Summer means no religion or politics?

[Khris]

Lionmonkey:
The axiom doesn't make any statement about A being initially true. If you still don't get it, I give up. But in this case, please stop discussing logic immediately in order to avoid being ridiculed.

That's it, I can't hold it anymore.
In my opinion, the only actual reason a person does something "good" is because one's egoistical self wants appreciation. Don't you like it when someone says "thank-you very much" or "oh, thanks, that's so nice of you" to you? It's kinda like getting a handjob.

I was sort of waiting for that statement. This doesn't say much about the rest of the world's population, but it sure does say a lot about you. I'm sorry that this is the life you chose to live.

I can only speak for myself here, but I'm sure many others are like me: being nice to other people is not something I do to hide that I'm an egotist longing for appreciation. I actually enjoy spending time with people I like and who like me back. Now, when one of those people needs help, I help them because I like them.
As opposed to: I help them to make them like me.
You could say that the ultimate purpose is me enjoying myself, but that doesn't imply that I don't feel genuine sympathy for other people.

[miguel]

Nacho, I do have something that makes me feel funny about others. Some people that I immediately find suspicious while others I find trustful. Me and more or less everybody else I know.
It's nothing supernatural, really, but because it's something that I can't smell or listen to I called it a 6th sense. And I did threw a bad joke with it.
So, sorry pal. I'm not supernatural.

Lionmonkey, you just contradict others for the sake of it.

Akatosh, please don't rush into conclusions. But yes, faith is something you first feel and then have to study to interpret it.
If you don't want to continue debating with me, very well. I regret it, though.

Emphasis was yours but I can rephrase the same words for you again.
There are more things that bound religions (the ones I've studied) than their differences.

So, humans are hypocrites by nature but can't be religious by nature?
Mr. Pascal put more effort in a single statement he wrote than all of this thread. Don't put yourself to high on the matter.

I already wrote here that the Catholic Church struggles more and more to address new generations. Following this logic it will get to an end.

Yes the Bible is complete. There are people that still study it intensely, either on a desk deciphering archaic texts or digging for artefacts in the middle east. Some new gospels that were published reveal a bit more of the story though. My perception of God and the testaments changed a bit upon reading it. It's still pretty much theories so there isn't much to say.

Now, I'm off to work till about midnight!
 
   

[Khris]

Pascal was a great mathematician, but he was a poor advocator for belief.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager

[Snarky]

Lionmonkey:
Listen. This is the axiom: "IF a is true and b is true, THEN a is true."
The axiom doesn't make any claim about whether a is true.
There's nothing to believe here.
I think you're having trouble understanding this because an axiom is so obvious and self-evident, a tautology, like you said. But that's just the way it is.
Another example would be: "x = x". (Given that x is part of a formal language, I think. Look up axiom on wikipedia.)

How does it not claim that a is true, if it says that: "IF this and this, THEN a is true"?

Maybe an example will make you understand. Say you have a statement like:

"If you are a woman and you are German, then you are a woman."

(A = "you are a woman", B = "you are German")

This statement is obviously correct, whether or not you are actually a woman. For every person it is true that if that person is a woman and is German, then that person is a woman.

The axiom simply states that this is true of all statements of the same form: "If A is true and B is true, then A is true."

This is so obvious that it can be difficult to understand what we're actually saying, because if someone says that "A is true and B is true, but A is not true," they must not really have understood what it means to say "A is true and B is true." It's not really a testable proposition, but more an explanation/definition of what it means to say "A and B." Most, if not all, of the fundamental axioms of logic are similarly self-evident, which is why we don't really worry too much that they might be wrong.

[Khris]

Since this is probably the best "definition" of atheism I've found so far and I just rediscovered it, I though I'd put it here:

‘Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious… It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.’
                                                                                                                                  - Sam Harris, 2005

[miguel]

Sam Harris is the guy that hates the Bible and the Koran but follows Buddhism, right?
Maybe he's just confused or maybe the drugs did it.

[Khris]

Sam Harris is an atheist, how did you get the seriously weird idea he was a follower of Buddhism?
And no, he's not confused. But you seem to be.

[Nacho]

Nacho, I do have something that makes me feel funny about others. Some people that I immediately find suspicious while others I find trustful. Me and more or less everybody else I know.
It's nothing supernatural, really, but because it's something that I can't smell or listen to I called it a 6th sense. And I did threw a bad joke with it.
So, sorry pal. I'm not supernatural.

Message received: "Religion is something contrary to common sense, that can bring bad stuff, or good (not being the good one better than any other stuff inspired by non-supernatural source ideologies) that we feel as real by a 6th sense that we can't explain"

Sounds completelly logic...

[miguel]

I'm sorry Khris, but after attacking the Catholic Church he wrote at the end of his latest book that he was embracing western Buddhism!
How serious can he be? That religion is okay, but all others aren't?
This guy just wants your money, dude. He's a big time phoney and a nut case that got relevance after the attacks on the WTC.

Nacho, give me a brake!

[Khris]

Did you read his books? I did.
I suspect you didn't read them, only a "review" by some apologetic.   

According to the wikipedia article about him, he's fascinated by meditation, but he suggests a scientific approach without all the religious (buddhistic) mumbo-jumbo.

[miguel]

So, Buddhism can be approached scientifically, you just take out the mumbo-jumbo and that's it!
He picks a religion, declares that that one is the one and fabrics his own view of it, writes some books about it and you, because you BELIEVE him go and buy it!
Sorry Khris, but any value that man could have had was ridiculed by himself. Next, I bet I'll see him on Jay Leno making jokes. 

[Akatosh]

Meditation =/= Buddhism. It's just a technique to get yourself to relax, that's it. It's an important part of the Buddhist religion, but it's hardly exclusive to it... think "spiritual-themed community songs" and "Christianity".

Akatosh, please don't rush into conclusions. But yes, faith is something you first feel and then have to study to interpret it.
If you don't want to continue debating with me, very well. I regret it, though.

As would I... once you cut back on the anger a bit, it was nice talking to you. The problem is just that's it's kind of hard to debate with a person who uses a completly different method to draw conclusions. I, for one, would not trust my feelings... intuition is useful in day-to-day situations (if it tells you to walk on the other side of the road, away from that van, get going), but I wouldn't trust it with philosophy. Feelings can be deceptive... logical thought and reasoning less so.

Emphasis was yours but I can rephrase the same words for you again.
There are more things that bound religions (the ones I've studied) than their differences.

The main thing they have in common, as far as I have noticed, is that they are all non-falsifiable and make non-scientific (aka supernatural) proposals. The value systems, however, can actually be diametrically opposed. The religions of one age are usually similar (e.g. most old religions have sacrifice of humans and/or animals, the overwhelming majority of non-modern ones are misogynistic), but when it comes to belief and especially value systems, you run the whole spectrum from congruence to diametrical opposition.

So, humans are hypocrites by nature but can't be religious by nature?

Hypocrisy is just something that happens with people. Mr. Brecht put it very eloquently - "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann die Moral" (first comes the feeding, then the morale - yeah, it loses punch in the translation). That is to say, in the "grasping at straws" stage of desparation, people have a tendency to throw their convictions (and rationality) overboard. As I said, that's why quacks stay in business.

Religious by nature... that depends entirely on your definition. The human brain is hard-wired to detect patterns to such an extent that it delivers a lot of false positives and doesn't quite understand the concept of "correlation does not equal causation". As I would personally put religion into the "false positive" bin, subcategory "magical thinking", you could say, to an extent, that the thought processes leading one to religion are rather part of human nature indeed. It's a well-known glitch.

I already wrote here that the Catholic Church struggles more and more to address new generations. Following this logic it will get to an end.

Maybe. We'll have to see - beliefs like those have the tendency to "bounce back" into existence. Some nutcases are around that actually believe in Norse gods.

Yes the Bible is complete. There are people that still study it intensely, either on a desk deciphering archaic texts or digging for artefacts in the middle east. Some new gospels that were published reveal a bit more of the story though. My perception of God and the testaments changed a bit upon reading it. It's still pretty much theories so there isn't much to say.

Huh. I didn't know that... are those new gospels canonical, however?

[Nacho]

Nacho, give me a brake!

I'll give you a kiss instead! 

[Khris]

miguel: please overcome your ignorance, it doesn't make you look good.

Also:

[miguel]

At least Mr.Harris could show some sense and realize the controversy of that. I think he's an opportunist. If he only wants to relax there are plenty of other ways. There's some Buddhists on youtube that weren't very happy with him trying to sculpt their religion according to his needs.

I'm really not angry at all. I come here mostly alone regarding this topic and I'm very happy to talk with you guys. Sometimes words may seem harsh but I assure you it's not my state of mind.
Feelings are what distinguish us from another and play a central part in our lives. Most times feeling overrun all logical conceptions we might have so I don't think it's wise to miniaturize those.

Okay, you do have a point. But I wasn't counting with "minor" religions and was and am speaking of the main and vastly spread ones.

Religion is just something inherent to people. You may avoid it but it's still part of your being.

Someone said on this thread that 1/3 of the world population are Catholics. I'm not sure about those numbers but what I do know is that younger generations aren't interested in it. The future remains uncertain but maybe there will be a time when all religion is just a trend or a diversion for an elite.
But as always, things change very slowly...

The Vatican does publicly ignore some gospels. The thing is, most people that decipher those texts are Catholic, so there is a new wave (that I feel I'm a part of it) of Christians that although being faithful to God and Jesus do want to know as much as they can about it.
It's a inner fight and a very interesting one. Just google around and you may find some interesting stuff to throw back at me.

Nacho, I would rather kiss a dead fish!

Khris, a ignorant on what? Religion?
I mean, I've seen people here giving a hard time to a scientist. I am constantly attacked when debating something I do follow and spend a lot of time studying it.
I don't know Khris, but you seam to want the role of god at every thread you're involved.
But it's okay. I'll give that advance on me.
From now on, you'll be explaining your ideas to an ignorant.
So please, go ahead. Make my day!

[Akatosh]

At least Mr.Harris could show some sense and realize the controversy of that. I think he's an opportunist. If he only wants to relax there are plenty of other ways. There's some Buddhists on youtube that weren't very happy with him trying to sculpt their religion according to his needs.

I dunno. Meditation is actually kinda fun, and a very good method to unwind, as long as you do indeed cut the mumbo-jumbo out - as in, if you don't believe you "become one with the universe". I've not read the guy's books, though, so I don't know what exactly he advocates.

Feelings are what distinguish us from another and play a central part in our lives. Most times feeling overrun all logical conceptions we might have so I don't think it's wise to miniaturize those.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. I would argue that because feelings often overwhelm us, we should do as much as humanly possible to migitate their influence. At least when it comes to topics like these. Feelings and intuition are alright things to go by "in the heat of the moment", but when you have the opportunity to sit down and think, I'd say you should do it.

Okay, you do have a point. But I wasn't counting with "minor" religions and was and am speaking of the main and vastly spread ones.

Like Buddhism? Christianity, Judaism and Islam are of course similar, as they are based on each other, but Buddhism sticks out like a sore thumb.

Religion is just something inherent to people. You may avoid it but it's still part of your being.

I'm not religious, thank you very much.

Someone said on this thread that 1/3 of the world population are Catholics. I'm not sure about those numbers but what I do know is that younger generations aren't interested in it. The future remains uncertain but maybe there will be a time when all religion is just a trend or a diversion for an elite.

No idea. The numbers are indeed slowly falling, but you never know whether or not that's temporary. We'll just have to wait and see.

The Vatican does publicly ignore some gospels. The thing is, most people that decipher those texts are Catholic, so there is a new wave (that I feel I'm a part of it) of Christians that although being faithful to God and Jesus do want to know as much as they can about it.
It's a inner fight and a very interesting one. Just google around and you may find some interesting stuff to throw back at me.

"Although being faithful to God and Jesus do want to know as much as they can about it", huh? 

So what is the Vatican's exact policy on those "new findings"? Ignore entirely? Ignore some, keep some? I know this is hardly relevant to the topic on hand, but I kinda find it interesting.

[Intense Degree]

I'm not religious, thank you very much.

On the contrary dear boy, you frequent and post on these forums religiously!

[Akatosh]

Oh, come on. It's a secular CJ-Shrine. 

[Khris]

miguel:
I accused you of being ignorant with respect to what Sam Harris is about, after you said:

He picks a religion, declares that that one is the one and fabrics his own view of it, writes some books about it and you, because you BELIEVE him go and buy it!

He clearly hasn't and doesn't. You obviously know nothing about his views, so please stop making claims about them that are flat-out wrong.

Also:

Religion is just something inherent to people. You may avoid it but it's still part of your being.

No.
The biological/genetic/brain mechanisms that caused people to invent religions, those are inherent. But it's perfectly possible to handle those and use a rational approach to supposedly supernatural phenomenons.
Like Akatosh explained, our brains constantly personify everything around us. A shadow becomes a person, the wind becomes a whisper, and so on. So when people actually hear inner voices and have a biased view about the existence of god/Jesus/angels/whatever because of their upbringing, it causes them to interpret these as coming from actual entities, when in reality, it's all in the mind.

Know how you sometimes have dreams that feel incredibly real? That's because the brain transforms moving air, photons hitting your retina, chemicals in the air and matter squeezing nerve endings into what you perceive as reality. And it is capable of effortlessly faking all of it.

[SSH]

Know how you sometimes have dreams that feel incredibly real? That's because the brain transforms moving air, photons hitting your retina, chemicals in the air and matter squeezing nerve endings into what you perceive as reality. And it is capable of effortlessly faking all of it.

Maybe your brain is faking what you percieve as Sam Harris's views. Or faking science...