Post Something Interesting

[BROUSER]

The only mistake bigger than a completely literal reading of the bible is to totally disregard the bible. I'm an atheist, but I see the social value of religion. Of course, as with anything else, anything that can be so beneficial can also cause a lot of damage.

[Willard]

This isn't aimed at you, willard.

Understood.

[GlassCurtain]

The only mistake bigger than a completely literal reading of the bible is to totally disregard the bible. I'm an atheist, but I see the social value of religion. Of course, as with anything else, anything that can be so beneficial can also cause a lot of damage.

I'm an atheist as well. Could you elaborate on what you mean by the social value of religion?

[BROUSER]

Sure. Religion provides us with some pretty good guidelines on how to treat each other so we can get along. In the great and necessary social machine, religion is a lubricant which allows parts to move together without friction. That's not to say that this lubricant doesn't have some metal shavings in it. Along with "Love thy neighbor" and be good to poor people, we also have the whole thing about stoning people to death over some pretty minor stuff. It's not a perfect lubricant. It isn't Pennzoil. More along the lines of bear fat. I do believe the needs of the social machine have outstripped the viscosity level of the lubricant. But it still serves a purpose. I'm a secular humanist, but the dark side of atheism is nihilism, and "Fuck me, Dude, say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos." I know some pretty enlightened people who worship regularly. I also know a lot who go through the motions because that's what you are supposed to do. Then they use the negative social value of religion (mob mentality) to attempt to dictate the functions of society. As a secular humanist, all I can say is thank god for Thomas Jefferson.

[GlassCurtain]

Are you saying we wouldn't have morality without religion? I'd have to disagree with that.

[BROUSER]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that religion is the pretty package for morality that the masses are more likely to purchase than just straight morality to fulfill a social contract. Comparing society to the individual (which is probably a little dangerous), the moral development of our society is somewhere around level 3-4 in Kohlberg's stages of moral development. That's not to say there aren't many inviduals who haven't progressed beyond that level, who are at Kohlberg's fifth level of moral development. But you have to take into account all of society and observations of society's actions, not those of individuals. Religion provides the necessary authority for level five (beyond that of the authority of man alone), as well as a group (church) to ensure the individually observed necessity for interpersonal accord. That group necessity has become a little outdated. In an agrarian or other primitive society (shepherds), church was one of the main reasons people came together. Now that we all socialize and interact constantly, traditional religious and moral values are lagging behind social necessity.

[BROUSER]

Of course, religion also satisfies the parameters for structure required by Kohlberg's first and second stages of moral development. I'm a Kohlberg fan, to an extent. Gilligan (not the one on the island) provided a necessary perspective on alternatives to his view which included greater emphasis on interpersonal relationships, but I think he got the framework right. Unfortunately, society does not do much to move people toward higher levels of moral development, so many get stuck at stages three and four. Our education system is the worst with its simple system of rewards and punishments by authority to induce proper moral behavior.

[GlassCurtain]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that religion is the pretty package for morality that the masses are more likely to purchase than just straight morality to fulfill a social contract. Comparing society to the individual (which is probably a little dangerous), the moral development of our society is somewhere around level 3-4 in Kohlberg's stages of moral development. That's not to say there aren't many inviduals who haven't progressed beyond that level, who are at Kohlberg's fifth level of moral development. But you have to take into account all of society and observations of society's actions, not those of individuals. Religion provides the necessary authority for level five (beyond that of the authority of man alone), as well as a group (church) to ensure the individually observed necessity for interpersonal accord. That group necessity has become a little outdated. In an agrarian or other primitive society (shepherds), church was one of the main reasons people came together. Now that we all socialize and interact constantly, traditional religious and moral values are lagging behind social necessity.

Ah ok! That makes sense! Thanks for clarifying.

[GlassCurtain]

SCIENTISTS DISCOVER MOST RELAXING TUNE EVER

It's an interesting read. The link to the song:

http://soundcloud.com/justmusiclabel/ma ... ss/s-kttxT

[SubLunar]

SCIENTISTS DISCOVER MOST RELAXING TUNE EVER

It's an interesting read. The link to the song:

http://soundcloud.com/justmusiclabel/ma ... ss/s-kttxT

I haven't listened to the song yet, but I very much approve of the idea.

[SubLunar]

One last point in my anti-preacher rant. Here, we have the basis for the "No sex before marriage" stand that these pastors love to rave about. Note that it's fairly ambigous and doesn't specifically say that it's any big crime. It doesn't specifically call for any punishment or anything. It really just suggests that you don't have sex outside of marriage. It doesn't sound like marriage is a holy institution, rather just a means to have sex.

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

You want to know what is huge crime though? The bible is VERY clear on this point. No ambiguity here. As I quoted earlier, with bold added for effect:

You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on that day must be put to death. (NLT)

Exodus 35:2

Why aren't pastors calling for mass executions of people who work on Sundays? Why are they instead focusing on things that generate business for them, like marriage? Well, I think that's obvious.

-

Of course, religion also satisfies the parameters for structure required by Kohlberg's first and second stages of moral development. I'm a Kohlberg fan, to an extent. Gilligan (not the one on the island) provided a necessary perspective on alternatives to his view which included greater emphasis on interpersonal relationships, but I think he got the framework right. Unfortunately, society does not do much to move people toward higher levels of moral development, so many get stuck at stages three and four. Our education system is the worst with its simple system of rewards and punishments by authority to induce proper moral behavior.

I'm mostly agnostic. I was raised Lutheran, but have come to the conclusion that we are only human and are therefore limited to our sense perceptions. As such, we can't possibly define "God" explicitly as some of the religious zealots claim to be able to do. I see the faults in the Bible and the preachings of those who claim to follow it. But I also appreciate its good parts.

I won't go as far as to say that I'm atheist; Just because there is no actual evidence of a god (that I can perceive) doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Sure it sounds silly from a cold, logical perspective, to believe in a super-being out there in the cosmos, but I am comfortable being silly sometimes. I am not comfortable relying on my limited set of perceptions to make claims about things beyond my grasp, however. Anyone who argues against the existence of God sounds just as silly, from my point of view, as anyone who argues for the existence of God. You either believe or you don't. Faith doesn't require proof. For all we know, God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster. He created the Big Bang and Evolution is part of the process that the Holy Pasta Deity put into motion. We are created out of Spaghetti Sauce and Cilantro. Jesus was beamed down from the mothership to save us. Amen. The Masons refer to the various religious subjects of worship collectively as the Supreme Architect of the Universe. They are religion inclusive and that's how I like to be.

It is for this reason I will neither refute the existence of Deity nor will I make any foolish attempt to prove one exists. It's comforting believing that there is something out there beyond this existence. Developmentally and morally, it doesn't hurt as long as it's done right.

I was spoon-fed religion, however. I wasn't given the choice to believe. I may never come to find God on my own in a brilliant flash of spiritual Euphoria as some claim to have done. I feel like I was robbed of the organic nature of spirituality by being forced to believe it from an early age starting in Kindergarten at a private school. This type of indoctrination fuels the religious fanaticism that causes all sorts of issues for people. When someone zealously clings to their faith and yet cannot point to a reason why, it's a good sign they were forced to believe and there is probably no cure. Some of the most insane and maladjusted individuals were associated with that school. I was fortunate enough to have seen the light and I took on the role of the black sheep. I fought everything and everyone at that school. I was finally kicked out in 7th grade. Getting expelled was one of the best things that ever happened to me.

So although I can admit to believing in something, I will never attempt to define it. I have no loyalty to any denomination and I would rather do just about anything than go to church.

[Kit]

I am going to play that all day at work to all the employees

[SubLunar]

SCIENTISTS DISCOVER MOST RELAXING TUNE EVER

It's an interesting read. The link to the song:

http://soundcloud.com/justmusiclabel/ma ... ss/s-kttxT

Just listened to it. Not shabby, but All India Radio and Boards of Canada have been making sounds like this for a long time. And the beat goes away after a while, so you're left with a fairly generic drone sound. Nothing groundbreaking musically, but I like the scientific approach to making relaxing/meditative music.

[BROUSER]

It is for this reason I will neither refute the existence of Deity nor will I make any foolish attempt to prove one exists. It's comforting believing that there is something out there beyond this existence. Developmentally and morally, it doesn't hurt as long as it's done right.

Good stance. It seems a lot of people view atheists as anti-god. I just seem to lack the ability to believe. I place no value on belief or disbelief. It's a personal thing for me. You believe? Not a problem for me. To me belief or lack of belief is like being either left or right handed. It's just a trait. And forcing someone to believe or disbelieve is as bad as forcing someone to use their other hand when they are inclined one way or another.

[Kit]

I listened to that song all day. I did not feel more relaxed. I think it only works if you are not knee deep in work.