, if you concluded that the evidence for a god is lacking how can you then believe in this one? Where is the evidence for it? This is how I really had my skepticism rooted in only that which can be shown to be real consistently.

You are going to need a very honest conversation with yourself if you want to get to this point. To be clear there is nothing wrong with intuition, the problem is your intuitions are not always correct and you must be ready to discard it whenever it rings false. You also must be ready to be wrong, don't think you know it all or that you can't be wrong. It is when you are open to learning that you will grasp the tools required to figure things out.

Great!

But where is the beauty of life if one begins to see the world only through the lens of evidence? Don't you think it makes one rigidly rationalistic?

I love the mental relief this post has provided me but here comes another question, should one discard this deeply rooted inclination to be able wish for things, to use our minds and what Christians call 'spirit' to bring our desires to reality?

I've not read from Deepak Chopra but I've read similar books like that and I think what these guys are tryna teach is that we should tap into that 'power' within us in order to live life in it's totality. Though there's no consistent evidence that these stuffs work but it can make life beautiful in a way, like the placebo effect. I think the purpose of religion and other similar organizations like that is to satisfy that need that is in humans to believe in something. The problem comes when they make it seem like a religious dogmatic affair which are the issues I have with fundamentalist religionists.

I love what you said about being aware of the fact that intuitions are not always right and I think I'll start applying that.
And if I'm not open to learning, I won't be asking these questions . Thank you for your replies.

LordReed:


Contrary to what most people think the skeptic is open to learning, that is the way the skeptic acquires the tools required to discern what is true and what is false. There is no magic to it, you need to acquire knowledge and have a sense of critical analysis. One of the important tools is learning how to separate bullshìt information from real information because sometimes real information is wrapped up in bullshit. One of the ways is to consult multiple reliable sources so that you can get a clearer perspective of the topic or event. Don't become a fanboy or fall into the trap of taking everything some authority on a subject says, authorities aren't always correct but when you have multiple authorities to consult you'll see things much more clearly.

Yea I do this constantly but it makes me an endless researcher most times. I have this aversion to dogma, but searching from multiple sources sometimes gives me incessant headaches and pain.
I love to read and learn from so many sources and wise people but that natural inclination that is deep within me to do things intensely makes me to over research things. I'm very young and full of energy, I want to create things and achieve a lot but I really think I'm directing that energy to endless researches. Probably whoever who wrote Ecclesiastes was right when he wrote,
I was determined to learn the difference between knowledge and foolishness, wisdom and madness. But I found out that I might as well be chasing the wind. The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know, the more it hurts.

In order to see things clearly, I'm instead bringing more confusions to my head.

Workch:
You don't have to find answers to a made-up belief.

As a skeptic, you have to always follow the evidence where it leads irrespective.
From previous conversations with people, I realized that alot of them really do not understand how evidence works: that's why a typical believer will conclude that the air we breath is evidence that God exist. This is illogical and flawed reasoning.

Follow evidence, not just evidence, it has to be testable and repeatable. If you master how to do this then you can be free from thr belief system.

As I wrote before, I have deep convictions that these beliefs are metaphorical or completely 'made-up' as you put it. But humans are influenced more by their environment than every other thing. So even by following evidence, the environment I live in will directly or indirectly still influence my thoughts.
So apart from seeking evidence, what ways do you suggest, in terms of waving of every effect (even subtly) the general belief system can have on you?

Workch:

I'm going to give you an example: there's a popular belief between conservatiionists that vaccines are bad and harmful. Their argument usually stem from some cases of vaccine adverse effect. While it's true that vaccines can have adverse effect in some patients but is this evidence that vaccines are bad?
Is this evidence repeatable and is it statistical significant?
If we administer a vaccine to 1000 patience and 10 had adverse effects, does that make the vaccine bad?

I don't know much about the theories conservationalists bring up to proof that vaccines are harmful apart from the ones about 'it signifies end time' or 'government wants to use them reduce the human population' which sounds ridiculous to me. But speaking from experience, here in Nigeria, the media constantly brings up numbers and numbers that cases are rising, I go to market and crowded places on a weekly basis without a mask! Without a sanitizer and many people at those crowded places are constantly jam-packed despite the measures the government create to 'reduce the spread' I have been going out without masks since 2020 and I don't have the virus or at least, should I say I've not had the symptoms yet. If the virus is truly in Nigeria as it's being portrayed, from what I see, many of us would have been dead.
These vaccines been imposed on us (I don't believe they are harmful) seems to me like what Nassim Taleb calls 'naive interventionism'. I don't see much need for it in the country.

Workch:

The ability to hear a story and dig more into it by asking salient questions is what makes you a Freethinker. Conservationists do not have the mental capacity to dig deep before believing and that's why they are religious.

I agree with you sir/ma.

Workch:

Do not believe it until you see a testable and reproducible evidence and you will b e fine

I don't really think this makes me fine (referring to my replies above) but I will try living by this principle.

TammieJo:

Whether religion has a positive or negative effect on people's lives is irrelevant to the original question. If you had asked me what negative effects religion has on people, I'd have answered accordingly.

"Lasting a long while" is still not evidence. This is an appeal to antiquity. The notion that since something is very old it therefore must be true. This is not evidence. What theists need is unbiased evidence. All holy books are books written by people who believed a god existed but writing stories about a god is not evidence otherwise Homer's The Odyssey would be proof of Zeus. The Bible is not evidence, it's a book that claims a god exists. You cannot use a book of claims as evidence because you're simply making more claims. The Bible is like Homer's Odyssey except on steroids. Sure, it makes people feel good about life but that still is not evidence a god exists. It's a plecebo effect.

There are always religious rule books. If they follow all the rules and regulations correctly they get to go to a nice place while those other believers in those other religions are going to burn up and be tortured. Gods were invented when ancient human brains developed enough to became aware of their own death. Notice aminals don't worship gods. Some religions make you wear certain kinds of clothing and if you don't you are banished or flogged or even murdered. These rules mostly apply to women. Religions often teach women to be ashamed of their bodies because, gee wiz, men can't be trusted to not be overcome by temptation.

Religion puts a cage around the mind. Anything that conflicts with god belief is deemed suspicious or evil. We're seeing this today with Evangelicals, Conservative Jews and Muslims who refuse to get vaccinated. Religion makes people hate other cultures and races. Religion makes people feel self important. Religion has caused wars and tribal upheavel. Millions have died in religious wars. And all this is because people don't want death to be final. They want to ride off into the sunset with a god at their side - a god which has never had any evidence it exists.

Does that answer your question?

Quite interesting!

But then, I see religion on a different light. I don't see it the way religion fundamentalists see it. The belief in God to me is subjective, we see the manifestations in the diversity in religions, in Christianity for example, there's a diversity in denominations and if you go to these diverse denominations, you'll still find discrepancies in beliefs among members.

So seeing all these made me conclude that 'God' is a subjective reality appealing to different personalities in different ways

I think the problem comes when people take this idea about God, religion and superstition literally and that is the cause of the problems you listed above.

I talked about the 'lasting a long while' not because I want to affirm that religion is real but because despite not being without evidence, it's still having both positive and negative influence on people's lives.

The reason for my post is not that I want to find proofs that superstitions are not real but I want to find ways freethinkers manage thriving amongst these beliefs because no matter what, we are all influenced (even if it's subtly) by our environment.

Thank you for your replies sir/ma. I really appreciate you making time to reply my posts.

DeepSight:


Again, I find little to quibble with, and quite heartily agree, "falsifiability" being the hallmark of a worthy argument, whereas unfalsifiable arguments are clear non-starters. Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophical, I do think there is some reasonable remit for certain factors which may be said to transcend the universe. And therefore its laws. The immediate example that springs to mind for me concerns time and space. Current scientific thought generally tends to ascribe time and space to be factors of the universe - to have been "created" at the moment of the big bang. I could not disagree more however, for I believe that both time and space necessarily pre-exist the bang - for in the case of time, there must perforce be a timeline of some sort or the other for the event to occur, and in the case of space - into what is the universe expanding if not already existent space?

While I concede that the scientists are possibly using those words in a different way - hence "spacetime" - as they have conceived it, the questions above remain, and this would lead me to propound perhaps the existence of that transcendent timeline and such transcendent space into which the event of the bang could conceivably be interpolated. Dealing with that, we step already into the realm of the eternal and the infinite: core foundational precepts of that which is often described as GOD.

This god is outside of time and space, right? How does a god interact with time and space when it's outside of it? In order to create anything, even a neutrino, the lightest and smallest subatomic particle, time needs to be extant. Time needs to exist during the proess of creating anything, even that neutrino. So how does this god of yours create time when time needs to exist to create time? It's a theological Catch 22.

If you say your god doesn't need to follow any of the laws of the physical universe, then all bets are off. I can claim a Magical Giant Invisible Donut created the universe. I can claim it all happend magically, that Invisible Fairies are real and Little Invisible Gnomes lurk invisibally under bridges. If you are honest with yourself, you'd say "I don't know" how the universe started. No one knows and you and I sure as hell don't know either. What you're doing is called the Argument from ignorance fallacy. Simply because we don't know something and are scientifically ignorant about a natural cause does not mean we get to ruin in with a "god diddiit flag" and plant it in there.

DeepSight:
Now this took me aback. Trivially easy to answer the question - why something instead of nothing? Okay, please give me your take on it then.

Hey now, don't quote me out of context. Remember you said this?:

DeepSight:
I doubt that one can as easily discount the philosophical imperative of something sitting at the root of this reality, rather than nothing.

And that was what made reply with this:

TammieJo:
It's actually quite easy. Trivially easy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DeepSight:
I dont believe a child's mind is a blank slate.

You're welcome to believe that, but you'd be wrong. Sorry.

DeepSight:
The very fact that people are born with genetic predispositions is sufficient to disprove such a view of things.

Citation required. Personal opinions are open to strong doubt. Also, genetic predispositions are not knowledge about facts. Actually some well-known religious, so-called thinkers make this same mistake.

American Philosopher Edward Feser teaches his classes that the fact everyone knows what a triangle is proves there is a ideal triangle out there, just as the idea of a god proves that about him. He is dead wrong. Infants and toddlers learn by trial and error (picture books, other ways) what they come to name as a triangle, ans which they get wrong at first. Feser is totally off base, and with 1 million children of his own, it shows who does the parenting in his house. You have no examples of facts that infants/toddlers have innately which can be shown they have by genetics, and have not learned by experience.

DeepSight:
Furthermore the very fact that most children will tire you out with an endless stream of "why" questions points to an inherent curiosity about the cause of their reality.

Duh... this doesn't alter the fact that a newborn baby's mind is effectively a blank slate. And of course, as a human infant's brain processes develop it will construct questions, firstly about its own self awareness. A newborn baby, naturally, has no sense of self awareness. You're conflating the mind of a neonate with that of, say, a three-year-old infant. Which, in the kindest way possible, doesn't make sense.

DeepSight:
Thus it is fair to say that humans arrive with an inherent assumption of the reality of causality in this world. Otherwise there would be no "why" questions.

No, it's not "fair" to say that at all. In fact it's totally erroneous. No 1-month-old baby has ever inquired as to why it couldn't eat a chocolate bar instead of all that fucking milk!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5u6ulYmd3c

TammieJo:

Hey now, don't quote me out of context. Remember you said this?:
And that was what made reply with this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pardon me, but I fail to see how the context you have cited is different from that which I presented as a question. Please indulge me and help tell how it is different. However, if it helps any, maybe you should just indicate again what exactly you mean was trivially easy. Because I am genuinely confused. Thank you for your patience in advance.

Also, genetic predispositions are not knowledge about facts.

They certainly arent and I did not suggest they were. Perhaps I havent expressed myself clearly enough on this point. Or perhaps we mean different things when we say "blank slate." You see, a genuine blank slate would be, for me, a page on which nothing whatsoever has been written. However, a new born baby has a whole lot written on its page already. Many proclivities, tendencies and predispositions are already firmly genetically coded in, not to speak of a lorry load of instinctual dispositions. This is not for me, a genuine blank slate. You know, in the way that a child turns out, we often say that both nature and nurture play their part. I believe this to be true - whereas you appear to be leaning towards attributing one hundred per cent to nurture alone.

I grant that you are probably still speaking entirely about facts and opinions which a child may imbibe - and if this is the case, of course you would be correct, as none of that is inherited in a genetic sense. However you would have been addressing something quite different from what I had in mind: to be clear - in the way in which I have said a child has genetic predispositions, I believe that certain fundamental codes are imprinted on its nature from the get-go which play a role in its subsequent development and thus undergird some of the results which play out in its life. And thus, I do not regard even the newest of new born babies as a true blank slate. For it has millions of years of coding already written there.

Actually some well-known religious, so-called thinkers make this same mistake.

American Philosopher Edward Feser teaches his classes that the fact everyone knows what a triangle is proves there is a ideal triangle out there, just as the idea of a god proves that about him. He is dead wrong.

This sort of argument horrifies me, and I am certain I have said nothing to suggest I would lean towards anything of the kind. I am acquainted with this ancient argument even if uncertain that it is here expressed precisely in its definite form - nonetheless rest assured it finds no fluff with me.

You have no examples of facts that infants/toddlers have innately which can be shown they have by genetics, and have not learned by experience.

As explained above, I am not referring to "facts."

Duh... this doesn't alter the fact that a newborn baby's mind is effectively a blank slate. And of course, as a human infant's brain processes develop it will construct questions, firstly about its own self awareness. A newborn baby, naturally, has no sense of self awareness. You're conflating the mind of a neonate with that of, say, a three-year-old infant. Which, in the kindest way possible, doesn't make sense.

I am not certain that I agree here. Certainly not a true blank slate in the way I have explained above. Also I think you have perhaps missed the subtlety of what I said - because you see, it is the fact that the child asks questions as it develops which I have used as a plank for suggesting - not pre-formed knowledge of the world, no - but a reference to a reality imbued with causality.

No, it's not "fair" to say that at all. In fact it's totally erroneous. No 1-month-old baby has ever inquired as to why it couldn't eat a chocolate bar instead of all that fucking milk!

You see, "that fucking milk" could be the basis for asking you to think a little. Because new born pups for example, will immediately begin to struggle for their mother's mammary glands. Because they are so pre-programmed. You may try to wave this away as simple instinct, actuated by senses such as thirst, hunger and smell, but you see, I said this could be a basis for asking you to think - because there are too many startling examples in the natural world which go further to underscore the point: newly hatched turtles will instantly head to the sea - every single one of them with all the strength they can muster - and this, without the presence or guidance of their parents. You are free to point out how these are scientifically explained but you will be missing the point because I dont doubt that they are. The point is simply that there exist definite codes imprinted even on the newest of new born babies. And that these codes, as they play out in further life, inevitably play some part in the trajectory of the development of the creature - and consequently in some of its foundational apprehensions of the world.

Perhaps I should second-guess you here, and save you the trouble of pointing out to me how evolution explains this - by informing you that I believe in evolution. Doesnt change the point about blank slates. If anything, it enforces my point. Because millions of years of evolution represents millions of years worth of embedded nature upon the new baby - and certainly not "a blank slate."

TammieJo:

This god is outside of time and space, right? How does a god interact with time and space when it's outside of it?

I should hasten to say, before you presume anything about my views, that I am agnostic in the matter of "this god."

In order to create anything, even a neutrino, the lightest and smallest subatomic particle, time needs to be extant. Time needs to exist during the proess of creating anything, even that neutrino. So how does this god of yours create time when time needs to exist to create time? It's a theological Catch 22.

Great: and that is exactly the conundrum which forms the basis for my conclusion that time pre-exists the universe. And so does space. However I should perhaps grant that this time and space of which I speak might possibly differ from that which most scientists have conceived and described. All I say here is that a timeline must already exist for any event to occur. Simple. I therefore used that as a basis for suggesting that somethings - some factors - certainly transcend this universe. You see, what I was driving at was the fact that God as conceived by the theist, is a factor beyond the universe. Thus citing the laws of the universe to circumscribe its "omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence" would not mean anything to the theist.

Mind you, I am no theist.

If you say your god doesn't need to follow any of the laws of the physical universe,

Just for emphasis - I am agnostic in the matter of God/gods. So please be wary of referring to "my god."

then all bets are off. I can claim a Magical Giant Invisible Donut created the universe. I can claim it all happend magically, that Invisible Fairies are real and Little Invisible Gnomes lurk invisibally under bridges.

Quite agree - save that none of these would help with the question - why something instead of nothing.

If you are honest with yourself, you'd say "I don't know" how the universe started. No one knows and you and I sure as hell don't know either. What you're doing is called the Argument from ignorance fallacy. Simply because we don't know something and are scientifically ignorant about a natural cause does not mean we get to ruin in with a "god diddiit flag" and plant it in there.

And what you are doing is making a truck-load of assumptions here. I am agnostic, and I do not say "goddidit."

AuthenticKing:


Great!

But where is the beauty of life if one begins to see the world only through the lens of evidence? Don't you think it makes one rigidly rationalistic?

That is going beyond the scope of the topic of discussion which is superstitions.

I love the mental relief this post has provided me but here comes another question, should one discard this deeply rooted inclination to be able wish for things, to use our minds and what Christians call 'spirit' to bring our desires to reality?

I think it's useful to wish for things, it provides a drive to go get things done. What is not useful is believing in wish granting genies or spirits or gods or the universe.

I've not read from Deepak Chopra but I've read similar books like that and I think what these guys are tryna teach is that we should tap into that 'power' within us in order to live life in it's totality. Though there's no consistent evidence that these stuffs work but it can make life beautiful in a way, like the placebo effect. I think the purpose of religion and other similar organizations like that is to satisfy that need that is in humans to believe in something. The problem comes when they make it seem like a religious dogmatic affair which are the issues I have with fundamentalist religionists.

If they were merely asking people to reach within it would be fine but they promote the idea that there is something out there listening to you and granting your wishes. That part is unevidenced.

I love what you said about being aware of the fact that intuitions are not always right and I think I'll start applying that.
And if I'm not open to learning, I won't be asking these questions . Thank you for your replies.

Keep being open to learning, you'll achieve plenty.

AuthenticKing:


Yea I do this constantly but it makes me an endless researcher most times. I have this aversion to dogma, but searching from multiple sources sometimes gives me incessant headaches and pain.
I love to read and learn from so many sources and wise people but that natural inclination that is deep within me to do things intensely makes me to over research things. I'm very young and full of energy, I want to create things and achieve a lot but I really think I'm directing that energy to endless researches. Probably whoever who wrote Ecclesiastes was right when he wrote,
I was determined to learn the difference between knowledge and foolishness, wisdom and madness. But I found out that I might as well be chasing the wind. The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know, the more it hurts.

In order to see things clearly, I'm instead bringing more confusions to my head.

Yes, it is easy to become overwhelmed by information overload so you learn to filter enough information for whatever purpose you need and learn where your limits are. I used to be like that too, getting overwhelmed by the breath of information available on most subjects but I learned how to take in enough information at a time and to stop once I start feeling overwhelmed.

LordReed:


That is going beyond the scope of the topic of discussion which is superstitions.

Oh I get it.

LordReed:

I think it's useful to wish for things, it provides a drive to go get things done. What is not useful is believing in wish granting genies or spirits or gods or the universe.

If they were merely asking people to reach within it would be fine but they promote the idea that there is something out there listening to you and granting your wishes. That part is unevidenced.

I think I agree with you.
This makes me remember what Tai Solarin said about religion. He compared religion to his childhood bicycle that his mother gave him to help him finish their journey, he was using a stick to push the wheel. Upon reflection, he realized that he carried himself and the bicycle all along. Solarin said religion is like that bicycle, we need it when we lack courage and determination to face the world alone.
So probably, the reason for God/gods, spirits, genies, etc is to give people something to believe in, to satisfy that vulnerability inherent in each human especially during times of trials or tribulations not that these stuffs have any evidence to be real. Some people's minds are wired that way and the best way these 'spiritual' teachers teach them is by giving them these things to hold on to.
Meanwhile, as an atheist (I guess), if you don't mind I ask sir/ma, what do you use as a consolation whenever you go through any of life's hurdle? Do you meditate? Do you have a conversation with yourself? What exactly? Pardon my ridiculous question.

LordReed:

Keep being open to learning, you'll achieve plenty.

Thank you so much

LordReed:


Yes, it is easy to become overwhelmed by information overload so you learn to filter enough information for whatever purpose you need and learn where your limits are. I used to be like that too, getting overwhelmed by the breath of information available on most subjects but I learned how to take in enough information at a time and to stop once I start feeling overwhelmed.

Thank you! This served as a relief to me. I will apply this to practice
Thanks for making out time to respond to me. I appreciate sir/ma.

Simple truth to make you life better, some So called superstitions or Myth are true or will prove to be.. No form know all in All Things..

Crysthaniel:
Simple truth to make you life better, some So called superstitions or Myth are true or will prove to be.. No form know all in All Things..

I'm not asking whether they are true or not because I know my answer. All I'm asking is how those who either don't believe in them or are doubtful thrive amongst those who believe in it.

AuthenticKing:


I'm not asking whether they are true or not because I know my answer. All I'm asking is how those who either don't believe in them or are doubtful thrive amongst those who believe in it.

That's is the Problem my Bro Alot of y'all always think you are Freethinking when y'all definitely believe in something that will always orientate your Feelings and take on Matters


So yeah if y'all choose/want to trive y'all will definitely trive by not looking down at others Believe or view and the best way to do this is by knowing that we all know Nothing

Crysthaniel:

That's is the Problem my Bro Alot of y'all always you are Freethinking when y'all definitely believe in something that will always orientate your Feelings and take on Matters


So yeah if y'all choose/want to trive y'all will definitely trive by not looking down at others Believe or view and the best way to do this is by knowing that we all know Nothing

I believe in something and I don't attach it to any mystical/diabolic stuff, and even if I do that, I do it with reason knowing that I'm human and I'm tapping into my human weakness sometimes, not using it as a form of dogmatic religious belief system.

I don't look down on those who believe such. Who am I to? I'm still a learner in this journey of life. But I hate it when those who believe try to impose it (whether directly or indirectly) on those who don't buy into it.

AuthenticKing:


I believe in something and I don't attach it to any mystical/diabolic stuff, and even if I do that, I do it with reason knowing that I'm human and I'm tapping into my human weakness sometimes, not using it as a form of dogmatic religious belief system.

I don't look down on those who believe such. Who am I to? I'm still a learner in this journey of life. But I hate it when those who believe try to impose it (whether directly or indirectly) on those who don't buy into it.

Unfortunately bro As you said we are humans and we definitely handle things in the wrong way sometimes.. You see religious people always tend to Force their beliefs on Others even though they might deny.. We can't Change that..

Crysthaniel:

Unfortunately bro As you said we are humans and we definitely handle things in the wrong way sometimes.. You see religious people always tend to Force their beliefs on Others even though they might deny.. We can't Change that..

Yea they force their beliefs on others because they are convinced that their religion is the one true religion and everyone must follow that religion not understanding that the beauty of life is in its diversity. But nevertheless, no matter how they try to impose their beliefs, nature can't be altered, freethinking beings will surely have their own choices, we all can't be one in terms of belief system.

AuthenticKing:

Oh I get it.



I think I agree with you.
This makes me remember what Tai Solarin said about religion. He compared religion to his childhood bicycle that his mother gave him to help him finish their journey, he was using a stick to push the wheel. Upon reflection, he realized that he carried himself and the bicycle all along. Solarin said religion is like that bicycle, we need it when we lack courage and determination to face the world alone.
So probably, the reason for God/gods, spirits, genies, etc is to give people something to believe in, to satisfy that vulnerability inherent in each human especially during times of trials or tribulations not that these stuffs have any evidence to be real. Some people's minds are wired that way and the best way these 'spiritual' teachers teach them is by giving them these things to hold on to.

Yes it's much more likely that they arose as a way to rationalise the hardships of life and to find motivation were they couldn't find it within themselves.

Meanwhile, as an atheist (I guess), if you don't mind I ask sir/ma, what do you use as a consolation whenever you go through any of life's hurdle? Do you meditate? Do you have a conversation with yourself? What exactly? Pardon my ridiculous question.

Yes I am an atheist. I haven't really done anything as method of consolation but I have children and when I look at them I feel the need to be there for them every way I can especially when I think of what they could become in the future, I want to be a part of that future. At some point I will incorporate meditation regularly but for now I only do it in small bits.

Thank you so much

My pleasure.

TammieJo:

Thanks


Mankind was driven to religion by those seeking power and wealth, the ones who created the religion.


And it just so happens this is exactly what the priesthood tell us to believe.


It was religion that gave us that need in the first place. You are buying a cure for a disease from the people who gave you the disease.


"Most" religious thought. And the exceptions are?


See above


It's actually quite easy. Trivially easy.


Strongly disagree. A child's mind is a blank slate to be written on. Unfortunately in our societies it's the priests via their parents that do much of the writing. Be careful what you put into a child's head because you will never get it out again.

A beautiful mind you have. The way you write shows that you have knowledge about the history of these religions and the deplorable character of the priests.
The way they exploit people’s existential dread is very impressive. They give you the illusionary disease, then they give you the cure for it. I’m not surprised though, because when you figure out some of the esoteric meaning of these religions, you realize that the Magi, and other creators of gods, were indeed wise or maybe people are just very simple minded.
The concept of “original sin” is so stupid, that almost everyone should find it ridiculous, but they don’t. Their authority figures give them the disease and cure the disease with snake oil called Salvation. Snake oil has been profitable since ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Snake oil keeps the Italian spokesperson of a jewish god in Prada shoes and gilded palaces. Just look at Bergoglio. Talking about the Italians: Snake oil and greed influenced another Italian named Tommaso Parentucelli to grant Iberian monarchs the moral excuse to go looting and pillaging during the “age of discovery”.

I guess that’s what happens when you inculcate ignorance into young minds. It forms the foundation of their worldview and does a lifetime of damage. The damage it’s already done to too many Africans might be irreversible.

Some people on this forum will call knowledge evil or say that their god chose the Jews because only the Jews were worthy and they are inferior. Efficience and Steep, respectively.
These religions breed ignorant and inferior mindsets in black people at least.

DeepSight:


I should hasten to say, before you presume anything about my views, that I am agnostic in the matter of "this god."

I think people are “agnostic” because they can’t quite shed their indoctrination.
What is there to be agnostic about?
God(s) only exists in the pages of books and it only speaks in the pages of books or through the mouths of other humans
It is not going to appear and speak to people like it does in the pages of books. It never speaks audibly to anyone. It won’t have an audience with multiple people. It is wholly dependent on belief.

They say the Lord God created the “heavens and the earth”. An utterly senseless statement given the earth’s position in the cosmos.

I can easily say the Lord Voldemort created the “heavens and Planet X” and it would make as much sense as what’s in religious books.

The only difference is that Voldemort is a profane fictional character while God is a scared fictional character. But once you realize that the sacred is nonsense, then God is as real a Voldemort.

I can create a sacred book, make Voldemort the “higher power” and create a religion around it.

People who believe in Voldemort would be Phaeists.

People who don’t believe in Voldemort would be Aphaeists.

People who are not sure about the existence of Voldemort/ voldemorts will be Agnostic.

Meanwhile, I’ll be in the corner counting my money muttering to myself, “Voldemort my ass”

If your god isn’t a character in religious lore, then you probably created it along with all its supernatural attributes.

Again, what’s there to be agnostic about? You created something in your mind and claim agnosticism?

I create gods in my mind but I’m not agnostic about their existence, so I’m definitely not agnostic about the god that came out of someone else’s mind. And it doesn’t matter how long ago the god was created or how many “believers” it has. Bullshit is just bullshit.

DeepSight:

You see, "that fucking milk" could be the basis for asking you to think a little. Because new born pups for example, will immediately begin to struggle for their mother's mammary glands. Because they are so pre-programmed. You may try to wave this away as simple instinct, actuated by senses such as thirst, hunger and smell, but you see, I said this could be a basis for asking you to think - because there are too many startling examples in the natural world which go further to underscore the point: newly hatched turtles will instantly head to the sea - every single one of them with all the strength they can muster - and this, without the presence or guidance of their parents. You are free to point out how these are scientifically explained but you will be missing the point because I dont doubt that they are. The point is simply that there exist definite codes imprinted even on the newest of new born babies. And that these codes, as they play out in further life, inevitably play some part in the trajectory of the development of the creature - and consequently in some of its foundational apprehensions of the world.

Perhaps I should second-guess you here, and save you the trouble of pointing out to me how evolution explains this - by informing you that I believe in evolution. Doesnt change the point about blank slates. If anything, it enforces my point. Because millions of years of evolution represents millions of years worth of embedded nature upon the new baby - and certainly not "a blank slate."

Sorry for the late response

I might have you wrong here but it sounds to me as if you're giving a god credit for completely natural processes. The mind of a new baby is a blank slate when it comes to religion. Are you going to argue that there's an imprinted code that makes babies predisposed to religious belief?

Also, why would said baby always have the imprinted cultural code of whatever brand of horseshit is prevalent in that given geographical region?

It seems to me that you are essentially inferring that something cannot come from nothing therefore "magic" happened. This reference to a deity "outside of space and time" is rather very disengenuous to be honest. In ancient times gods lived on mountain tops, some lived in the dark forest or on the other side of the desert or deep in the ocean or up in the clouds. But when people didn't find them existing in those places they had to push their god further away into other mysterous unknown places. These days theists and all other god proponents have have moved this god so far away he is now "outside of space and time" which is essentially a nice safe, completely unknowable, totally made up fantasy place for a god to reside.

Interestingly, this is where this god has resided since the internet was invented and theists of all stripes have posted this silly idea on facebook and other online forums and now it's just another religious platitude. I'm sorry but I have to call BS on all this.

By the way, I apologise now, and possibly in advance, for the abrupt desertion. As you can tell, this was a rush response. Work never affords me the luxury of immersing myself too deep into these kind of interactions online no matter how hard I try.

@DeepSight

If one is going to say that somehow religiosity is a part of the human psyche, and that gives it some authority, don't you think s/he gets to tell us how all the very bizarre human religions tie together?

killyaselfie:


I think people are “agnostic” because they can’t quite shed their indoctrination.
What is there to be agnostic about?
God(s) only exists in the pages of books and it only speaks in the pages of books or through the mouths of other humans
It is not going to appear and speak to people like it does in the pages of books. It never speaks audibly to anyone. It won’t have an audience with multiple people. It is wholly dependent on belief.

They say the Lord God created the “heavens and the earth”. An utterly senseless statement given the earth’s position in the cosmos.

I can easily say the Lord Voldemort created the “heavens and Planet X” and it would make as much sense as what’s in religious books.

The only difference is that Voldemort is a profane fictional character while God is a scared fictional character. But once you realize that the sacred is nonsense, then God is as real a Voldemort.

I can create a sacred book, make Voldemort the “higher power” and create a religion around it.

People who believe in Voldemort would be Phaeists.

People who don’t believe in Voldemort would be Aphaeists.

People who are not sure about the existence of Voldemort/ voldemorts will be Agnostic.

Meanwhile, I’ll be in the corner counting my money muttering to myself, “Voldemort my ass”

If your god isn’t a character in religious lore, then you probably created it along with all its supernatural attributes.

Again, what’s there to be agnostic about? You created something in your mind and claim agnosticism?

I create gods in my mind but I’m not agnostic about their existence, so I’m definitely not agnostic about the god that came out of someone else’s mind. And it doesn’t matter how long ago the god was created or how many “believers” it has. Bullshit is just bullshit.

In the vastness of the universe, calling the Earth an infinitesimal dot would be an understatement - regarding just how tiny it is in the scheme of things. How much tinier then, is man on Earth? This thought alone is sufficient to ground the sort of humility which should lead us to be agnostic about most existential questions. It does not appear to me that you either have that humility or that you understand the word "agnostic."

You also appear to assume quite a bit. You leap to conclusions over that which has not been said. If it helps any - I do not believe in or worship any "God" or "gods," I am not religious, I do not pray, and thus none of what you have assumed applies to me. Thank you.

TammieJo:
@DeepSight

If one is going to say that somehow religiosity is a part of the human psyche, and that gives it some authority, don't you think s/he gets to tell us how all the very bizarre human religions tie together?

Don't get me wrong. I havent said that religiosity is part of the human psyche. I have said that there is something in the human psyche that leads people towards religion - a thirst, a longing for meaningfulness. I have also clearly said that its a thoughtless human who settles for what most of religion offers in response to this thirst.

Just to be clear, religion, I agree, is mostly a fraudulent tool of mass manipulation.
The opium of the people.

TammieJo:

Sorry for the late response

No worries amigo.

I might have you wrong here but it sounds to me as if you're giving a god credit for completely natural processes.

To be clear, I havent done this. I have simply said that its not a blank slate - even saying that evolution has written quite a bit therein already.

The mind of a new baby is a blank slate when it comes to religion. Are you going to argue that there's an imprinted code that makes babies predisposed to religious belief?

What I have said is that there is an innate predisposition towards assuming causality in this reality and thus an innate tendency to ask the "why" questions. This neednt lead to religious belief though. It could lead to philosophy.

Also, why would said baby always have the imprinted cultural code of whatever brand of horseshit is prevalent in that given geographical region?

Oh ofcourse because most people are intellectually and spiritually lazy and take the path of least resistance. You are thus right here.

It seems to me that you are essentially inferring that something cannot come from nothing therefore "magic" happened.

I havent said anything about magic, and I dont believe in magic. I am clear, however, that something cannot come from nothing - and if there is any belief in magic to be spoken about, then it is with regard to those who believe that something may arise from nothing. That, amigo, is what is magical thinking.

This reference to a deity "outside of space and time" is rather very disengenuous to be honest. In ancient times gods lived on mountain tops, some lived in the dark forest or on the other side of the desert or deep in the ocean or up in the clouds. But when people didn't find them existing in those places they had to push their god further away into other mysterous unknown places. These days theists and all other god proponents have have moved this god so far away he is now "outside of space and time" which is essentially a nice safe, completely unknowable, totally made up fantasy place for a god to reside.

Please remember that I told you what the theist would say, not what I would say, and I also told you I am not a theist. All I did was to point out to you that there is clear reason to believe that there exist factors beyond "spacetime" as conventionally scientifically described. Incidentally reading the latest edition of Scientific American after our interaction, I came across an article that began to discuss just that. And i thought, wow, synchronicity. But the synchronicity became even more alarming when in the same magazine I found an article about children and what is imprinted on their minds! I just had to smile. The articles were even back to back - one following from another. Perhaps this conversation was fated. I will show you snapshots of the articles.

DeepSight:


In the vastness of the universe, calling the Earth an infinitesimal dot would be an understatement - regarding just how tiny it is in the scheme of things. How much tinier then, is man on Earth? This thought alone is sufficient to ground the sort of humility which should lead us to be agnostic about most existential questions. It does not appear to me that you either have that humility or that you understand the word "agnostic."

You also appear to assume quite a bit. You leap to conclusions over that which has not been said. If it helps any - I do not believe in or worship any "God" or "gods," I am not religious, I do not pray, and thus none of what you have assumed applies to me. Thank you.

The vastness of the universe and my existence on our pale blue dot is what informs my humility and precludes me from creating gods. Again, what is there to be agnostic about?

What the hell is god except the entity created by man as the originator of the universe they barely understand.

I don’t assume anything. You might not be religious but you believe in the “time and space outside the universe” where the “something” that is “at the root of reality” exists.
You create a god, then claim agnosticism.

killyaselfie:


The vastness of the universe and my existence on our pale blue dot is what informs my humility and precludes me from creating gods. Again, what is there to be agnostic about?

What the hell is god except the entity created by man as the originator of the universe they barely understand.

I don’t assume anything. You might not be religious but you believe in the “time and space outside the universe” where the “something” that is “at the root of reality” exists.
You create a god, then claim agnosticism.

I have no idea what you are on about. I dont see how a god comes into my position that there logically exists a timeline outside that which is said to have been created at the point of the big bang, and that there also logically exists something into which the universe is expanding. You appear to have created an adversarial position in your mind and are fighting it all by yourself. I am not interested in that imaginary war you are waging.