Christopher Hitchens is one of the best intellectuals the Western World has.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by thekremlin

Yeah, also it's not really fair coming into this thread with some actual philosophy education. Amateurs-only, brah.

I don't know if this is making fun of Repug or me, but I don't claim to have all the answers, I'm learning as much as I can. But there is a lot to learn.

In regard to the feeling:

Originally Posted by thekremlin

There are also people who think that there is a greater power, something more to life than what we can observe and quantify. Could this be one of the things that makes religion beneficial to a society's ability to spread/survive? Shit, it could be. Dunno.

I am much more inclined to think this is just something in our evolution that came about, for some reason. Same reason you can be in awe when looking at the stars, or be in love with someone. Do I think that love is something spiritually connecting two people who were meant to be together because of some cosmic destiny? Or billions and trillions of chemical reactions set into motions by a multitude of behavioral and pheremonal nuances?

It's why I take issue whenever anybody has a "feeling" of a greater power or something more deep that binds the universe together, at the very core of it, even though it "feels" like a spirit or a soul, it's obviously just reactions in your body. Why those evolved is important to understand.




Also, I find it interesting to see Repug's change over the last 5 years or so. He used to be a very big atheist, then it seems like he couldn't justify it with the problem of existing in the universe, so he can't accept Existentialism (something i'm trying to perfect for myself still) or Nihilism. He's thus labeled himself as a Pantheist, which, as I said, is basically a hippie form of atheism that involves the spirit of nature, man. (which is simply the "feelings" i mentioned before)

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by thekremlin

Right. If there were something else unifying people and motivating science and art, societies wouldn't have needed religion.

Lawyered.

Forms of "folk religion" took hold and were around much earlier than science and art.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by DJ FC

Can you please make 4 posts in a row without sucking Chomps dick?

As soon as you stop sucking Rand's.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

As soon as you stop sucking Rand's.

I didn't even finish Atlas Shrugged, brah. To be honest I don't even like the bitch. And when have you ever seen me say her name or quote her or anything like that?

I am a Libertarian, but it didn't take anything from that useless cunt to make my mind up. In fact a lot of her shit is whack.

So for God's sake (UB this is for you) stop associating me with her.

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by thekremlin

There are also people who think that there is a greater power, something more to life than what we can observe and quantify.

This. Science cannot answer everything, only questions about the observable universe. Science can explain how the big bang happened, but not why it happened. Religion cannot explain this either, but it does offer an outlet for people to express the emotions that stem from these unanswered (unanswerable?) questions. I don't see anything wrong with communing with others in a religious setting (just like I don't see anything wrong with a bunch of dorks sitting around and speculating on how cool it would be if there is life on other planets or parallel universes) as long as, at the end of the day, participants are able to separate fantasy from reality and keep a healthy perspective about their made-up beliefs. Religion should just be something that is "left in the church" just like me tying up and spanking my girlfriend should be something that is "left in the bedroom".

[thekremlin]

I'm starting to feel like all your posts are making my argument for me. You keep pointing out reasons why religion is beneficial to societies. Your main point is that despite the benefits of religion, it's all BS. To which I say, probably. But it's very helpful BS.

Also I wasn't making fun of anyone. Just saying, the rules of discourse should say that the following is a foul:
Person 1 makes argument. Person 2 points out that philosopher A made similar argument, and then philosopher Beta wrote something that pwned said argument, therefore argument is wrong.
What would be more helpful would be: "The point you made is similar to that made by A. However, B points out that blah blah blah." What repug said is only unobnoxious if it is understood that everyone has read A and B.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

This. Science cannot answer everything, only questions about the observable universe. Science can explain how the big bang happened, but not why it happened. Religion cannot explain this either, but it does offer an outlet for people to express the emotions that stem from these unanswered (unanswerable?) questions. I don't see anything wrong with communing with others in a religious setting (just like I don't see anything wrong with a bunch of dorks sitting around and speculating on how cool it would be if there is life on other planets or parallel universes) as long as, at the end of the day, participants are able to separate fantasy from reality and keep a healthy perspective about their made-up beliefs. Religion should just be something that is "left in the church" just like me tying up and spanking my girlfriend should be something that is "left in the bedroom".

People who say "science can't answer anything" have no imagination. That's why science exists. It knows it doesn't have the answer to everything. Once it does, it will stop. Until then, it will continue.

What happened before the big bang (therefore before time) is very likely unknowable, although not impossible, and if so is inconsequential to us. You can't very well measure something outside of time itself (this is also why it would be likely impossible to ever disprove a deity). A lot of people have a problem with somebody saying "I don't know", so they invent religion and spirituality, which pretends to answer questions, but doesn't answer anything except fanciful thoughts.

I agree with you wholly about religion just being kept to ones self. I think it's time for a Hitchens quote on the matter:

HITCHENS: Absolutely, I say good luck to it. The way I phrase it in my book, available at fine bookstores everywhere, is that I propose a pact with the faith, the faithful. I say—I'll take it again, I'll quote from the great Thomas Jefferson, I don't mind if my neighbor believes in 15 gods or in none, he neither by that breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. I would echo that and say that as long as you don't want your religion taught to my children in school, given a government subsidy, imposed on me by violence, any of these things, you are fine by me. I would prefer not even to know what it is that you do in that church of yours. In fact, if you force it on my attention, I will consider it a breach of that pact. Have your own bloody Christmas, and so on. Do your slaughtering, if possible, in an abattoir. And don't mutilate the genitals of your children. Because then I'm afraid it gets within the ambit of law. All right, don't you think that's reasonably pluralistic and humanitarian of me? I think it is. Why is it a vain hope on my part? Why is that? Has this pact ever been honored by the other side? Of course not. And it's a mystery to me, and I'll share it with you. If I believed that there was a savior who had been appointed or sent by—or a prophet—appointed or sent by a God who bore me in mind, and loved me, and wanted the best for me, if I believed that and that I possessed the means of grace and the hope of glory, to phrase it like that, I think, I don't know, I think I might be happy. They say it's the way to happiness. Why doesn't it make them happy? Don't you think it's a perfectly decent question? Why doesn't it? Because they won't be happy until you believe it too. And why is that? Because that's what their holy books tell them. Now, I'm sorry, it's enough with saying in the name of religion. Do these texts say that until every knee bows in the name of Jesus and so on, there will be no happiness? Of course it is what they say. It isn't just a private belief. It is rather, and I think always has been, and it's why I'm here, actually a threat to the idea of a peaceable community, and very often, as now, and frequently, a very palpable one. So I think that's the underlying energy that powers the friendly disagreement between Tony and myself.

[Repugnant Abomination]

As I'm sure you're aware, Hume was the leading empiricist and atheist of his time. His arguments were considered rock solid. The bleak and convincing picture he painted disturbed a young German philosopher named Kant, who would later become what some people consider the "greatest" philosopher.

Scroll down to the second heading: Critique of Pure Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Also, I find it interesting to see Repug's change over the last 5 years or so. He used to be a very big atheist, then it seems like he couldn't justify it with the problem of existing in the universe, so he can't accept Existentialism (something i'm trying to perfect for myself still) or Nihilism. He's thus labeled himself as a Pantheist, which, as I said, is basically a hippie form of atheism that involves the spirit of nature, man. (which is simply the "feelings" i mentioned before)

For the record, I still consider myself an atheist. I'm also an absurdist (subtle but different from existentialist), firmly in the camp of Camus. The difference between you and I is that I'm not nearly as sure, nor comfortable with my conclusions. When I said I was a pantheist, it was very tongue in cheek, because it's obviously more or less synonymous with atheism; semantics.

Originally Posted by DJ FC

I didn't even finish Atlas Shrugged, brah. To be honest I don't even like the bitch. And when have you ever seen me say her name or quote her or anything like that?

I am a Libertarian, but it didn't take anything from that useless cunt to make my mind up. In fact a lot of her shit is whack.

So for God's sake (UB this is for you) stop associating me with her.

Fair enough, but you're a somewhat extreme libertarian.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

As I'm sure you're aware, Hume was the leading empiricist and atheist of his time. His arguments were considered rock solid. The bleak and convincing picture he painted disturbed a young German philosopher named Kant, who would later become what some people consider the "greatest" philosopher.

Scroll down to the second heading: Critique of Pure Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm familiar with Kant's work, I just haven't read any yet. I'll try to get to it soon. I've read a fair bit of Hume.

For the record, I still consider myself an atheist. I'm also an absurdist (subtle but different from existentialist), firmly in the camp of Camus. The difference between you and I is that I'm not nearly as sure, nor comfortable with my conclusions. When I said I was a pantheist, it was very tongue in cheek, because it's obviously more or less synonymous with atheism; semantics.

I'm inching my way to absurdism, with the very little studying I've done I see very little difference between existentialism. Sorry about misunderstanding Pantheist comment.


I gotta go run some errands, have fun boys

[f3lix]

I wonder how much time Blonde has put into this thread.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Operation Eagle Claw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a very fine sand cloud (a haboob)

lol

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

So it really, really pisses me off, that all of a sudden, after 10 years, we supposedly kill Bin Laden, dump him in the ocean, laud a few special forces for a few weeks, and practically forget about him almost entirely. It just doesn't feel right and, for me, there isn't enough evidence or backstory to corroborate accepting the fact.

Here is why even entertaining the idea that the government made up killing obama is moronic: If he was dead, al qeada could just produce his body and america would be fucked. if he's alive all bin laden would have to do is release a new video denying it.

[Orgazmo]

Amount of sense made in that post:
[ ] One-Hundred Percent
[x] Less than One-Hundred Percent

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

you have to read between the lines

[thekremlin]

The government claimed to kill Barrack Obama?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I wonder how much time Blonde has put into this thread.

Nothing I wouldn't consider time well spent.

I wonder how much time you've spent being a faggot?


Christopher Hitchens makes first public appearance in months | Partisan Gridlock | a Chron.com blog

Christopher Hitchens on Writing, Mortality and Cancer

[Saint DH]

We spend approximately 1/3 of our lives sleeping. f3lix has spent more than that being a faggot.

[thekremlin]

Yeah, but there's a lot of overlap there.

[thekremlin]

BTW had an interesting thought re: our previous conversation. My supposition was that because we see religion in all of the surviving civilizations, it was evidence that religion had benefit. But if Blonde had been smart, he could have argued that I was confusing causality. Two tribes: one has tons of food in their granaries, and their houses are built. The other is struggling to survive the winter. Only the first tribe is going to create art and spend time building a church. So religion could just be a luxury that only surviving tribes waste resources on.

(It's not, though.)

[Ugly Bastard]

Religion is just a poor attempt at conveying spiritual experiences to others. "I have this feeling inside... it's amazing... it must be... it must be... JESUS!!"

"Oh yea! I have that feeling too! So it's Jesus? That's what it is? Oh boy! We gotta go tell everyone!"

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by thekremlin

So religion could just be a luxury that only surviving tribes waste resources on.

Also in the book I reco'd.

[ninjaface]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Religion is just a poor attempt at conveying spiritual experiences to others. "I have this feeling inside... it's amazing... it must be... it must be... JESUS!!"

"Oh yea! I have that feeling too! So it's Jesus? That's what it is? Oh boy! We gotta go tell everyone!"

It's a convenient way to stop thinking. If someone witnessed an amazing, wondrous event and offered "MAGIC!" as the explanation, he'd be seen as a fucking idiot. If a different person that witnessed the same event replaced the word "MAGIC" with "JESUS", they'd be seen as a respectable religious person. Problem being, there just isn't really a difference between the two explanations.

JESUS = MAGIC

[thekremlin]

Right, whether or not religion is valid is not an interesting question, to me. The more interesting question is "why does it exist?" Saying "it's dumb" doesn't really add anything.

[Mr. Blonde]

It certainly is worth bringing up if you think that it's a positive thing for humanity, sir.

[Orgazmo]

Someone needs to tell Jesus that a trick is what a whore does for money. What he is doing are illusions.