Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Religion?

Re: Religion?
August 14, 2009, 03:59:06 AM
"...Science makes men godlike, it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific..."

And making men godlike really makes them into monsters.

Hail Jesus!

Re: Religion?
August 14, 2009, 06:48:12 AM
I suggest a crash course in logical positivism, empirical logic and the burden of proof.

I know quite a bit about those, enough even to reject them because of their inherenty flawed nature (if we take "burden of proof" in the empirical sense).

Weak theists make me want to vomit.

That would make two of us, then.

Re: Religion?
August 14, 2009, 08:27:23 AM
For anyone curious about the nature of consciousness in relation to reality outside of consciousness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae2dBOxt-vA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud1id81apiQ

*Note that when they say things like "observing something creates it" doesn't mean reality is created by consciousness - this always gets people into the solipsism trap. Pay close attention to the videos, in particular, the first one.

Reality as we can perceive and sense it is created in our minds: all sounds, smells, feelings, tastes, and sights. But outside of our minds and consciousness is a void place of nothingness. The mind happens to take the information provided by this nothingness, and creates a "texture map" (like the 2D graphics that make up textures for the wireframes in a 3D video game) and overlays it onto our mental sensory field (like a TV screen), "creating" the individual, subjective reality as we know it.

This reality is an illusion, however. In certain eastern belief systems, this is called, among other names, the veil of Maya (subjective reality), which obscures the "Absolute Truth," (aka Brahman, aka God/the godhead) or objective reality.

To overcome subjective reality, we need to use all the "vantage points" we can to view and as much of objective reality as possible. This is called parallax. We'll never gain a full picture of it on an individual scale, but we can only get closer and closer to understanding or seeing what it is - this is basically ANUS's "active nihilist" path.

I think what bothers me about religious discussions is they try too hard to ascertain whether a certain storybook character called YHWH or God, exists. The characters are unimportant. If you can't look beyond the symbols offered to you by any given religion and try to understand what it means, you're still a tool to religion, no matter how secular and atheistic you are. Quit worrying about the Abrahamic religions like Judeo-Christianity. They're there to distract you in the first place.

Basically, this:
Quote from: Time Curator 23
Break free from the trap of language.

Look beyond the superficial oppositions, through the seemingly contradictory systems.

Seek their hidden motives and assumptions.

Re: Religion?
August 14, 2009, 11:59:21 AM
Quote
Reality as we can perceive and sense it is created in our minds: all sounds, smells, feelings, tastes, and sights. But outside of our minds and consciousness is a void place of nothingness.

A void place of nothingness where you're lied to all the time.

Re: Religion?
August 14, 2009, 12:11:24 PM
Reality as we can perceive and sense it is created in our minds: all sounds, smells, feelings, tastes, and sights. But outside of our minds and consciousness is a void place of nothingness. The mind happens to take the information provided by this nothingness, and creates a "texture map" (like the 2D graphics that make up textures for the wireframes in a 3D video game) and overlays it onto our mental sensory field (like a TV screen), "creating" the individual, subjective reality as we know it.

This reality is an illusion, however. In certain eastern belief systems, this is called, among other names, the veil of Maya (subjective reality), which obscures the "Absolute Truth," (aka Brahman, aka God/the godhead) or objective reality.

To overcome subjective reality, we need to use all the "vantage points" we can to view and as much of objective reality as possible. This is called parallax. We'll never gain a full picture of it on an individual scale, but we can only get closer and closer to understanding or seeing what it is - this is basically ANUS's "active nihilist" path.

...


Well, I'm glad somebody worded it like this, finally. It just seems really asinine to attack such a strawman that is the populist understanding of religion, on this, a nihilist forum. You're not doing your intellect any justice, RedReign, by fixating on the most obviously retarded elements of religion without, as MA,YA (interesting) says, looking beyond the symbols and also then to why the symbols are in the form that they are and how these are all inter-connected to build up a picture of what (transcendentalist) religion really is.

The point here is not to advocate following any religion, but to show that the core principle of these religions is their expression of the ultimate, unconditioned reality...essentially, reality that is devoid of inherent value and purpose which nihilists also understand. It is this nothingness that underlies why the material laws of the universe are as they are, as science observes and not orchestrated by some super-sentient being (if the Christian pedophile purple dinosaur loves you demigod were the 'prime mover', the universe would look a lot different, with total heat death occurring about now!). What religion does from the understanding of nothingness is align human activity to the pure ways of the universe, the manifestations of the unmanifest, lest we be caught up in the illusory reality of subjectivity and our egos as explained by MA'YA.

The void is an abstract nothing, almost like pure mind that isn't associated with a physical body with all it's sense perceptions and thinking, mortal ego. I think it's in this way that the transcendentalist religions have defined God as the highest of the high in a hierachy of states of 'Consciousness' - the ruling nothingness of reality. Humans as inheritors to the reins of 'consciousness' must then steer the mind back towards reality beyond the 'categories' of the reins - sense perceptions and the thinking, mortal ego. Animals, for example, have this 'consciousness' too but not the reins (I guess 'will' in the Schopenhauerian sense would be a better word here). This means animal activity, like all material phenomena as we said earlier, is simply underlied by the nothingness, and we as humans need to CONSCIOUSLY align our thoughts and actions to the nihil, to re-discover our true selves, in order to authenticate our existences.

We see our mortal frames rotting before our eyes, our thoughts, memories and experiences are all insignificant to the vast cosmos that hubble deep field captures, so we look beyond this temporary flesh to the things in life that promote continuity and resonate with the eternality of nature's design...family, tribe/race, culture, civilisation, strife, sacrifice, glory...the heroic spirit to authenticate our lives, like Achilles, in the face of indifference and meaninglessness, to create out of this realisation rather than wallow in the self.

That's a little about nihilism and religion as I interpret it. Apologies for the incoherence as I'm going back and forth between procrastinating and actually working!

Re: Religion?
August 14, 2009, 04:25:46 PM
Humanity:



Created in God's image! :)

Re: Religion?
August 14, 2009, 05:43:39 PM
The problem with the anti-religion jihad, like the anti-Israel jihad, is that it's coming from the same mass of disaffected underachievers who hate life. They hate government, they hate business, they hate beautiful people, they hate successful people, they hate smart people. These are the universal supporters of leftism and in former times, Christianity. They are the bitter and destructive mass that invades everything and wrecks it. Who would have thought they'd take over black metal? They did. They take over anything they touch and turn it into the same old shit, then blame it and try to destroy it.

Words from a wise man: "Religion, like philosophy, is a language."

I'm done with the "we hate x" people. They're always looking for something to blame. The situation is, in contrast, quite simple: there are good people and bad people. Evil is not a mystical force, but a tendency toward selfish oblivion and hatred of life. Find those who hate life and kill them; find those who love life and want to make it better, and put them in charge. That's how you become the next great empire and make life more fun.

Re: Religion?
August 14, 2009, 08:48:31 PM
In Greek Mythology/Tragedy, sex is never simple; perhaps only at the very beginning. As the plot tides ahead, there's retribution or Punishment. Believing in punishment, not that of celestial spheres but that of earth, which is a form of thinking "beyond"  - is the most reasonable thing a man can think believe and also the most honest. Interestingly enough, it's always in religion that man thinks ahead; indeed, he's almost obsessed with "aheadness", and sometimes he voyages too far. Somewhere between the lost of this "aheadness" and the mentality of "here and now, and perhaps the unconditioned or timeless future" - there's a point of completeness. Not perfection. Completeness. If Science (and it is necessarily Science that causes the arrival of some  things and the contempt for some) doesn't provide completeness - it is only a partial solution.
When you read a text, say the "Bhaja Govindam", and see the beauty of the ideas expressed there - you cannot stay indifferent:  "Money is innocent. It is the thirst for money that man must conquer" (paraphrased). Given the fact that Science finds no "evidence" for such things, one cannot relay solely on Science in order to find a point of completeness. Tagging, terming, explaining, obtaining evidence, observing - this is good. But that's not enough.
The truth and completeness lie in the unexplored "center of things" -  not where reason or rationality project themselves upon the physical, nor where the physical tries to break free out of its boundary-less prison; teeming with imagination that can stride awrong and banish reason from the mind.

Re: Religion?
August 15, 2009, 12:38:14 PM
Quote
Reality as we can perceive and sense it is created in our minds: all sounds, smells, feelings, tastes, and sights. But outside of our minds and consciousness is a void place of nothingness.

A void place of nothingness where you're lied to all the time.

Nature never lies.  You seem to have a great anger toward religion, because they "lie".  It is your own fault for ever believing anyone who tells you something dire, but who may only gain from your unhappiness. 

Although I still get a little angry when I hear a commercial on the radio lie.  I feel kind of stupid about it, but my first reaction is always "You are just going to lie to face, like that?"

Re: Religion?
August 15, 2009, 03:31:18 PM
Nature never lies.  You seem to have a great anger toward religion, because they "lie". 

I think it's even simpler: people's interpretations of religion vary directly with level of intelligence.

Dumbass? Superstition. (Africa)

Slightly evolved dumbass? Dualism. (Jesus)

Slightly more evolved dumbass? Materialism. (Judaism, "Science")

Evolved enough to call others dumbass, but not enough to avoid dumbass? Materialist idealism. (Buddhism)

Evolved to nearly not being a dumbass? Transcendental idealism. (Hindu)

Re: Religion?
August 15, 2009, 04:55:14 PM
Nature never lies.  You seem to have a great anger toward religion, because they "lie". 

I think it's even simpler: people's interpretations of religion vary directly with level of intelligence.

Dumbass? Superstition. (Africa)

Slightly evolved dumbass? Dualism. (Jesus)

Slightly more evolved dumbass? Materialism. (Judaism, "Science")

Evolved enough to call others dumbass, but not enough to avoid dumbass? Materialist idealism. (Buddhism)

Evolved to nearly not being a dumbass? Transcendental idealism. (Hindu)

I see two flaws with this list:
1.  It assumes a fixed interpretation of each religion (and you include "Science" as a religion)
2.  It presents a purely linear hierarchy of said religions

If Hinduism is the greatest philosophical approach to the world, why is India such a shit country?  Also, why is the (arguably) smartest man on Earth, Stephen Hawking, a scientist and not a Hindu / Transcendental Idealist?

Re: Religion?
August 15, 2009, 06:10:42 PM
If Hinduism is the greatest philosophical approach to the world, why is India such a shit country?  Also, why is the (arguably) smartest man on Earth, Stephen Hawking, a scientist and not a Hindu / Transcendental Idealist?

These are actually good questions.

For the first, I could just point out that there are too many variables to accept this correlation as evidence. Just as interesting a question: Why IS India such a shit country? Maybe you could do some research and find out why. Then compare your findings to the teachings of Hinduism. If you find that Indians are faithful practitioners and that they're going to hell anyway, or that the values of Hinduism are the cause of their problems, it would be convincing evidence against that religion.

The second: It's well-known that smarter people are less likely to be religious and much less likely to believe in god. I'm not sure what to say about him as an individual, but my support of having a religious institution was based on collective needs and the needs of less intelligent people. Imagine those people don't exist if you want, but they do. I could make more minor arguments about how IQ isn't all that's necessary or point out the fact that Hawking was dead wrong about radiation from black holes (ironically called Hawking Radiation, even though he was the one who denied it's existence for so long, and it wasn't entirely his idea, but that's another discussion).

I wouldn't at all mind being wrong about religion. Honestly, it's just one more thing to worry about.

Re: Religion?
August 15, 2009, 07:24:39 PM
If Hinduism is the greatest philosophical approach to the world, why is India such a shit country?

Their are better reasons other than religion.

And actually, India is on a major economic upswing. Some say it will surpass the US' in 30 or 40 years, not that that is because of Hinduism or anything.

Re: Religion?
August 15, 2009, 08:00:48 PM

If Hinduism is the greatest philosophical approach to the world, why is India such a shit country? 


No, transcendental idealism is a philosophical approach to the world, but its insights can be found in Hinduism, a Religion. It is very important to remember that India's population is no longer composed by Aryans (the founders of Hinduism) and so, German idealists (Kant, but specially Schopenhauer with his closeness to Hinduism and Buddhism) had to coin transcendental idealism a lot of centuries later.


Quote
Also, why is the (arguably) smartest man on Earth, Stephen Hawking, a scientist and not a Hindu / Transcendental Idealist?

"It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief." Brief History of Time.

Human experience depends on how things appear to us. Transcendental Idealism

In any case, why he is not openly atheist?

Re: Religion?
August 15, 2009, 08:17:39 PM
Quote from: chpinhlf
Their are better reasons other than religion.

I know.  There are incredibly complex reasons, and I don't wish to go into them here.  I was giving a simplistic critic of a simplistic claim.  Maybe I could have done it in a better way.

Quote from: Octuple
Why he is not openly atheist?

Well, he openly denies the existence of a personal / intervening God, but the short answer is politics.

I guess my point was that Conservationist made a claim that there is a general correlation between people's interpretations of religion and their intelligence.  I thought his claim was both too simplified, and wrong.  Stephen Hawking was just a random name, but there are countless individuals that simply don't fit his trend.  I should have cut straight to the point and simply inquired on what basis does he make this claim?  How does he know this is the case?  He seems to be relying on experience, and my experience says something completely different, so how do we reconcile this?