|
|
Post by cts1 on Nov 19, 2024 15:31:29 GMT
How about Wagner, who flip-flopped between operas with heavily pagan themes (Ring Cycle) and some of the most magnificently haywire Christian-themed music ever (Tannhauser)? For the uninitiated: in Tannhauser, a perpetual virgin Christian and a pagan sex goddess inexplicably compete for the affections of an utter douchebag who does not deserve either one of them. I love it.It must have been Wagner's autobiography. I suspect Wagner a) got less tail, and b) as repellant as Tannhauser is, is still more charismatic than the person. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 19, 2024 15:33:42 GMT
That is correct, but religion has never provided a scientifically correct explanation. If an explanation exists, it will be discovered by science. Atheist and non believers have never provided a scientifically correct explanation as to wanting to believe there is no God. Could you say this in English, please? |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 19, 2024 15:35:54 GMT
Atheist and non believers have never provided a scientifically correct explanation as to wanting to believe there is no God. Could you say this in English, please? That is English. What language is you primary language? |
|
|
|
Post by DalekFred on Nov 19, 2024 15:37:06 GMT
Atheist and non believers have never provided a scientifically correct explanation as to wanting to believe there is no God. Could you say this in English, please? "Atheists have not scientifically explained why they don't want to believe in God." |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 19, 2024 15:37:28 GMT
Could you say this in English, please? That is English. What language is you primary language? German. English is my third language, and I am not sure what you want to say. Are you saying that no Atheists have found an explanation for why some people do not want to believe in a God? Because if that's what you meant, you are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 19, 2024 15:41:10 GMT
That is English. What language is you primary language? German. English is my third language, and I am not sure what you want to say. Are you saying that no Atheists have found an explanation for why some people do not want to believe in a God? Because if that's what you meant, you are wrong. No. What my post is saying is --- I was responding to a reply that said I needed proof that God exist, and religious institutions benefit society. I responded with --- not only do I need to provide proof --- but you need to provide proof that there is no God, and religious institutions do not benefit society. |
|
|
|
Post by DalekFred on Nov 19, 2024 15:46:07 GMT
German. English is my third language, and I am not sure what you want to say. Are you saying that no Atheists have found an explanation for why some people do not want to believe in a God? Because if that's what you meant, you are wrong. No. What my post is saying is --- I was responding to a reply that said I needed proof that God exist, and religious institutions benefit society. I responded with --- not only do I need to provide proof --- but you need to provide proof that there is no God, and religious institutions do not benefit society. Like Yoda, typing you are. Clarity for a foreign person, you have not brought. And the extra hyphons? WTF? |
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Nov 19, 2024 15:46:09 GMT
Well, yeah... That's pretty much how it works. People come up with ideas which could work for preservation and necessary development of their culture and these ideas either work or not. It's a simulation of the evolution on social level. We actually have an historical example - Islam. First Muhammad peddled a version of generic Abrahamic bull - it didn't work at all and nearly got him killed. The new - Medina - version brought him a lot of followers, turned Arabs into an almost unstoppable force and changed history forever. Obviously it took longer for other world religions to form but the process was not dissimilar. Religious institutions come later. And they do not define religion. They - if they are smart enough - redefine them to suit cultural and environmental changes and challenges. We can bemoan the loss of pagan cults but ultimately their time ended when human civilization got more complex. Religious institutions come simultaneously. Once Muhammed had underlings and followers the institution existed. You can't have a religion without some form of institution to define it, because religion by its very nature requires some form of hierarchy to set the rules and decide which stories are relevent. I suppose, but they don't all come together and have a meeting deciding "OK, so here's the changes we need to make to our holy commandments in order to fool the masses and subjugate women". That's not what religion is for. |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Nov 19, 2024 15:46:30 GMT
As I said before, they're not just making those religions up. They're basing their beliefs on what the institutions came up with. The whole "religious without religion" thing just means you still believe most of what the institutions tell you to believe and you're not giving any of them any cash. You can have religious institutions with a hierarchy. But combine that with a good education, and eventually people learn to think for themselves. That means they no longer blindly follow whatever that religious institution says. Good religious institutions provide a moral, ethical, spiritual and educational base. That is not available without religious institutions. Ah, the "no morality without religion" thing. Spoken like someone with no knowledge of world history. Hint: until recent times, all that "love thy neighbor" crap only applied to people of the same religion. Religion, for most of its history, was never anything more than another form of tribalism. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 19, 2024 15:50:28 GMT
You can have religious institutions with a hierarchy. But combine that with a good education, and eventually people learn to think for themselves. That means they no longer blindly follow whatever that religious institution says. Good religious institutions provide a moral, ethical, spiritual and educational base. That is not available without religious institutions. Ah, the "no morality without religion" thing. Spoken like someone with no knowledge of world history. Hint: until recent times, all that "love thy neighbor" crap only applied to people of the same religion. Religion, for most of its history, was never anything more than another form of tribalism. I have a great knowledge of history. Your post is not a rebuttal of anything I have said. All you did was say, "You are stupid movieliker. So I don't have to refute anything you say. Just dismiss it as stupidity from a stupid person." That is how MAGA Nazis debate. They dismiss any facts they don't like as left wing propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Nov 19, 2024 15:51:32 GMT
Religious institutions come simultaneously. Once Muhammed had underlings and followers the institution existed. You can't have a religion without some form of institution to define it, because religion by its very nature requires some form of hierarchy to set the rules and decide which stories are relevent. I suppose, but they don't all come together and have a meeting deciding "OK, so here's the changes we need to make to our holy commandments in order to fool the masses and subjugate women". That's not what religion is for. Actually...that's pretty much exactly what they do, except they use nicer sounding words. Because that IS what religion is for...controlling the masses. The hint is that one thing almost all religions share is this: it's a "sin" to harm someone of the same religion, but everyone else is fair game. And yes that includes Christianity. The difference there is that there are all kinds of easy mechanics for "forgiveness" built in. Slaughter an entire village of heathens? You feel bad about it? Then God's cool with you see you in Heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 19, 2024 15:51:48 GMT
German. English is my third language, and I am not sure what you want to say. Are you saying that no Atheists have found an explanation for why some people do not want to believe in a God? Because if that's what you meant, you are wrong. No. What my post is saying is --- I was responding to a reply that said I needed proof that God exist, and religious institutions benefit society. I responded with --- not only do I need to provide proof --- but you need to provide proof that there is no God, and religious institutions do not benefit society. Actually, no. I tend to be materialist, and I believe that Occam's Razor works. Meaning: When you have two concurring hypotheses (in this case: God exists / God does not exist), the simpler one is usually correct. Simpler in that context means: Using less unproven assumptions. And God is an unproven assumption. So if we believe Occam's Razor to work correctly (and I do), then it's not the atheists' job to prove that God does not exist; it's the theists's job to prove that God exists. The burden of proof is on the theists. Of course, this is only relevant if the theists want to convince materialistic atheists like me, that God exists. If you are fine believing in God without evidence, that's fine by me. But don't expect me to share your belief then. And where I really have a problem with is when theists try to codify their beliefs into secular laws. If they do so with arguing from a theistic perspective (like "abortion is murder, and the Bible says thou shalt not murder"), then they'd better prove that their God is real. |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Nov 19, 2024 15:55:08 GMT
Ah, the "no morality without religion" thing. Spoken like someone with no knowledge of world history. Hint: until recent times, all that "love thy neighbor" crap only applied to people of the same religion. Religion, for most of its history, was never anything more than another form of tribalism. I have a great knowledge of history. Your post is not a rebuttal of anything I have said. All you did was say, "You are stupid movieliker. So I don't have to refute anything you say. Just dismiss it as stupidity from a stupid person." That is how MAGA Nazis debate. They dismiss any facts they don't like as left wing propaganda. My post is a rebuttal of: "Good religious institutions provide a moral, ethical, spiritual and educational base. That is not available without religious institutions." And it's a pretty good one too, since instead of responding to my point about the historical brutality that has almost always accompanied religion throughout world history, you start crying about being called stupid. I did nothing of the kind, but I will consider you stupid if you legitimately think that attempt at deflection was anything other than painfully transparent. |
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on Nov 19, 2024 15:56:00 GMT
No that is wrong. Little kids learn and develop morality by going to church, instruction and example. Nobody knows if God exist. And nobody can prove whether or not He exist. So it's best to teach your children the truth. There may be a God and and afterlife. So if you want to go to Heaven, you better do the right thing.
This sounds a lot like Pascal's wager. What if the Norse gods are the real gods and the only way if going to Valhalla is to die in battle with a sword in hand? Fundamentally, there's a problem. The religion says that you can earn your way to the afterlife by works. Christianity is the only religion that says you can't and you must go by faith. Christianity also has far more historical documentation than literally any other religion. So much so that we use Christianity to number our history. |
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on Nov 19, 2024 15:58:01 GMT
You can have religious institutions with a hierarchy. But combine that with a good education, and eventually people learn to think for themselves. That means they no longer blindly follow whatever that religious institution says. Good religious institutions provide a moral, ethical, spiritual and educational base. That is not available without religious institutions. Ah, the "no morality without religion" thing. Spoken like someone with no knowledge of world history. Hint: until recent times, all that "love thy neighbor" crap only applied to people of the same religion. Religion, for most of its history, was never anything more than another form of tribalism. Have you never heard of the parable of the good Samaritan? www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/bible-story-of-the-good-samaritan-verses-and-meaning.html |
|
