[BortimusPrime]

(04-02-2019 02:48 PM)Valentine Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 02:13 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 10:30 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

Evolutionarily speaking aging and death makes no sense... we are actually designed by our DNA to age and die. We could live much longer if we figured out how to turn senescence off.

Aging is a necessary component to evolution. Think about it, if a species is immortal and any one member of that species just gets bigger and stronger as it gets older, then it will dominate over the younger members and that species will eventually be out-competed by rival species that does age and replaces its population each generation with a better-adapted version.

There are a number of immortal species so what you're saying doesn't make sense.

If the species has a generally high risk of being killed sure aging wouldn't matter. Just like if we cured aging in humans we wouldn't be immortal, since eventually you'll get hit by a bus or train or meteorite or get eaten by a bear. My point was that the evolutionary process only works if a species is replacing itself with new copies with mutations that can be selected for or against by natural selection.

[BortimusPrime]

(04-02-2019 02:26 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 02:13 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Aging is a necessary component to evolution...

Some discussions in futurism I've read pointed out that a potential social problem in the far future...

Far future? Man, you sound exactly like a technocratic globalist except for the time frame. And you even provide a "scientific" justification for "intervention!"

That's odd, no?

The first step was turning the frogs gay.

[questor70]

(04-02-2019 01:54 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Is it odd that you claim "If they matter to me, then that's all that counts" and to not "need to externally validate the things I find sacred," yet you're involved in discourse wherein the presumption is to find errors and correct them and/or persuade others?

I'm not the one trying to convince you to believe the things that value to me are what should value everyone else. But humans are social creatures. I can share what matters to me and maybe other people will agree and maybe they won't. That's how the world works rather than trying to jam a one-size-fits-all prescription down people's throats.

(04-02-2019 01:57 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

Death is Objective not Subjective and it renders your "calling" in life pointless.

If I won't be around to be sad over it, so why should I care? It's the proverbial tree falling in the forest at that point.

(04-02-2019 01:57 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

You were not "put on this earth" for any particular reason.

Speak for yourself.

(04-02-2019 01:57 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

There is no greater meaning behind your existence.

If it has meaning to me, it has meaning, period. Whether you don't think it has meaning is irrelevant. So you can repeat it ad nauseum, start stomping your feet, go all caps, ETC..., but it's not going to change whether it has meaning to me. That's because meaning itself is a human construct. Might as well embrace it.

(04-02-2019 01:57 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

Or you can realize the endless futility of it all and hang yourself in the closet like Anthony Bourdain.

Hostility...much? You obviously have a bug up your ass about this but it says more about you than me.

(04-02-2019 01:57 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

I'm not so stupid as to think Lord of The Rings is truth.

If Joseph Campbell were alive and reading this thread I'm sure he'd have a lot to say about your dismissal.

[_Different_T]

(04-02-2019 05:31 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

The first step was turning the frogs gay.

That was very odd.

questor70 Wrote:

I'm not the one trying to convince you to believe the things that value to me are what should value everyone else. But humans are social creatures. I can share what matters to me and maybe other people will agree and maybe they won't. That's how the world works rather than trying to jam a one-size-fits-all prescription down people's throats.

Is it odd to proclaim knowledge about how the world works, yet claim truth is subjective?

Is it odd to say you're against "a one-size-fits-all prescription" while claiming "truth is subjective?"

[_Different_T]

(04-02-2019 06:52 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

If it has meaning to me, it has meaning, period. Whether you don't think it has meaning is irrelevant. So you can repeat it ad nauseum, start stomping your feet, go all caps, ETC..., but it's not going to change whether it has meaning to me. That's because meaning itself is a human construct. Might as well embrace it.

Is it odd that, when you're involved in discourse, you repeat ad nauseum that your interlocutor can't change your mind; all while reminding them of the futility of repeating their view ad nauseum?

Really, how much odder is this?

[infowarrior1]

(04-02-2019 01:15 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 11:06 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

The man I referenced in my comment specifically suffered none of the maladies as far as I know in his adult life.

Maybe you should start worshiping Ghengis Khan then since you seem to keep attempting to hold him up as a shining pillar of might-makes-right success.

(04-02-2019 11:06 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Christianity is one of the only religions that has a chief pillar of falsifiability.

Maybe that's more of a liability than an asset. If you think 911 troother threads go in endless circles try debating whether there's actual proof of the resurrection or creationism. What religion holds up as proof and what's actual proof are two different things. It's ultimately a waste of brain-cycles. None of this filters back to give us any sort of instruction on how to live a good life.

Genghis is dead and his empire fell apart centuries after his death. Plus why worship a dead guy that can't do anything.

Lessons can be learned certainly but worthiness to worship requires much more than that.


As for your latter statement. Its simply the nature of Christianity to not be simply be a series of wise sayings or good philosophy. But requires commitment far beyond living a simple good life and submitting to a deity that may or may not exist.

To the point of suffering martyrdom at times which happens to many Christians in the Middle East, Africa and North Korea.

And promises that are beyond man's wildest imaginations.


Therefore the necessity of the empirical basis I cited above that one of the Apostles himself mentions. Along with the natural revelation in nature. It has to be worth it to shed one's own blood if necessary from martyrdom.


It claims to be truth. As much as 1+1=2. As much as reality always wins over subjective opinion.


But as for your comment about proof. The standard of proof is if said proof holds up in the Court of Law not what anyone would say is proof.


And one last thing. You should click TV Icon to the right side of the message reply and click youtube after the menu comes out. You put in the url and it is able to embed in the Forum.

[questor70]

(04-02-2019 07:16 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Is it odd to proclaim knowledge about how the world works, yet claim truth is subjective?

I don't proclaim to know everything about how the world works. I have a mental model of how the world works which is continually refining itself, similar to the scientific method.

(04-02-2019 07:16 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Is it odd to say you're against "a one-size-fits-all prescription" while claiming "truth is subjective?"

I don't see how that's odd at all. One naturally leads to the other.

BTW, here's a thought experiment for you. Let's say you grew up in a muslim country. What are the odds that your belief system would be what it is today? Very low. You would have been born and raised in a different culture and indoctrinated to believe X, Y, Z. If that alternate version of yourself were to then come in here and participate in this thread you would be spouting all sorts of Muslim dogma instead, while claiming tooth and nail to know the one and only truth.

In order to really be convincing and saying something is truthful you have to be certain that the reason you believe it is because it truly makes sense rather than it being something you were conditioned to believe since birth.

This is why I tend to be a bit more respectful towards those who went through a religious conversion because at least that represented a clear act of freewill to break away from the pack.

But given the smorgasbord of available religions out there, to just happen to be born into the "right" one and then latch onto it rather than any of the others seems rather coincidental.

This is why I'm not dissing those who are religious, but I do think in most cases the reason people believe what they do is because they were indoctrinated. If not actively indoctrinated, then we are at least at the mercy of what we absorb through osmosis. Influences from other cultures require active curiosity to discover and experiment with which most people don't do.

And that goes for so many other things, the nature vs. nurture debate. The biggest tinder sluts in the world would probably not be tinder sluts if they were born to an amish family or if they had been raised under the victorian era. Most people are not self-reflective enough to know how much of who they became at young adulthood is merely the product of environment. As Socrates said, an unexamined life isn't worth living.

I'm not trying to attack you personally with any of this but you seem ultra defensive which to me is a sign that I've kicked you out of your comfort zone. That's exactly what this sort of discussion SHOULD do. Otherwise it's just a closed silo of bobbleheaders.

[_Different_T]

Quote:

I have a mental model of how the world works which is continually refining itself, similar to the scientific method.

Considering the very concept of "refinement" relates to increasing purity, is it odd to think you can "refine" your model while believing truth is subjective?

Quote:

I don't see how that's odd at all. One naturally leads to the other.

Let's reword it: is it odd to say you're against a "a one-size-fits-all prescription" while claiming that the way to view "truth" is as subjective?

Quote:

BTW, here's a thought experiment for you. Let's say you grew up in a muslim country. What are the odds that your belief system would be what it is today? Very low. You would have been born and raised in a different culture and indoctrinated to believe X, Y, Z. If that alternate version of yourself were to then come in here and participate in this thread you would be spouting all sorts of Muslim dogma instead, while claiming tooth and nail to know the one and only truth.

Is it odd to imply that your interlocutor is "spouting all sorts of dogma" when all they've done is ask a series of question that begin with "is it odd" and then contrast a couple of statements that you made?

Is it odd to think that everyone else was "raised in a different culture and indoctrinated to believe X, Y, Z," except for you? Is it odd to think that those whom you think you disagree with are "claiming tooth and nail to know the one and only truth," but you aren't; ie. "Why should I care if you or anyone else thinks they're pointless? If they matter to me, then that's all that counts"?

[questor70]

(04-02-2019 09:32 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Considering the very concept of "refinement" relates to increasing purity, is it odd to think you can "refine" your model while believing truth is subjective?

Increasing certainty, not purity. This is how knowledge works. Fuzzy logic.

(04-02-2019 09:32 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Let's reword it: is it odd to say you're against a "a one-size-fits-all prescription" while claiming that the way to view "truth" is as subjective?

Certain truths are not open to interpretation. If you put your hand in a fire, it will burn. If you walk off a cliff, you'll fall. I'm not talking about that sort of stuff so don't let that confuse you. I'm talking about certain rules that the world seems to follow but where there are different camps. Red pill vs. blue pill is one of those things.

Take Alexander Grace's Red Pill interviews for instance. One way to test whether red pill is true is to take a risk and go out and ask women point blank about these theories. The more women he approaches, the larger the sample size, the more questions he asks, a pattern emerges. Red pill concepts may never reach 100% certainty, but they don't really need to in order to be true enough to begin to lead your life as if they are true for the sake of self-protection.

Usually those who are most averse to red pill concepts are either naive, meaning they haven't gone to the school of hard knocks, or they have extreme ideological reasons for not buying into it (male feminists, etc...).

Another thing is about business. I'm in my late 40s. I've got my share of office-space type war stories about what works and what doesn't. Who gets promoted and why? How do you deal with conflict?

So when I am talking about "truth" I'm talking about a set of guidelines for how to live that results in the best possible outcomes (on average, hence Gengis Khan is a statistical outlier).

This is something we all do as we go through life, presumably getting better at it as we go along if we're not NPCs, but my personal operating system will be different from your operating system. But I can only go by my own data-set.

I have my own notions of when to take risks and when to play it safe. This way of thinking is all built into the human genome. It's our survival instinct. Our problem solving instinct.

Sometimes you see convergent evolution at work. Two completely different cultures will arive at some very similar conclusions. Joseph Campbell was writing about this in Hero with 1000 faces. It's not necessarily that the monomyth evolved out of one primordial story, but that the story is a direct consequence of fundamental truths of human nature.

So for red pill, how often have posters here quoted some ancient author saying something about how women were back then which is just as valid today? They didn't use a metaphor from The Matrix, but they were saying the same thing.

So the "truths" that I feel most confident in tend to have that sort of backing, but none of them are going to be without dissenters. Just as SJWs are vehemently denying human biological differences or saying that there is no such a thing as beauty standards, etc... You'll never ever achieve complete buy-in.

If people who latch onto falsehoods see that as their truth, that's their prerogative, but then life will attempt to teach them otherwise. They will then either invalidate their model or rationalize/double-down. How often do you hear stories of women continually dating the bad-boy and waiting for prince-charming? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of madness.

Most of us fumble through life like that, clutching at incomplete or wrong models, and then (hopefully) course-correcting. Those who don't wind up like your Anthony Bourdains.

(04-02-2019 09:32 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Is it odd to think that everyone else was "raised in a different culture and indoctrinated to believe X, Y, Z," except for you?

IMHO, you're just evading the question by turning the tables. Think about it.

I'm not going to doxx myself by offering too much autobiographical information. What I will say is that I was raised to be an independent thinker rather than someone expected to carry on a long family/ethnic tradition.

[_Different_T]

(04-02-2019 10:48 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

Increasing certainty, not purity. This is how knowledge works. Fuzzy logic.

Is it odd to think you have the ability to increase certainty about something you claim is subjective?

(04-02-2019 10:48 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

Most of us fumble through life like that, clutching at incomplete or wrong models, and then (hopefully) course-correcting.

Is it odd to imply there is a correct course and that there are "wrong models" when you claim it's subjective?

(04-02-2019 10:48 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

What I will say is that I was raised to be an independent thinker rather than someone expected to carry on a long family/ethnic tradition.

Is it odd to think everyone else was indoctrinated to be a "tradition" thinker, but you're an "independent" thinker because of how you were raised?

[infowarrior1]

(04-02-2019 10:48 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 09:32 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Considering the very concept of "refinement" relates to increasing purity, is it odd to think you can "refine" your model while believing truth is subjective?

Increasing certainty, not purity. This is how knowledge works. Fuzzy logic.

(04-02-2019 09:32 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Let's reword it: is it odd to say you're against a "a one-size-fits-all prescription" while claiming that the way to view "truth" is as subjective?

Certain truths are not open to interpretation. If you put your hand in a fire, it will burn. If you walk off a cliff, you'll fall. I'm not talking about that sort of stuff so don't let that confuse you. I'm talking about certain rules that the world seems to follow but where there are different camps. Red pill vs. blue pill is one of those things.

Take Alexander Grace's Red Pill interviews for instance. One way to test whether red pill is true is to take a risk and go out and ask women point blank about these theories. The more women he approaches, the larger the sample size, the more questions he asks, a pattern emerges. Red pill concepts may never reach 100% certainty, but they don't really need to in order to be true enough to begin to lead your life as if they are true for the sake of self-protection.

Usually those who are most averse to red pill concepts are either naive, meaning they haven't gone to the school of hard knocks, or they have extreme ideological reasons for not buying into it (male feminists, etc...).

Another thing is about business. I'm in my late 40s. I've got my share of office-space type war stories about what works and what doesn't. Who gets promoted and why? How do you deal with conflict?

So when I am talking about "truth" I'm talking about a set of guidelines for how to live that results in the best possible outcomes (on average, hence Gengis Khan is a statistical outlier).

This is something we all do as we go through life, presumably getting better at it as we go along if we're not NPCs, but my personal operating system will be different from your operating system. But I can only go by my own data-set.

I have my own notions of when to take risks and when to play it safe. This way of thinking is all built into the human genome. It's our survival instinct. Our problem solving instinct.

Sometimes you see convergent evolution at work. Two completely different cultures will arive at some very similar conclusions. Joseph Campbell was writing about this in Hero with 1000 faces. It's not necessarily that the monomyth evolved out of one primordial story, but that the story is a direct consequence of fundamental truths of human nature.

So for red pill, how often have posters here quoted some ancient author saying something about how women were back then which is just as valid today? They didn't use a metaphor from The Matrix, but they were saying the same thing.

So the "truths" that I feel most confident in tend to have that sort of backing, but none of them are going to be without dissenters. Just as SJWs are vehemently denying human biological differences or saying that there is no such a thing as beauty standards, etc... You'll never ever achieve complete buy-in.

If people who latch onto falsehoods see that as their truth, that's their prerogative, but then life will attempt to teach them otherwise. They will then either invalidate their model or rationalize/double-down. How often do you hear stories of women continually dating the bad-boy and waiting for prince-charming? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of madness.

Most of us fumble through life like that, clutching at incomplete or wrong models, and then (hopefully) course-correcting. Those who don't wind up like your Anthony Bourdains.

(04-02-2019 09:32 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Is it odd to think that everyone else was "raised in a different culture and indoctrinated to believe X, Y, Z," except for you?

IMHO, you're just evading the question by turning the tables. Think about it.

I'm not going to doxx myself by offering too much autobiographical information. What I will say is that I was raised to be an independent thinker rather than someone expected to carry on a long family/ethnic tradition.

Indeed I do personally have a problem when people just simply say its tradition.

Unless there is a good reason why the tradition existed. What's not to stop that tradition from being discontinued?

But then again we all inherit traditions however short lived they may be. We swim in a cultural environment as finite beings created by a bunch of other finite beings.

We absorb by osmosis many assumptions and ideas which unless examined would not be visible. In the same way fish swim in water and don't notice it quite so much.

Being raised to be a independent thinker is good. And its up to every person to refine the best way to find out the truth.

[questor70]

(04-02-2019 10:56 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Is it odd
Is it odd
Is it odd

I think I've exhausted what can be gained by debating with you, sorry.

(04-03-2019 12:03 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Being raised to be a independent thinker is good. And its up to every person to refine the best way to find out the truth.

Absolutely. And I see value in hearing from people for whom organized religion has been helpful. My upbringing was all about being in proximity to religiosity. While I wasn't steeped in it, I was still exposed to it, and I did not simply reject it all out of hand. I've actually internalized a lot of the moralistic messaging from religion while sidestepping the supernatural aspects. American culture is still very much founded on Christian concepts, and there is a lot of good in that. Too many atheists use their atheism to justify a selfish or amoral life but it doesn't have to be that way. Since most atheists function in a closeted state I think there's just a host of generalizations and misconceptions about them. They are "the other" and your imagination fills in the blanks. But they are not a monolithic group.

Here's an example of something that has a lot of value to me, despite the woo-woo aspects. This is a little soundbite from George Harrison in one of his final interviews. I haven't seen the documentary on his life but the guy was not a saint. Supposedly he was quite a pussy hound and more money/thing oriented than you'd imagine. But again and again I realize that human nature is dualistic. None of us are all good or all bad. To move too far to the extreme, like ascetism vs. hedonism, tends not to be a healthy and sustainable lifestyle. Anything in excess is an addiction or obsession (most Christopher Nolan movies are tales of obsessives). Anything in too small quantities is starvation. It's about balance, and most people struggle greatly with this throughout their lives. I know I do. Any time you try to push an overly restrictive philosophy you'll cause problems, like the priest molestation scandals or the stereotypical catholic schoolgirls who rebel by becoming pornstars. This pendulum swing from one extreme to the other is not helpful.

So one of the problems I have with Christianity is the element of original sin. I look at it more in an evopsych perspective. Humans branched off from lower animals and we carry along baggage. Over time I've come to realize that the vast majority of human behavior is the reptilian brainstem and only a small part of it is transcendant.

Now, I can be resentful of that baggage, try to deny it, shut it out, etc... or I can accept it. I know how stupid and shallow most of it is, but we're stuck with it, so you play along, but you do so with full knowledge of what it is.

[Kaligula]

(04-03-2019 10:50 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 10:56 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Is it odd
Is it odd
Is it odd

I think I've exhausted what can be gained by debating with you, sorry.

(04-03-2019 12:03 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Being raised to be a independent thinker is good. And its up to every person to refine the best way to find out the truth.

Absolutely. And I see value in hearing from people for whom organized religion has been helpful. My upbringing was all about being in proximity to religiosity. While I wasn't steeped in it, I was still exposed to it, and I did not simply reject it all out of hand. I've actually internalized a lot of the moralistic messaging from religion while sidestepping the supernatural aspects. American culture is still very much founded on Christian concepts, and there is a lot of good in that. Too many atheists use their atheism to justify a selfish or amoral life but it doesn't have to be that way. Since most atheists function in a closeted state I think there's just a host of generalizations and misconceptions about them. They are "the other" and your imagination fills in the blanks. But they are not a monolithic group.

Here's an example. This is a little soundbite from George Harrison in one of his final interviews. I haven't seen the documentary on his life but the guy was not a saint. Supposedly he was quite a pussy hound and more money/thing oriented than you'd imagine. But again and again I realize that human nature is dualistic. None of us are all good or all bad. To move too far to the extreme, like ascetism vs. hedonism, tends not to be a healthy and sustainable lifestyle. Anything in excess is an addiction or obsession (most Christopher Nolan movies are tales of obsessives). Anything in too small quantities is starvation. It's about balance, and most people struggle greatly with this throughout their lives. I know I do. Any time you try to push an overly restrictive philosophy you'll cause problems, like the priest molestation scandals or the stereotypical catholic schoolgirls who rebel by becoming pornstars. This pendulum swing from one extreme to the other is not helpful.

So one of the problems I have with Christianity is the element of original sin. I look at it more in an evopsych perspective. Humans branched off from lower animals and we carry along baggage. Over time I've come to realize that the vast majority of human behavior is the reptilian brainstem and only a small part of it is transcendant.

Now, I can be resentful of that baggage, try to deny it, shut it out, etc... or I can accept it. I know how stupid and shallow most of it is, but we're stuck with it, so you play along, but you do so with full knowledge of what it is.

Isn't the original sin concept an instinctual response to the sense of (im)perfection?
Doesn't the concept of karma in Buddhism and Hinduism reflect the same problem that original sin does?

[questor70]

(04-03-2019 11:11 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  

Isn't the original sin concept an instinctual response to the sense of (im)perfection?
Doesn't the concept of karma in Buddhism and Hinduism reflect the same problem that original sin does?

Buddhism is basically self-help on steroids. It's a way for you to level your way up, only it spans multiple reincarnations. In Buddhism your misdeeds are always factored in and you only get a fresh crack at it with each successive generation, like playing a videogame.

Christianity is the epitome of deus ex machina in the form of salvation. This is one reason why, let's say, prisoners on death row convert. It's attractive to think that all your mistakes can be washed away instantly by having someone else take the fall for you (Jesus). I like a good redemption story as much a anybody but it bothers me because it's like....why change today when you can always repent tomorrow? Redemption has to represent an actual change of heart, not pulling a convenient get-out-of-jail-free card.

[Kaligula]

(04-03-2019 11:37 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(04-03-2019 11:11 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  

Isn't the original sin concept an instinctual response to the sense of (im)perfection?
Doesn't the concept of karma in Buddhism and Hinduism reflect the same problem that original sin does?

Buddhism is basically self-help on steroids. It's a way for you to level your way up, only it spans multiple reincarnations. In Buddhism your misdeeds are always factored in and you only get a fresh crack at it with each successive generation, like playing a videogame.

Christianity is the epitome of deus ex machina in the form of salvation. This is one reason why, let's say, prisoners on death row convert. It's attractive to think that all your mistakes can be washed away instantly by having someone else take the fall for you (Jesus). I like a good redemption story as much a anybody but it bothers me because it's like....why change today when you can always repent tomorrow? Redemption has to represent an actual change of heart, not pulling a convenient get-out-of-jail-free card.

You are right about the need for an actual change of heart, but, hey, only God truly knows the heart of man. I mean, if he did not convert truly, don't worry, God shall know. Also, the Church has the right to absolve you of sins, but the Final Judgemnet still stays God's prerogative and the Church cannot give any guarantee whatsoever. Essentially, the Church brings you the possibility of redemption, not guarantee of it; that at least is the Catholic doctrine. It is like buying a lottery ticket - without a ticket you have no chance whatsover, with a ticket maybe, IF you play by the rules. Church is not a proxy of God; in my analogy, Church just runs the lottery, the lottery created by God. The lottery is actually a doctrine in Calvinism which believes in the Elected in Predestination Doctrine. Calvinism is essentially an attempt at re-engineering God's choice.
Protestantism is actually a step back from Catholic universalism, and I always wonder why this exclusivism started in XVI century, when the capitalism started. I mean, Max Weber thought that capitalism was born out of Protestantism, but maybe it was the reverse way? Protestantism out of capitalism? Why did some people urgently need a new vehicle to feel better than others at that time? It did start in big moneyed cities, which then became essentially theocracies (Geneva, Zurich) to a much greater extent than Rome ever was. In Switzerland the Protestant-Catholic war was a war between city-cantons and land-cantons. Catholics won, which actually was good for tolerance...!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_War_of_Kappel

Maybe Protestants, by putting much more weight on the redemption aspect, somehow feel it more real and accesible, but that is still psychology, not theology. Obviously talking a lot about this brings a lot of virtue signalling and last minute converts.
Anyway, the idea that by converting at the deathbed you can somehow erase all your sins is heresy. I think this idea even has its own special, heretic, name, but cannot remember at the moment.

[trickster]

The history of people is the history of perpetually increasing rationality. There's a reason our gods went from all around us to far up in the sky.

[infowarrior1]

(04-03-2019 10:50 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 10:56 PM)_Different_T Wrote:  

Is it odd
Is it odd
Is it odd

I think I've exhausted what can be gained by debating with you, sorry.

(04-03-2019 12:03 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Being raised to be a independent thinker is good. And its up to every person to refine the best way to find out the truth.

Absolutely. And I see value in hearing from people for whom organized religion has been helpful. My upbringing was all about being in proximity to religiosity. While I wasn't steeped in it, I was still exposed to it, and I did not simply reject it all out of hand. I've actually internalized a lot of the moralistic messaging from religion while sidestepping the supernatural aspects. American culture is still very much founded on Christian concepts, and there is a lot of good in that. Too many atheists use their atheism to justify a selfish or amoral life but it doesn't have to be that way. Since most atheists function in a closeted state I think there's just a host of generalizations and misconceptions about them. They are "the other" and your imagination fills in the blanks. But they are not a monolithic group.

Here's an example of something that has a lot of value to me, despite the woo-woo aspects. This is a little soundbite from George Harrison in one of his final interviews. I haven't seen the documentary on his life but the guy was not a saint. Supposedly he was quite a pussy hound and more money/thing oriented than you'd imagine. But again and again I realize that human nature is dualistic. None of us are all good or all bad. To move too far to the extreme, like ascetism vs. hedonism, tends not to be a healthy and sustainable lifestyle. Anything in excess is an addiction or obsession (most Christopher Nolan movies are tales of obsessives). Anything in too small quantities is starvation. It's about balance, and most people struggle greatly with this throughout their lives. I know I do. Any time you try to push an overly restrictive philosophy you'll cause problems, like the priest molestation scandals or the stereotypical catholic schoolgirls who rebel by becoming pornstars. This pendulum swing from one extreme to the other is not helpful.

So one of the problems I have with Christianity is the element of original sin. I look at it more in an evopsych perspective. Humans branched off from lower animals and we carry along baggage. Over time I've come to realize that the vast majority of human behavior is the reptilian brainstem and only a small part of it is transcendant.

Now, I can be resentful of that baggage, try to deny it, shut it out, etc... or I can accept it. I know how stupid and shallow most of it is, but we're stuck with it, so you play along, but you do so with full knowledge of what it is.

It is a horrible concept. But as far as human records go. It definitely based on truth. Plenty of massacres and genocides to choose from.

Innocent people suffering because of the evil of other men and women.


In fact prehistory was the most violent epoch of humanities existence. And ancient civilizations despite being very violent was more peaceful. See my post I did about Human domestication.

Not to mention all the other non-visible acts of evil. The lies that destroy lives and that which held back humanity for millennia.


Whilst I am still on the fence on the evopsych perspective.

[infowarrior1]

(04-03-2019 11:37 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(04-03-2019 11:11 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  

Isn't the original sin concept an instinctual response to the sense of (im)perfection?
Doesn't the concept of karma in Buddhism and Hinduism reflect the same problem that original sin does?

Buddhism is basically self-help on steroids. It's a way for you to level your way up, only it spans multiple reincarnations. In Buddhism your misdeeds are always factored in and you only get a fresh crack at it with each successive generation, like playing a videogame.

Christianity is the epitome of deus ex machina in the form of salvation. This is one reason why, let's say, prisoners on death row convert. It's attractive to think that all your mistakes can be washed away instantly by having someone else take the fall for you (Jesus). I like a good redemption story as much a anybody but it bothers me because it's like....why change today when you can always repent tomorrow? Redemption has to represent an actual change of heart, not pulling a convenient get-out-of-jail-free card.

It is a mercy for both criminal and society. The criminal gets removed permanently from society so that non-genuine remorse would not even matter. And he/she gets the comfort of knowing that he/she is coming to a better place than now.


As for redemption. It is expected that converts are after repentance to transform their character over time. You know what we call the fruits of the spirit.

If there is no difference in outlook,desires or characters for the better. That person's faith is fake. And he is not saved.

[BortimusPrime]

(04-03-2019 08:56 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

It is a mercy for both criminal and society. The criminal gets removed permanently from society so that non-genuine remorse would not even matter. And he/she gets the comfort of knowing that he/she is coming to a better place than now.

Yeesh, if you can't torment people who rape toddlers to death by telling them about what awaits them for eternity, then what's the point? Like that WKUK sketch:

Sam: "My dick exploded and locusts flew out!"
Trevor: "Yeah, you already told us about that."
Sam: "Well it happened a LOT!"

[questor70]

(04-03-2019 12:03 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Whilst I am still on the fence on the evopsych perspective.

Unpleasant facts can't really be disregarded because they're unpleasant, though.

I think at heart I'm a misanthrope in the sense that I know full well how "buggy" homo sapiens is, basically unfinished evolution interrupted by the agricultural revolution.

Much of the mental constructs we fashion are meant to sort of function as an apologia for this. You have attempts to deflect blame (the devil made me do it), come up with magic solutions (salvation, rapture, etc...), or just redefine morality so you don't feel guilty about it (Gordon Gecko's Greed is good speech or Conan's lamentation of the women speech).

The Gengis Khan article from ROK is of the "redefine morality" bucket.

But from an evopsych perspective I see morality as an adaptation facilitating child-rearing and tribal cooperation. Where humans fight other humans, this is the downside of the tribalism and male dominance hierarchies (ala Scarface: first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women).

Universal morality never really pans out because of tribalism and because humans are expert rationalizers.

Even Charles Manson didn't think he was a bad guy nor did he think he had a mental problem. Everyone ELSE was crazy and he was the only sane person.

This is why Buddhism says the ego is the problem. The ego sets us at the center of the universe and once you need to see yourself as protagonist you will live in your own reality distortion field to protect your own self-image. But are we really so nice?

[RatInTheWoods]

(04-04-2019 12:53 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

But from an evopsych perspective I see morality as an adaptation facilitating child-rearing and tribal cooperation. Where humans fight other humans, this is the downside of the tribalism and male dominance hierarchies

This is mostly true, but you are missing the beam of hope:

Empathy

This is why most atheists are decent people, why we don't torture animals, rape grannies and steal things.

We know inherently that its a bad thing to have happen to us through empathy, so we don't do it to others.

When we collectively treat each other well, we succeed as a tribe/team/society and we all benefit and pass on our genes.

Revenge, jealousy and protecting turf (nationalism, racism, war) are the dark side of the equation, but still aimed at the same goal - keeping everyone honest and doing the right thing for the good of the tribe.

Even religion was invented to sort of do the same thing - make people behave so the tribe can flourish.

Our problem is the 3% of psychopaths that are in the gene pool - they fuck it up for everyone, be their religious or not, especially when they get into positions of power.

[infowarrior1]

(04-04-2019 12:53 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(04-03-2019 12:03 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Whilst I am still on the fence on the evopsych perspective.

Unpleasant facts can't really be disregarded because they're unpleasant, though.

I think at heart I'm a misanthrope in the sense that I know full well how "buggy" homo sapiens is, basically unfinished evolution interrupted by the agricultural revolution.

Much of the mental constructs we fashion are meant to sort of function as an apologia for this. You have attempts to deflect blame (the devil made me do it), come up with magic solutions (salvation, rapture, etc...), or just redefine morality so you don't feel guilty about it (Gordon Gecko's Greed is good speech or Conan's lamentation of the women speech).

The Gengis Khan article from ROK is of the "redefine morality" bucket.

But from an evopsych perspective I see morality as an adaptation facilitating child-rearing and tribal cooperation. Where humans fight other humans, this is the downside of the tribalism and male dominance hierarchies (ala Scarface: first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women).

Universal morality never really pans out because of tribalism and because humans are expert rationalizers.

Even Charles Manson didn't think he was a bad guy nor did he think he had a mental problem. Everyone ELSE was crazy and he was the only sane person.

This is why Buddhism says the ego is the problem. The ego sets us at the center of the universe and once you need to see yourself as protagonist you will live in your own reality distortion field to protect your own self-image. But are we really so nice?

If I was younger I would be completely on board with evopsych. But I think Voxdays take and debate with JF Geriepy on it. Made me not so sure.

The numbers that he used in the debate:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/02/maxim...tions.html


About the redefinition of morality

How does one know morality is being redefined away or to objective good?

All sides of an intractable conflict think they are in the right. And their morality is the true and objective morality and the other side are the morality redefiners.

Quote:

Revenge, jealousy and protecting turf (nationalism, racism, war) are the dark side of the equation, but still aimed at the same goal - keeping everyone honest and doing the right thing for the good of the tribe.

Even religion was invented to sort of do the same thing - make people behave so the tribe can flourish.

Our problem is the 3% of psychopaths that are in the gene pool - they fuck it up for everyone, be their religious or not, especially when they get into positions of power

You know even between human tribes. Stepping on other tribes repeatedly do not always work out for the tribe.


In times of non-viable treatment of psychopathy there is always capital punishment. Which has historically reduced the proportions of psychopathic individuals who act this way:

Quote:

The criminals were five in number. I was much disappointed at the unconcern and carelessness that appeared in the faces of three of the unhappy wretches; the countenance of the other two were spread with that horror and despair which is not to be wondered at in men whose period of life is so near [...]


[...] the three thoughtless young men, who at first seemed not enough concerned, grew most shamefully wanton and daring, behaving themselves in a manner that would have been ridiculous in men in any circumstances whatever. They swore, laughed, and talked obscenely, and wished their wicked companions good luck with as much assurance as if their employment had been the most lawful.


At the place of execution the scene grew still more shocking, and the clergyman who attended was more the subject of ridicule than of their serious attention. The Psalm was sung amidst the curses and quarrelling of hundreds of the most abandoned and profligate of mankind, upon them (so stupid are they to any sense of decency) all the preparation of the unhappy wretches seems to serve only for subject of a barbarous kind of mirth, altogether inconsistent with humanity. And as soon as the poor creatures were half dead, I was much surprised to see the populace fall to hauling and pulling the carcasses with so much earnestness as to occasion several warm rencounters and broken heads. These, I was told, were the friends of the persons executed, or such as, for the sake of tumult, chose to appear so; as well as some persons sent by private surgeons to obtain bodies for dissection. The contests between these were fierce and bloody, and frightful to look at [...] The face of every one spoke a kind of mirth, as if the spectacle they beheld had afforded pleasure instead of pain, which I am wholly unable to account for. (Hayward, 2013, pp. 8-10)

I think that as far as this is concerned evopsych is proven:

Rendering possible the path to the present day high-trust society the west has today.

[WalterBlack]

Iraq's atheists go underground as Sunni, Shiite hard-liners dominate

Quote:

Fadi does not believe in God, and he is terrified.

In a Baghdad cafe, the medical student sits far from other customers, and glances over his shoulder to make sure nobody is watching and listening.

“I am afraid of being discovered — then I would be killed,” he says in a voice that rarely rises above a whisper. “This may also harm my family, although none of them know that I don’t believe.”

Fadi, 23, says that he could be targeted for believing that God and all of the world religions are human inventions. To avoid detection, he deletes all searches on his computer and cellphone.

Like all of the 20 atheists NBC News spoke to, Fadi asked to be identified by a pseudonym to avoid being targeted by militias or police.

Although Islam is the state religion and it is against the law to slander or insult any faith, atheism itself is not illegal in Iraq, according to legal expert Ali al-Timimi. Anecdotal evidence suggests a small but growing community of Iraqi agnostics and atheists in the Muslim-majority country. One Facebook page called Iraq's Agnostics and Atheists has nearly 13,000 likes and 17,000 followers.

But power, violence and religion are a toxic mix.

Many of Iraq’s unbelievers have been forced underground as religious hard-liners battle for control of the young democracy, which is struggling to balance the demands of both Sunnis and Shiites, plus smaller ethnic and religious communities.

Since the dictator Saddam Hussein was toppled by the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, theocratic Shiite Iran has grown in power in Iraq. Powerful Shiite organizations control key parts of the government, such as the Interior Ministry, which is dominated by the hard-line Iran-linked militia, the Badr Organization.

The war-ravaged country is inching toward a semblance of normality after largely defeating the Islamic State group, which had conquered swaths of its territory. Propelled by widespread Sunni anger at Shiite domination, ISIS fightersenslaved, raped and killed thousands. Dozens of mainly Iran-backed Shiite paramilitary groups were crucial to beating the militant group in 2017, and are blamed for extrajudicial disappearances and killings.

"Have you ever heard of a militia that is formed by atheists?" engineering student Darwin, 21, says. "No, only those who have religion form militias and death squads. They are the reason behind the destruction of life, the destruction of humanity."

Under Saddam, dissenters were targeted and tortured — particularly ethnic Kurds and members of the Islamic Dawa Party backed by Iran. His government also detained his Sunni coreligionists and members of other groups that challenged his rule.

Darwin, who was raised in a devoutly Shiite family in the southern holy city of Najaf, once shared his thoughts on science and religion via Facebook, where he posted under a false identity.

"We used to talk about different issues, and exchange information," he says.

But he deleted this page about a year ago.

"I heard militias had started to chase us, and they had the technology and people to track my account," he says.

In a move that struck fear in Iraq’s small community of atheists, police in October arrested Ihsan Mousa, the owner of a bookstore in southern Iraq. They accused him of selling works that encouraged readers to reject Islam, according to local media reports.

Col. Rashad Mizel, a local police official, told NBC News that Mousa had been released after promising not to sell the offending books again. The Interior Ministry did not respond to requests for comments on the case. Mousa was not available for comment.

Islamist intellectual and researcher Ghalib al-Shahbandar is alarmed by what he sees as a growing number of nonbelievers.

“A wave of atheism will overwhelm Iraq because of the wrong practices of Islamic parties,” he says. “They are what has forced people to avoid Islam and other religions.”

Islam is the only major religious group projected to grow faster than the world’s population as a whole over the next 30 years, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center study. Still, Shahbandar says, many Iraqis are turning away from God because of falsely religious politicians.

“Most of those who are part of Islamic parties do not shake hands with women in public, but they do in secret,” he says. Some conservative Muslims avoid direct contact with unrelated members of the opposite sex.

“I hope that this wave of atheism is not going to grow," Shahbandar adds.

It isn’t only young Iraqis who reject the faith of their ancestors. Painter Abu Sami, 52, waited five years after his wedding to confess to his wife that he did not believe in God.

It did not go well.

“At first she refused to stay with me and threatened to tell her parents and ask for a divorce,” he says.

Eventually his wife realized that she would not be able to change his beliefs, which were born during a childhood as the son of a communist. These ideas flourished after the U.S. invasion, and during the sectarian civil war that followed.

Abu Sami’s atheism is a relatively open secret in his Baghdad home, with his older sons — 21 and 17 — privy to their father’s outlook. But the youngest, who is 14, hasn’t been told because he might talk to friends and endanger the family.

Abu Sami cites ISIS' actions as an example of the destructive appeal of religion.

“We used to hear that Islam is the religion of peace, but ISIS behaved like monsters, barbarians and even worse,” he says.

“Their God did not tell them to kill prisoners, did not tell them to kidnap, and rape women, did not tell them to take women and children as slaves," he added. "Is this a peaceful religion? It is not at all, and I do not want to be part of such a religion.”

[BortimusPrime]

Christians frequently complain that atheists only pick on them despite all the far nastier things done in the name of Islam. I see it as more of a sign of respect to the Christians that they're seen as able to be argued with without resulting in violence.

[Hannibal]

It's more a sign of disrespect to the religion of Christianity.

Even the atheists are too piss scared to call out Islam so they only pick targets that refuse to defend themselves with unbelievable levels of violence.