Head/Head debate advertizement

[acapiz]

Religion is Conscious Human Suicide Yes/No


I wish to debate with a person who .

.Absolutely believes in God
.Absolutely believes that they have a purpose under their God.

After that I would hope for a person who would strongly challenge my non-religious view of my reality.

I do not care if this takes forever and I would request alternate postings of a reasonable length. I am not in a position to be choosy. If you qualify and you are willing then you are 'up', if you are first. I am not easy to debate with, I have been told. I would even let you post first. That's how confident, I am. You need to make a request on the Head to Head Request Sub-forum to set these wheels in motion.
Good Luck, because you will need it.
Thanks Handshake

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 20 by Divine Insight]

Hamsaka wrote:

So are there some beliefs that cause more harm than good? That's what I'm wondering.

I am passionately convinced of this. The "Jealous God" religions teach people to believe that there exists a jealous God who hates everyone who refuses to worship him in very specific ways, and obey directives and commandments in particular doctrines. Religions like these are highly divisive and ultimately end up causing people to hate others who don't believe in their God, even though they have falsely convinced themselves that they actually "love" these people they hate.

I get what you are saying, and haven't put it together in my own mind just yet, but this works for me. "Jealous" god religions begin (a priori?) from a destructive premise. War is a common fruit of "Jealous god" religions, we can claim that with more than adequate evidence

If Christendom can't be said to be as war-like as Islam, it continues to enforce arbitrary boundaries around 'us' to exclude 'them' and is one of the sources of modern mankind's angst -- unless you are a Christian. The Christian's solution to this angst? Convert, and if not, quit complaining and interfering with our attempt to establish a Christian theocracy.

Christians in the USA are up in arms waging a war with science and atheists. And yes, the stronger atheism becomes the more active Christian proselytizing will become.

Here is what Christianity has replaced open warfare and pogroms with. It's more civilized than witch burning.

Hamsaka wrote:

I worry about our children being conditioned from an early age to NOT abandon their magical thinking.

I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in a supernatural essence to reality. Where the problem lies is when that belief is firmly couples to a "Jealous God Religion" where the children are taught that if you don't believe in a very specific God and dogma you will be damned (and deservedly so). If the the child believes this they they are going to believe that it's true for everyone who doesn't believe in the God they were taught to believe in.

Excellent point, and it ties in well with your first point. You've 'isolated' as the central issue of your point that "Jealous god" religions aren't the source of 'faith' or 'belief' perversions. Faith and belief obviously pre-exist the Abrahamic religions, as they are implicit in shamanism, the origin of all religions known.

I hadn't made that distinction myself (yet), that faith itself is neutral (or even beneficial). But in the hands of a "Jealous god" religion, faith's neutral and perhaps useful nature is used for destructive purposes. Those destructive purposes are the arbitrary 'faith'-based divisions of in-out group and misuse of power by a religious majority.

Hamsaka wrote:

Anyway, that's my example showing how extreme forms of faith-based religion causes (what appears to be) brain damage.

But this is more than simply a "faith-based" religion. This is an example of derogatory brain-washing by a cult that demands that their hateful God rules the universe.

Where do we draw the line between mere "faith-based" beliefs, and cults that spread derogatory brainwashing?

I personally think we should reject any and all religious dogmas that are based on "Jealous Gods". After all, jealousy is supposed to be an evil sin anyway. So any God who is jealous is an evil demon.

I think you just drew it! At least it makes sense to me.

Hamsaka wrote:

How many people genuinely understand there is a difference between believing something true and believing what makes them feel good (superior, chosen, powerful, not gonna die, safe n' secure, set apart from the riff raff)?

The Bible is the guilty party here. And this of course include the Qur'an. It is the texts in these books that claim to have direct knowledge from God. And they clearly claim to "Speak for God". People who claim that the Bible isn't really the "Word of God" aren't paying attention. The Bible claims to speak for God. Period.

It's a dangerous religion precisely because of this. Any religion that claims to speak for God should be highly suspect.

There are, however, other religions that don't claim to speak for God at all. And typically those religions are var less violent (at least in terms of their religious beliefs).

How do you compare "Jealous god" religions with "Speak for God" religions in terms of destructiveness? Are they the same, more or less? I'm trying to come up with an Eastern religious doctrine that promotes individuals 'speaking for God'. I'm most familiar with Buddhism. Obviously not a 'Jealous god' religion, but not so obviously it is not a 'speak for god' religion either, as the Buddha is not regarded as an immanent deity nor as a deity who 'commands' his subjects in any way.

Hindu Advaita has a holy book as does Buddhism, but again, no 'commanding authority'-type jealous god. Speaking for god is problematic, but in my mind not nearly so problematic as when the god is jealous. Together, the fruits are always going to be war of some kind even if it is a war between Christianity and science.

Hamsaka wrote:

The irony is that reliance on faith can and does lead persons away from what is true.

But when it comes to the "True Nature of Reality" we don't know what truth is. Therefore it's meaningless to say that we can be lead away from what is true. At least on this larger issue of the true nature of reality.

Good point. Though knowing the 'true nature of reality' in an absolute way may never be possible, there are gradations of approach. Reliance on a faith made wayward by a "Jealous god" religion will result in more suffering as an outcome; but is this necessarily a 'bad' thing? Morally speaking, it could be called 'bad', if increased suffering equals 'bad'. Right now, no moral system except for Buddhism or Humanism places such moral value on the cessation of suffering.

So to the degree that one is led 'astray' from approaching a 'true-r' notion of reality is a condition of the quality of faith rendered from the basic doctrines of the religion. A "Jealous god" religion, beginning with it's arbitrary and cruel divisiveness, leads one further from 'truth'.

"Truth" (whatever this turns out to be) is a discovery in progress, to be apprehended with an open mind and few if any presuppositions. Human minds aren't going to be able to escape our own anthropism, but we can do our best to reduce it in service to our search.

How I see religion as problematic is that presuppositions exist prior to exploration. It both prevents exploration and claims ownership of what elements of the human experience can be crammed into the presuppositions without destroying the presuppositions. An a priori religious presupposition creates the tautology that reminds me a lot of the concept of samsara in Buddhism -- the wheel of samsara, that is, and how one becomes trapped in endless cycles of rebirth and suffering.

It's as though Buddhist doctrine 'warns' against getting caught up in ideological tautologies like Christianity -- but that is no wonder, really. Much of Buddhist doctrine is a reaction against the proto-Hinduist's Brahmic religion (deep origins of the caste system).

Most of these people do not have "faith". What they actually have is a guilt complex that they have been brainwashed to believe that if they reject the religion they were taught is the "Word of God" they will be punished, and it will be entirely their own fault for having "rejected" God and failing to believe. Rolling Eyes

These are dangerous brainwashing cults being spread in the name of "religion".

The "Boogeyman God" indeed I mentioned this in a thread in Apologetics -- that nonbelievers/atheists are just lately of numbers such that they dare speak out. The superstition is immense. I remember as a little kid sitting around with my friends and one of us would say "God has a penis!" and we'd shriek with terror and laughter. The first time I said or wrote "I don't believe in God" gave me a stomach lurch, and then a sense of wonder. It really was a superstition. I won't go out of my way to walk under a ladder, though . . . progress, not perfection .

I don't think that having faith in unknowable things is necessary. I would merely argue that it doesn't always need to lead to derogatory things. It's unfortunate that we see such extremely derogatory examples in things like Christianity and Islam.

Obviously faith-based dogmas can be dangerous. I won't argue against that.

Then what WOULD be a reasonable use of faith?

And how skillful is it to make major life decisions for yourself and others based upon faith? What we decide for ourselves always effects other people, so that is not a necessary distinction. Am I mixing up belief and faith as you distinguished between them, though? You said previously:

I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in a supernatural essence to reality.

What role does faith have in your quote above, or does it? And after your excellent knife metaphor, you go on to say:

Some thing with faith in supernatural beliefs. Christianity and Islam are simply faith that has fallen into evil hands. The Bible and the Qur'an are evil books precisely because they teach immoral things in the name of God. And they falsely convince people that they speak for God when in fact they clearly do not

I'm getting mixed up with how you are using the words faith and belief, probably. But perhaps this goes back to what you said about faith and belief generated within a "jealous god" religion.

Faith itself is problematic to me due to the appearance of knowing what is not known, and that includes faith in the chemotherapy, or that my son will remember to put out the garbage on Monday morning. Especially, when faith is substituted for empirical or logical evidence in the making of laws and policies, no matter WHAT the source matter generating the faith, it is problematic. It's like trying to hit a bullseye on the dart board wearing a blindfold and being spun around and around until you are dizzy -- and then having NO problem at all throwing that dart in faith it will hit what you want it to (instead of what you don't want it to). Is faith really THAT clueless? I'm sure needing to consider this more for myself.

Yep, it's the Bible and the Qur'an that are at the root of religious evils.

Toward this end I think we should be renouncing any and all religions that claim to be based on a "Jealous God", and especially any religions that claim to "Speak for God".

Those are the dangerous religions that bastardize "faith" into something dangerous and derogatory.

For me, Christianity is the greatest irony in that they use Jesus as their pasty to spread hatred toward non-Christians in the false name of "love".

This is the core of institutionalized abuse and bullying (power-tripping). Your God loves you SO much that he sent his Son to die a gruesome, bloody and humiliating death. So eat of his flesh and drink of his blood and be 'one' with him, while also believing IN him (whatever that means, never got that part) so you are not cast into Hell or denied eternal life.

"My husband is sooo jealous because he loves me so much."

"My boss wouldn't ride me so hard if he didn't really care."

IMHO, it's the most perverted religion in the world.

At least Islam retains the original "Jealous God" and just claims that he hates anyone who doesn't worship him. Rolling Eyes

Don't forget about Fred Phelps. At least he was an honest adherent to our most detailed knowledge of Yaweh.

Christianity and Islam basically ruined the concept of spirituality for everyone. They have bastardized it into something truly hateful that they claim to be spreading in the name of "love".

These are the most disgusting religions mankind has ever invented, IMHO. And I personally feel that they were both copied from the idea of Zeus as the God of Gods. Yahweh is nothing more than a jealous male-chauvinistic Zeus on steroids.

They have destroyed the very concept of "Spirituality".

They are a prime example of how faith-based beliefs can go terribly wrong and actually become something extremely dangerous and derogatory to humanity in general.

It actually upsets me because these hateful Abrahamic religions have ruin the very concept of spirituality for everyone. The Christians have turned Jesus into a hateful monster that they use to condemn anyone who refuses to worship and support their cult. It's truly sad, and very depressing.

How people can believe that they were created by such a hateful monster is beyond me. I don't see where there is anything positive in it.

That's a good point about the concept of spirituality being sullied, or getting a very bad reputation, as 'spirituality' has religion at it's essence in the modern mind.

When I first discovered Sam Harris, I wondered something similar to this, if Harris's polemics wouldn't be so condemning of 'faith' if it weren't for the destructive sides of Christianity and Islam. Ironically, his latest book "Waking Up" is all about spirituality, and he spends an entire chapter trying to explain his use of that word, in response to the criticism he's received from his fan club for using it.

You can hardly blame them for criticizing him. But I like how Harris refuses to dishonestly relinquish the word. He defends it is not proprietary to Christianity, the New Age or any other belief system, but a pan-human experience often attributed to some god or other.

[Divine Insight]

Then what WOULD be a reasonable use of faith?

And how skillful is it to make major life decisions for yourself and others based upon faith? What we decide for ourselves always effects other people, so that is not a necessary distinction. Am I mixing up belief and faith as you distinguished between them, though? You said previously:

I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in a supernatural essence to reality.

What role does faith have in your quote above, or does it?

You ask very interesting questions. I would love to respond to them in more detail, but this thread is probably not a good place for this conversation. I'm not sure where it belongs though. Possibly in philosophy?


I think the role of faith has to do with our worldview. After all, I openly confess that a purely secular worldview that imagines that life is nothing more than a freak materialistic accident does nothing at all for me. That "worldview" is actually pretty darn depressing if you ask me. It may possibly be true. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still depressing.

I openly confess that, for me, a worldview that there is something mystical and potentially eternal going on provides me with far more optimism and inspiration.

Therefore I ask anyone, "What is wrong with adopting a positive and inspirational worldview?" Who cares whether it's true or not? If it's positive and inspirational then it has worth in if reality is a fleeting freak materialistic accident.

So I not only see value in "faith", but I personally chose to embrace a "faith-based" worldview. In my case, that's definitely NOT going to be Christianity or Islam, because from my perspective both of those religions are actually far more depressing than a freak materialistic accident. I'd rather be an atheist than a Christian or a Muslim. Atheism is far more positive, IMHO, than either of those two depressing religions.

But there do exist other spiritual and mystical worldviews that are positive, uplifting, and inspirational. I personally feel that Buddhism is one of this. But I also see other positive worldviews, and for me, a very specific form of Eclectic Wicca works very well. Whether it contains any truth or not is totally irrelevant to me.

When I first discovered Sam Harris, I wondered something similar to this, if Harris's polemics wouldn't be so condemning of 'faith' if it weren't for the destructive sides of Christianity and Islam. Ironically, his latest book "Waking Up" is all about spirituality, and he spends an entire chapter trying to explain his use of that word, in response to the criticism he's received from his fan club for using it.

You can hardly blame them for criticizing him. But I like how Harris refuses to dishonestly relinquish the word. He defends it is not proprietary to Christianity, the New Age or any other belief system, but a pan-human experience often attributed to some god or other.

I haven't read that particular book. But I like Sam Harris and I understand where he's coming from. I think it's helpful to understand that Sam Harris actually practiced various Eastern Mystical traditions, such as transcendental meditation, etc. And he's aware that there are valuable experiences to be had from these traditions. Whether they hold "truth" in any empirical sense isn't really important. What is TRUE is that they can be positive, inspiring, and a meaningful experience for those who participate in these practices.

I think this is true also for many Christians and Muslims. The reason being that they basically ignore, or deny, the derogatory parts of their religions and focus their worldview on only the parts they see as being positive, and inspiring. After all, these religions do promise eternal life in paradise. Clearly that's what these people are focusing on. They even often argue that all the negative garbage that comes with the religion is necessary because they claim there needs to be bad consequences for those who don't "deserve" this promised paradise. I personally find that very mentality to be quite negative and unproductive. But to each there own.

The biggest problem I have with Christianity and Islam is that ultimately they are out to "convert" the world to their religious faiths. And this is when faith becomes highly intrusive and burdensome to people who simply aren't interested in hearing it.

If they could keep their faith to themselves no one would care what they believe.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 11:57 am Post subject:
Hamsaka wrote:

Then what WOULD be a reasonable use of faith?

And how skillful is it to make major life decisions for yourself and others based upon faith? What we decide for ourselves always effects other people, so that is not a necessary distinction. Am I mixing up belief and faith as you distinguished between them, though? You said previously:

Quote:
I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in a supernatural essence to reality.


What role does faith have in your quote above, or does it?

You ask very interesting questions. I would love to respond to them in more detail, but this thread is probably not a good place for this conversation. I'm not sure where it belongs though. Possibly in philosophy?

I wondered about that too, if this was not the best place to have this discussion, but it is a discussion I'm getting a lot out of, too

I think the role of faith has to do with our worldview. After all, I openly confess that a purely secular worldview that imagines that life is nothing more than a freak materialistic accident does nothing at all for me. That "worldview" is actually pretty darn depressing if you ask me. It may possibly be true. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still depressing.

When I was making my years-long transition to being good and done with theism, the 'purely secular worldview' you describe (freak materialistic accident) was VERY unappealing. And didn't seem quite right. If nothing else, my brain recognizes patterns that may or may not be there, so which patterns are valid and beneficial to put 'faith' in, regardless of whether they are there or not ?

I'm a nut for documentaries about cosmology and the quantum universe, beginning with Carl Sagan's Cosmos when I was a kid. Sagan's descendents (Tyson, Krauss, and so on) are SO damn excited and inspired by what they study and teach that it has caused me to question my assumptions about a purely secular worldview being cold materialism. They sure don't sound or act like proponents of cold materialism Instead they propose naturalism, which as a definition, would include human pattern-projecting as part of the naturalistic universe, and just as vital a component of an objective reality as carbon-based life.

I openly confess that, for me, a worldview that there is something mystical and potentially eternal going on provides me with far more optimism and inspiration.

Same here -- which is why I have revamped my assumptions about a purely secular (ie non-faith based) world view. It might not be a tick tock, tick tock impersonal chancey accidental process at all -- a few more doors are opened, that's all, and the new 'rooms' yet to be explored, but the doors are open and the definition changed.

And if it IS a purely chanced-up accident -- WOW!! Before much of my inner work along these lines, I didn't feel very WOW about it, because I am human, and I can't totally escape wanting to understand my 'place' in this (possibly) mechanistic, materialistic and impersonal quantum accident called life.

As long as I feel connected in some way, even cold impersonal materialism becomes warm, meaningful and wondrous.

This underscores the theist's 'war' on materialism. Atheists present a dilemma just by existing, a kind of insult, to theists. Not sure if that goes both ways . . .

Atheist paradigms threaten to 'rob' theists of what provides for them, deep meaning -- but deep meaning is JUST as important to atheists! Yanno? We aren't different in that regard, with that need.

[Divine Insight]

Hamsaka, I've started a new thread in Philosophy to continue this conversation if you care to continue discussing these issues.

On the Philosophy of placing Faith in Plausibilities