[Teedub]

So everyone who doesn't believe in the Gods of human theology are now to be shamed as 'armchair atheists'?

Spinoza and/or Einstein (Hawkins falls into this category also) would be considered atheistic by any modern definition of the word. You can't believe in the Gods of the Abrahamic religions or of the Indian religions and also 'believe' (I hate that phrase being used in that context but couldn't think of an alternative) in evolution as it would mean dismissing the Adam and Eve hypothesis. Also, the Koran is full of stuff like "water and salt-water cannot mix" - if that is the word of an all-powerful, all-intelligent creator then I'm Santa Claus.

Edit - Einstein stated he does not believe in a 'personal God' - all God's that have been recorded are by definition 'personal Gods', as you pray to them and hope to be granted whatever you asked for.

[Wadsworth]

I'm an atheist only in the sense that I have no theism in my life. I'm not a dogmatic evangelical rationalist. I don't deny spirituality, and in fact I'm very much involved in alot of stuff on spirituality and consciousness, I find alot of it interesting. Thedude, what you've said is pretty interesting, I don't disagree with it, but it sounds more like you've decided not to be limited to the rational.

Samseau, you're addressing the weakness of the atheist view, the fact that they can point to no standard that sets right apart from wrong. One of the utterly laughable things the dogmatic rationalists think is that morality is objective and they subscribe to moral realism (which is to say morality is part of nature).

This is an utterly infantile notion, but it's no more so than basing morality on what someone wrote down in a book or invoking the existence of "God" to guide your own version of moral absolutism.

Morality is subjective, and no I'm not a relativist. I think some views are better and more inclusive than others.

Regardless, it still can't be said that religion is more rational than atheism. I'm only at war with faith to the extent that people use it to impose their own beliefs on others.

[TheSlayer]

(09-05-2013 03:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

If by "guided by reason" you mean asserting there is no God when there is no evidence of theism except a giant universe, that's about as reasonable as game denialists telling me there is no game and I get women because of other factors like looks or money.

Samseau, I am not sure that is a good comparison. Game denialists ignore actual principles of games and focus on looks and money. Not believing in god when there is no actual proof of theism is actually a good strategy, IMO.

As I said in my previous post, if you do believe in God and theism, which one do you believe in (not you personally but an individual who believes in theism)? There are major religions (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism etc.) and 100s of other religions. Which one does a person believe? Are all of them true? I would be more of a believer in God if there was just one religion and one god. What we have are many different religions and humans have gladly killed each other in the name of "god" for 1000s of years. You have been overtly critical of Islam here and I agree with every single thing you say about it. Where does that fit in if you do believe in religion? Then how can we argue that Islam isn't wrong and incompatible with the rest of the world when Muslims just say that their religion is the one true religion (and it very well maybe by your logic).

[GameTheory]

(09-05-2013 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

On the topic of atheism "being the rational choice": Not even close.

Theists believe in a higher power that exists outside the detection of our five senses.

Atheists believe that nothing exists outside of our five senses.[...]

strwaman fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[jaakkeli]

(09-05-2013 01:51 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Let's say there's some devout Catholic guy in the pews. He does not have any sort of leadership position, he respects and listens to his priest but at the same time when he's at home he leads his home in a way where it's clear that he's the boss and he expects his wife and children to have the sort of role they are meant to have biblically. Is this guy red or blue pill?

Probably a blue pill chump. "The head of household" is the biggest scam in the entire world. Most of these religious men who make a fuss about how they're the head of the family are actually henpecked and afraid of doing anything that might offend their wife. I don't know how many times I've heard a man proudly state that their wife is taking his name and staying home and then later see him interacting with his wife and instantly realize that the supposedly submissive housewife is absolutely in charge.

It's not limited to Christians at all. I don't know how many times I've seen the loud commander in a burqa barking orders at the spineless husband who probably does get to pretend to be in charge once a week at the mosque.

Quote:

After all he is following teachings that were handed down to him and he's basically a beta provider guy but at the same time he still demands respect as head of his household.

But that's exactly what traditional religion is for: convincing men to become provider betas to provide children to continue the religion. The head-of-household stuff is just a sales speech to get men to give up their fire and desire for freedom in exchange for an entirely symbolic leadership position.

This deal is of course based on a VERY accurate view of typical gender differences - it's very masculine to want public respect and it's very feminine to let men believe one thing when the reality is another. Whether or not you think that's a good deal or not is another thing but it's definitely not red pill to not consider the actual reality of most traditional marriages - the man pretending to be in charge, the woman pretending that the man is in charge.

[Sherman]

[attachment=14285]

Charlemagne defender of the Faith

[attachment=14286]

David defender of Atheism

If you were a feminist, which one would you try to top?

[jaakkeli]

(09-05-2013 03:38 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

David defender of Atheism

I don't understand the point of posting the picture of a dude in a weird beard as an example of an atheist. It's the ultra-religious that are known for weird beards, not the other way around...

[Teedub]

^ Feminists would laugh at this David guy, but when they go against Dawkins or Hitchens they fail miserably. Like when they tried to get Hitchens to backtrack on his "women aren't funny' article. Or when Dawkins tore modern feminists to shreds vis-a-vis the elevator incident.

[Veloce]

(09-05-2013 03:16 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Thedude, what you've said is pretty interesting, I don't disagree with it, but it sounds more like you've decided not to be limited to the rational.

When discussing spirituality, not everything can be explained in rational terms. There are some interesting studies on what happens in people's brains during meditation and the so-called "spiritual experience".

Science explains the activity as, "Chemical leading to experience"
Buddhists explain the activity as "Experience leading to chemical"

Here's an argument to consider: Why are humans lead to spirituality? Put a man on an island with no church and no established religion, and he looks to the stars in worship. Every culture on earth has some sort of spiritual expression, whether it's polytheism or monotheism. Why are humans drawn to "that which cannot be explained"?

When we're hungry, we eat.
When we're thirsty, we drink.
When we're horny, we fuck.
When we're...something..., we, pray?

You can tell me about power schemes and manipulation and religion is a device for mind control and yadda yadda yadda. I don't buy it. That's what religion became. Tell me why people pray, why we are naturally drawn to higher powers. Could it be that there's something inside all of us that's calling us to the inner world rather than staying occupied with the outer world?

And finally, bringing everything back to the original thread topic, overall I would assert that people with a true connection to spirituality are more red-pill. To be spiritual means to be unattached to the outside world and its drama and false pursuits.

[Teedub]

^ Good comment, I've actually read about this. There's something scientific behind why humans do this, I'll try and dig it up.

I can't find the exact article, but this wiki page is really interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionar..._religions

For more detailed analysis, check the links that have been used for sourcing.

[Don Juan Tenorio]

When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything.



I have both deeply religious and militant atheist red pill friends who I'm more than happy to have as travel mates in the journey of life; at the same time the ranks of both are full of ill-advised, easily manipulated, short sighted imbéciles.

[Teedub]

Brilliant, and also worrying because there are people out there who believe what he's laughing at.

On a side note, I came across this vid in the side bar. Seems a cool girl, despite the fact that at first glance she looks like she belongs on Jezebel. Sorry to go off topic.

[Cattle Rustler]

This thread will pretty much go nowhere because people already have a set of beliefs. It's like SA/EE/SEA battles.

"Fear of god"...fear of whom? You can't fear something that doesn't exist. Blue pill at its finest, religious men follow the flock like sheep. They do what they're told because it's "best".

Sherman, you're cherry-picking. Chamberlain was an aristocrat and emperor....not a foot solider. For the religious side I would pick this guy..



Marcial Marciel, a man who founded the legion of christ, stole millions from people, and was a child molester. You gave him enough money and he would tell you that you were chosen.

Thanks to science....we are able to live the life we have today with cars, planes, medicine, and other things. Remember when the church wanted to kill people for not going their way? The most successful people were and are atheists.

Carl Saga, Bill Gates, Carnegie, Freud, WARREN BUFFET, Bruce Lee, Hawking, Democritus, and Epicurus....all atheist. They took the red pill and did what they wished, not what a book told them.

Average people look towards religion because they're too lazy to do something about their conditions themselves, just like people on welfare. In fact, it's mental welfare. Sick and broke? Why work or ask for a loan when you can "pray". A woman in Argentina prayed instead of going to the hospital...she's now dead.

If it were for religion, our living conditions would be like Afghanistan's....living in shacks and chopping off limbs. Look at living conditions, income, and life expectancy and its correlation with religion.

This is something that has been on my head for a while. I find it ironic that some PUAs are conservative. They don't want a wife, just a notch. So why complain about lack of "values" when vanishing values made it easier to get laid? It's not like we're looking to get married. Sure, feminazis are hideous but it's a trade off. I haven't seen a Riyadh or Vatican City Datasheet.

[Wadsworth]

(09-05-2013 03:54 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 03:16 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Thedude, what you've said is pretty interesting, I don't disagree with it, but it sounds more like you've decided not to be limited to the rational.

When discussing spirituality, not everything can be explained in rational terms. There are some interesting studies on what happens in people's brains during meditation and the so-called "spiritual experience".

I agree.

Quote:

Science explains the activity as, "Chemical leading to experience"
Buddhists explain the activity as "Experience leading to chemical"

Both are true. Not sure if you're familiar with Deepak Chopra's work, but if you're not you may enjoy it.

[Teedub]

^ Makes me laugh that, all those hardcore Muslims in Saudi preaching death to infidels whilst clutching the newest Western/Far-Eastern technology, and accessing medicine invented by people their religion would have stoned to death given a choice.

[Samseau]

(09-05-2013 03:19 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 03:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

If by "guided by reason" you mean asserting there is no God when there is no evidence of theism except a giant universe, that's about as reasonable as game denialists telling me there is no game and I get women because of other factors like looks or money.

Samseau, I am not sure that is a good comparison. Game denialists ignore actual principles of games and focus on looks and money. Not believing in god when there is no actual proof of theism is actually a good strategy, IMO.

Really? A game denialist would just ask you,

"What does Game look like?
"What color is game?"
"What does game smell like?"
"What does game sound like?"
"What does game feel like?"

Of the course, the answers to the above are the same as the following:

"What does God look like?"
"What color is God?"
"What does God smell like?"
"What does God sound like?"
"What does God feel like?"

In other words, there are no answers, because the question itself fails to understand the subject matter.

Game is the study of how humans influence each other via language and body language - i.e. how we manipulate each other through behavior - so game itself is not a physical manifestation but an abstract concept of a complex phenomena.

Likewise, religion is the study of a higher being that we postutlate to exist based on what others have experienced from this being, in addition to the fact that we're situation in a giant universe with insane complexity that seems like it was designed by something. God is just a term used not to describe a physical manifestation but an abstract concept of a complex phenomena.

[Teedub]

"God is just a term used not to describe a physical manifestation but an abstract concept of a complex phenomena."

That's a nice thought, but religious people don't think that. You don't blow up buildings, cut off clitorises, deny contraceptives to Aids sufferers because of an 'abstract concept'.

[Wadsworth]

(09-05-2013 04:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Likewise, religion is the study of a higher being that we postutlate to exist based on what others have experienced from this being, in addition to the fact that we're situation in a giant universe with insane complexity that seems like it was designed by something. God is just a term used not to describe a physical manifestation but an abstract concept of a complex phenomena.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I'd say that "God" as an abstract concept to describe spiritual/internal features may be valid. I can't say for certain, spiritual development is probably my weakest line of development.

What I can say for sure is that the notion of God falls utterly flat on its face to describe the external features of our existence (nature, QM, astronomy, evolution, etc.).

[Veloce]

When discussing topics such as these, it's important to distinguish between "spirituality" and "organized religion".

They're completely different.

The downfall of organized religion is righteousness. The minute there's an element of righteousness, the whole thing goes to shit and a bunch of people gonna die.

[soup]

(09-05-2013 02:51 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 02:11 PM)soup Wrote:  

I don't believe there is a greater spirit. What does that mean?

Ahd to those that have heard god's voice: how do you know it wasn't the devil impersonating god?

It can't be described in words. You either experience it or you don't. For anyone wanting to experience it, there is plenty of literature out there on spiritual experiences.

"god's" voice is your voice.

In Christian religions it's explained with:


In Buddhism, it's explained that "God, guru, and self are One."

But again, to anyone who hasn't experienced any of this, it's just going to come across as religious-freak mumbo jumbo. That's why religious principles are often conveyed through metaphors and anecdotes.

What I'm describing is a tactile and real experience for many people on this earth, with everyone else looking at them and shaking their head like they're crazy.

Man, it sounds like what happens when people take E. Just because you have a feeling about something doesn't mean it is real.

That's how girls think. They feel it is real, therefore it is to them.

[Que enspastic]

Wait...


How many guys on RVF believe in religion?


Is it more than 5%?

[soup]

(09-05-2013 04:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 03:19 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 03:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

If by "guided by reason" you mean asserting there is no God when there is no evidence of theism except a giant universe, that's about as reasonable as game denialists telling me there is no game and I get women because of other factors like looks or money.

Samseau, I am not sure that is a good comparison. Game denialists ignore actual principles of games and focus on looks and money. Not believing in god when there is no actual proof of theism is actually a good strategy, IMO.

Really? A game denialist would just ask you,

"What does Game look like?
"What color is game?"
"What does game smell like?"
"What does game sound like?"
"What does game feel like?"

Of the course, the answers to the above are the same as the following:

"What does God look like?"
"What color is God?"
"What does God smell like?"
"What does God sound like?"
"What does God feel like?"

In other words, there are no answers, because the question itself fails to understand the subject matter.

Game is the study of how humans influence each other via language and body language - i.e. how we manipulate each other through behavior - so game itself is not a physical manifestation but an abstract concept of a complex phenomena.

Likewise, religion is the study of a higher being that we postutlate to exist based on what others have experienced from this being, in addition to the fact that we're situation in a giant universe with insane complexity that seems like it was designed by something. God is just a term used not to describe a physical manifestation but an abstract concept of a complex phenomena.

I can show people how game works. I can suggest things that can help people get laid.

That's what we do here.

You can't do the same thing with god.

Also, an iphone may have seem magical and complex to someone from a few hundred years ago. Does that mean it is actually made out of magic?

[Teedub]

You crazy soup? This is a picture of god making an iphone out of ribs and dust:

[Aliblahba]

"There are no aetheist in foxholes".

A lot of truth in that statement. I wonder why?

[Marlfox]

Watson & Crick
Tesla
Bohr
Alan Turing
Hawking

All atheists of the top of my head, if agnostics are allowed you can add Darwin and Oppenheimer.

When you consider the small parts of the world and the smalls parts of time in those parts of the world where people have been allowed to call themselves atheist, their representation and accomplishments (particularly in science) are incredible.

I'm also not sure Charlemagne could be held up as a paragon of traditional Christianity:

1. He was a bastard.
2. His only surviving son was a bastard.
3. 4 wives and a harem.

Probably peerless in his spread of Christianity, learning, governance and law in medieval Europe though.