Originally posted by Emperordmb
For Rocky, It's less so JP, and moreso that I believe in God.
It's one thing to forgo critical thinking for a personal escapist fantasy that allows you to cope with existential issues.
It's another thing that it's neccesary for society to forgo critical thinking so they can listen to the whims of an imagined dictator you use because being told what to do is easy.
The former is stupid but doesn't really harm anyone(assuming you aren't going out of your way to get your kids to do it too).
The latter is what causes terrorism, false science, and dictatorships to survive and flourish.
You're welcome to keep your idiocy to yourself, but trying to form an objective moral framework for many people based on one unsupported source of information is dangerous and absolutely stupid for you to support.
People get their beliefs from stories and with a wide range of stories to look into they can pick out bad weeds. But trying to give a single story high authority because it doesn't have the self-awareness to acknowledge that it is a story is the#1 way to get mass tragedy and mass stupidity.
Peterson is a dangerous dumbass when it comes to religion. By supporting him, so are you.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It's less so that you believe in god and moreso that you openly champion peterson's baseless assertion that religion is neccesary for society.It's one thing to forgo critical thinking for a personal escapist fantasy that allows you to cope with existential issues.
It's another thing that it's neccesary for society to forgo critical thinking so they can listen to the whims of an imagined dictator you use because being told what to do is easy.
The former is stupid but doesn't really harm anyone(assuming you aren't going out of your way to get your kids to do it too).
The latter is what causes terrorism, false science, and dictatorships to survive and flourish.
You're welcome to keep your idiocy to yourself, but trying to form an objective moral framework for many people based on one unsupported source of information is dangerous and absolutely stupid for you to support.
People get their beliefs from stories and with a wide range of stories to look into they can pick out bad weeds. But trying to give a single story high authority because it doesn't have the self-awareness to acknowledge that it is a story is the#1 way to get mass tragedy and mass stupidity.
Peterson is a dangerous dumbass when it comes to religion. By supporting him, so are you.
What if I told you that Mormons have higher attainment in post-secondary education, lower crime rates, lower divorce rates, and higher income rates compared to the US Population?
Better in every single socioeconomic measure than the population average. Specifically because of their Mormon-ness. Does that make you upset?
Those numbers increase when measured against active Mormons (meaning,they attend church 2 or more times a month). Crazy, isn't it?
But you go ahead and sit on that high-horse and pretend like religion is terrible and poison. It's a horse made of idiocy and ignorance, of course.
Opinions like yours are very often indicative of young-adult, atheist, males, who are depressed. The "edge" for your anti-theism comes from a combination of these conditions.
This is for triple D. Is there a singular entity you guys believes him? Or is it just more a belief he is out there.
I ask because I am curious, but at the same time to lazy to look it up.
I used to believe in God since I was raised Catholic, but as I grew up, I’ve come to see religion as a sham this those in power uses to manipulate others. Not saying there aren’t true believers of the fate, because I’ve met plenty of them.
I think there is enough knowledge out there to believe that there is a higher being or beings in existence making it futile and even ignorant to be a strong atheist.
I identify as agnostic theist. Theosophically, all theists should be "agnostic theists" because of the implications of gnostic theism (it's impossible to be gnostic theist).
Originally posted by dadudemon
What if I told you that Mormons have higher attainment in post-secondary education, lower crime rates, lower divorce rates, and higher income rates compared to the US Population?Better in every single socioeconomic measure than the population average. Specifically because of their Mormon-ness. Does that make you upset?
Those numbers increase when measured against active Mormons (meaning,they attend church 2 or more times a month). Crazy, isn't it?
But you go ahead and sit on that high-horse and pretend like religion is terrible and poison. It's a horse made of idiocy and ignorance, of course.
Opinions like yours are very often indicative of young-adult, atheist, males, who are depressed. The "edge" for your anti-theism comes from a combination of these conditions.
He does seem like one of those atheists where it's basically a religion for him.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It's less so that you believe in god and moreso that you openly champion peterson's baseless assertion that religion is neccesary for society.It's one thing to forgo critical thinking for a personal escapist fantasy that allows you to cope with existential issues.
It's another thing that it's neccesary for society to forgo critical thinking so they can listen to the whims of an imagined dictator you use because being told what to do is easy.
The former is stupid but doesn't really harm anyone(assuming you aren't going out of your way to get your kids to do it too).
The latter is what causes terrorism, false science, and dictatorships to survive and flourish.
You're welcome to keep your idiocy to yourself, but trying to form an objective moral framework for many people based on one unsupported source of information is dangerous and absolutely stupid for you to support.
People get their beliefs from stories and with a wide range of stories to look into they can pick out bad weeds. But trying to give a single story high authority because it doesn't have the self-awareness to acknowledge that it is a story is the#1 way to get mass tragedy and mass stupidity.
Peterson is a dangerous dumbass when it comes to religion. By supporting him, so are you.
Hmmmm. Science isn't some benevolent source of goodness that will lead to Utopia. Like religion, plenty of atrocities have been, and will be, committed in the name of science.
Tbh, the way you're ranting about science vs. religious seems.....religious. Pretty ironic, but I think people don't realize that religion has been so prolific, and almost a cultural constant among humans because we have some innate desire to know more. And just because it doesn't rely on faith*, it doesn't mean it isn't touching the same mental nodes that religion is.
*A lot of science is based on faith in one way or another.
To be clear, I am not religious, I am agnostic. But I find it weird how religious some people get about science. Usually, they aren't in the hard science themselves, probably because they lack the necessary critical thinking.
You really shouldn't denounce religion so quickly. I think Religion is almost a byproduct of evolution. I mean, every major civilization on Earth has a religious aspect to it. Entire institutions were designed because religion is on some level, a human necessity. It would naive, and ignorant to dismiss or ignore it. Like anything else that involves humans, there is good, and there is bad. But I think there is a lot of good that can be found because tbh, most people need guidance, they crave it. On the scale of a society, religion might very well be a necessary tool because the average person is much dumber than we could possibly imagine tbh.
And JP's doesn't preach conversation. He touches upon mythological constants that have consistently appeared in human literature from various civilizations. He is himself a Christian, so he refers to Christian lore. It would be stupid to discount themes that are so alluring to the human condition.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Hmmmm. Science isn't some benevolent source of goodness that will lead to Utopia.
I never said science should be the basis of a moral code, so....
try again?
But I find it weird how religious some people get about science. Usually, they aren't in the hard science themselves, probably because they lack the necessary critical thinking.
If you'd actually bothered to read, I said morality should be based on a wide variety of stories and experiences. But clearly, you did not bother to read. Hence your post is a collosal waste of my time.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What if I told you that Mormons have higher attainment in post-secondary education, lower crime rates, lower divorce rates, and higher income rates compared to the US Population?
.
Because it doesn't show causation, only correlation. You've chosen to cherrypick an example of the former and hence I'm not interested in responding.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Atheists have lower crime rates than religious peeps, Yet i didn't cite this in my argumentation. Why?
But in the case of religion and active participation, in direct opposition to secularism, you have this large list:
Ulmer and Harris explored “Race and the Religious Contexts of Violence” in their study. They analyzed data from the U.S. Census, the Religious Congregations and Membership Study and crime reports from nearly 200 counties in New York California and Texas. All of the counties had substantial numbers of black, white and Latino residents.What they found was not only evidence that religion may exert a protective influence discouraging violent crime, but that there are also racial-ethnic differences in the role of faith communities.
Consider these findings:
• Black and white violence decreased significantly as the percentage rose of county residents who belonged to congregations or were regular attenders.
• Black and Latino violence was lower in communities where residents belonged to similar types of religious institutions, indicating faith groups from similar traditions were able to exert greater influence on community values when they had a significant presence.
• Religious homogeneity was not associated with overall rates of white violence, but further breakdowns showed communities with larger percentages of evangelicals had lower rates of white violence. Latino violence was significantly reduced in communities with large numbers of active Catholics.
• Black violence dipped dramatically in counties with high levels of poverty, unemployment and low levels of education where large percentages of residents were active in congregations. This is a key finding, as communities with severe social and economic disadvantages are more likely to have high violent crime rates.The findings suggest that religious groups have the ability to cultivate moral attitudes “that counteract the code of the streets,” Ulmer says.
Let's make it clear that just stating you are theistic in some way but having no other defining characteristic about you associated with theism is no different than being an atheist or agnostic.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Because it doesn't show causation, only correlation. You've chosen to cherrypick an example of the former and hence I'm not interested in responding.
In the above study, yes, it does show a correlative causation for religious participation and the well-being of people and communities. The often touted but mistaken position by anti-theistic people like you is that religion is poison and terrible. Humans crave religion and ritualistic practices. It's in our genes whose instructions result in many complex behaviors. You can't just wish away religion and what it does for humans. You also can't carte blanche vilify religion as evil.
Ultimately positions that want to fully erradicate religion are just riding on willful ignorance… Which is the exact issue they have with religion. Fitting.
If you really hate organized religion you should build a secular belief that people will use for rituals that are not self-destructive and have it regulated by machines so it's not abused by any made un authorities.
But in the case of religion and active participation, in direct opposition to secularism, you have this large list:
non-existent community groups?
The reason why I mentioned causation is that for this to function as a defence of a religion, you'd have to show that religious ideology is what makes these kind of improvements possible.
he often touted but mistaken position by anti-theistic people like you is that religion is poison and terrible.
If a car with red paint can do what a car with blue paint can do, then claiming that red paint is what allows the car to function is lol worthy,
If you want to claim my position is "mistaken", then you're gonna need to show me benefits that are exclusive to religious ideology. I have already noted pitfalls which are intrinsically linked to the nature of god-based morality:
but denying the causal link between two ideologies that advocate for a lack of critical thinking and which encourage you to base your morality on a imaginary dictator is cognitive dissonace at it's finest.
...
In fact, generally speaking, organizations that set up "moral standards" collectively, like republics, seem to do a much better job at avoiding "Killing and stealing" than organizations that do so based on the whim of a singular figure, like authoritarian regimes. Notice how I'm using intrinsic qualities to link religion to said regimes?
Why? Because when multiple people/things are required to verify something, you're less likely to hit extremes.
[/quote]
There is no distinction between an objective moral code cometh from god and an objective moral code cometh from kim jong un, Stalin, or Hitler aside from one thing:
As there is no proof of what he is responsible he can't be held accountable. And as he can be anyone, people are free to claim he believes anything they want him to. Singular sources of morality are dangerous. While American society, keeping religion mostly in the background and not trying their code of conduct toa single entity, has been able to largely mitigate this negative, much of the world has not, and much of America has not. There is nothing required in religious belief that is benefical, and theire is plenty neccesary in religious belief that is potentially harmful. Hence religious based morality is bad.
you should build a secular belief that people will use for rituals
You're certainly welcome to ask unicorns what to do if you want, but Lol at trying to claim your conversations about unicorns are a societal benefit or neccesity.