What is the limit of secular tolerance?

[Marbles]

I don't know what to say without running the discussion in circles. Cognisant already granted it wasn't practical, that seems to be everyone else's reservation, too.

I dunno the rates of abuse, but I actually think said screening would be worth considering. Clearly there are disadvantages to limiting the amount of children's male role models, and myriad other concerns, but a cost benefit analysis would be interesting. The problem is no interest community would approve. Male identity politics groups would be opposed, because: "SEE?! Men get discriminated against TOO!", and feminists would have reservations because our screening policy would give precedence for gender discrimination.

 

[Polaris]

@Marbles

Well, that was my whole point. It's not about paedophilia specifically - Minuend just used that as a way to demonstrate how ridiculous the original premise is - I took it further to demonstrate the complexity of it. You took the argument to a logical endpoint just now, after considering it. Did you read my last post?

 

[Marbles]

That was everyone's point, which is my point. I have no horse in this race. If you do, I'm pretty sure it's long dead, but keep beating it if you want. I'll go grab some popcorn.

 

[Cognisant]

To be clear I never said this should be exclusive to male teachers, that's just the point Minuend made and I accepted the validity of it, based on that everyone's run off with their own assumptions, it's really irritating.

That male teachers should be supervised isn't ridiculous, but perhaps it is ridiculous to only supervise male teachers given that as Polaris pointed out female teachers may also pose a risk which is again a perfectly valid point.

It's not really that infeasible to have two teachers per classroom, indeed given that class sizes in public schools have grown to be twice or more what they used to be only a few decades ago I think it's crazy that we don't have at least two teachers per class.

Can we drop this now? I think I've quite firmly established that Minuend's attempt to use my own method against me hasn't worked, I agree with my own reasoning.

 

[Cognisant]

If religion is oppressive, then that is enough of an argument that you don't need to come up with a justification of oppressing religion.

-------------------------------------------

So either your arguments for oppressing religion are immoral or redundant, and either way, the rational and moral choice is to not make them.

Why is it immoral?

More precisely my issue with religion is that it's delusional, I don't think that people who profess to being delusional should be allowed to educate children, run for public office, work in healthcare, operate heavy machinery, etc, because by being delusional they pose a not insignificant risk to themselves and others.

Attempting to discriminate against people based on their delusions is itself doomed to fail, you can't make people change their minds they'll just keep their delusions to themselves, but that's fine because if people do keep their delusions to themselves that'll reduce the spread and undermine the credibility of those delusions, sorta like giving out condoms to reduce the spread of HIV, over a few generations effective prevention can effectively become a cure.

 

[Marbles]

Imagine if every religious person was excluded from science because religion is delusional and science is rational. Hey, I'm a third generation atheist, but I'm sure glad I don't live in that world.

Tangentially, loads of delusions are healthy. Religion might very well be one of them. It is a framework for making sense of the world, the memes of which have been subject to millennia of evolution. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Cognisant]

Imagine if every religious person was excluded from science because religion is delusional and science is rational. Hey, I'm a third generation atheist, but I'm sure glad I don't live in that world.

Excluding delusional people from being scientists is what the whole peer review system is about. I'm not advocating excluding people from being taught science, why would I advocate that?

Tangentially, loads of delusions are healthy. Religion might very well be one of them. It is a framework for making sense of the world, the memes of which have been subject to millennia of evolution. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

flips through notes
Okay do you want to start with the statistics on crime and poverty in religious and non-religious nations, the kids who died because of "faith healing", the list of pedophilia scandals, wars either caused or escalated by religion, definitions of brainwashing and child abuse, or is it a sufficient rebuttal that being an atheist yourself you know you don't need religion to be mentally healthy?

 

[Marbles]

Excluding delusional people from being scientists is what the whole peer review system is about.

But you call the religious delusional. I guess you're still glad they haven't been excluded from science.

I'm not advocating excluding people from being taught science, why would I advocate that?

That'd be insane. I'm not saying you are.

flips through notes
Okay do you want to start with the statistics on crime and poverty in religious and non-religious nations, the kids who died because of "faith healing", the list of pedophilia scandals, wars either caused or escalated by religion, definitions of brainwashing and child abuse, or is it a sufficient rebuttal that being an atheist yourself you know you don't need religion to be mentally healthy?

Yeah, bathwater. Let's not get into a causation/correlation discussion on whether religiousness causes poverty. We lack the data. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm inclined to agree with you, but you obviously can't know.

 

[Cognisant]

But you call the religious delusional. I guess you're still glad they haven't been excluded from science.

I don't understand what you mean.

Yeah, bathwater. Let's not get into a causation/correlation discussion on whether religiousness causes poverty. We lack the data. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm inclined to agree with you, but you obviously can't know.

How much evidence do you require? If you're saying I'm unable to provide sufficient evidence because no amount of evidence will absolutely conclusively prove a link between religion and poverty that's not a lack of evidence, that's you refusing to accept the evidence.

It's only fair that you may demand evidence before coming to a conclusion, likewise it is also only fair that you outline what it would take to convince you before I potentially waste my time gathering evidence that you're just going to ignore.

How much evidence do you require?

 

[Black Rose]

Poverty is a side effect of economic disenfranchisement. The correlation with religion is to do with hopelessness and seeking help from the spiritual powers. It does not depend on which religion anyone is part of.

Hinduism - India
Taoism - China
Christian - Africa

All these countries are poor yet none would say religion caused the economic living standards.

Controversially some say low IQ causes poverty but that is neither here nor there.

 

[Marbles]

I mean that if I can trust religious people to invent calculus, I can trust them to educate my children, but I would prefer if religion wasn't a part of the curriculum except as cultural studies. That is pretty much how it is here in Norway.

And yeah, that is a very fair question, Cog, you and Sam Harris are right about that. My answer is that if the stock market can't be predicted, I really doubt one could make a convincing argument that religion is net harmful. The ideological vacuum left when the church lost its grip on Europe was filled by many devastating philosophies. I'm hopeful that when things stabilize we will be better off without magical thinking, but I'm open to there being useful sides to religion which we atheists do not acknowledge because no one truly understands them.

When I was a kid, my father told me I should get more fresh air. I spent most of my time in front of a computer. I scoffed at him, saying we had a ventilation system. Many years later I learned I had spent much of my youth deficient in vitamin D. My father gave me good advice, but had no idea why it was good advice. He was trying to convey a meme to me which had survived because it was useful. We imitate successful people, although we have no idea why they do what they do. The imitated behavior that works becomes cultural heritage through a process of evolution. Religion is the most ancient set of memes we have.

 

[Marbles]

The correlation with religion is to do with hopelessness and seeking help from the spiritual powers.

I think that is a very relevant objection.

It does not depend on which religion anyone is part of.

Hinduism - India
Taoism - China
Christian - Africa

All these countries are poor yet none would say religion caused the economic living standards.

Religion could be an important factor. I think Cog would say irrationality is not a good basis for government. Great eras of economical, ethical, cultural and scientific growth in the west have coincided with relative secularism. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment.

Controversially some say low IQ causes poverty but that is neither here nor there.

Controversially, some would say low IQ causes religion, but fuck IQ my dude :P

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Excluding delusional people from being scientists is what the whole peer review system is about.

No lol, that's not what the "whole peer review system is about". In fact one of the important points of it is to avoid what you are suggesting - argument from authority. That system is meant to assess papers purely based on their content as opposed to who wrote them. Besides, take Newton who was a deeply religious man; would you exclude him from publishing scientific papers? You can even have literally delusional people with Schizophrenia or whatever who nevertheless are geniuses in particular subjects.

 

[Cognisant]

No lol, that's not what the "whole peer review system is about". In fact one of the important points of it is to avoid what you are suggesting - argument from authority. That system is meant to assess papers purely based on their content as opposed to who wrote them.

No that's flat out wrong, when people put their name on a scientific paper they're staking their reputation on it, a reputation that's important because a reputable scientist will be cited more often thereby increasing their credibility whereas a scientist who cites poorly researched or deceptive papers in their paper risks losing their credibility and potentially being ostracized by the scientific community, that is the peer review system, your peers are the authority.

Of course it's not solely based on who you cite and who cites you but none the less the system exists for the purpose of weeding out the delusional and deceptive and doing so without relying on the infallibility of a single authority.

Besides, take Newton who was a deeply religious man; would you exclude him from publishing scientific papers?

That was how many hundreds of years ago?
In a time when openly declaring one's atheism was an invitation to ridicule and scorn, a time when atheists may have their beliefs revised after their deaths.

I find it hilarious that there's clear modern day evidence that religion is detrimental but no matter how much proof there is it's not enough, even when I ask for a definition of what it would actually take convince people no one will give me a straight answer, BUT THEN you'll come back with bullshit like this and the onus is on me to discredit it, on me!

HOW IS THIS FAIR?

To answer your question I would not exclude Newton from publishing papers because if you actually knew anything about the peer review system you would know how fucking stupid that would be.

If he published nonsense it would fail peer review.

You can even have literally delusional people with Schizophrenia or whatever who nevertheless are geniuses in particular subjects.

And I can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match if both his arms are broken, now what does that prove?

 

[Cognisant]

I'm done this isn't a debate anymore this is just me debunking an endless stream of bullshit from people who don't actually have any basis for their arguments.

When I was a kid, my father told me I should get more fresh air. I spent most of my time in front of a computer. I scoffed at him, saying we had a ventilation system. Many years later I learned I had spent much of my youth deficient in vitamin D. My father gave me good advice, but had no idea why it was good advice. He was trying to convey a meme to me which had survived because it was useful. We imitate successful people, although we have no idea why they do what they do. The imitated behavior that works becomes cultural heritage through a process of evolution. Religion is the most ancient set of memes we have.

I don't fucking care if there might possibly maybe if the conditions are right be a hypothetical situation where religion is sometimes beneficial, I'm not going to chase that white whale of proving the negative.

I asked you a fair question. You evaded it. I'm done.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

No lol, that's not what the "whole peer review system is about". In fact one of the important points of it is to avoid what you are suggesting - argument from authority. That system is meant to assess papers purely based on their content as opposed to who wrote them.

No that's flat out wrong, when people put their name on a scientific paper they're staking their reputation on it, a reputation that's important because a reputable scientist will be cited more often thereby increasing their credibility whereas a scientist who cites poorly researched or deceptive papers in their paper risks losing their credibility and potentially being ostracized by the scientific community, that is the peer review system, your peers are the authority.

Of course it's not solely based on who you cite and who cites you but none the less the system exists for the purpose of weeding out the delusional and deceptive and doing so without relying on the infallibility of a single authority.

Here you have moved onto something else – the reputation of scientists. If someone consistently publishes garbage research, that may be a reason to start ignoring them, yes. But that can happen to atheists and religious people alike. It has nothing to do with that scientist's religious beliefs, or political affiliations, sexual preferences, favorite dinner dish, hair color, etc etc. The only thing that matters is whether they adhere to scientific standards in the papers they write. If someone is being ostracized for anything else, that's a malfunction of the system, it's not what the system "is all about".

Besides, take Newton who was a deeply religious man; would you exclude him from publishing scientific papers?

That was how many hundreds of years ago?
In a time when openly declaring one's atheism was an invitation to ridicule and scorn, a time when atheists may have their beliefs revised after their deaths.

I find it hilarious that there's clear modern day evidence that religion is detrimental but no matter how much proof there is it's not enough, even when I ask for a definition of what it would actually take convince people no one will give me a straight answer, BUT THEN you'll come back with bullshit like this and the onus is on me to discredit it, on me!

HOW IS THIS FAIR?

To answer your question I would not exclude Newton from publishing papers because if you actually knew anything about the peer review system you would know how fucking stupid that would be.

If he published nonsense it would fail peer review.

1) You're claiming his religious beliefs were just PR? I personally base my claim on Newton's own personal notes which were not intended to be read by anyone else. You seem to know next to nothing about Newton but if you did, you would know that after doing the Calculus and physics stint, he went onto researching alchemy and the Bible. In fact he was obsessed with Christianity and did the research in private. This latter stuff obviously resulted in nothing of value to science, but it shows that people's contributions to specific subjects may be of immense value despite them having completely erroneous or even delusional beliefs in other domains. 2) Yes, if he published nonsense he would fail peer review, but if he published not nonsense he would not fail peer review. See how that has nothing to do with his religious beliefs and how your argument is all gibberish?

And I can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match if both his arms are broken, now what does that prove?

I don't know what that means, but it proves that you cannot pre-judge the quality of someone's scientific research based on their beliefs, especially their beliefs in domains unrelated to the research.

 

[Cognisant]

You're full of shit, how's that for a rebuttal?

 

[Black Rose]

If Newton published his theories on the bible, and they were subject to peer review, would he have gotten the attention he deserves? Not in science but in bible studies.

 

[scorpiomover]

Why is it immoral?

Because it's like when Charles I, who was a Catholic, wanted to oppress Protestants.

More precisely my issue with religion is that it's delusional,

So you think that it's delusional because you think it's false?

So if you don't believe that the Earth is Hollow, Hollow-Earthers should think that you're delusional?

I don't think that people who profess to being delusional should be allowed to educate children, run for public office, work in healthcare, operate heavy machinery, etc, because by being delusional they pose a not insignificant risk to themselves and others.

Very few atheists seem to show any interest in being toilet cleaners. Countries without lots of people who clean up human excrement, tend to get epidemics of Cholera, Typhoid and Bubonic Plague.

Attempting to discriminate against people based on their delusions is itself doomed to fail, you can't make people change their minds they'll just keep their delusions to themselves, but that's fine because if people do keep their delusions to themselves that'll reduce the spread and undermine the credibility of those delusions, sorta like giving out condoms to reduce the spread of HIV, over a few generations effective prevention can effectively become a cure.

How can it be doomed to fail, if you'll get them to keep to themselves? It seems to me that you mean that you can't persuade religious people to be atheists. So you want to ghettoise them. You want a religious apartheid.

But you still need them to clean your toilets. So they will stay in their ghettos, and your toilets will become breeding grounds for Cholera and Bubonic plague. People like you will die in the millions, while they will not catch those diseases because they are kept in their ghettos, away from you. So they will live and breed more and more millions, and people like you could die in the millions.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You kind of have to have society that agrees on certain values and rules. Without that you have chaos. I think modern society has addressed the issue pretty well. Atheist can cooexist with theists. I dont see any insurmountable problems with it. Sure there are disagreements, but they are often blown out of proportions for arguments sake.

The thing is you have to be practical. You can say dont believe in God its delusional. How many times do you want to repeat that to people??? They arent going to change their minds you know. If that kind of thing did work then people would have been atheist long time ago. People still believe in God despite it being delusional as you say..... so why bother?

You either make it a bad thing which would in turn make a lot of tension and disagreements and lead to possible violnace or even death. Or you can agree with people that its OK to believe whatever the hell they want to believe and so be it.
You cant take away peoples agency and act as if its OK. Now as we know lot of religions did just that and did take agency from people and force that religion on them. This happend lot of times and still happens. We shouldnt allow that, but as long as someone freely accepts religion and believes the myths they have the right to think that and you cant really do anything about it one way or another.

The duty of civilized people is to protect peoples right to have some control over what they believe and what values they have and how they think they should live.

When it comes to children well I dont think its bad to raise children in certain belief system. The point of raising children is to impart them with your knowledge and your values and your thinking and attitudes. If you take that right from families then you might as well start a nazi party.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

You're full of shit, how's that for a rebuttal?

Brilliant.

 

[Kormak]

I think that before you can understand this, you have to learn to comprehend the concept of tolerance.

If you love tuna but your friend hates tuna, you've got 3 options:

1. Learn to hate tuna.
2. Learn to hate your friend.
3. Tolerate the contradiction, so you get to keep both of the things you love.

Now go back and re-read your post while thinking about how this principle of tolerance applies to your post.

What if I hate tuna, my friends hate tuna, we outnumber you and the cops, we'll employ a heavily armed mercenary army so w'ell be able to impose our will on you by beating you intio submission, set up a new social framework that prohibits eating tuna, then proceed to systematically crush all oposition till its the new social norm.

From a Te pragmatic perspective this is 100% doable and has been done be4 throughout history. e_e the above is a oversimplification of how Hungary was founded by the first Holy Roman empire aligned king Stephan and his Father. XD they massacared everyone mercilessly including relatives, family, anyone who stood in the way of a united Christian nation. Now most Hunagrian;s suck Stephan's dick, proclaim him a saint. ... ppl who think Christianity was spread by anything but the edge of a sword are fools! "it saved western civilization" my ass. King Stephan's rule was followed by pagan revolts for a reason. They wuz crushed too.

DEUS VULT!


The probability that over time Muslims outnumber us and impose their worldview and laws on us is very high if we practice tolerance. Good ting I ain't a tolerant person lel. Being tolerant towards the intolerant is a paradox.

I fucking don't like these estern abrahamic sand religions...

Out there in the real world you don't really have rights unless you have the power to declare and defend those rights. So either all ppl agree and we do it mutually or there is a superpower that enforces it through and iron fist in a velvet glove. Ideas are nothing without power.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Christianity was spread by anything but the edge of a sword are fools!

Christianity in medieval times was political tool not just a mere religion. It was way of imposing control over people. Nowdays you can just not be christian and no one will stone you or hang you or burn you. Its 2019. Time to live in present.

Now I know that priest even today use religion as political ideological vehicle. They still muddy religion with political values, but no one can make you forcefully vote or do something you dont want to. That means nations are mostly secular. Nations that arent secular have a bigger issue than religion. Then its about political leaders using religion as way of controlling dissent.

 

[Kormak]

Christianity in medieval times was political tool not just a mere religion. It was way of imposing control over people. Nowdays you can just not be christian and no one will stone you or hang you or burn you. Its 2019. Time to live in present.

Now I know that priest even today use religion as political ideological vehicle. They still muddy religion with political values, but no one can make you forcefully vote or do something you dont want to. That means nations are mostly secular. Nations that arent secular have a bigger issue than religion. Then its about political leaders using religion as way of controlling dissent.

You don't really need religion or coertion nowadays. All that needs to be done is to control the narrative through the media on a very large scale. Since at this point you own the platforms, it becomes easyer to impose rules that weed out dissenting news, making it ez to form the opinions of the masses. Onje example of a good rule is denying adrevenue to channels that don't fall in line.

This has been happening for decades now:


My point was, that out there is the real world power determines almost everything.
If you see things pragmatically (Te drive), the one thing you need for your ends is power. If the ends justify the means and you have power... well things can be acomplished moral or not.

^^ what a joke every system is... power is a the means to evrything. Even a street punk understands this instinctively.

Similar to how money is only worth anything because we all think it does, morality would only obstruct you from doing things if ppl actually held those moral values you are steping on at every turn, it they don't :P well...

 

[Kormak]

I’m not a fan of transcendental idealism because people take it much too far, our perception of reality is necessarily based on representational models but that doesn’t mean reality itself isn’t objectively real, I have a great loathing for such subjectivist sophistry.

If these representational models are paintings then emotions are the paint as such it is impossible to make a completely dispassionate decision, so when making a decision it’s not a matter of whether you’re doing it rationally or emotionally but rather how well considered your emotions are. A complete lack of consideration is killing someone in a moment of fury only to realize you’ve made a terrible mistake, we can see this in the painting “Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan”. A lesser lack of consideration can be seen in people whose morality is based upon superficial impressions, consider the attempted lynching of Tom Robinson in the book “To Kill a Mockingbird”, hence why I’m not a fan of lynch mobs no matter how righteous they may believe their cause to be, especially when I would fancy joining said mob.

Being “rational” simply means putting a lot of consideration into one’s decisions, no matter how well reasoned the decision may be the reasoning itself is ultimately based upon certain subjective biases, that being said it is preferable to give one’s decisions as much consideration as possible so as to avoid acting in opposition to one’s own long term desires.

The categorical imperative in my dealings with other ppl and the world mostly only has meaning to me. It has the porpose of curbing my sometimes pragmatic amoral tendencies. e_e like shoving a useless eater off the mountain, becaue doing so would benefit me and the group's survival. With the CI in place I won't, because I have to treat everone as if they had value... even if I may think that they do not.

Idk if by nurture or nature, but my normal tendency is towards a more pragmatic power based master morality where I'd absolutely sacrifice the weak, the defective, lazy and so on for a stronger society or my own personal benefit. Even with the CI, I still have a worldview, where the idea of survival of the fittest is firmly in place, I ddon;t think there is any escaping nature. Not for me or anyone else.

So I'm 100% keeping it. e_e killing the enemy and turning the corpses into gunpowder maybe useful in a war as long as I can keep it a secret from the men... but it's really bad if I want to be a moral person & a well functioning part of society. I'm making a concious choice, instead of going with what feels or I pragmatically would think is "good" .

You're reducing "feels right" to instant gratification level here, though. It's not like what feels good in the moment automatically takes precedence of what feels good long term, or that feelings are so one dimensional that sentence even makes sense. People will not always and automatically prefer instant gratification and thus will not kill their grandmother even though they have a moment of it feeling right.

Perhaps they take more emotional gratification of developing a moral/ behavior system they feel is logical and thus follow that. Being consistent gives more of an emotional high than killing someone, as killing someone would also be accompanied by unpleasant sensations for most, unless neurological deviant.

Purely theoretical here, but what would you say if there were pragmatic reasons to do so, where the act would benefit not merely myself but several other ppl. Well in this case mostly ppl outside of myself.

Lets say, you are stuck on an island and one of the group memebers is not only inept, but refuses to cooperate, wastes resources, constantly complains and argues with the rest of the group instead of lending a hand?

Its only logical to feed someone like that to the sharks. I wouldn't call it moral tho. There may be guilt and emotional torment, but the efficient pragmatic choice would still be getting ridd of the burden.

e_e this is what I meant, when I was telling Cognisant about free will and the Ci vs materialistic determinism and being efficient with resources.

 

[scorpiomover]

I think that before you can understand this, you have to learn to comprehend the concept of tolerance.

If you love tuna but your friend hates tuna, you've got 3 options:

1. Learn to hate tuna.
2. Learn to hate your friend.
3. Tolerate the contradiction, so you get to keep both of the things you love.

Now go back and re-read your post while thinking about how this principle of tolerance applies to your post.

What if I hate tuna, my friends hate tuna, we outnumber you and the cops, we'll employ a heavily armed mercenary army so w'ell be able to impose our will on you by beating you intio submission, set up a new social framework that prohibits eating tuna, then proceed to systematically crush all oposition till its the new social norm.

Then we're not going to be friends for very long, which is fine, until you need someone's help.

The people on your side are also not your friends. If you're treating me this way, they expect that you'll treat them that way, the minute you go off ketchup. So they're only your friends because they also hate tuna, and what you are doing at the moment is thus also in their interest.

The minute you need me and my friends, we have no benefit in helping you, because that just makes you stronger to oppress us more.

Then when you turn to the people on your side, who are only helping you when it's convenient, they will be nowhere to be found, because it's not convenient for them to go out of their way to help you.

Moreover, the minute it becomes convenient for them to usurp you and take power, they have form for screwing over other people for their own personal interest.

From a Te pragmatic perspective this is 100% doable and has been done be4 throughout history. e_e the above is a oversimplification of how Hungary was founded by the first Holy Roman empire aligned king Stephan and his Father. XD they massacared everyone mercilessly including relatives, family, anyone who stood in the way of a united Christian nation. Now most Hunagrian;s suck Stephan's dick, proclaim him a saint. ... ppl who think Christianity was spread by anything but the edge of a sword are fools! "it saved western civilization" my ass. King Stephan's rule was followed by pagan revolts for a reason. They wuz crushed too.

Where is the Holy Roman Empire now?

The probability that over time Muslims outnumber us and impose their worldview and laws on us is very high if we practice tolerance. Good ting I ain't a tolerant person lel. Being tolerant towards the intolerant is a paradox.

Tolerance is about being tolerant towards someone else's differences to you, where they're not out to screw you over, and where it's in your personal interest to keep being friends with them.

If you no longer have a reason to be their friend, or their behaviour is such that it's clear that they don't want to be your friend, then you're not friends.

The problem with the Western attitude towards Islam was that the way they went about it made it clear that Westerners only did it for monetary purposes, not because they wanted to be friends with Muslims.

So there was no friendship for the Muslims to protect, and thus no motive to show tolerance towards Westerners.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'm not confident in saying this, but I'm not sure whether 'the secular' is in the domain of the irreligious. The secular is simply a domain of our shared community and culture, to the extent that it can be shared, between all the streams of cultures within society. The 'secular' is irreligious, yes, but the irreligious are not exclusively 'the secular'. The religious both partake in the secular, and it's often the case that the majority within the said secular culture are actually religious, to varying degrees, whether it takes on a cultural form, a philosophical form, or a form of actual piety. The secular is more of a forum rather than a group with a specific set of ideals.

 

[Kormak]

Where is the Holy Roman Empire now?

XD the britbongs just left it (can't blame you guys tbh). e_e I guess ppl thought it would be better to bring it back after what the Germans tried to do. \o/ there is no escaping the fact tho that Germoney is the engine of Europe.
We should totally ally with the Russians. Eurasia сука блять!

Reminds me of this muse song....

And these wars, they can't be won
And these wars, they can't be won
And do you want them to go on
And on and on
Why split these states
When there can be only one?

e_e

 

[Minuend]

There's been a lot of answers since I checked in and I'm not all that interested to read it all.

A lot of people are shit and toxic for our younglings. Are religious teachers more so than others? Probably depends on culture and individuals. I've met religious people I didn't know where such even knowing them for years. So I guess the final point of people like myself is individuals are more important than groups. One religious individual can have more beneficial influence on the young than some selfish asshole atheist working as a teacher. And if we use like empathy, people skills and shit like that, perhaps we can more often select individuals who are good for other people, rather than compensating for our lack of understanding people by never hiring religious people because we can't tell the difference between fundamentalist and humble, good people. Compensating for our lack of understanding individuals by judging people by what group they belong to or otherwise rely on external factors to form our value system.

 

[Cognisant]

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

Ah what a beautifully nihilistic sentiment.
Yet at the same time, it's not.

As much as I enjoy the quote above I don't agree with the bit about little lies, I don't think we need to indoctrinate children into morality as if it were a lie because I don't think it is a lie and I think anyone that does needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

Morality isn't a lie, it's arbitrary. That seems a small distinction to make but it's a very important distinction to understand, there is no morality except that which we create for ourselves, no system of rules will EVER perfectly capture the nuances, no one is perfect, nothing is infallible (not even machines, especially not machines) and that MUST BE UNDERSTOOD.

If I tell you morality is egocentric that sounds so wrong, so awful, and yet it's true, as DEATH says: TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY.

There is no objective morality, it's inherently subjective, it cannot be anything be anything other than inherently egocentric no matter what form it takes so why are we so upset by that, why does the truth bother us? It feels familiar doesn't it, remember back to when you found out you life doesn't have an inherent meaning or purpose, that this isn't a story, there's no justification for your suffering and you will die whether you deserve to or not. At first it was horrible, unthinkable, and yet over time you came to terms with it and eventually you've come full circle, now you see things from the other side and it seems strange to you that you could ever have believed in such nonsense.

It's the same thing we've been indoctrinated into this perspective where morality is something outside of us and it is a pleasant fantasy, we like to hold ourselves to standards other than our own because we can pick them and reinterpret them and not be burdened with the responsibility of being our own source of morality.

When people understand this, when they see things from the other side they'll see how silly they've been, and then I believe they will be better people, indeed if they weren't indoctrinated in the first place they wouldn't even need deprogramming.

 

[Cognisant]

To clarify the point I'm making is that religion is fundamentally philosophically wrong and as such exists to the overall detriment of humanity.

 

[Kormak]

It's the same thing we've been indoctrinated into this perspective where morality is something outside of us and it is a pleasant fantasy, we like to hold ourselves to standards other than our own because we can pick them and reinterpret them and not be burdened with the responsibility of being our own source of morality.

When people understand this, when they see things from the other side they'll see how silly they've been, and then I believe they will be better people, indeed if they weren't indoctrinated in the first place they wouldn't even need deprogramming.

:P you really think so? Most people can't even manage their own finaces, we make shitty life mistakes all the time and suffer from a miriad of physical and mental issues and barely cope with the day to day. There are reasons why they flock to religion or mysticism or hang on every word self help gurus utter.

I don't see why they'd be better people once the full fragility of their existance becomes clear.

^^ I didn't know you were this optimistic. I think we cling to faith for good reasons...many ppl will simply.. break., while others won't care, because they never think about any of this.

Hell can be a very subjective personal burden to carry around till death.

 

[Cognisant]

I think life is overall easier when you're not burdened with delusions, I mean why wouldn't it be, the more congruent your understanding of reality is with the actual nature of reality surely the better equipped you are to handle reality.

Imo faith is a poisonous panacea, it's why you can't buy opium at the drugstore anymore, sure it works there's no doubt about that but having something that works so effectively at treating the symptoms but not the disease is its own problem.

I think we cling to faith for good reasons...many ppl will simply.. break., while others won't care, because they never think about any of this.

Suppose we're in a children's hospital with a child dying of cancer, you would lie to them whereas I would tell them the truth, you think your way is right because it minimizes their suffering, I think you're an asshole for denying them the opportunity to make the most of what life they have left.

If it was you that was dying wouldn't you rather be told?
Of course you would and therein lay the hypocrisy, you're lying to yourself so you can take the easy way out, but we can never really lie to ourselves, so on some level your decision will haunt you, whereas I will make the harder choice and live without regret.

 

[Kormak]

If it was you that was dying wouldn't you rather be told?

Told what? That we don't really know? That one side has faith in stories and the other speculates based on current understanding? Thats the truth, you know.

Yeah, I'd perfer this answer. Not knowing fuels a kind of exitement of discovery. If death is a door I'm curious what is beyond it. If there is nothing, at least its an end to my suffering.

Still many people would rather not hear of it, they would rather be blind and deaf, stuck in the opiate dens of the church or some guru. We lie to ourselves to ease the pain, we hide the truth, because it's easyer to cope. Marx was right about this. Yes we can be that weak.

 

[Black Rose]

The universe is cruel yes, but I do find meaning in it. As I define meaning it is: pulling together to the center. That is all my faith requires. I pray to God not because of some predefined person and attributes. I found God on my own. In my unconscious. I needed a friend so I prayed and now I have one. My life has meaning. It has moved closer to the ideal center. When I die at least I knew I had someone to care about me deeply. That is all I wanted. A person to confide in, a person I can hold. I have that. It makes life worth living. I have faith in myself and all that is inside me. I want to be a whole being.

I agree that religion is dogma, cold dead words. but these concepts found in them are real and powerful. They live in people. And they are not totally wrong.

Spoiler: The Lion King - Simba & Mufasa "He Lives In You"

 

[ZenRaiden]

My point was, that out there is the real world power determines almost everything.

True/ not True
See you are confusing the internal affairs of people inside a state and relations of states outside of state, ergo state to state relations.
Inside a country people can live at peace and think about stuff and not be subject to abuse, because they dont fit particular political narrative. Its far superior to have options and have ability to think what you want rather than be subjected to the whims of mob.
I know simple minded people like ISTJs might not like that, they rather have less options in life and everything defined by authority so they dont have to think to much about day to day life, but more intelligent people like to have options as that gives them more leeway in how they live their life.

In a country there are laws which citizens have to live by thereby they build a society to their liking. Thats different to how the dynamics play out between countries.

That being said even countries relate to each other today differently than in medieval times.

Alliances today are forged on mutual benefits and greater good and ideals have more power as relations between nations have multilevel values and often they can contradict.
Many countries have formed groups and alliances based on mutual benefit. Either to be competition and force close and open market or keep their economies and resources running in and out.
Relations of medieval nations were a little less so complex, but even medieval times trade routes often defined kingdoms and their borders and relations.

It wasnt always so as landmass was the greatest reasources and as such it was a lot of times more convenient simply grabbing land than preserving trade routs. This all said even today land is of great value, but one must keep in mind that modern civilization is fueld by more than mere arable land.
There are for example nations that can sustain themselves without having much of food production instead they just import that.
In medieval times that option didnt exist. Now when you think about that how many rich countries dont even have sustainable production of food, but a regular citizen has far superior life quality.

Think about that, because you are one of those people who lives in a country and according to how that country works with resources that defines how you live.

 

[lightfire]

To clarify the point I'm making is that religion is fundamentally philosophically wrong and as such exists to the overall detriment of humanity.

Hmmmm I see some goodness in some religious aspects.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Morality isn't a lie, it's arbitrary.

Its not arbitrary though. There are various ways to talk about morality, but only people who think about morality as arbitrary are INTJs of low intellect and people who never looked into morality or thought about it. Disagreements can exist and sometimes it seems arbitrary, but a lot of morality is far from it. I am saying this as atheist by the way.
Also saying this as INTP.

 

[Cognisant]

Arbitrary in the sense that it requires arbitration by the individual, you can't codify morality, you can certainly try and even come up with something that's somewhat reasonable but any system of rules can be exploited and there will always be edge cases.

I think morality shouldn't be codified because I think we inherently know it in the same way we know pain and pleasure (or rather our definitions of good and bad are defined by the human condition) and that codifying it only obfuscates the self evident truth, in that sense it's not arbitrary at all because although we each have our own subjective perspective we all exist in the same objective reality, our individual arbitrations all informed by the same source.

I'm not wrong you just don't get it.

 

[Kormak]

True/ not True
See you are confusing the internal affairs of people inside a state and relations of states outside of state, ergo state to state relations.
Inside a country people can live at peace and think about stuff and not be subject to abuse, because they dont fit particular political narrative. Its far superior to have options and have ability to think what you want rather than be subjected to the whims of mob.

O.o am I? You can always skirt the law, you can be "friends" and even "business partner" with the police chief, the mayor, have connections through relatives in political parties which grant you access to what some ppl call privileges, opportunities through which you make bank, gain leverage and influence. Its called acquiring power. Depending on your success and acquired resources, you can then expand to the geopolitical scale as a new player.

In a country there are laws which citizens have to live by thereby they build a society to their liking. Thats different to how the dynamics play out between countries.

Due to globalization, you are no longer limited by your nation.

Think about that, because you are one of those people who lives in a country and according to how that country works with resources that defines how you live.

I can order anything internationally at any time.
I can work outside the country without actually leaving and escape the income level of my nation.
I have instant access to information and can communicate with most ppl anywhere on the planet.
I can use loopholes in the law combined with globalization to avoid taxation.
I don't even need to use legal money as a means of exchange. I can convert and export my wealth then reconvert and establish myself anywhere in the free world.

This is all power at my fingertips. The real limit is my ambition and personal resources. Today a guy like you or me has a greater potential of acquiring power and influence than Cesar and Napoleon combined.

Rules are made to be broken. The question is how to go about it while avoiding being punished. The real problem is that men have forgotten that they are conquerors, we are chained by rules, not of our own making.

Note to slef: careful with devil's advocating b0ss

 

[Cognisant]

To clarify the point I'm making is that religion is fundamentally philosophically wrong and as such exists to the overall detriment of humanity.

Hmmmm I see some goodness in some religious aspects.

I created another thread to explain why you are wrong.

 

[Kormak]

I created another thread to explain why you are wrong.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I'm not wrong you just don't get it.

No I understood it well, I think you missed the point.
There is always the rule 2 + 2 = 4
In this universe there are things that we understand and thus they have certain order its not arbitrary its give by what is. Now our on act of will can seem arbitrary and it might be seen that way, but the consequence arent.
You are talking about human limitations and ignorance which are always arbitrary.

 

[ZenRaiden]

True/ not True
See you are confusing the internal affairs of people inside a state and relations of states outside of state, ergo state to state relations.
Inside a country people can live at peace and think about stuff and not be subject to abuse, because they dont fit particular political narrative. Its far superior to have options and have ability to think what you want rather than be subjected to the whims of mob.

O.o am I? You can always skirt the law, you can be "friends" and even "business partner" with the police chief, the mayor, have connections through relatives in political parties which grant you access to what some ppl call privileges, opportunities through which you make bank, gain leverage and influence. Its called acquiring power. Depending on your success and acquired resources, you can then expand to the geopolitical scale as a new player.

In a country there are laws which citizens have to live by thereby they build a society to their liking. Thats different to how the dynamics play out between countries.

Due to globalization, you are no longer limited by your nation.

Think about that, because you are one of those people who lives in a country and according to how that country works with resources that defines how you live.

I can order anything internationally at any time.
I can work outside the country without actually leaving and escape the income level of my nation.
I have instant access to information and can communicate with most ppl anywhere on the planet.
I can use loopholes in the law combined with globalization to avoid taxation.
I don't even need to use legal money as a means of exchange. I can convert and export my wealth then reconvert and establish myself anywhere in the free world.

This is all power at my fingertips. The real limit is my ambition and personal resources. Today a guy like you or me has a greater potential of acquiring power and influence than Cesar and Napoleon combined.

Rules are made to be broken. The question is how to go about it while avoiding being punished. The real problem is that men have forgotten that they are conquerors, we are chained by rules, not of our own making.

View attachment 4427

Note to slef: careful with devil's advocating b0ss

I dont think I understand your point. I think social dynamics are complex sure, but just because there are people who dont follow them be it written or unwritten rules doesnt mean the rules dont matter at all.
Also when you abandon rules all other people will be forced to abandon rules when dealing with you. Why would they follow rules you dont agree with. You will simply make enemies.

What is it exactly that you want to do that cant be achived within rules?

 

[Kormak]

I dont think I understand your point. I think social dynamics are complex sure, but just because there are people who dont follow them be it written or unwritten rules doesnt mean the rules dont matter at all.
Also when you abandon rules all other people will be forced to abandon rules when dealing with you. Why would they follow rules you dont agree with. You will simply make enemies.

What is it exactly that you want to do that cant be achived within rules?

I should make it clear, I'm just trying to make a point about the differences in how things should work according to established rules and how they actually work in practice in real life. I personally don't have any goals at the moment that require me to bend the rules. I'm not a idealist or a pessimist, I just tell it how it is rather than how it should be.

You are aware that ppl with power, such as corporations, or politicians, leaders and so on create rules in order to secure their own interests. For example in romania there were attempts through the judutial system to crack down on political corruption rather hard, however since the vast majority of the politicians have their private business entagled in governmnetal projects they were facing jailtime for various shady dealings, which prompted them to a) make luxurious prisons to stay in b) created laws which aided them with reducing time spent as well as amending existing laws to bend the previous rules.
They were facing issues like this one priest on a small town togetehr with the mayor called for a massive infrastructure investment, the priest created shaow companies that the town used to cypon off the money and the infratructure projects never happened. The entire political party was involved, many people, huge sums of money. It happens a lot here.

what did the commies do when they aquired power? The fascists? The liberals? The Christians? The Muslems? why does the dairy industry tell people to drink milk for bone helath, when study after study states that drinking milk has no benefit for bone health? XD why does Activision Blizzard silence, punish and throw out the esports Hong-Kong player who declared freedom for Hong-Kong from China on a livestream ? (profit, power)

e_e this stuff happens everywhere, from government to corporations, to small scale towns and businesses, the church and so on everywhere across the planet. Where there is a way people will try to game the system. It doesen't matter if they are a priest or a heretic, a leader of men or a ceo.

So if those with power make the rules, that means those rules should only be followed in as far as doing so allows you to escape punishment. Yos should always think for yourself and question things. Only accept what makes sense to you. (damn I sound like some agent of chaos)

Spoiler

As you said:

Also when you abandon rules all other people will be forced to abandon rules when dealing with you. Why would they follow rules you dont agree with. You will simply make enemies.

I am already their enemy, the rules are arbitrary, the game is known. Control of the "cathedral" or the destruction of it:

Spoiler

The ISTP explanation XD:

Spoiler

 

[ZenRaiden]

I should make it clear, I'm just trying to make a point about the differences in how things should work according to established rules and how they actually work in practice in real life. I personally don't have any goals at the moment that require me to bend the rules. I'm not a idealist or a pessimist, I just tell it how it is rather than how it should be.

Nothing new for me. Ageless dilemma for humans, doing what ought to be done and what they will do. Rules are broken yes, but that doesnt mean they have no impact. Now if no one were ever to follow those rules then yes, they arent practical.

There are good rules and stupid rules and rules that only work when people follow them.
However enumerating the value of rules is impossible, yet its quite obvious the have great value and have done more good than bad many times.

You are aware that ppl with power, such as corporations, or politicians, leaders and so on create rules in order to secure their own interests. For example in romania there were attempts through the judutial system to crack down on political corruption rather hard, however since the vast majority of the politicians have their private business entagled in governmnetal projects they were facing jailtime for various shady dealings, which prompted them to a) make luxurious prisons to stay in b) created laws which aided them with reducing time spent as well as amending existing laws to bend the previous rules.
They were facing issues like this one priest on a small town togetehr with the mayor called for a massive infrastructure investment, the priest created shaow companies that the town used to cypon off the money and the infratructure projects never happened. The entire political party was involved, many people, huge sums of money. It happens a lot here.

I am plenty aware. First thing first. Corruption is in every country on earth in one shape or form. Few days ago I was thinking what would happen if we taxed corruption instead of trying to exterminate it. 40 percent tax seems reasonable. Just a funny idea, but no one has ever exterminated corruption, however fighting corruption is important, and there are countries where corruption is big, but the politicians still manage to do something for the future of countries, and then there are countries like yours and mine where politicians are so corrupt they only steal shit and rob the nation of their future prospects. Just side note what you used as example happens in my country too in similar fashion only in different manner, but still outside of law and it is sad. Main reason why I want to leave this country.

what did the commies do when they aquired power? The fascists? The liberals? The Christians? The Muslems? why does the dairy industry tell people to drink milk for bone helath, when study after study states that drinking milk has no benefit for bone health? XD why does Activision Blizzard silence, punish and throw out the esports Hong-Kong player who declared freedom for Hong-Kong from China on a livestream ? (profit, power)

Yes, but at the same time we have to realize these people have power, because we follow them and trust them. If people didnt trust Hitler and simply voted some other person history might have been totally different. Infact the second closest candidate I heared were communist in Germany. Which might have been a shit show on its own.
The most barbaric and ruthless dictator in the world would have no power if it werent for followers. Thats why dictators have spend their time brainwashing people and creating a cult of personality around to base a foundation for their onfound power.

e_e this stuff happens everywhere, from government to corporations, to small scale towns and businesses, the church and so on everywhere across the planet. Where there is a way people will try to game the system. It doesen't matter if they are a priest or a heretic, a leader of men or a ceo.

The stupid people get cought and pay for it. The smarter ones dont, but they damage the society. The ones who follow rules to every letter are victims of system.
Thats why wise people know when to follow rules and when not to follow rules. Its far better to follow a meaningful principal then worry about games of other people.
I am not saying people should be sheep, but if they get fucked over by the system the flaw may not be in the system, but in the fact they dont know how to survive with in the system. Kind of like a lot of politicians dupe people and then people are all angry and upset about that, but they never do anything about it.

So if those with power make the rules, that means those rules should only be followed in as far as doing so allows you to escape punishment. Yos should always think for yourself and question things. Only accept what makes sense to you. (damn I sound like some agent of chaos)

 

[Minuend]

To clarify the point I'm making is that religion is fundamentally philosophically wrong and as such exists to the overall detriment of humanity.

How many atheist have philosophically correct beliefs? I mean there are atheists who think law has the final say in what's moral, who believe pedophiles just need a hug to be cured.

There are atheists who think young boys should man up and they are weak if they are being bullied. Who think nerds are sickly deviants.

There are so many toxic beliefs and sadly you can't remove them all by banning religion. In fact, sometimes religious individuals have attitudes and values that benefit young people's growth (!!) Because they are not focused on religion, but on the individuals needs.

When teaching kids, you might influence them by attitudes and beliefs. But it's not about talking about jesus or whatever, it's about how the teacher consider individuals, value people, how they perceive difficult children etc. And all of that does not depend on religion only, it depends on empathetic insight and ability to give the child what it needs. being atheist or having read about philosophy does not automatically give insight or an ability to help someone. You are using erroneous standards. It's like saying being atheist is being the better dentist, surgeon or painter. Which isn't true. You can be religious and have a talent for surgery or art. The same way you can have a talent for understanding children and knowing what they need.