Yes, I'd like to have the Atheism option in the game.
No. Atheism should not be an option for the game.
Firstly, I think he means The Hobbit; there were a lot of dwarves (12, IIRC) and they sang a lot. Secondly, the exaggeration comes with the feeling of reading them. The first time I read the Hobbit when I was about 12 I took them in, by about the 10th time you can skip over themOriginally Posted by SamBC
Last edited by tfordp; 05-10-2012 at 06:02 AM.
*Dwarves, not elves.Firstly, I think he means The Hobbit; there were a lot of elves (12, IIRC) and they sang a lot. Secondly, the exaggeration comes with the feeling of reading them. The first time I read the Hobbit when I was about 12 I took them in, by about the 10th time you can skip over them
But yes. He's referring to how in the Hobbit, the songs don't really need to be read unless you haven't read the book for a while. They can be entertaining, but after a while they just drag a bit.
And steth's correct in saying the Bible's irrelevant. I don't understand why Christianity keeps it. Or doesn't update it. It doesn't relate to their modern religion in any way (except for a few basic things, such as the trinity and Jesus' divinity). Most of the book is pointless. Really, I think a modern Bible, trimmed down a by a hell of a lot, and perhaps containing an index to explain what the parables mean, would greatly reduce the factions within Christianity.
Of course, the Bible is God's inerrant word, so we can't have that.
Correct, sorry.
And edited. One fable creature is just like the next.
Liberal Quakers are very blasé about the Bible, even the Christian ones. Direct experience overrules it, to the point that it's just one source of inspiration. I read other "holy books", other spiritual writing, and even actual clear-cut fiction, and get inspiration from there as well. Great chunks of the Bible are just dull, and others are wacky, other objectionable, and some quite good. Just like any other book (in the abstract).
We do not need religion to be spiritual if being spiritual is what you seek. When you feel like rewriting the bible again.. leave out all the slavery, god complex, discrimination, homosexuality, judgement, hypocritical nonsense out of it.
Ohh and promote free-will, that oughta be good..
How on earth is this thread still alive? Atheism is already in the game. Just ignore building faith and you have atheism. The bonus to atheism? All the production not spent on building faith can be spent on science, military or infrastructure. Tada! Atheism.
Don't blame Religion for people's stupidity. They made those choices on their own.
Also, Buddhism can be seen as both a philosophy and religion, or just a philosophy. I firmly believe it is a Religion and philosophy, but that's just my interpretation. I can see why Buddhism is not seen as a Religion, but it is one of the six major religions, it had and still has some belief in a god, it has a very large religious book, 12 times the size of the bible and in that book there is a lot of spiritual, religious BS that almost puts Noah's Ark to shame. Exp: "The Buddha flew from India to Sri Lanka fighting demons."
No I was talking about Fellowship. When they first get to Rivendell, the Elves are sing for at least a few pages. I know because that's where I stopped reading (to be honest, the whole thing was quite boring and overwrought so it was as good a place to stop as any). So yeah, I exagerated about that.
Anyway, my point stands about the Bible. Not only is it also boring, silly, and horrific....it's also irrelevant.
Here's the problem Pacha: the atrocities that all religions (probably even Buddhism) commit is that of mind-destruction. Forget the Inquisitions, and the Crusades, and the Jihads, and the Holocausts, and the mass subjugation of women...forget all of that because some religions don't take part in that. But all religions do one thing: they try to break the individual's mind down. Even Confucianism, being almost completely non-supernatural, still teaches a person to submit to a series of "fathers" - first the government (their feudal lord), then their parental father (good luck if he abusively alcoholic), and so on. Taoism wants you to forgo personal possessions and worship nature like a savage druid.
There is no religion on Earth (to my knowledge) that doesn't have some form of submission of an individual's free will or mind. There is your atrocity.
This is seriously not what Daoism is about. If it was then it would have had zero currency with the upper-crust, even though many Daoists were found among the aristocracy and even Emperors. I feel like Daoism is more comparable to epicureanism, especially if you look at the followers of Xuanxue and people like the Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove. I think you would probably like it better than Confucianism considering your hatred of collectivism, distrust of government and love of individualism. Forgoing personal possessions, which is more like ascetism, has more relevance in Buddhism or other religions of Indian origin than Daoism or Confucianism. In terms of Chinese philosophy, such concepts are probably most relevant to something like Mohism, which urged fiscal restraint and demanded that its followers avoid music, lavish funerals and anything else that wasn't utilitarian (it also tried to stress universal, rather than filial love, and avoidance of offensive warfare; Mo Zi was a very odd philosopher in Chinese history).Taoism wants you to forgo personal possessions and worship nature like a savage druid.
Of course Daoism did also evolve over time...starting as something more akin to a philosophy before it took on more metaphysical, cult-like and religious aspects later on.
Alright point taken. I'm obviously not an expert in Eastern religions and Taoism is the one I have the least amount of experience with (well, maybe also Buddhism). But the way you describe it, it still fits the pattern I was portraying.
I'd argue Neoplatonic Hellenism, maybe Theosophy (as per Blavatsky, not the later off-shoots), a case could be made for a lot of the mystic or esoteric off-shoots of larger religions. If you mean specifically in terms of organized religion, I'd have to think about it more.
Also, what happened to this thread. I go away for a week and it's even more off-track...
Stethnorun, I hope you understand that I speak up for the Bible because it's important to me, and I believe in it (I really feel that it's changed my life for the better, and I've seen it change so many other lives for the better), so naturally I feel the need to stand up to defend it when someone speaks against it...Just like you would defend your beliefs.
Actually the Bible mentioned certain historical kings before they had been discovered by archaeologists, and many people stood up and said that they didn't believe that these kings exist, but later they were found to be real historical characters. Also they found Noah's Arc up on Mount Ararat - well more so inside the mountain. So these stories from the Bible are from history.
From your comments I feel that you don't want the Bible to be historically accurate, or scientific in any way.
Firstly, just to clarify, the trinity is not a teaching from the Bible. The Bible never mentions a trinity, instead this belief was originally introduced from Greek philosophy - and that Greek philosophy had been indirectly influenced by Babylonish religion (triad gods).
As for trimming the Bible down, this is what the Bible says...
Revelation 22:19 "and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll."
So trimming the Bible down wouldn't be very Christian...Not that that's stopped religions from doing such things, such as deliberately removing God's name from the Bible, or changing it for political reasons.
The Bible is not what causes people to be prejudice. You will find that it's actually quite including...
1 Timothy 2:3,4 - "This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth."
Matthew 24:14 - "And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come."
Liberal Quakers encourage everyone to make up their own mind about stuff, except where we need to make a corporate decision... not sure what's mind-destroying there.
If you believe in a god, then at some point, on some level, you gave up your reason for fantasy.
This is a problem, but not all religions try to. They don't all have the intention to. Buddhism is to free ones self from the Four Noble Truths through the Eightfold Path. Not to submit you to a God which most Buddhists don't believe in. The Dalai Lama himself once said "If science proves something in Buddhism is wrong, Buddhism will change." Plus, I can think of only one massacre made by Buddhists. It was in Iran by a Mongol, but he wasn't inspired to do it because of Buddhism. He hated Muslims due to his close friends who where Christians.
Plus, the submission of one's mind is their own choice. If a man wishes to believe in God it isn't Christianity's fault. It is his own. If he choices to block out science and reason for a God, and a church it is his own decision. The Pope didn't hold a gun to his head and say "Join or DIE". Religions give a set of guide lines for a man to follow and an explanation for what is unknown. It all depends on the person that follows a religion and not the religion itself.
More cases than not a religion makes a man happier. My step-dad had a extremely hard childhood, but religion helped him through it. Religion makes most people feel happy, even if they do become ignorant. A lot of people turn to religion in dark times and good times, and it makes them feel better knowing that they may or may not have some divine force guiding them and looking over them and they journey through life, not knowing that the next step may bring.
You do have a good point though.
I don't think this is necessarily true. It depends on what limits there were to technology and human knowledge at the time you came to your rationalization. Even today I do not believe that a god/gods/whatever have been definitely disproven. I just am skeptical of their existence since they haven't been proven either, and the burden of proof lies with a claimant. However, this is not the same thing as totally debunked.
I do agree that the Biblical conception of God is rather hard to swallow in any case. It is very clear that the Bible's concepts are definite products of their time. This does not jive well with the idea that God is all-knowing...among other problems. Religion is certainly very dubious in any case. I would consider adopting one only for the possibility of status attached to it, not because I ever took the ideas seriously.
Well at the very least, you gave up your critical thinking skills, which is part of reason. And for the exact reason you stated (no evidence).
You have a point there. I concede that what you are saying is correct.
Not all Liberal Quakers believe in any god. I'm a nontheist. I believe there's something within us all that we don't have a good description for, but it's not soul. For lack of better terms, I use the word 'divinity'. I trust, based on experience, that where people come together in silent waiting, we can share a deeper experience of this than we can alone; I trust, based on experience, that this experience can help in decision-making. I believe it is wrong to harm anyone because I feel it to be self-evident, and any system of logic or analysis has to start from assumptions, so that's not a lack of logic (generally called axioms in logical systems).
I feel there can be inspiration of a spiritual or mundane nature in any text, 'holy' or not, but that none gives any authority. Our own experiences are the ultimate source of spiritual or mundane authority.
Some people use the word 'God' or 'Christ' about this inner divinity, even those who don't envisage it as any sort of personal god, never mind specifically that of the Bible. "Inner Christ" is a popular term. I don't object when they use that to describe my own experience, because we're groping for terms, and there's little to be gained when the underlying nature of our experience isn't the subject of debate.
As a person who believes in free will, I strongly disapprove of the notion of determinism. Therefore, I judge that future is governed by laws that will never be fully understood by men (i.e. we know that a Markov process will have such and such probability to arrive at state i at time t, but we will never know for certain if this will deffinitelly happen or not, untill it actually does or doesn't).
Some choose to call this set of laws "chance", others choose to call it "God's will". I fail to see the difference between the two notions. Therefore, I believe in God, therefore, "deep down inside me, I have given up reason for fantasy". Therefore, the thoughts above are clearly not logical and you can disregard them.
There is no denying the bible changes the lives of people for the better, to argue against it is plain ignorant.
It turns criminals away from crime, junkies away from drugs, brings purpose to the lives of the hopeless and countless other "miracles". There is no other force on earth that can bring such positive change. Thats not to say it cant bring misery too, but its the same for most organized beliefs, and a bit of balance is needed here. Take the horrors that social darwinism/scientific racism brought to world (racial slavery was justifed by this) or the anti-religious doctrins of communism. The vast number of deaths in such a short time shows pure inhumanity when belief in a higher power goes out the window. Hitlers racial ideas were a direct result of social darwinism. Even the greatest ideas of man can turn evil when they fall into the hands of a tyrant.
As for the existence of god to me its self evident, but it is NOT a scientific question, its philosophical. So if your looking for material proof you wont find it, just like you wont find material proof for love or even consciousness.
"rewrite the bible" "take all the bad stuff out" ???
Ok, well lets do that with everything, lets take all the part pertaining to race out of origins of species shall we ?
Well, if you're going to be a strongly religious nation, there should be some additional penalties - for example, you shouldn't be able to take the Rationalism policy track - at the bare minimum certainly not the "Secularism" policy from that policy tree.
I also think, given our history where religion has suppressed or generally opposed the progress of science (Galileo, Copernicus, Evolution, cloning research, radiocarbon dating, modern religion's opposition to man-animal hybrids, etc), there ought to be some sort of science penalty for being deeply religious.
There's an assumption that if you're expending resources on building up faith, then you're diverting resources away from other tracks, such a research.
As for rationalism, that's a renaissance era sopol, so it's only going to start kicking in once religion starts ramping down.
Semantics is how you justify a belief in god? Hey, if it makes ya happy. But it sure seems like a cop-out to me.
Does anyone want to take this one? Because I'm too tired to eviscerate this nonsense
Theres always tomorrow, get some sleep and hit me with your dribbleDoes anyone want to take this one? Because I'm too tired to eviscerate this nonsense
Seriously ?? Are you joking ? What kind of nut would support "man-animal hybrids" rofl.
And the argument against cloning is valid.
Galileo and copernicus were both devoutly religious people. Both believed in god and never did their discoveries lead them to non-belief, just so we're clear. Galileo and copernicus were opposed not just by the catholic church but by contemporary scientists too, people who believed they had "evidence" for geocentrism beyond their interpretation of scripture. It is organized religious establishments that slow advancement and those afraid of change or loss of power. I think we need to understand the difference between the two to avoid any misunderstanding. Being Religious or believing in god does not slow scientific advancement.
And stethnorun.
The enlightenment was led by christians and people who believed in god, the secular movement/separation of church and state too was led by believers. So get down of your atheist high horse with the idea that these were anti-religious/anti-god movements.
....Because it was required to believe in god during those times. Read what Thomas Jefferson wrote. He even went so far as to write his own Bible in an attempt to salvage the "good parts" and drop all the magic and such. Also, most Enlightenment thinkers were deists, which means they interpreted the Bible metaphorically and they didn't believe in a god that does or cares about anything beyond the initial creation of the universe. On the spectrum of belief, deism is just one step removed from atheism.
I would just like to point out that although the Papal States may have been excommunicating people if they believed that the earth was round, and not situated on the back of a giant turtle, the Bible never gave them that idea. In fact that was contrary to what the Bible was saying...
Isaiah 40:22 - "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth"
Job 26:7 - "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing"
The Bible never says anything in the contrary, and this is just one of the things that show that the Bible is in alignment with science - even if religion is not.
That's been said before, but it doesn't account for the fact that many areas of research are shunned or forbidden in a sense by religion, like the ones I mentioned, which hinders scientific progress. For example, it makes no sense to be able to pursue the Freedom social policy track, while also having the Autocracy policy track active... and the game thus makes this impossible.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._chimeras.html
The question involved when you ask "does religiosity limit scientific progress in some cases?" isn't a question of whether the religious people are "correct" on an issue, morally or ethically - it is simply a question of whether there is some scientific knowledge that may have otherwise been discovered that wouldn't be due to the opposition of religious elements of a society.
For example, with religious opposition to cloning or creation of Chimeras - lets say perhaps we agree it is immoral or that the religious opposition has a valid point. That doesn't change the fact that there might be significant scientific knowledge to be gained by studying that field that will otherwise be lost if it isn't done.
You're right, let's take the Bible literally shall we:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)
‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again."
Exodus 21: 7-8
“Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof,” (Gen. 19:8).
I could go on...like for pages and pages. If you are really someone that doesn't "pick and choose" which parts of the Bible you like and don't like, you must be the most immoral person on Earth. The fact of the matter is, no moral person uses the Bible for their morality. They use secular humanist morals from the Enlightenment. If you meet someone and they say they are moral because of the Bible, then they have never actually read it or they are kidding themselves. And given that atheists, on average, know more about Christianity and the Bible than most self-proclaimed Christians do, I'm guessing it's both the former and latter reason combined.
Isnt that exactly what nazi scientist said to justify their insanity ?
Is that to say givin the choice they would have been atheist ? lol. Take a hike with your wild speculation.
Meaning anything from god created the universe and everything in it, all the way up to pure religious devotion but never ack of belief in a god/creator or higher power. Like most christian scientists today they believed you can know god by studying the natural world and the universe.
That doesnt mean anything. He still believed in heaven, hell and God and the teachings of Jesus.
Atheism doesnt even enter into a "specturm of belief"
Naziism is almost a religion on it's own. It was blind faith in a whackjob sociopath and all his teachings. Crappy example.
Sure, steth.Does anyone want to take this one? Because I'm too tired to eviscerate this nonsense
Well. There is. Ever heard of the fourth Crusade? Or just the Crusades in general? Or perhaps the Inquisition?
The best organised system is one that brings only happiness, production, and well-being to a society. Something such as religion, which has brought much misery, does not count amongst this. You don't need balance - that's just your brain trying to defend the atrocities committed by religion.Thats not to say it cant bring misery too, but its the same for most organized beliefs, and a bit of balance is needed here.
Oh dear.Take the horrors that social darwinism/scientific racism brought to world (racial slavery was justifed by this) or the anti-religious doctrins of communism.
Communism is not anti-religious. Yes, we have seen many communist states that are anti-religious (USSR, Maoist China, Albania was actually atheist), but that does not mean the doctrine is anti-religion. Communism is a purely economical system - it deals with equality of money. Another trait both the USSR and Maoist China embraced was totalitarianism. This is total control by government (see 1984 for a good description of this). But notice how neither of these policies, the economic one (communism) and the social one (totalitarianism) explicitly promote anti-religiousness?
Assuming you are referring to the wars in the first half of the twentieth century:The vast number of deaths in such a short time shows pure inhumanity when belief in a higher power goes out the window.
a) The Great War was mostly caused by a diplomatic slight, huge cascading alliances, and nationalism and pride amongst European nations. They couldn't just let it go, and killed millions of people over that.
b) Nazi Germany was Christian (Gott Mit Uns means 'God With Us' in German, and all Nazi soldiers wore it on their belts)
c) Generally, having the capabilities of planes and bombers, without really knowing how to use them well yet, and not to mention early rockets (V1 & V2) generally increases casualties than just having ships, muskets and cavalry.
Really? I would have thought social Darwinism would have promoted multiple races. More genetic diversity and all that. Apparently not.Hitlers racial ideas were a direct result of social darwinism.
And this is a slight against atheism how? I would have thought it more likely to be a slight against certain religions...Even the greatest ideas of man can turn evil when they fall into the hands of a tyrant.
Presumably, a god with the qualities that Yahweh has (omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence) would:As for the existence of god to me its self evident, but it is NOT a scientific question, its philosophical. So if your looking for material proof you wont find it, just like you wont find material proof for love or even consciousness.
a) not be able to exist philosophically
b) have some sort of measurable effect on this universe
Yes. Because I'm sure you love the document that is the basis for your religion preaching misogyny, slavery, genocide, and other such things modern society finds abhorrent."rewrite the bible" "take all the bad stuff out" ???
But there's no need. The information that Origin of Species contains has already been updated (it's called a scientific textbook). We have comprehensive books on the theory of evolution, and therefore require no need to change Origin of Species (which is now considered a historical document rather than scientific fact).Ok, well lets do that with everything, lets take all the part pertaining to race out of origins of species shall we ?
What insanity? You can understand their motivations. They wanted to win their war. They developed military technology to do so.
However, if you are referring to those in the concentration camps, I can also understand that. After the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic, the Nazi party blamed the Jews, Romani, and other such groups commonly hated by Germans (who had been commonly blamed for such events). Then, around comes a war, with the mindset of 'The Jews/Romani destroyed my country' and they try to exterminate them, to prevent such an event from re-occuring. Also, the scientists in charge at Auschwitz and such weren't actually developing anything. They were using techniques and such discovered years earlier.
In fact, you should thank Nazi scientists. If it weren't for a few of them hiding the plans for the atomic bomb, then Germany would have won the war in 1942.
Yes it does. On the spectrum of belief in god, atheism is at zero.
You are not entirely correct on this. Marx said specifically that religion was the opiate of the masses, which was a comment extremely critical of religion and part of the justification for several communist regimes' anti-communist stance.Oh dear.
Communism is not anti-religious. Yes, we have seen many communist states that are anti-religious (USSR, Maoist China, Albania was actually atheist), but that does not mean the doctrine is anti-religion. Communism is a purely economical system - it deals with equality of money. Another trait both the USSR and Maoist China embraced was totalitarianism. This is total control by government (see 1984 for a good description of this). But notice how neither of these policies, the economic one (communism) and the social one (totalitarianism) explicitly promote anti-religiousness?
Thanks, well done.
Yeah that's true, although Marx believed in his own "religion", to a degree. But that's a whole other topic.
Posting Permissions
