A Question For Athiests... Who Benefits From This?

reply to post by pennylemon


I merely gave the OP what he needed at that moment.

A charitable act...without opinionating.

And between you and me...I didn't really win anything.

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by pennylemon

 

I merely gave the OP what he needed at that moment.

A charitable act...without opinionating.

And between you and me...I didn't really win anything.

Yes midicon, I was not referring to your post I was pointing out the response. To be clear, I agree wholeheartedly with the point you attempted to make.

Penny

reply to post by pennylemon



I didn't attempt to make a point...I made it!

I was displaying a charitable act by entering this thread...


And I know you didn't reply to me but I thought your avatar was cool.

Originally posted by Bone75
Your belief is that there is no God and religion was simply made up to control the masses via brainwashing.

My question to you is how do these teachings benefit anyone other than the person practicing them and those who are the objects of these practices?

The establishment of religion, and the establishment of a causal connection between the survival of death by the human mind and the existence of an all-powerful authority personality may not have anything at all to do with getting folks to stand quietly in line on this side of the veil.

Here's a thread that explores the real reason for the invention of God and religion.

You can react to this notion however you wish, but the obvious net impact of concretely linking an afterlife with the existence of an indisputable ruler sure has the potential of benefiting whomever it is that has been able to establish him (or her) self as that ruler. That this linkage is so aggressively promoted on this side of the veil - where there's no means to actually verify or refute the validity of such a linkage - has all the marks of sheer genius, as it pertains to a successful marketing strategy.

Hell, considering the subjective nature of human perception and the elimination of all objective reality anchors once the material realm has been left behind, all it takes for this "god" to be "proven" beyond all doubt to the nonbeliever is for that person to NOT cease to consciously exist once their body and brain have been tossed into a box and buried. From there, how hard is it to reeducate that skeptic? I'm going to suggest that the real effort is over by that point, and it was all provided by the overwhelming presence of the cultural religious narrative that the person in question grew up with.

reply to post by midicon


midicon,

Point taken and Thank you

Penny

reply to post by Bone75


Do you actually think that birds and other animals that make nests simply woke up one day and already knew how to do it?

Birds did not just magically know how to build nests. Millions or even billions of years ago, one of their ancestors discovered how to make nests by using their knowledge and intelligence. And of course, they discovered it when they were adults, as animals are not born with any external knowledge.

reply to post by Bone75

Your belief is that there is no God and religion was simply made up to control the masses via brainwashing.

Maybe you ask about my beliefs rather than tell me what they are.

I don't believe that there is no God. I lack a belief in any deities. There's a difference between the two.

I don't believe that "religion was simply made up to control the masses via brainwashing". I do believe that it is sometimes used as such. As a former theist, I understand the role religion plays in the lives of different people -- everything from providing a sense of community to providing comfort in the face of the thought that there is nothing but this life -- I just don't agree that it's necessary to lead a moral life.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Bone75

 

Do you actually think that birds and other animals that make nests simply woke up one day and already knew how to do it?

Birds did not just magically know how to build nests. Millions or even billions of years ago, one of their ancestors discovered how to make nests by using their knowledge and intelligence. And of course, they discovered it when they were adults, as animals are not born with any external knowledge.

edit on 5-5-2013 by extraterrestrialentity because: (no reason given)

I can provide you with a lot more scientific studies to support my position than you can come up with to support yours. Look it up for yourself before painting me as ignorant. Maybe you could start a thread about it and we can argue there.

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by pennylemon

 

I didn't attempt to make a point...I made it!

And in the process you made mine as well.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75

 

At what point in a bird's life does his parents teach him to build a nest? When does a spider learn to weave a web? Are they not born with this knowledge?

What a lame comparison! A bird's or a spider's instinct doesn't equal a belief in God nor is it evidence of a nest building or web weaving religion.

Obviously my line of reasoning flew further over your head than it did his. My point was that the only way he could know if animals are born with the awareness of a creator is if his parrot told him. I used the examples of the nest and the web to support the fact that animals are born with knowledge that you conveniently refer to as instinct.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by Bone75
The account is from one of the only 2 authors in the Bible that actually walked with Christ... Matthew.

Extremely unlikely. It is far more likely Robin Hood walked the earth with his merry men.

More likely than nothing causing an explosion that formed everything around you.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by pennylemon

 

I didn't attempt to make a point...I made it!

And in the process you made mine as well.

To whom are you responding ?

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by Bone75
The account is from one of the only 2 authors in the Bible that actually walked with Christ... Matthew.

Extremely unlikely. It is far more likely Robin Hood walked the earth with his merry men.

More likely than nothing causing an explosion that formed everything around you.

Which avoids the point entirely and = a strawman fallacy type rebuttal. Your claims include the assertion that certain people lived, which is very arguable in itself.

There are no genuine sources that would indicate Jesus existed. There is much to indicate that he is a "Euhemerised" myth. A view that is at last beginning to gain some appreciation among secular scholars, though it has many centuries of "special pleading" fallacy, indoctrination, delusion and political correctness to overcome. At the very best he could have been a 1st century John Frum (if we leave out the supernatural claims which we know cannot happen).

Your irrelevant oversimplification and in some ways, errant, reference to cosmological theory (that, unlike Jesus, has a lot of observational facts to support it) notwithstanding.

Instead of such negative anti intellectual quips that deride genuine search for knowledge, it might be better to supply something in a positive sense, to indicate that your belief could be more than a simple delusion. Such as finding some way of quantifying your faith (is it that of a mustard seed?) and demonstrating that you could use it to move a mountain. That type of thing, I have no doubt would cause many to rethink.

A strange thing that, by and large, Jesus overwhelmingly appears to enjoy associating with middle class westerners (particularly Americans) and those who grow amid indoctrination. Next time you are conversing with your imaginary friend (if you do), could you point out that there are billions (including his own followers) around the world, some of whom by accident of birth, have been indoctrinated into different cultural myths, yet suffer great misery each and every day. In light of his supposed abilities and the (massively hypocritical, in this instance) preaching you provided in your op.

Perhaps you could also point out that his system of nature where creatures must set upon and devour each other every day, simply to survive, seems a bit cruel and could also use a little tweaking. Also in light of such hypocritical preaching usually associated with this (very likely) mythical figure.

To claim he existed in the first place is an assumption that, as yet, cannot genuinely be supported. This would be before we move on to discussing the massive overall hypocrisy displayed in such myths.

The only issue is that the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus by people that did not witness the events first hand. None of the holy texts can be traced to actual authors and it is circular reasoning to suggest that religion is true because it says so in the bible. By believing that, you are actually putting your faith in MAN, not god. Man wrote it, man translated it, man re-translated it, man based religions off it. Atheists could be convinced by evidence, but none exists unfortunately, so atheism is the default position of logic. I do agree with the teachings of Jesus overall, minus the supernatural stuff, but there's no evidence to suggest he was god or that the stories about him are true.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Excellent response. You're obviously a very smart cookie. Now could you please at least try to apply that same sound logic to my question?

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by Bone75



REPOSTED/POSITED:
Who benefits from being an atheist, who benefits from being a thiest; NIETHER it is the agnostic that ultimately benefits as seeing the two in a stalemate situation conquers/climbs the fence dividing them and thereby SITS ON IT unmoving and enjoying the 360 view. By attrition? NO will win the war of belief system diolog through entropy (never even having to be fought). Heck, they dont even have to formulate a battleplan BIBLE.

SECOND ATTEMPT HERE; OP, you do not pay attention to your reply-eees. If you dont groom them, acknowelge them they will NEVER COME BACK (afterall they paid enough attention to your query to answer) this/ it could be construed as a neglectful parent. Its happening too often, twitter replies, 120 characters are way too many (might actually confer a complete thoughtform youd have to have responsibility for answering). I suppose my answer to your opening statement could have been "AWESOME DUDE no reply necessary" ).

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

Excellent response. You're obviously a very smart cookie. Now could you please at least try to apply that same sound logic to my question?

Okay, with that first objection out of the way.

These seemingly innocuous verses themselves are probably harmless. If the one who subscribes to them is only mildly delusional. Although the fact they revolve around an imaginary being, is delusional (not uncommon in humans generally, to some extent). This would probably be most Christians, who were either not thoroughly indoctrinated into such cult ideology, or couldn't let go of common sense altogether. For them it seems more of a cultural observance, the cognitive dissonance doesn't cause much turmoil and very little rationalisation is necessary. It seems a way of hedging their bets, or a reasonably harmless placebo.

It is difficult to take seriously such cherry picked verses and consider them in isolation, in view of the overall beliefs of which they can be part. It would be possible to take verses from any cult this way. If we are to consider possible benefits (which there obviously might be), it isn't unfair to weigh it up in an overall sense. Some of the worst and most destructive cults can have beautiful sounding verses amongst the nonsense, sometimes with a logical philosophy that appears impeccable (at first glance). Yet for all of the nicey-niceness, historically the various Christian cults have been amongst the worst in a religious sense.

While harmless for many, it can also be the "departure lounge". The point from which people go on to wave goodbye to reality, where the seemingly benign and mild delusion can go on to become a genuine rigid and fanatical mental illness, or allow them to be captivated by and become used by the insanity of others. The People's Temple did many good humanitarian works at one stage. As did Marshall Applewhite adhere to similar sentiment, full of love for humanity, as also did the medieval inquisitors.

It is problematic when those with legislative powers, those who educate for example, are swayed by an imaginary sky fairy or have to pander to sizeable numbers of constituents with such beliefs. This is when it starts to encroach on the rights of others and opens the way for tyrants and brainwashing. If you don't think it is a problem simply by looking at the world around you, perhaps you should look at the available data. Those countries/societies with a high level of religious observance are quite ill (as societies), compared to more secular ones. This is not an opinion, it is a fact that is known amongst sociologists. Would you like some links to the academic papers discussing such facts? I get tired of posting them, as they seem to be ignored, as is customary with facts that challenges such beliefs.

It could be valuable to go on and consider the flowery verses of people such as Christ (whether he existed or not) from a broader view and a more critical angle, to see if they are really so tolerant and loving, or whether they might even contain unbridled hypocrisy.

Edit to ps. I should point out, that although these views of religion might not seem glowing, they are not meant to "tar all with the same brush". Individually, religious people are like anyone else, obviously, with some of the kinder and more intelligent people I have known being devout. Though it doesn't make up for the fact that religion in general seems to have negative overall effects on society, in both historical and present tense.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by Bone75

 

REPOSTED/POSITED:
Who benefits from being an atheist, who benefits from being a thiest; NIETHER it is the agnostic that ultimately benefits as seeing the two in a stalemate situation conquers/climbs the fence dividing them and thereby SITS ON IT unmoving and enjoying the 360 view. By attrition? NO will win the war of belief system diolog through entropy (never even having to be fought). Heck, they dont even have to formulate a battleplan BIBLE.

SECOND ATTEMPT HERE; OP, you do not pay attention to your reply-eees. If you dont groom them, acknowelge them they will NEVER COME BACK (afterall they paid enough attention to your query to answer) this/ it could be construed as a neglectful parent. Its happening too often, twitter replies, 120 characters are way too many (might actually confer a complete thoughtform youd have to have responsibility for answering). I suppose my answer to your opening statement could have been "AWESOME DUDE no reply necessary" ).

edit on 8-5-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

I haven't responded to you because you changed the question. I didn't ask you who benefits from being a theist or an atheist. I asked you who benefits from these particular practices.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by Bone75

 

REPOSTED/POSITED:
Who benefits from being an atheist, who benefits from being a thiest; NIETHER it is the agnostic that ultimately benefits as seeing the two in a stalemate situation conquers/climbs the fence dividing them and thereby SITS ON IT unmoving and enjoying the 360 view. By attrition? NO will win the war of belief system diolog through entropy (never even having to be fought). Heck, they dont even have to formulate a battleplan BIBLE.

SECOND ATTEMPT HERE; OP, you do not pay attention to your reply-eees. If you dont groom them, acknowelge them they will NEVER COME BACK (afterall they paid enough attention to your query to answer) this/ it could be construed as a neglectful parent. Its happening too often, twitter replies, 120 characters are way too many (might actually confer a complete thoughtform youd have to have responsibility for answering). I suppose my answer to your opening statement could have been "AWESOME DUDE no reply necessary" ).

edit on 8-5-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

I haven't responded to you because you changed the question. I didn't ask you who benefits from being a theist or an atheist. I asked you who benefits from these particular practices.

So you are saying because a belief system does not describe you as what you do in life for a living, say a high end Ferrari car salesmen, or the back lot junker carnival style swindler used car salesman would if attended the same congregation every Sunday (broke bread at lunch together every 9 to 5 same carlot) NULIFIES all life practices, I am saying no one benefits regarding the herding style organized religion that WILL and do espouse theist atheist and agnostic diatribes. Scripture allows for all of this; DOES IT? . What you do not realise is this is a personal journey between you and God alone, anything else contaminates it. Changing the question is what I do, its called expanding an arguement, one that may not fit yours exactly but has resonance to it, and if answered is very rewarding (entirely selfish on my part).

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

So you are saying because a belief system does not describe you as what you do in life for a living, say a high end Ferrari car salesmen, or the back lot junker carnival style swindler used car salesman would if attended the same congregation every Sunday (broke bread at lunch together every 9 to 5 same carlot) NULIFIES all life practices,

First off... if you would simply apply your obviously superior labeling skills to anything I've written in this thread, you would realize that I AM agnostic and your Christian bashing sarcasm isn't warranted or necessary. I am not here to argue ALL of my talking points concerning what I think of "Christianity". I am here to discuss something that Jesus said. Did you read the passages? How do they benefit the church?

He is saying to pray alone, to not practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. These practices totally contradict what is practiced today, therefore if I choose to believe that Jesus was who he said he was, then I'm going to take what he said more seriously than some preacher with dollar signs in his eyes.

I am saying no one benefits regarding the herding style organized religion that WILL and do espouse theist atheist and agnostic diatribes. Scripture allows for all of this; DOES IT?

Are you asking me if the scriptures support strong verbal attacks against theists, atheists, and agnostics? That I don't know, but maybe I'm having trouble comprehending your statement/question. Regardless of what you're implying, this is what an earlier poster referred to as a strawman response to my original question. Is it not?

What you do not realise is this is a personal journey between you and God alone, anything else contaminates it.

What you fail to understand is that if I am on some sort of journey with God, then you are part of that journey. You serve the purpose of refining my beliefs, as I do yours. MY "journey" is anything but personal and its contamination proof.