Messages

I think it's because he's twice as manly as the average person. 

[Although]

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.

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?

Just upload the picture to, say, imageshack.us... as Khris said. Did you even read his post?

[believe]

Akatosh,
I guess you assume that I regard evidences as badly as you do. Concerning God and people in general, I kind of trust my 6th sense (maybe I've got to much of those female hormones ).

So you admit you didn't make a rational decision in terms of faith, instead relying on feelings and "intuition"? If so, we should probably just end the debate at that point... you can't really hope to talk productively with somebody whose basic method of thought is different.

Aren't we discussing the Catholic Church? Because I only speak about what I think to have some knowledge of. Although there are "thousands of religions" I firmly believe there is only one God that is interpreted differently across the globe.

Emphasis mine. I suppose this is another "emotional" thing?

Keep in mind that there are crass differences between religions. Many Pagan religions, for example, are completly incompatible with the stricter Monotheisms.

The link you supplied is a grain of dust among the testimonies of people that asked for forgiveness when about to die. I will not bother to link you to some sites because you can just do it yourself.
About it's relevancy, well it makes it all different in my opinion. How can you say that when pure atheists do change at the end of their lives (and it is the generality of human beings) is not relevant?

Because I fail to see what this means for the correctness or incorrectness of (dis)belief. Maybe quite a bunch of people become hypocrites on their deathbeds, grasping at straws, but that's really just a human thing. Terminally ill people also try faith healing or New Age "medicine". What point does this make? That dying people sometimes fall victim to the same flawed logic as Mr. Pascal?

We already agreed that fundamentalism is wrong (at least we believe so) and I think we should bury our hatchet on that.

That's good to hear. So you admit your religion could, in fact, be wrong? (That's sorta the prerequisite for not being a fundie...)

If religion is obsolete or not on civilised societies is something we still have to wait my friend. Our civilization is still at the very beginning. If we don't start pushing those red buttons, of course.

Heh, I hear ya 

Personally, I think the trend that began during the Renaissance will continue, with the numbers of believers slowly dwindling as scientific knowledge expands and the "gaps" people like to suspect as a deity's hiding places slowly closing. But hey, maybe we'll actually stumble upon one there.  We'll have to wait and see.

As for main characters, both Mary's still have a very important role in the future. Maybe some revelations are bound to shine some light on the matter. It's only a theory of some well respected theologists (misspelled for sure) and I'll wait and see.

I thought the Bible was considered finished and no more revelations would be neccessary... but that may be a Catholic thing. I dunno, I was raised Protestant (and later dropped the faith).

(I'll leave the rest to Khris, as you specifically directed it to him... although my fingers are kinda itching...  )

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.
Of course, you guys can argue that sometimes these "good" deeds are done even if nobody's around to see them. Well if the former thing was a handjob, then this is the masturbation. You can praise yourself for being so kind and selfless, helping when no one sees you do that.
With all that in mind, I can't say I'm any different. I'm a human, so I'll have to live with it. Just don't call humans "essentually good" anymore.

...excuse me for being a nice person? Some people really like being Altruistic for Altruism's sake.

You throw the same arguments to me on and on, it's the crusades, inquisition, condoms and I've explained my view on that several times. The thing is that you don't accept my ideas.

I keep citing those examples because you keep taking a general stance. If somebody claims that organisation A (or their philosophy) is "always good", for example, a common counterargument is to point out atrocities commited by organisation A (or those that sprang forth from said philosophy). I repeat myself mainly because you repeat yourself... I think we're starting to reach the point where the debate just starts circling and circling.

However, you're right in that I can't really get behind the "believe without evidence" mindset. You're free to keep it, of course... although I'm not really sure why you'd do that). Care to explain?

Listen, I don't want to sound sarcastic or close minded but no matter what, in your life time and mine, God will be around as it is something that us (human beings) have genetically adopted. You will live your life denying God but at the end you'll say something like "Hey, I wasn't that bad compared to (...insert some nasty characters here...) and, If you really exist I want to be on your good side!". It happened before and in critical situations every single one of us do ask for His help. Take a look at war reports of guys that are surrounded with no possible victory situation. Or the final phone calls from the people on the fatal flights on 9/11.
It's just the way we are.

I wouldn't say genetically adopted, as it's more of a cultural thing, but I think I sort of see what you're saying. Humans are prone to "magical thinking", on account of our brains being hard-wired for pattern detection; you'll certainly get some false positives.

I can't say what will be at the end of my life, and neither can you. However, my current self would be very disappointed indeed if old Akatosh abandons his principles on the deathbed and picks a deity at random to submit to (although I'm not sure how he'd make his choice, with the thousands upon thousands of religions out there). Here's to hoping I'll keep my intellectual honesty.

Some people grasp at straws in dire situations, some don't. Humans do have a tendency to throw rationality overboard for a slim promise of hope (see all the quacks out there for details), that's true, but I'm not sure which relevancy this is supposed to have.

I'm a Christian and agree that the Vatican is failing with the condoms issue.

Good to hear. Although this sort of goes against the infallibility (likely misspelled) of your "Divine Morality", and the whole pope-as-Jesus'-right-hand thing. 

Why do you expect the Church to do a better job at helping others? I mean, you constantly try to spread the idea that their purposes aren't legit. You constantly attack them. But one thing I'm sure, if you ever need help from them they'll be there for you. I hope you never need it and that you live a long and happy life.

I've never said their purposes were inherenlty bad. The churches out there can undeniably do some good, and when they do... yay for them.What I wanted to point out was that you have to always be on the watch for the fundies (which don't underline the humane aspects of the philosophy as the current leadership of the church does)... and that I don't really see why my money should go towards an organisation that also help the poor instead of donating to these that focus on the same thing.

I'm sorry to say that lots of people are jerks and if given the possibility to run over you, they will. And they don't really know of the golden rule or the categoric imperative because they aren't as capable or educated than you. Instead, the simplicity of Jesus message through parables that are easily understood by everyone is a much more efficient method.

Idiots will be idiots, that's true... but "eternal hellfire" isn't the only weapon against them on an emotional level, you know. Once again, religion can maybe help a bit to establish social stability, but it's hardly a prerequisite for a civilised society.

Also, as I said before... if you only want religion for its stabilising purposes, why not just make one up whole-cloth? It'll be just as non-falsifiable as the previous ones, and have the added advantage of being a lot less messy and a lot more streamlined (and not as freaking self-contradictory).

Well, the Vatican always swam with the tide if you know what I mean. At that time nobody expected women to emancipate or even to talk about such matters. Yet, the main characters on the Bible are Mary and Mary Magdalene, in my opinion, of course.

I'd say the main characters in the Bible are YHWH, Jesus and Mr. Holy Spirit, to a lesser extent. Or maybe main character, thanks to that trinity doctrine (the issues a gigantic mess). The Marys do play a role, but they are part of the supporting cast at best. The overwhelming majority of characters in the Bible are male, and when women do show up, they usually take the role of the temptress or Skeptic.



Forgot this one, sorry:

You can't compare God to null pointers, or you can but I wont debate that. Imagine a 3 month topic about null pointers.

I was talking about the word. The fact that we debate the existence or nonexistence of a topic doesn't mean the subject of our discussion has to exist, as you claimed. If it doesn't, the word "God" more or less becomes a null pointer, plain and simple.

[and future]

Fuck, not the "Atheists are not actually Atheists because why have a word for a deity if there is no such thing" again. Miguel, are you going through a hitlist of the oldest and stalest arguments out there? First the Nazis, then the morality, now the word?

I assume you have some basic knowledge of programming. Ever heard of "null pointers"? You can have a word for something and debate the existence or nonexistence of it without the subject in question magically popping into physical existence. Case in point: Fictional characters.

I clearly said that the Church always remembers people to do good.

...which is also why the Crusaders were given full absolution for past and future deeds, I suppose? Gee, that sounds not the slightest bit like provocation to me!

Or, you know, the crap that keeps being said about condoms. Way to help AIDS spread, Mr. Ratzinger. Expecting "abstinence-only" programs to work is a lot like trying to spit out wildfires.

As Khris said, the church does try, and occasionally succeeds at doing some good to some people... which puts it exactly on the same level as every organisation ever. You'd expect the One True Religion^TM do to a lot better than that, wouldn't you? And yet, despite all the prayers, childs in Africa continue to starve. Man, I can really feel YHWH's love.

And I clearly say now that most people will do whatever they can to accomplish their needs and the lack of Divine Morality will free them to do so because there wont be a punishment (this is a mental state, not physical) but only immediate reward.

This is simply not true. A lot of people just don't like being jerks, and act altruistically without a magical sky daddy threatening to fry them with lightning should they dare to eat shrimp (Book Leviticus! \o//). A system of the Golden Rule and the Categoric Imperative is just as effective as your "Divine Morality"^TM, and doesn't bring the threat of fundamentalism or the assorted debris with it that (most) religions do.

Celibacy was intended as a mean to address women by men in a society where women had absolutely no rights. At that time the word of a priest was the law to simple people and the Church decided that by forbidding them to have sexual relations was a way for woman to trust them. A women could not be seen with another man in the street other than her husband, and there was no other practical way of spreading the word with the female gender.
It was a political decision.

... I have no words for this. You do know that a good deal of sexism originally sprang from the texts of your holy book, do you? For example, you can very easily interpret the tale in Genesis to have a moral like "Women were created for men, to be their helpmeet, and are responsible for all the sin in the world, having fallen to temptation."  Once again, it was not thanks to, but despite the efforts of Christianity that a more just society was established.

A point worth restating, appearantly...

If the only reason you are not a lying, stealing mass-murderer is the threat of eternal torture, please keep at least one country away from me at all time.

What is the error message, stridon?

Who the f^**^ said to do what they order you to.

Pretty much every "holy scripture" and organised religion ever. Apart from maybe the Principia Discordia. 

No need to flip out like that, though. If I somehow offended you, I apologise, of course... although I'm not really sure where the offense would have happened.

[at least]

Guys.

Seriously.

Please.

I thought we had moved beyond the "Atheists are inherently immoral" stage.

If the only reason you are not a lying, stealing mass-murderer is the threat of eternal torture, please keep at least one country away from me at all time.

Let me argue in the same vein as you just did. If this life is truly all you get, isn't it worth treasuring much more than if you claim it to be merely foreplay? In fact, if there were only feverish believers in <insert deity here>, we'd be still pretty much living in caves. Why research medication? If you're good you go to heaven anyway. Why improve quality of life when you can contemplate <deity>? Why hone critical thinking or reasoning skills when you can be taught the magnificience of <deity>? Why ever try to move beyond hard manual labor? You could be thanking <deity> for not burning down your mud hut instead. And, most of all... why treat heretics as if they were humans? Ever heard of the Crusades, or the Inquisition or all that stuff? Believers can be at least as cruel as non-believers, no matter what you substitue for <deity>.

Dualnames... come on. The reason for unbelief is not the framework of rules, and you know that. The reason for unbelief is a complete absence of compelling positive proof for the claims brought forward by religion(s). The scoffing at the more arbitrary of rules (e.g. to not wear clothes made of two different fabrics, as commanded by Book Leviticus) just flows from that. It's not "I don't want to do this -> I don't believe", it's "This seems incredibly unlikely -> Why the frig should I do what they order me to?".

Nacho is a little higher up on the aggressiveness scale... but I'm fairly sure he just vocally dislikes your beliefs, which is a long shot from hating you as a person. Although with some of the things that were claimed in this thread, I think I'm starting to understand why many Atheists tend to go a little frustrated after the first few debates.

[no salvation outside of the RCC]

Your church says otherwise. If the dogmas are to be believed, you are either Catholic (or "invincibly ignorant", by having lived before Jesus' birth or somesuch), or you go to hell. That's it. The current pope reinforced this - there is, appearantly, no salvation outside of the RCC. And since your holy book and the authorized interpretations thereof are pretty damn clear when it comes to pressing people into a framework of rules (many completly arbitrary) and punishment of "sinful" behaviour...

What should a man be?

I'm not sure if that's directed towards me, but I'll answer it. If you ask me, a man should strive to act according to this, this and this. In addition, I believe one's freedom should be limited only when it starts to infringe upon the freedom of others. Everything else... really depends on the situation at hand. Mind-numbingly general, I know.

ART

Seriously though, great idea there. 

Akatosh, I believe there's a bug in the forums because I'm sure I wrote 4th power!
I got your point in your 3rd paragraph and it's a very clever question. It's all a big paradox because you can't say that more educated people aren't influenced by the media, there are different media for different classes. I was speaking generally and firmly agree that the media conduct us on a subliminal level with a degree that is much higher than it should be.
Don't forget that I've got two kids (she's 15 and he's 14) that are exposed 24/7 by the media like many more and what they accept today is far more demanding than I did only some 20 years ago. And I did have computers and movies and fashion magazines, rock & roll and whatever. So, I'm kind of living it right now and trying to bepatient and acknowledge that they consider normal what I consider excessive.
I can't say that younger generations are non-believer because of the media but one thing I know is that if you sit for a whole day in front of a TV you'll never find content that brings people towards Catholic Church. Don't you agree?
So, we can say that the media if not refuses Christianity it does a good job leading kids away from it.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. Catholic main characters are rather popular in German TV, for example, the Catholic church does quite a few ad runs, there are extensive news reports whenever the pope does anything whatsoever... that they don't shoehorn the matter in everywhere doesn't mean they're trying to drown it out. (And even if they opted to largely ignore it, that still wouldn't be "leading away". It's not the task of television to educate you - that's what schools and textbooks are for, and they're much better at it. Television's really best for entertainment and news, and really falls flat on its face when it comes to philosophy.)

Also... "Things aren't easily put on lists of proper conduct or behaviour that a man should follow."? "The same way you debate or refuse the 10 Commandments, others will refuse educational manners that we accept (without a religious presence) as the right way."? Did you just admit moral relativism? 

My characters have a tendency to live more in their own mind than anywhere else... 

But yeah, I think I know what you mean. A character should be a person living in an environment, not a piece of environment given humanoid form.

Akatosh, the new media does poison our minds more than ever. It's the 3rd power and it is a subject on universities across the world. Actually, the new media could end it all in days. Not God, because he doesn't exists, right?

Don't you mean the fourth power? I mean, unless Executive, Legislature or Judiciary got slashed when I wasn't looking... 

I agree with you that the sensantionist (I may have misspelled that) type of reporting isn't really helping, and that they like to blow things way out of proportion. However, it's not really fair towards the younger generation to claim that we were only - or mainly - unbelievers because we can't grasp anything presented without flashy colors and beats in the background. I, for one, went from "Protestant Christian" to "non-religous Agnostic" not because Pfr. Himmelmann was holding boring sermons, but because the whole system of belief just did not hold together under scrutinity... what with the contradictions in the supposedly holy and inerrant scripture, some of the things the supposedly benevolent deity did and, first and foremost, the total lack of evidence for a benevolent deity, the mountains against it and the superfluoity of the proposal. (I gave other religions equal opportunity, and they didn't hold up any better. I do know there's religion outside of Christianity.  )

If your theory was correct, you'd assume the less educated people would be more inclined towards Atheism than the more educated ones - after all, an academic profession requires an attention span longer than that of a housefly. Funny thing the trend seems to be more or less the other way around...

(And I know you shouldn't go against people on your own side, but I have to point out something to Khris, because this sort of thing irks me - Muslims have heard of Jesus, as according to them, he is the second-to-last prophet... just not the son of YHWH, or Allah, as they call the character.)

I'm still waiting for inspiration to strike. Maybe in the next few days...

Even better than that, Nacho. It's "the new media poisons people's minds!!"

Yes. 

Yeah, hope you had a happy one.