Religion in Modern America

[RedReign]

Why not simply indoctrinate a god similar to Nietzsche's?

A better question is, why indoctrinate people at all in something that isn't true?

[AnHero]

Why not simply indoctrinate a god similar to Nietzsche's?

A better question is, why indoctrinate people at all in something that isn't true?

Well, the kind of god he was talking about isn't a personified entity that looks and talks like a person. It's just the embodiment of various forces of the universe, luck, and some aspects of the human psyche. No one will actually believe an actual god exists under that concept. For instance, if I were to say "God willing", it would just mean, "if I'm lucky". Now, the aforementioned concepts that this kind of god would embody do exist, so it isn't really false or true. It's a symbol.

The concept of music doesn't really exist anywhere but our minds, in reality it's just a sequence of sounds with no objective meaning. That doesn't mean it isn't a valuable part of a culture. There needs to be a way for a particular society or community to encapsulate it's beliefs and values and propagate them. I know you don't like the concept of god because of it's historical use... just say "the universe" instead. It doesn't really matter what we call it, so long as it is communicated to people.

I know you said people need to grow up, but it's not the individuals this is done for. Many, or even most individuals don't need this system in place. But a group of people does. Communicating with large groups of people is tedious and requires simplicity. Psychologically, groups of people become much, much less than the some of their parts as the number of them grows.

[Ildjicide]

The overall reality that affects our lives is a combination of the objective and subjective. Therefore, your existence needs both a spiritual entity and an understanding of physical reality. You cannot escape either of these two aspects while you're alive; they're inseparable parts of your existence.

[RedReign]

Therefore, your existence needs both a spiritual entity and an understanding of physical reality. You cannot escape either of these two aspects while you're alive; they're inseparable parts of your existence.

The fact that we exist in the sphere of ideas would require adoption of a belief in nonexistent beings how, precisely?

The mediation of reality by our sensoriums already induces far too much error.  Why not just accept reality as we see it without making up childish stories and simplistic narratives to explain things?

Most people here are arguing in favor of something they don't believe in.  It's bad enough arguing in favor of something on the basis of zero evidence but when you don't believe in it your arguments are pasteboard: you can't even convince YOURSELVES, much less a skeptic who doesn't buy your ridiculous presuppositions.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.  Piss poor performance in thinking and argumentation.  I'm done here-- off to argue with some far more effective people who believe the earth is 6000 years old.  Their reasoning, atrociously flawed as it is, is far better than any I've seen here. 

Maybe that's what happens when you try to argue a position you know to be false.

[Jim Necroslaughter]

A better question is, why indoctrinate people at all in something that isn't true?

RedReign the humanist, looking out for people.  We wouldn't want to lie to people, would we.  You critique religion like Bill Maher.

[AnHero]

The fact that we exist in the sphere of ideas would require adoption of a belief in nonexistent beings how, precisely?

Most people here are arguing in favor of something they don't believe in.

What are you referring to? No one is supporting literal mythology or theism. The kind of god that was being discussed in the past few posts was one we would all understand to be a character in a book. Religion becomes more like a work of art that we all study without believing in literally. The story itself is an artful way of communicating subjective values. It would only resemble religion in that the people of a culture would come together to study and appreciate it.

You claim to understand our arguments, but then say something that doesn't reflect their content. I thought you were starting to understand us.

You misinterpreted the argument, picked at the wrong parts (thinking I was supporting modern religions or theism), and then failed to disprove them using your own methods (absolute proof, which there can be none for the "soft" sciences such as sociology and psychology). I'm not trying to make you feel bad about this, just trying to get you to stop thinking in such a dogmatic fashion. It can be just as problematic as creationist dogmatic thinking.

[istaros]

You should be ashamed of yourselves.  Piss poor performance in thinking and argumentation.  I'm done here-- off to argue with some far more effective people who believe the earth is 6000 years old.  Their reasoning, atrociously flawed as it is, is far better than any I've seen here.

"We" aren't here to make you feel good for talking to yourself.

[Dead_Soul]

Why not simply indoctrinate a god similar to Nietzsche's?

A better question is, why indoctrinate people at all in something that isn't true?

Well, the kind of god he was talking about isn't a personified entity that looks and talks like a person. It's just the embodiment of various forces of the universe, luck, and some aspects of the human psyche. No one will actually believe an actual god exists under that concept. For instance, if I were to say "God willing", it would just mean, "if I'm lucky".

Looks like I'm gonna have to spell it out for you guys. The concept that I was proposing has nothing to do with "luck", "some aspects of the human psyche", or even anything embodying the forces of nature. What I have in mind deals with the forces of nature themselves, with an emphasis on their holistic interactions. By not requiring any mythological justifications or belief in any supernatural gobbledygook, this new religion would not impede any scientific pursuits or foster any wacky "Master/Slave" moralities. On the contrary, with societies' weltanschauung rooted in the here and now, implementing things such as an effective eugenics program would be much more straightforward, since people would not be valued strictly valued just for being people. Any unnecessary conveniences or distractions would be looked down upon without any irrational scorn for technology. The path to the Overman would be laid out before us with nothing to hold us back. Of course, this type of thing has only had precedence in the beliefs of humanities' best and brightest, so it probably won't surface for some time.       

[Ildjicide]

Therefore, your existence needs both a spiritual entity and an understanding of physical reality. You cannot escape either of these two aspects while you're alive; they're inseparable parts of your existence.

The fact that we exist in the sphere of ideas would require adoption of a belief in nonexistent beings how, precisely?

The mediation of reality by our sensoriums already induces far too much error.  Why not just accept reality as we see it without making up childish stories and simplistic narratives to explain things?

You cannot perceive reality in its purest form, plain and simple. I wasn't saying we need to come up with false stories for the hell of it; I was saying that false stories are an inescapable part of our existence. Historically, people have believed a lot of preposterous ideas to be true, and I'm talking about intelligent people of their time; are you that far evolved to see unfiltered objective reality? Of course not, and these false beliefs you have, whatever they might be, have nothing to do with reality. They're a part of your own spiritual entity and they seem perfectly real. You can't run away from them, you can't "just accept reality," because you can't fully understand reality. 

[RedReign]

"We" aren't here to make you feel good for talking to yourself.

Right, you're here for the semantic circlejerk.

Where's the beef, biblebelt?

[Galvanized]

"We" aren't here to make you feel good for talking to yourself.

Right, you're here for the semantic circlejerk.

Where's the beef, biblebelt?

The pejorative nature of your comments reveals an argumentative perspective. An argumentative perspective is made by the necessity to prove a point. If something exists with absolute, substantial evidence than it demands no need to be proven. A necessity to prove a point reveals insecurity, because the only result gained from proving a point is approval or personal validity, and this shows insecurity because one does not require validity if they live by absolute facts that do not need to be proven. In other words, approval is not a necessity for survival. The entire process of insecure argument is meaningless, because it provides only intangible results; it's along the same lines as memetic warfare in that regard. Keep in mind that I agree with the core of your values. I just think they would be more lucid if you made them viciously stated observations, and not loud-mouthed insults or passive-aggressive comments.

[Conservationist]

A better question is, why indoctrinate people at all in something that isn't true?

I think mythic imagination can be helpful, mainly because it doesn't try to be "true" but metaphorical.

The problem with blaming religion and claiming science is the answer is that science is every bit as much a religion as religion. If you feel outrage here, you've paid too much attention to your television and other half-truth tellers.

Religion is made up of people. Science is made up of people. If they make logical errors, or make the fundamental logical error, then they'll corrupt either one.

I like the idea of religious thinking because, unlike science which is inherently reductionist, religion is inherently syncretic and brings together reasons-why instead of deconstructions-of.

Further, I think reductionist thinking inevitably leads to liberalism, which is a secular version of Christianity: everyone is equal, because "Science" proves it!!!one

[JewishPhysics]

The problem with blaming religion and claiming science is the answer is that science is every bit as much a religion as religion. If you feel outrage here, you've paid too much attention to your television and other half-truth tellers.

Religion is made up of people. Science is made up of people. If they make logical errors, or make the fundamental logical error, then they'll corrupt either one.

I completely disagree with this assessment.  Science as a body of work is made up of ideas and the scientific community of people, but at the heart is a methodology that is immune to prejudices.  So even if scientists attempt to politicize and corrupt science, its methodology allows for self correction.  This happens all the time in science (and I mean that literally, it's perpetually correcting itself, that's how it works).  What exactly is the methodology of religion?  How are religious truths revealed, and what is the mechanism of self correction?  If you can explain this to me, I'd be happy to jump on board, but until then these two areas couldn't be further apart.

science which is inherently reductionist

I mentioned before that I didn't think that this was the case, but I'll just reiterate that there is great debate in science right now about holistic approaches (this is science's self correction at work).

everyone is equal, because "Science" proves it!!!one

Except that science doesn't prove it.  You know this, so I must be missing your point.  Are you claiming that science is only what we make of it (i.e. that pseudo-science should be considered as part of science)?

[Nimbostratus]

-

[Jim Necroslaughter]

everyone is equal, because "Science" proves it!!!one

Except that science doesn't prove it.  You know this, so I must be missing your point.  Are you claiming that science is only what we make of it (i.e. that pseudo-science should be considered as part of science)?

Didn't Stephen Jay Gould try to imply this with "The Mismeasure of Man," though?  I don't want to say he made hard conclusions, but I definitley remember that the gist was, essentially, science proves we are more equal or similar than we thought.