cuchulain

If the truth is usually simple and uncomplicated, how does that lead one to accept a complex mish mash of books that few agree what it actually means?

Nobody tries to culturally dominate atheists? The atheists who put up monuments of their own to show their distaste for state sponsored religion, and that Dan then argues they should just take it because Christians are culturally dominant? I guess when you make up your reasoning on the spot, it's bound to change fairly regular like. Back to the original question...does religion have value? Answer the above questions posed, does the religion in question do what it espouses. That's a first step I think. Once you discover the religion does or does not do what it espouses, then you determine whether that is the ONLY path to do what the religion espouses. Do you actually need religion to do those things? The answer would appear to be no, clearly. I can respect nature, and not be a druid or wiccan or pagan of any sort. And in the cases where the religion clearly fails to do what it claims, such as being all inclusive...I can be all inclusive without any religion whatsoever. I can have a party at my house, maybe a back yard barbeque, and I can let anyone come who feels like it regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or religion. I could let Dan come if he wanted, in theory, and all without the auspice of religion backing anything at all. So...to the value of religion. If anyone can do any of the things that religion espouses(at least anything that religion can PROVE it can do), then we really don't need it at all and so what value does it have?

By your fruits... The bible does contain some wisdom. Let us judge each religion by what has been wrought in their name and see if they still match their chosen description. Then decide if the religion is of value today. Islam is a religion of peace, at least the majority claim such since 9/11. Is that what they have brought or propagated? Christianity is a religion of inclusion. "all are welcome" i see regularly on various denominations doors. Are all really welcome? Pagans are harder to peg, as they are more individualized. Nature reverence is common. Do they revere nature? Buddhists espouse the middle way. Do they propagate such? My views on the above questions. 1. Uncertain. 2. No. How many trans/homophobic anti anything else rallies do you need, if your all inclusive? 3. Yep. They revere nature. Does that do good? Positively impact? I think so. 4. Hard to say, since they follow a path that doesnt seem to be pushy. From observation alone, yes.

I remember with particular unfondness that "the atheist is the minority in the U.S.", something along the lines of the debate about whether there was really a war on Christmas, and Dan really, REALLY trying to convince us that we were the problem. The issue with cultural dominance as an argument is that the original Christians certainly didn't subscribe to following along with cultural dominance...or they wouldn't have propagated their religion, which was the cultural minority. Talk about rolling over everyone, politically or religiously...ask about the responses we have received regarding the satanic temple and religious liberty, lol. I guess it all hits along my personal pet peeve, hypocrisy. And here I am realizing that I am responding to Dan again, even though he's on the ignore list. Ugh...I really gotta stop that. Oh well.

The topic at hand...the value of religion. The more I think about it, the more I consider it's like anything else someone has to "sell". It's worth what the buyer is willing to pay. I owned a used furniture store for a while and traded occasionally with people. A couple came in wanting to change to a different couch and loveseat set. They had a leather set, and wanted to part with a credenza as well. They paid 100$ to boot. When I went to pick up the items from their home and drop off the traded set, as an afterthought the wife asked if I wanted the old desk that was falling apart in the hall way. I took it of course. It was antique. I put it in the store with a price tag of 300$ on it until I could look up what it was actually selling for, but before I had the chance someone bought it on the spot. It was falling apart, literally. The legs were barely together, the drawer was missing pieces and it was in BAD shape, but I knew it was worth something as an antique and I got it free. Turned out to be worth about 50$ in the condition it was in, and if I had invested a small amount to restore it would have been worth about 200$. But the customer saw, wanted, and bought. On that day, at that time, it was worth 300$. Religion is the same way I think. Nobody really needs it, it's falling apart, and pretty much useless. But there are some people out there who are willing to buy anything to fill a space, even if they are filling that space with a lie.

If only the all knowing god alleged by Christians had been a tad more specific...then we might have some real answers, instead of things made up to fill a gap. I guess that's just beyond his abilities.

To believe that witches deserve death because the bible says so...is to first acknowledge a belief in magic and that witches possess it. Maybe early christians were jealous of love spells?

Unknowable with current information...remember star trek 4? Maybe we aren't interesting enough compared to whales, or even a cactus. Or maybe its the way the sun is reflected off the polar ice and to preserve their view we will be eliminated. Or the Heinlein approach with intelligent insects flinging asteroids across space at us. or they might love the sound rocks make when thrown into trees. 'In a universe where anything is possible'.is frequently cited as probable alien life, but the inverse is equally possible, that we're unfortunately it. I could speculate that stoicism would interest them. It is based on logic. But would they find our logic primitive, or advanced? Or would they even have a frame of reference? Unknowable with current information really is the best i can do.

Dan's still on the ignore list...i forget because i still see his quotes. One day i'll bother learning how to block those as well.

I can, and will. If the principles espoused in the bible were correct and universal, no species of life would be capable of mass transportation...since pi is not equal to 3 as claimed in 1 kings 7:23-26 and 2 chrinicles 4: 2-5.

"i know your in there. I can hear your tv...". 😂

nationalistic: having or expressing strong identification with ones own nation and vigorous support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Nation: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or region. In answer to "aren't all theistic religions nationalistic?" I would say the term may be misused here, or perhaps you have broadened the scope of what is meant typically by nationalistic, or nation? Some countries identify a religion as the national religion, but I don't believe there are religions that identify specific nations as theirs alone through doctrine, although I could be mistaken of course. Perhaps Israel? Not sure. I don't believe atheism promotes nationalism, even in the way you appear to mean it. The single ideology shared by all atheists is that we don't believe in god. That's the only single idea we share. Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of god(s). It appears to me that you have erred in lumping all atheists under one category, and broadened that category beyond what defines an actual atheist. It's a fairly common mistake. Concepts that don't exist independent of human thought...still exist. That's because we are people, we exist, and we have ideas that exist. I get that concept, and agree. But I don't agree that they are ghosts. Ghost: an apparition of a dead person. Spirit: those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period. I don't know if ideas qualify as spirits. Maybe the spirit behind an idea, such as the spirit of the law? The entire statement, "ideas are ghosts, but in some sense they are as real as we. Some may know this metaphysical reality as God, or Buddha, or many other names, and some may know it not at all, but it remains, in form and formlessness, both dependent and independent of the world." I don't buy this. If the idea of Buddha were independent of the world, then if there were no world the idea would remain. But the idea is dependent upon people. So take the people away, and the idea is gone as well. I think what you are engaging in is something I speculated with Druidry, that is, when others insisted that I couldn't be a real druid, because they all died off. The core principle of Druidry was still determinable, and so rebuildable, although in a unique form of it's own. But basically based on the same premises. So the idea isn't exactly the same, but can still be called Druidry because it filled the same essential void and had the same building blocks. This in no way imparts any sort of sentience, which is kind of what I gather from your statement. Perhaps I am misreading? I certainly don't see the idea of the Christian god being real as having its own power. It comes entirely from its followers, and if they did not exist the power inherent in the idea would not exist either. Prime example? Celtic mythology was once believed by myriad people in a particular region, and had influence as such. People behaved in certain manners as a result of their beliefs, those beliefs held a certain amount of power over them. NOW, a very miniscule portion of the population believes in such things and the power of those beliefs has diminished accordingly, it does NOT still remain despite the lack of adherents. These are, of course, my own thoughts on your statements. I may be misinterpreting wildly but I certainly don't see any inherent power behind ideas, or any "spirit" in terms of "ghost". No mind so to speak, no sentience. It isn't the idea itself, but the people behind the idea.

Certainly laudable reasons for being gone...just dont let it happen again! 😁

There are those, including myself, who argue the validity of religion. There are two sides to those arguments, at the least. One side claims a religion is valid, that it is correct, or right, whatever word you could want to use. Christianity claims that god is all powerful, has set down x commandments in his book, that the book is right. Druidry claims that we all have an inherent link with nature and should approach it with respect, though in terms of deity it leaves much up to the follower, aside from virtually deifying nature that is. Other religions, other deities and tenets...so on to the question at hand. Do you feel that religion has value beyond its correctness, rightness, etc...? Whether there is legitimately a god and Jesus, does christianity offer anything outside of those figures? If it does, are those figures central and essential to what it offers, or can they be cut out from that religion and still keep most of the core tenets in tact? Same for any other religion, of course...Druidry and nature, is there essential deity, or deification of nature, or can the tenets of the religion be followed to good cause without the distraction of the holy being inserted? Also, do some people by nature NEED religion? For my personal answer: I believe that the figures and deities behind religion are all fictitious. That's part of the reason I am curious about other people's view on this subject. If the deity is irrelevant, or at least takes a back seat to the tenets, then it stands to reason that any religion, made up or otherwise, becomes just as valid as the religion with the deity. Johnathan asked some time back about Jediism, I suppose that got me to wondering. A person understanding the faith and tenets of any fictional religion could in theory draw goodness and rightness from that religion, could be benefited by that religion. A person could worship the Seven, like in Game of Thrones, and have a valid religion. Or the spaghetti monster, or the Creator from the Wheel of Time series...they could adapt traditions from the various schools of study in the Dune series...and even though these religions are acknowledged as fiction, the religion would then become relevant and real in terms of meaning delivered to its followers. I know some people who "Need" religion, need to be a follower of something. A friend of mine in particular, Aron, comes to mind. It isn't that he is a lesser person, or incapable of determining his own course if need be. He has that certain aspect of character that lends itself to being a follower. He is definitely a bit on the gullible side, much like myself I suppose with my naivety. He is one such that finds wonder and awe irresistible, even in fiction. Maybe especially in fiction. He has had a bad run of things throughout the majority of his life, and he smiles and takes it on. I don't say that it doesn't affect him, because it clearly does. But he has the ability to frame things so they aren't as hurtful to him, and that's something I can respect. One of the primary methods he uses is fiction and religion, especially pulp fiction, monster movies, things of that nature. To me as an observer, I see him utilize the tools of fiction, of movies, books, and comics, in the same way he utilizes religion(he is a christian, by the way, if that matters). I have seen him draw on the inspirations of the werewolf just as much as the inspirations of the bible, if not more so. Then, there are the people I know who have addiction problems. Sometimes they cross over. It seems like one of the big things with AA, or any other anonymous program, is that religion. I personally don't see it, but then I am not an addict either. Maybe there is something there that connects people to religion. I just thought it would be an interesting question to pose to others, so feel free to respond. Purely in the interest of getting to know where others stand, of course.

How are we supposed to find Nuance, when so many people have trouble finding Jesus? And I didn't even know we were looking for him...

And someone probably views this group as a little tame and is considering how to take it up a notch...

It's alright. I was being humorous, but the internet doesn't exactly make that clear, eh? Sometimes it is that I forget how the buttons mash up together...and come out with a serious face, lol.

can you clarify? Agree with who? Are you agreeing that I might be annoying at times? Are you agreeing that I am honest? Or are you agreeing with something I said previous to that post, or to something Child of God said?

Its amusing to see dan make numerous false assumptions and claims. I am not a liberal, but a conservative...in every area but religion.

Dan's baiting is showing clearer and clearer, isn't it

I might be annoying at times, but always honest at the least.

Because it's called baiting. Dan does indeed know. He also knows what pushes Johnathan's buttons, and is hoping to elicit a specific, angry response that will eventually get Johnathan banned from the forum. He can't win the argument, so he tries to eliminate the players who keep making the arguments that he can't beat. That'd be why I put him on the ignore list...well part of the reason. That and the fact that I figured the rest of the board was probably getting ridiculously tired of our heated interactions. Morality is subjective. Morality is objective. Christians seem to espouse the objective morality track, but I cannot fathom why. Subjective means someone's opinion. If God exists, and he sets morality, it's all his opinion, and therefor subjective. If, as I believe, God doesn't exist, then morality is determined by social norms and people in general...and is subjective. There once was a time when slavery was perfectly acceptable. There was a time when smacking your wife around for mouthing off was the thing to do. (Both were supported by Christians using the bible, by the way). Now, society sets the moral standard a little higher. If it didn't, slavery would still be perfectly acceptable, and people would expect the wife to get a beating for speaking in public. And let's not forget that that sort of thing DOES still happen, in different locations where society still thinks it is acceptable. This just seems to me to be proof that morality is subjective to society, not some divine being. If it were the divine being, then wouldn't it be universal? Still and all...this topic is thoroughly dead. This is especially apparent when I, I I I I I, of all people, proclaim it so. Everyone knows I beat the horse to a pulp, then slush it around in the blender for good measure...and I am saying this horse is dead.

I needed no mediation...dans been on the ignore list for a while. And it was quiet, till...

They could want to. I always do. But that's me, the odd duck. I've been a happy business owner and a happy gas station clerk and a happy phone operator for GTE, for those who remember GTE. Even happy homeless for a while. Part of the natural stoic in me is my circumstances don't affect my persona much.

That's true. I've had lots of money...then none. And now am in the middle path...of a budget. Never bothered me either way. I do enjoy the niceties, but i guess having lost nearly everything puts a different perspective in mind. Or as john sang, 'i'm just sittin here watching the wheels go round'. Or is it shadows on the wall? Or no longer riding on the merry go round? Ah, all the same. We're just doing time.