Meaning that, if you see communism as a quasi religious movement that wanted to build the city of God on this planet they did not like to see competition there, or it was dogma that the only way of getting there was communism.
It is pretty much the same idea as the Christian paradise where you get through the belief in Jesus and Jesus alone.
I don’t see communism as a quasi religious movement. I see it as a secular movement.
Why can´t a quasi religion not be secular?
Surely the need for organized religion is not gone just because we killed God?
Exactly what is a “quasi religion?” Is it a secular and atheistic regime, or not? You seem to want to define religion simply as “organized.” [/quote]
And again, gnostic, manichaeic, eschatological, complete with sinners, saints, martyrs and prophets.
National Socialism and Communism are both faith systems, their scientific foundations are as solid as theology, meaning, not at all.
If you seek salvation through racial purity or common ownership of the means of production or by believing in Christ and spreading his words is a mere detail.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I agree with Orion that Communism and Fascism… or Capitalism, even, can loosely be described as religions, in that they have their prophets (Marx and Engels, Mussolini and Hitler, Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises), their sacred texts (Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Wealth of Nations), their absolute faith in unprovable phenomena (the “invisible hand”), and the incontrovertible belief of their adherents that they and they alone hold the truth.
Religion can exist, indeed, surely does exist, in the absence of the worship of God. [/quote]
I do not think you can put capitalism in there.
First it is no “ism”, that was a trick of capitalism opponents to pull capitalism down to their level and make it seem like it is on equal terms with communism, socialism etc…
Then, capitalism is something that evolved through human interaction first and was then described, not the other way around like “isms”.
That there is a science that by no means leans to any side by default, but does come out strongly on the side of capitalism when it comes to the allocation of scarce resources, i.e economics does not help your argument either.
Phenomena like the “invisible hand” are also not supernatural in nature but simple, refutable claim about human nature.
All, in all, while you can call the believe of some in f.e., “free markets” , a dogma, there are no real rules written in stone when it comes to economics.
You do not have to believe in capitalism, it works anyhow.
A lot of people believe in socialism and it does not work in spite of it.
Meaning that, if you see communism as a quasi religious movement that wanted to build the city of God on this planet they did not like to see competition there, or it was dogma that the only way of getting there was communism.
It is pretty much the same idea as the Christian paradise where you get through the belief in Jesus and Jesus alone.
I don’t see communism as a quasi religious movement. I see it as a secular movement.
Why can´t a quasi religion not be secular?
Surely the need for organized religion is not gone just because we killed God?
Exactly what is a “quasi religion?” Is it a secular and atheistic regime, or not? You seem to want to define religion simply as “organized.”
And again, gnostic, manichaeic, eschatological, complete with sinners, saints, martyrs and prophets.
National Socialism and Communism are both faith systems, their scientific foundations are as solid as theology, meaning, not at all.
If you seek salvation through racial purity or common ownership of the means of production or by believing in Christ and spreading his words is a mere detail.
[/quote]
So, again, you want to define religion as nothing more than “organized?” You have to admit Orion, there’s no point in arguing with someone who is willing to redefine a secular and atheistic regime into a religious one.
Meaning that, if you see communism as a quasi religious movement that wanted to build the city of God on this planet they did not like to see competition there, or it was dogma that the only way of getting there was communism.
It is pretty much the same idea as the Christian paradise where you get through the belief in Jesus and Jesus alone.
I don’t see communism as a quasi religious movement. I see it as a secular movement.
Why can´t a quasi religion not be secular?
Surely the need for organized religion is not gone just because we killed God?
Exactly what is a “quasi religion?” Is it a secular and atheistic regime, or not? You seem to want to define religion simply as “organized.”
And again, gnostic, manichaeic, eschatological, complete with sinners, saints, martyrs and prophets.
National Socialism and Communism are both faith systems, their scientific foundations are as solid as theology, meaning, not at all.
If you seek salvation through racial purity or common ownership of the means of production or by believing in Christ and spreading his words is a mere detail.
So, again, you want to define religion as nothing more than “organized?” You have to admit Orion, there’s no point in arguing with someone who is willing to redefine a secular and atheistic regime into a religious one. [/quote]
No I do not define any organization as religion.
Just those that do claim to have some special irrefutable knowledge (gnostic) that divide mankind in good and evil, pure, unpure (manichäic), and claim to work towards paradise for its followers, be it in this life or the next.
If they have charismatic leaders and the whole other decorum of religions it helps of course.
This is why the Nazis were a secular religion and the US post office is not.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
A religious text can be judged to be true if it’s internally consistent, non-contradictory, has historical evidence behind it, and is explanatory of the basic condition of man and his relationship to God and the nature and origin of the cosmos:
Those conditions do not establish objective truth in any way, shape or form.
All religious texts I’m familiar with are contradictory with themselves and/or contain errors pertaining to what we know now about the world.
As for the relationship with god, arguing the truth of the relationship before establishing whether there is a god at all is putting the cart before the horses.
Try Dianetics or Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard. Those books are not sold as “novels” but as truthful works of how man, his mind, his soul, etc. work.
Similar to your Bible or to the Koran, if different in style and ideas.
They form the basis for a religion, have a sizeable number of adherents and, most importantly, meet all your standards for truth.
See above.
You could also add Anton Lavey’s “Satanic Bible” to the list, although that one works within the Christian God/Satan framework. It’s a “life guide” based on more selfish values than the various “commandments” (all three sets of them, maybe four, if you count the NT) of the Bible. It’s like an “extreme right-wing” rules of life.
Claiming that god doesn’t exist is not extraordinary. Non-existence is the default. Just like claiming that dragons or unicorns or fairies do not exist, claiming that god doesn’t has nothing special about it. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
For example, you cannot prove to me (or anyone) that Batman doesn’t exist.
Or for a more prosaic example, prove that Sherlock Holmes never existed even though his life and major accomplishments are well documented and quite consistent internally. There also set in a real city and detail existing places. 221B Baker St. is easily accessible.
The only difference is that Arthur Conan Doyle never claimed that he was writing about a real, live person.
But maybe he was writing about someone real, but simply decided to pass it off as fiction (the reverse of the Bible - fiction mixed in with facts, but passed off as all factual). I could claim that Sherlock, in fact lived and existed, and when faced with unbelief on your part, retort with “Well, prove to me he never existed!”
That’s why the onus of proof is on the claimant. You can make thousands of ridiculous claims and while most can be summarily rejected, it’s not possible to “prove” any of the false.
Another book for you: The Book of Mormon. Jesus comes to America with Indian Jews… or something similar. Prove that false.
Couldn’t a man named Jesus, a wise and moral teacher, have existed and preached love of one another without performing miracles? Couldn’t those have been added as “embellishment” as the tale was retold mouth to ear before being put down on paper.
Mary wasn’t “officially” a virgin until somewhere around 400AD… where it then became canon/dogma that she was.
Anyway, even a simple non-miracle performing man named Jesus who did whatever normal things are described in the Gospels has no historical secular support (see my long, long post above). If we can’t find any evidence for just the man, how likely are the miracles and other extraordinary events likely to be?
Absence of evidence is exactly that: Absence of evidence. Claims with no evidence have no reason, other than personal whim or childhood upbringing, to be believed.
There’s a reason we ask for evidence in court before convicting someone. There’s a reason that scientific theories are accepted when there is a lot of supporting evidence for them (ie, Quantum Mechanics or Relativity) but rejected when there is not (orgone energy, or the Aether of space)…
Without evidence, all claims are equally true. Or untrue. But deciding between one or the other is just a matter of preference.
Yes. Because no one has ever demonstrated that the laws of nature can be suspended or circumvented. Even in this age of digital cameras and ever present recording media, any “supernatural” event recorded is always either a trick, a special effect, or a natural occurrence that gets misinterpreted.
Even miracles, such as cancers going into remissions or diseases curing themselves most certainly have a natural explanation for them, although we might not understand it yet. Why don’t we ever see an amputee regrow an arm or a leg?
[quote]3. skepticism
These are beliefs you hold.[/quote]
Yes. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? I think a healthy dose of skepticism is one of the best trait a person can have.
Can I list your traits?
Gullible. Stories of wonder are true by default.
Uncritical thinker. Only considers “his side” of an issue. Dismisses any possible validity to the other side.
Afraid of reality. Requires the security of having an invisible, omnipresent “Father” watching over him.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
You probably missed my comment back on page four or wherever. It’s not such a vociferous disagreement, just my perspective. To repeat:[/quote]
No, no, I saw it. It simply seems to agree with what I said. Like RJ, you simply don’t mind the picking enough to be bothered by it, or have other bothers that vastly override that one.
My point was not about the popularity of the measure; simply that churches are indirectly supported with our taxes since they don’t contribute.
Yeah, well with a bullet each, the whole problem would be solved.
[quote]pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…
Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit
Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.
Who are we to argue with His design decisions?
[/quote]
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least thelazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scrathings that are good for ou thats all we want for fucks saes is that too much to ask for?[/quote]
[quote]pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least thelazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scrathings that are good for ou thats all we want for fucks saes is that too much to ask for?
What, and take all the challenge out of life?
[/quote]
No you are right Pookie, lets say he did a bang up job, I am sure the disabled fucking love the challenges they face everyday and enjoy the pain and suffering becuase without that fuck life would just be one unchallenging bore would’nt it?
[quote]Those conditions do not establish objective truth in any way, shape or form.
All religious texts I’m familiar with are contradictory with themselves and/or contain errors pertaining to what we know now about the world.
As for the relationship with god, arguing the truth of the relationship before establishing whether there is a god at all is putting the cart before the horses.[/quote]
According to the correspondence theory of truth:
I believe the criteria I described are valid.
I think your objection to the existence of God relies on the fact that science hasn’t demonstrated His existence. Science cannot do such a thing, as it is in the business of looking for naturalistic causes for phenomena. It has adopted naturalism as its presupposition. In other words, it begins with the assumption that natural events happen without any divine intervention and ends with the conclusion that natural events occur without any divine intervention. Science isn’t in the business of answering the question of whether a God-less epistemology is rational or warranted or logically coherent, it just assumes it and leaves the epistemology to philosophers or ignores it altogether (usually the latter, as in the case of Dawkins et al).
Christians begin with the assumption that there is a God and He therefore ordered the cosmos. We’re comfortable with whatever science says about the beginning of the universe and so on because we know that the same God that ordered the universe also ordained abstract laws of logic, rationality, and the ability to acquire scientific knowledge. Therefore, scientific knowledge will never conflict with the idea of the existence of God.
[quote]Try Dianetics or Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard. Those books are not sold as “novels” but as truthful works of how man, his mind, his soul, etc. work.
Similar to your Bible or to the Koran, if different in style and ideas.
They form the basis for a religion, have a sizeable number of adherents and, most importantly, meet all your standards for truth.[/quote]
You just admitted that Dianetics makes claims about the human soul, rationality, and etc. Unsurprisingly, a religion sprang up around such a work. As far as I know, no religion has organized around books like “Moby Dick” or “Great Expectations.”
I’m willing to debate the claims of Dianetics, but I’m not familiar with them so you’ll have to inform me. The Qur’an is internally self-contradictory given its use of the doctrine of naskh.
Why is non-existence the default? Because you say it is? “Non-existence” itself is a claim, therefore you bear equal burden of proof.
[quote]Couldn’t a man named Jesus, a wise and moral teacher, have existed and preached love of one another without performing miracles? Couldn’t those have been added as “embellishment” as the tale was retold mouth to ear before being put down on paper.
Mary wasn’t “officially” a virgin until somewhere around 400AD… where it then became canon/dogma that she was.
Anyway, even a simple non-miracle performing man named Jesus who did whatever normal things are described in the Gospels has no historical secular support (see my long, long post above). If we can’t find any evidence for just the man, how likely are the miracles and other extraordinary events likely to be?[/quote]
You’ve assumed anti-supernaturalism here to attempt to invalidate the claims of the Gospels. This is a presupposition on your part.
The “absence of evidence” I mentioned was in regard to historical artifacts and texts verifying a man named Jesus existed. (BTW, I don’t know if there is an absence, I was just highlighting a presupposition you made). There is plenty of evidence for the claims in the New Testament for anyone willing to look, to wit, man is a sinful creature and in need of a savior in order to be right with God. You may have a problem with the God part, but there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that man is wicked, so there’s some evidence for the Bible’s claims right in front of your face.
[quote]Mary wasn’t “officially” a virgin until somewhere around 400AD… where it then became canon/dogma that she was.
[/quote]
Actually, the Apostle’s Creed contained the doctrine of the virgin birth. The Apostle’s Creed dates back to the apostolic church, much earlier than 400.
[quote]Yes. Because no one has ever demonstrated that the laws of nature can be suspended or circumvented. Even in this age of digital cameras and ever present recording media, any “supernatural” event recorded is always either a trick, a special effect, or a natural occurrence that gets misinterpreted.
Even miracles, such as cancers going into remissions or diseases curing themselves most certainly have a natural explanation for them, although we might not understand it yet. Why don’t we ever see an amputee regrow an arm or a leg?[/quote]
If you’re saying science doesn’t have an explanation for everything yet, how can you be certain it won’t verify the existence of the supernatural at some point? Haven’t you already made up your mind that everything has a naturalistic explanation? If so, aren’t you caught in what we’d call “a vicious circle?”
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
No you are right Pookie, lets say he did a bang up job, I am sure the disabled fucking love the challenges they face everyday and enjoy the pain and suffering becuase without that fuck life would just be one unchallenging bore would’nt it?[/quote]
Well, god has a special plan for them. They’ll be rewarded in their next life. This one? Shut up and endure, Stumpy.
OR… that’ll teach their parents to be such awful sinners. God wouldn’t have had to punish the parent by disabling their kid if they’d been gooder.
God still loves them though, they can take comfort in that.
[quote]pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
No you are right Pookie, lets say he did a bang up job, I am sure the disabled fucking love the challenges they face everyday and enjoy the pain and suffering becuase without that fuck life would just be one unchallenging bore would’nt it?
Well, god has a special plan for them. They’ll be rewarded in their next life. This one? Shut up and endure, Stumpy.
OR… that’ll teach their parents to be such awful sinners. God wouldn’t have had to punish the parent by disabling their kid if they’d been gooder.
God still loves them though, they can take comfort in that.
[/quote]
Man, you been attending my church? We just had the “disability as punishment for Dad’s adultery” type of sermon. We left out and did same gay bashing, blew up some abortion clinics, doomed strangers downtown to hell, stoned some scantily clad women, and overall had us a fine Sunday morning. Yeeeeeeehaaaaaaw!
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…
Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit
Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.
Who are we to argue with His design decisions?
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?
[/quote]
[quote]pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
No you are right Pookie, lets say he did a bang up job, I am sure the disabled fucking love the challenges they face everyday and enjoy the pain and suffering becuase without that fuck life would just be one unchallenging bore would’nt it?
Well, god has a special plan for them. They’ll be rewarded in their next life. This one? Shut up and endure, Stumpy.
OR… that’ll teach their parents to be such awful sinners. God wouldn’t have had to punish the parent by disabling their kid if they’d been gooder.
God still loves them though, they can take comfort in that.
[/quote]
So you would like me to worship someone who punishes people for not following his rulebook? That is not very Christian if you ask me.
Also I would love for you to video yourself at a school for disabled kids, explaining to every parent that visits exactly what you just told me above, then please post the video for everyones enjotment, cheers
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
pookie wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
I would like to bring this discussion back down to my level if I may…
Remember if there is a god he watches you wank, even the naughty ones where you play with your butthole a little bit
Well, if He didn’t intend that, He should’ve made our arms shorter and our dicks and buttholes devoid of pleasure-center nerves.
Who are we to argue with His design decisions?
God created the world in 6 days, and then sat on his fat lazy arse for the next 2000 years doing fuck all, you would have thought that the least the lazy cunt could have done was spend just one more month fixing a few things, like making all the tasty food healthy instead of very bad for you, pork scratchings that are good for you thats all we want for fucks sakes, is that too much to ask for?
I think it is 6000 years.[/quote]
Errr. nope sorry it was written 6 days, and there is no other way of interprting it to bring the bible into line with 21st century logic and rational thinking, it is stated 6 days in the bible and 6 days it is
