[Benoit]

(05-25-2015 10:24 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

Our understanding, or lack thereof, of the universe does not in any way alter it.

To say something has a particular purpose is to assert that our thoughts and beliefs affect the fundamental nature of the universe. They do not. A rock is a rock, it is neither good nor evil. It does not have a destiny or a purpose. A million people could hold and worship a particular rock for a million years and pass on traditions about the rock, but it would still be just a rock.

All science can show is that under the given circumstances examined, our thoughts and beliefs do not affect the fundamental nature of the universe from the perspective involved. There are no universal truths, only what can and can't be proven.

So, empirically, we have 2000+ years of evidence that societies involving religion lead to strong cultures that thrive, and roughly 100 years worth of attempts at societies detached from religion that all turned into some form of cult worshipping a substitute for god.

The Epicureans were reviled in ancient Greece not for their atheism, but because their self-centered indulgence was in stark opposition to a society where the gods were involved in everything, and everything was for the gods. Living your life lacking the joy that religion brings was a horrifying prospect. Nowadays it's seen as normal and something to be cheered.

I believed I was a committed atheist for a long time, but now I'm saddened by my lack of faith.

[dies irae]

From what I read here, religion would prevent people from voting yes. Check this link:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/laurasilver/rain...hz#4ldqphz

Rainbows formed over Ireland at the day of voting and religious people interpreted that as "Jesus voting yes".

[Lizard King]

(05-25-2015 10:24 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

An interesting perspective. However, it is the simple, fundamental error of pride that has led you down a false path.

Human beings are nothing more than highly evolved primates. It may be comforting to believe differently, and it may make us feel important, but that does not make it true.

Our understanding, or lack thereof, of the universe does not in any way alter it.

To say something has a particular purpose is to assert that our thoughts and beliefs affect the fundamental nature of the universe. They do not. A rock is a rock, it is neither good nor evil. It does not have a destiny or a purpose. A million people could hold and worship a particular rock for a million years and pass on traditions about the rock, but it would still be just a rock.

There are no hard limits to science, there are hard limits to the evolved intellectual capacity of homo sapiens. Science is merely a way of trying to render what is, into a form that a human being can understand and categorize.

Ignoring difference in belief or lack thereof, could you explain how same sex marriage benefits society?

[Phoenix]

Benoit, did you include the far east in that empirical evidence you analyzed? I think you'll find that it swiftly disproves the idea that religion underpins civilization, and the European dark ages provide plenty of indication it hinders it.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(05-25-2015 11:08 AM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Ignoring difference in belief or lack thereof, could you explain how same sex marriage benefits society?

I never said that it did. Nor have I hidden my personal belief that homosexuality is repulsive.

But I also don't think that the legality or illegality of a particular form of conduct should be based on whether or not it benefits society (which is highly subjective in any event).

Instead, I think that the goal of the law should be to safeguard the freedom of the individual to do as they see best for themselves, without interference from the state. Obviously this is not an absolute principal, and state intervention is necessary to maintain public order. However, the spirit of state intervention should be limited to perserving the maximum possible level of freedom for the individual.

[Apollo]

If the endorsement and acceptance of homosexuality in a society at large is destructive, then the same argument can be made for an atheistic society.

When atheism becomes socially accepted in a society, there seems to be a strong correlation with communism, or the erosion of individual liberty, culminating in a dictatorship that eventually gets a bunch of people killed. This is an inconvenient fact for most atheists who try to replace traditional belief systems built upon religion with humanism, which is nothing but re-branded ideological Marxism.

[Wutang]

(05-25-2015 08:51 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 08:29 AM)davyjose Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 06:18 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

This will leave the Calvinist and Anglican British remnant in Northern Ireland under pressure to follow suit (this was where a Christian business was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake despite gay marriage not being recognised in NI).

The odds of gay marriage being legalised in the North of Ireland while Unionism rules the roost are virtually nil.

They may be under pressure certainly, but believe me they won't give two shits, it'll matter little to them.

Quote:

Northern Ireland under pressure after Irish gay marriage referendum win

LGBT campaigners to step up push for equal marriage rights after Northern Ireland becomes only western European country where it is still banned

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/...are_btn_tw

Here's a good example of the use and manipulation of language to serve ends. Notice the use of the word 'ban' implying that someone is going out of their way to restrict homosexuals. Nothing of the sort is being done. Rather they are just doing what they have always done which is not to recognize gay marriage. Banning would imply that someone is being restrained from doing something. If cocaine is banned it means that you are not allowed to do cocaine in the society cocaine is banned in and the government will actively prevent you from doing so. I don't think anyone is trying to stop gays from having whatever ceremony they wish to have with each other, they are merely saying that it is not a legally recognized marriage. Something being banned means not only do you not permitted to do something but you will be actively prevented from doing so. Just people refuse to see things the same way you do does not mean you are being banned from doing anything.

[Libertas]

It's helpful to remember in this thread and with this embryonic phrase of a new living philosophy that we seek to define (Neomasculinity), that religion is not necessarily a part of it. What I glean from it is simply that there needs to be a strong, greater belief system that espouses something higher than human convenience, which easily descends into degenerate hedonism.

A more self-centered, but balanced belief system is something that I call True Glory, taken from Louis XIV, and is somewhat based on the values of the heroes of Homer. It involves striving to achieve something truly memorable in life, and that something will likely require discipline and self sacrifice, and connect to the broader social notion that our society must also strive to achieve this True Glory or Kleos. The individual must mirror the social. We should strive for beauty, excellence, truth, and leave something worthy of passing on. A post about this is coming.

What our society, and most within it are doing is not something worthy of remembrance or passing on. The celebration of homosexuality is one such example.

Religion and its values might be one path for this, but there are other paths to for those of us less religious. We just need to combine our desires for glory with a desire for social glory as well.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(05-25-2015 11:35 AM)Apollo Wrote:  

If the endorsement and acceptance of homosexuality in a society at large is destructive, then the same argument can be made for an atheistic society.

When atheism becomes socially accepted in a society, there seems to be a strong correlation with communism, or the erosion of individual liberty, culminating in a dictatorship that eventually gets a bunch of people killed. This is an inconvenient fact for most atheists who try to replace traditional belief systems built upon religion with humanism, which is nothing but re-branded ideological Marxism.

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis.

Atheism did not cause the Bolshevik revolution.

Highly religious societies are far from bastions of individual liberty. In fact, they tend to be quite the opposite.

Many of history's greatest tyrants sought guidance from their higher power before committing unspeakable atrocities.

[Wutang]

I would agree that atheism didn't cause the atrocities associated with Communism in the 20th century. I say this because atheism being a negative belief cannot stand for anything whether good or evil. This means that atheism can't stand for science even though lots of atheists would like to think it does. You can't have it both ways and say atheism isn't responsible for what was done under Communist regimes since no one does anything under the banner of atheism and then turn around and claim that atheism is responsible for the scientific progress we've seen in the last few centuries.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(05-25-2015 12:00 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

I would agree that atheism didn't cause the atrocities associated with Communism in the 20th century. I say this because atheism being a negative belief cannot stand for anything whether good or evil. This means that atheism can't stand for science even though lots of atheists would like to think it does. You can't have it both ways and say atheism isn't responsible for what was done under Communist regimes since no one does anything under the banner of atheism and then turn around and claim that atheism is responsible for the scientific progress we've seen in the last few centuries.

I never said atheism was responsible for scientific progress. Correlation does not equal causation. While society, and scientists in particular have tended to become less religious as science has advanced, this is not a uniform trend, and there is not a firm causal relationship. There have been highly important scientists of all different beliefs.

I also don't consider atheism a negative belief system.

I believe in reality.

If anything religion is a negative belief system, since it negates objective reality.

[Slim Shady]

Christians will win an argument against me by mis-characterizing what I have to say and what I believe in.

I win against them by having them point out exactly and completely what they actually, truly believe.

People who are saying "I don't mind a little spirituality, or a passing belief in a higher power. I will take that over atheist cracks" should realize that that is not what the Christians are talking about. The Bible is 100% right. If you do not believe in the Bible and Christ's divinity 100%, then you are no Christian at all. All or nothing.

If you are choosing to believe only 50% of the Bible, then you are 100% in my camp. My side let's you pick and choose what to believe in. I let you weight the merits of things before buying into them. I have a little more respect in you as a man. This is not pride or a god complex. Faith has nothing to do with it. I don't know if Science will one day tell me the absolute truth of life. I hope it does, but honestly it probably will not. But I choose to try. It is either try all out to reach a goal that is very hard, or sit and stagnate with an archaic illogical belief. Try and you might fail, or don't try and be satisfied with mediocrity and ignorance. One sounds like something we believe on this forum, and the other sounds like what a lot of feminists believe in.

What do you want? Comfort or truth?

In fact I am not even an atheist. I think that it is actually scientifically wrong to be an atheist because there is a very small chance that God exists. I know about the people who run "atheism" as a church. That is utterly and terribly wrong. Stay away form those people.

Bad science is not science at all. "1 in 5 women are raped". Some people use this as a real statistic and say that it is backed by science. These people are usually "atheists". But this "stat" is backed by bad science, and thus not science at all. So yes for these people their disbelief in god is a religion in itself. It is a religion that gives them absolution and freedom from responsibility.

That is not at all what I am preaching.

[Que enspastic]

There's not much in this thread about why the Irish felt the need to reject the authority of the Catholic Church. It's a seismic shift that has happened very quickly within a period of perhaps just over one decade.

[Parlay44]

So is Ireland the new gay poosy paradise

[Libertas]

(05-25-2015 12:20 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

I also don't consider atheism a negative belief system.

Negative in this instance doesn't mean "bad." It simply means a negation - that you don't believe in something.

A non-belief by definition can not bring forward a belief system.

[la_mode]

If you're a straight guy against gay marriage/gay rights/queer agenda/LGBT rainbow club, whatever you want to call it, you're basically announcing you want more male competition, lol. It's a rare circumstance where a win for the progressive left is also a win for you. Too many have an axe to grind with the progressive left and are rendered unable to see this.

There's obviously a split in the community about this.

Even Roissy said it somewhere he'd like to see all questioning gay guys turn gay.

[Libertas]

I think most guys here are just saying that homosexuality shouldn't be promoted and celebrated by society. Gays are going to be gays no matter what they do so there will always be less competition in that regard.

I think speakeasy noted earlier in this thread how East Asian cultures tend to have the best balanced approach to homosexuality where it's tolerated discretely but is not promoted or celebrated especially as an example for children. That's the best approach in my mind and I think the minds of the rest of us.

[MMX2010]

(05-25-2015 10:24 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

An interesting perspective. However, it is the simple, fundamental error of pride that has led you down a false path.

Human beings are nothing more than highly evolved primates. It may be comforting to believe differently, and it may make us feel important, but that does not make it true.

Do you know what the root of your pride and blindness are? I can reveal them by pointing out an extraordinary contradiction in your postings and actions.

Your usage of human beings is highly important, because it lumps the entire human race (some 7.5 billion people) into one big mass and dismisses them all as "nothing more than highly evolved primates". This is an attempt to establish both: (1) a fundamental equality that all individual humans and all collective groups of humans inescapably possess AND (2) a prediction that no individual human NOR collective group of humans will ever become better than that.

But the contradiction is YOU POST HERE because you prefer to post here. Where else can you experience RVF's collective level of intelligence, passion, and concern for our future?

Were you to acknowledge these preferences, you'd have to compare Religious Societies with Atheist Societies from the perspective of, "Which of these do I prefer to live in?", rather than from, "Why does anyone believe this shit? God is imaginary!"

Quote:

To say something has a particular purpose is to assert that our thoughts and beliefs affect the fundamental nature of the universe.

No, to say that something has a particular purpose is to assert that our thoughts and beliefs can either make us happy, or make us miserable.

[Eskhander]

(05-25-2015 11:13 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Benoit, did you include the far east in that empirical evidence you analyzed? I think you'll find that it swiftly disproves the idea that religion underpins civilization, and the European dark ages provide plenty of indication it hinders it.

I actually believe that is largely discredited. I could be wrong but the Middle East was more prosperous than Europe at the time and it was religious.

And I don't simply mean Islamic, the Middle East and Byzantium adopted Christianity before Europe did and were fine.

The Dark Ages seems to be a confluence of factors, such as Europe being isolated due to hostile neighbors controlling trade access and sequestering classical learning for themselves.
Not to say that there are not specific regressions you can pin on religion and Christianity but you can't pass the whole buck.

[Renton1875]

On the Religion Vs Science debate.

I have read, understood & respect the beliefs of many of the ancient/modern religious writings. More out of curiosity than anything else.

Sure there are some far fetched stories amongst them, similar to science fiction(that occasionally become fact), but over thousands of years, millions of humans have garnished solace from them for one reason or another.

I don't practice any religious activity's myself although I do attend Funerals, Christenings & Weddings (not same sex!). Neomasculinity tho does sound appealing!

A wise man once said....

Quote:

Regarding religion and science, Albert Einstein states (1940): "For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action; it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts…Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determine the goals, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.

On the same sex marriage issue...

This is just another step on the downward spiral of society that has prevailed since probably the mid to late sixties.

What's to blame? Progress? All the things we take for granted? Western Freedom?

Television? Marketing? Human natures greed? Internet? Selfishness? Powers that be?

None of the above will be disappearing any time soon!

So as was stated earlier in the thread, the SJW's & Feminists have over the last 15 or so years made the angle & speed of the spiral far greater, all in the so called guise of equality. Ha!

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Lego activist:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hayesbrown/every....agd7yZ25N



Someone depicted Roosh there, but using different arguments.


This is the man you can be.


Since she would have to give consent before the kiss I expect her either to remain sleeping or be raped.

[Saladin]

Seriously, Zelcorpion? You're going to spoil Mad Men in a thread like this.

[Saladin]

(05-25-2015 08:35 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

The simple, fundamental error made by Slim Shady, Volando and other atheists who advocate science as the only means for understanding ultimate truth is that science is limited to the observation of the physical world itself. By definition, science cannot tell us anything about what lies beyond the physical world, and therefore can provide no insight into what caused the physical world to come into being, or what ultimate purpose the physical world serves. Science is an excellent tool for telling us what is, but a lousy tool for explaining the existential meaning behind what is. (As a quick aside: From a societal level, the spread of belief systems that provide no existential meaning is extremely dangerous and unstable. It's like a ship with no ballast. Our science-loving friends no doubt understand that nature abhors a vacuum, and the human mind is no different. The gaping lack of meaning inherent to atheism does not result in most atheists becoming hyper-logical, humanitarian scientists out to better the world. No, rather they simply become extreme hedonists pursuing their own pleasure at society's expense, and/or they latch on to whatever the prevailing beliefs and issues of the day are and substitute these values and meanings instead. This is why SJWs and progressives are overwhelmingly atheist: they are attempting to fill the void of meaning in their lives due to the absence of God by worshiping "equality" and "social justice").

The hard limits of science result in atheists being forced into the awkward position of advocating a position of faith - faith that "one day" science will overcome these limits and allow man to understand the ultimate nature of reality. In essence, this is the belief that through science, man will achieve omniscience, and have full knowledge not just of the physical world but of everything that preceded it and lies outside of it. In short, that man will become God. Science and a belief in man's capacity for knowledge and ability therefore become the core tenets of the atheistic "faith". There is inherently an enormous amount of arrogance and pride necessary to this position, and that arrogance is very clear in the posts of the atheists in this thread, who believe that their narrow human understanding is sufficient basis for understanding the whole of reality, even that which lies outside the physical world.

I believe that pride truly is the great stumbling block that prevents men (especially intelligent men) from embracing religion and admitting that their scientific understanding of the universe will always fall short. There's a reason why the Bible (as well as numerous other ancient wisdom texts and dozens of great philosophers) warn us against the dangers of pride and hubris. Rarely does man get himself in greater trouble than when he becomes overconfident in his abilities and understanding. This simple maxim applies for everyday life as well as when grappling with existential questions. The starting point for investigating these matters should rightfully be a position of the deepest humility, of recognizing that our knowledge is supremely limited, both as individuals and as a species. The idea that man has all the answers through science is completely unfounded, and as much an article of faith as any religion. I believe that atheists feel this contradiction even if they can't detect it due to pride, and the cognitive dissonance inherent to putting their faith in a position that advocates not having faith is the major reason why many atheists are so hostile and angry toward the religious: subconscious projected self-loathing ("Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Rom. 1:22).

I don't think people are saying science helps with ultimate understanding and is the best tool to help us live our lives. Philosophy and spirituality are ultimately better tools in my opinion.

Religious zealots and SJWs are both two sides of the same coin. They both are ardent and strict believers. The desire to blindly believe is very strong in human beings. Only a small percentage of humanity actually is willing to throw out old beliefs when new evidence proves the old wrong.

That doesn't mean that all spirituality is thrown out of the window. Spirituality is a personal experience. One can meditate or feel oneness with the universe and yet be an atheist who doesn't believe in a man in the sky. But that's only with understanding spirituality as a personal journey. Religion is a mass activity.

You're debating the small stuff. As far as I'm concerned, religion and soviet communism are extremely similar. Both rely upon and encourage blind belief. There have been so many atrocities committed in the name of religion that you can't deny how powerful it as as a controlling device of the masses. Maybe the elite wants to replace religion with smartphones and feminism. But let's not pretend that religion is this "higher" concept. Sure the foundation may be rooted in deep truths, but there's layers and layers of bullshit added on by those who use it for their own purposes.

Ultimately the question we are asking is, can humanity function properly without strong beliefs? In your opinion, Christianity is the right "belief" to help society function. In the SJWs opinion, its the religion of political correctness and victimhood. The bigger question is can large populations actually think for themselves without falling into the trap of belief without investigation.

[Phoenix]

Eskhander, you could actually read what I wrote too. I said far east. Why did you substitute middle east?

I'm seeing an awful lot of 'typing but not reading' lately. As I've said, if people want to monologue, a blog is the place to do it, not in a discussion forum.

[Benoit]

(05-26-2015 02:01 AM)Saladin Wrote:  

The bigger question is can large populations actually think for themselves without falling into the trap of belief without investigation.

My belief is no, there will be no 'great awakening' when the masses will rise up and cast off their intellectual shackles. Humans just don't think that way en masse.

We are social animals, and while it's possible for individuals to transcend these limitations, there's too much tied up in our biology to make a hypothetical rational utopia into reality.

(05-26-2015 02:30 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Eskhander, you could actually read what I wrote too. I said far east. Why did you substitute middle east?

You asked me to consider the evidence of the far east but didn't specify what I was supposed to look for - successful atheist societies or failing religious ones?

Eskhander's post is a response to your dark ages comparison, and he's right to challenge the popular view of that time as suffering under religious repression - we don't have historical documents to say what it was actually like, but certainly there are enough records regarding the wider society at the time that to blame any decline solely on religion is a stretch.