Support NeoGAF

[Mario]

I will never understand why people cannot admit they are sinful. At our core we are all sinful in nature.

I prefer to recognise that I have flaws and have much that could change or improve, but also that I have the power within to improve myself and help others. I submit to the scrutiny of my community and my peers, and I judge myself and my actions on an ongoing basis.

I do not live my life in blind faith or doing good for fear that if I do not I will be cast into hellfire for all eternity, or that I will not gain eternal life. I live my life doing good because this is the only one I have, so I am making the most of it.


I can understand why you believe you are an inherently flawed being who can never meet a moral standard imposed by an unseen, unspeaking, unknowable divine power with faith offered as the only escape from eternal torment. But I pity you for it.

 

[Evolved1]

But there is no such thing as true altruism. Behavior is guided by antecedents and consequences. Well learned behaviors can appear to occur without need for reinforcement, but were previously reinforced. At the very least, you get dopamine. This sounds pessimistic, but really it's not. Because we are so complex that it doesn't matter if we know how behavior works, and you still feel grateful when you get help, and you still feel empathy and help others. You still feel emotions. Humans are more than the sum of their parts.

I approach this from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist, and a background in ecology. In biology and ecology we have a definition for altruism.

I may have overstepped saying "true" altruism... that was lazy on my part, and a little ironic given the particular thread I'm posting in. Nevertheless, it's a widely held belief in the field that humans do demonstrate altruism. And that nothing else* does.


*haha except the bats.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I think what he means by "religion" is the misunderstanding Christians, or others, have of Christianity and that this misconception has taken the definition of religion when in reality it strays away from the teachings and acknowledgement of the role of Christ. This disenfranchisement of religion is now then disowned, discarded and thus he chooses to define his faith on the word Jesus

 

[RagnarokX]

I agree that everything we do (including altruism) is 'selfish', in that we do it for our own reasons. And I don't think this is a bad thing, probably the most sincere motivation for ethical behavior is to make our lives better, and really I can't think of a better reason myself.

But at the same time I think that there's such a thing as 'selfless' behavior in the sense that the very concept of 'self' (or subject-object relationships) can be partially disrupted, or even wholly suspended or removed.

You can extend self to include others. From a purely biological view, actions should be to preserve genes, which would extend behavior to helping family. But we are more complex, and we can extend that same preservation drive to include the whole human race if we are so inclined (preserving your species). Also mirror neurons cause you to feel what others are feeling and helping makes bad feelings go away. And if you are brought up to be compassionate, seeing someone in trouble and not helping would cause major cognitive dissonance and guilt. Helping avoids that, negative reinforcement.

I approach this from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist, and a background in ecology. In biology and ecology we have a definition for altruism.

I may have overstepped saying "true" altruism... that was lazy on my part, and a little ironic given the particular thread I'm posting in. Nevertheless, it's a widely held belief in the field that humans do demonstrate altruism. And that nothing else* does.


*haha except the bats.

I'm a psych major, lots of behaviorism. I would say altruism is an illusion, like free will, based on the definition that altruism is "helping others selflessly." But I try to be careful because that sounds pessimistic to people. It really doesn't matter if there is no such thing, because it feels like there is and that's all that really matters. Our brains are amazing. It's just that from a purely technical standpoint I do not think there is.

If your definition is a little more loose and allows for unconscious reinforcement, then maybe you can call that altruism. But you're going to get dopamine.

 

[GhaleonQ]

I think what he means by "religion" is the misunderstanding Christians, or others, have of Christianity and that this misconception has taken the definition of religion when in reality it strays away from the teachings and acknowledgement of the role of Christ. This disenfranchisement of religion is now then disowned, discarded and thus he chooses to define his faith on the word Jesus

Also known as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism , the famous (in religion/sociology circles) default religion of Americans.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

You can extend self to include others. From a purely biological view, actions should be to preserve genes, which would extend behavior to helping family. But we are more complex, and we can extend that same preservation drive to include the whole human race if we are so inclined (preserving your species). Also mirror neurons cause you to feel what others are feeling and helping makes bad feelings go away. And if you are brought up to be compassionate, seeing someone in trouble and not helping would cause major cognitive dissonance and guilt. Helping avoids that, negative reinforcement.

Yes, or not just the whole human race but even any being with sentience.

I mostly just meant that our conditioned way of viewing experience involves a subject-object dichotomy which is arguably only intellectual elaboration, since there is no point where we can really draw a line to say that that's where 'the world' ends and 'I' begin. Instead there's just experience. So it's perhaps a bit of semantic trickery on my part but my point was just that 'selfless' behavior can exist if 'self' (or the illusion of it) ceases to exist

 

[OttomanScribe]

I'm not that familiar with Sufism or any of the other Muslim sects (I'm Sunni ;x)

I'd avoid using sect to describe Sufism. I don't know what the poster you are replying to you means by his question.

Sufism is in Arabic 'tasawuf', which is basically the science of Ihsan (excellence/perfection/certitude) within the religion. Thus one can talk about tasawuf in various different contexts, like one can say that there are different approaches to fiqh in the different Muslim groups.

So what does the original question mean?

As to religion, I need defined terms.

this seems to indicate that not only am I okay with religion, but the 'poet' in the video should be two. Unless his video is some sort of deliberate contradiction.

In terms of what I think of it, I'm going to be honest. It strikes me as an example of Christians struggling for relevance through adaptation. As the society he lives in has a certain narrative about religion (a negative one) in order to stay relevant, he internalises, rather than challenging, that narrative. This, in this case, creates a contradiction, which he either refuses to acknowledge, or rejects as an issue.

As to it as a spoken word piece, my understanding is that poetry should evoke emotion of some sort in the observer. I wept at one of Amir Suleiman's recitals a few weeks ago. This didn't even raise a slight stir in me. It was an argument in rhyme and a bad argument at that. Slick PR but without content.

Gonna be controversial here and say that the one legacy that European Christendom lacks is decent poetry, sorry guys, there is a reason that Rumi is number one most sold poet in the states, despite being a Hanafi judge and an orthodox Muslim.

 

[RagnarokX]

Yes, or not just the whole human race but even any being with sentience.

I mostly just meant that our conditioned way of viewing experience involves a subject-object dichotomy which is arguably only intellectual elaboration, since there is no point where we can really draw a line to say that that's where 'the world' ends and 'I' begin. Instead there's just experience. So it's perhaps a bit of semantic trickery on my part but my point was just that 'selfless' behavior can exist if 'self' (or the illusion of it) ceases to exist

Yes yes I should have included other organisms, too.

I'm going by a strict definition altruism, so it really is impossible since all behaviors that you would repeat are reinforced by dopamine. They make you feel good. Also you help to avoid feeling bad later. But that isn't to say you shouldn't appreciate getting help, or think any less of people who help.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Also known as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism , the famous (in religion/sociology circles) default religion of Americans.

I've been trying to articulate this very point for years now. Thank you for introducing me to it. I'll just share this link from now on rather than write 500 words

 

[OttomanScribe]

But wealth and its correlation with education and certainly it's tenuous association with unscrupulous method of acqusition is completely irrelevant to the point been made.

It is entirely relevant considering the claim that seems to be being made is that the correlation between education and atheism is a causal one. When there is clearly other causal relationships at play, to ignore these is problematic. I'm sure you know how this works.

Just because a and b are correlated, does not mean that a causes b. There could be a 'c' at play that causes both a and b. In this case, that could be wealth as wealth, education and atheism all appear correlated.

Which is - the better you understand the natural world and critical thinking, the less likely you are to be religious. Indeed, they're obfuscatory strawmen as far as this conversation goes.

Eschew obfuscation! What specifically are you saying that I am making ambiguous? I am asking for evidence of a testable claim, namely that one above, that education = atheism in general terms.

The only point that does hold any water is that it is an argument from authority. It is - but pointing out that fallacy doesn't automatically make it irrelevant (as it can do with other fallacies). Particularly as the authority in question (i.e. knowledge of natural universe and critical thinking) is an important measure of efficacy as it relates to the discussion of natural universe and supernatural beings.

It doesn't make it irrelevant but it presents a serious problem to the argument in question. Combined with the aforementioned point regarding the problematic assertion that education leads to atheism (which here is being put forth as some sort of weird proof for atheism), the point seems a strange one to pursue.

I can point out that smart people believe in religion, you wouldn't take that as an example of a proof of religion. Pointing out that a bunch of smart people don't believe in religion should not then become a proof against religion. It is a non-point.

 

[Atramental]

Also known as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism , the famous (in religion/sociology circles) default religion of Americans.

Oh wow! So that's what it's called.

I too have noticed this belief system amongst people around my age. They call themselves "Christian" but they are in fact these so called "moralistic therapeutic deists".

 

[Zaptruder]

I approach this from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist, and a background in ecology. In biology and ecology we have a definition for altruism.

I may have overstepped saying "true" altruism... that was lazy on my part, and a little ironic given the particular thread I'm posting in. Nevertheless, it's a widely held belief in the field that humans do demonstrate altruism. And that nothing else* does.


*haha except the bats.

I think only humans and vampire bats exhibiting alturism is probably stepping over too far as well.

I mean, I'm sure you guys have seen animals that raise youngs of other species and develop friendships with other species etc. To an extent, that is alturism.

It's just as humans, through our cognitive complexity, we have the opportunity to extend the distance of good will and reciprocity and empathy onto more abstract things - other tribes and humans to other species... hell, it can even go haywire and cause us to extend it to things that don't require it... like cute objects and lower order sentient creatures like insects.

 

[Zaptruder]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism

Seems like what you'd get when you mashup secular humanism with religion.

But... why not just go for the real dealio!

 

[hirokazu]

WTF did I just watch. Should've bailed out when it said Jesus > Religion.

EDIT: Second post video nails it.

 

[Atramental]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism

Seems like what you'd get when you mashup secular humanism with religion.

But... why not just go for the real dealio!

They want to stay within their existential comfort zone.

Supernatural security blankets and all that jazz.

 

[hyp]

one of the most terrible spoken word videos I've ever seen. his whole presentation made him look like an idiot. he should've taken notes from beau sia before stepping to the mic.

 

[Atramental]

HA! Some of the responses on TAA's video crack me up:

If TAA is drunk then I'm dead from alcohol poisoning.

 

[Slavik81]

haiku are easy,
But sometimes they don't make sense,
Refrigerator.

 

[jadedm17]

Awesome. I like it. I want this in my ipod.

I've always felt organized religion was built to control the masses, take advantage and for bad people to mask themselves as good. I wish I had religion in my life but I've never felt the church was the way to go about that.

 

[Kisaya]

haiku are easy,
But sometimes they don't make sense,
Refrigerator.

I've seen this somewhere before...

I'd avoid using sect to describe Sufism. I don't know what the poster you are replying to you means by his question.

Sufism is in Arabic 'tasawuf', which is basically the science of Ihsan (excellence/perfection/certitude) within the religion. Thus one can talk about tasawuf in various different contexts, like one can say that there are different approaches to fiqh in the different Muslim groups.

Eeek my bad DX I really am unfamiliar with it haha

 

[OttomanScribe]

Eeek my bad DX I really am unfamiliar with it haha

All good sister, I only replied because some people use sect in a perjoratice manner towards Sufism. I figured you weren't doing so

 

[Moaradin]

Wow that was terrible.

 

[Orayn]

Oh wow! So that's what it's called.

I too have noticed this belief system amongst people around my age. They call themselves "Christian" but they are in fact these so called "moralistic therapeutic deists".

I've also heard it called "egonovism," due to the buffet-style approach to beliefs that some people take. Start with deism, throw in a little Christian dogma here, some New Age spiritualism there, a dash of Wicca, etc.

 

[Monocle]

I will never understand why people cannot admit they are sinful. At our core we are all sinful in nature.

The concept of sin confines each human action and feature of the personality to one of two categories that utterly fail to account for the nuances of real life. This binary system is too simplistic even to serve as a basic ethical model. It offers no insight into right or wrong, only axiomatic labels of good and bad.

There's no evidence that sin is a real thing. Christianity justifies its existence by appealing to an absolute authority that is also simply assumed to exist. What we do know about sin is that its pernicious implications outrage human dignity. We are demanded to believe that we're filthy and degenerate, incapable of knowing right from wrong without divine grace.

Sin is a masochistic fantasy. If there were such a thing, it would mean that God created humans sick and then ordered us to be well, with the threat of eternal torment serving as an inducement to fall to our knees and blubber in gratitude for the privilege of spending eternity praising and thanking him for choosing to spare us from the horrors of his own torture chamber.

Tell me, if you told your own child you would throw her in the oven unless she called herself dirty and told you she loved you, would you consider yourself a good parent?

 

[Sye d'Burns]

The concept of sin confines each human action and feature of the personality to one of two categories that utterly fail to account for the nuances of real life. This binary system is too simplistic even to serve as a basic ethical model. It offers no insight into right or wrong, only axiomatic labels of good and bad.

Binary? I see shades of gray.

1 John 5:16-17 (RSV): "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is a sin which is not mortal."

Sin is a masochistic fantasy. If there were such a thing, it would mean that God created humans sick and then ordered us to be well, with the threat of eternal torment serving as an inducement to fall to our knees and blubber in gratitude for the privilege of spending eternity praising and thanking him for choosing to spare us from the horrors of his own torture chamber.

I believe the general Christian consensus is that God created us just fine and then along came that pesky apple when humans succumbed to temptation and that was followed with the promise of a redeemer.

 

[Monocle]

Binary? I see shades of gray.

"Bad" and "really bad." What a thrilling range of choices.

I believe the general Christian consensus is that God created us just fine and then along came that pesky apple when humans succumbed to temptation and that was followed with the promise of a redeemer.

Who put the apple there again?

 

[Mortrialus]

Binary? I see shades of gray.





I believe the general Christian consensus is that God created us just fine and then along came that pesky apple when humans succumbed to temptation and that was followed with the promise of a redeemer.

Generally, Christians seem unable to follow the chain of logic regarding the idea of a god who in their mind literally controls everything and the implications thereof.

 

[Ashes]

"Bad" and "really bad." What a thrilling range of choices.

I believe the general Christian consensus is that God created us just fine and then along came that pesky apple when humans succumbed to temptation and that was followed with the promise of a redeemer.

Who put the apple there again?

what apple?

urgh... never mind. why do I enter these threads...? ignore me. I'm just so bored with all these things.

 

[Monocle]

Generally, Christians seem unable to follow the chain of logic regarding the idea of a god who in their mind literally controls everything and the implications thereof.

Don't worry, you have free will even though God made everything, sees everything, and knows everything that's going to happen.

 

[Nekofrog]

"Bad" and "really bad." What a thrilling range of choices.


Who put the apple there again?

And if that dude knows everything that's going to happen, isn't that pretty much setting us up for failure?

what a jerk

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Don't worry, you have free will even though God made everything, sees everything, and knows everything that's going to happen.

And if that dude knows everything that's going to happen, isn't that pretty much setting us up for failure?

what a jerk

If you know a movie by heart does that mean you played all the parts?

 

[Mortrialus]

If you know a movie by heart does that mean you played all the parts?

If you're omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent then yes.

 

[Ashes]

If you're omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent then yes.

are you saying that god X -within the bounds of reason- being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, can't exist?

i..e excluding where it is logically incoherent and impossible, leaving only the possible, that that version of god can't exist?

Here is an impossible version of god, therefore god doesn't exist.

Though that film thing above you, didn't make any sense to me either.

 

[Slavik81]

what apple?

urgh... never mind. why do I enter these threads...? ignore me. I'm just so bored with all these things.

The fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. While I don't think it's ever called an apple, it's commonly portrayed like one.

 

[Ashes]

The point is that its called a fruit, not an apple. Fairy tales and all that, so it doesn't really matter.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

The point is that its called a fruit, not an apple. Fairy tales and all that, so it doesn't really matter.

Pesky fruit didn't have the same ring to it.

Though that film thing above you, didn't make any sense to me either.

If one knows everything that will happen, as in a well read book, or a movie, it does not mean that he wrote the script. It simply means he is aware of the outcome.

If you're omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent then yes.

You would prefer a God that would act on his omnipotence and force you to love him instead of giving you free will? Interesting.

 

[Monocle]

what apple?

urgh... never mind. why do I enter these threads...? ignore me. I'm just so bored with all these things.

The apple that the poster I replied to mentioned in the post I replied to. Now that you point it out, though, we should totally drop our current discussion and turn our attention to the far more pressing issue of whether the Tree of Knowledge, traditionally envisioned as an apple tree, was actually some other kind of tree that bore a different kind of succulent fruit that the first naughty humans couldn't eat without condemning their entire species to a perverse condition.

 

[Slavik81]

The point is that its called a fruit, not an apple. Fairy tales and all that, so it doesn't really matter.

The picture I posted links to the Wikipedia mention of the subject explaining further, but the original source is more interesting.

Early Christian scholars often took the forbidden fruit to be an apple, possibly because of the irresistible pun suggested by the Latin malum, which means both "apple" and "evil." At least one early Latin translation of the bible uses "apple" instead of "fruit." (source)

Spoiler

It's a little off topic, but I thought it was cool.

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO40gx7HnnE

 

[Nekofrog]

Pesky fruit didn't have the same ring to it.



If one knows everything that will happen, as in a well read book, or a movie, it does not mean that he wrote the script. It simply means he is aware of the outcome.



You would prefer a God that would act on his omnipotence and force you to love him instead of giving you free will? Interesting.

don't you think it's kind of a cosmic "fuck you" to create you just to fail?

 

[Sye d'Burns]

The apple that the poster I replied to mentioned in the post I replied to. Now that you point it out, though, we should totally drop our current discussion and turn our attention to the far more pressing issue of whether the the Tree of Knowledge, traditionally envisioned as an apple tree, was actually some other kind of tree that bore a different kind succulent fruit that the first naughty humans couldn't eat without condemning their entire species to a perverse condition.

I'm surprised that the GodlessGAF hasn't already discussed that topic ad infinitum. Are you sure that there isn't already an existing thread?

don't you think it's kind of a cosmic "fuck you" to create you just to fail?

Define failure.

 

[Ashes]

Pesky fruit didn't have the same ring to it.



If one knows everything that will happen, as in a well read book, or a movie, it does not mean that he wrote the script. It simply means he is aware of the outcome.

If you care about PR, then ought you to be Christian? Much more PR friendly religions out there. Buddhism? deism?

Your concern is with the truth, right? even if it isn't glamorous, or has a ring to it.

Being aware of something I guess is different to causing it to happen. Does producing a child, who becomes a murderer the fault of that mother?

The picture I posted links to the Wikipedia mention of the subject explaining further, but the original source is more interesting.

Spoiler

It's a little off topic, but I thought it was cool.

if you think that is cool, you ought to look up snakes as well.

The apple that the poster I replied to mentioned in the post I replied to. Now that you point it out, though, we should totally drop our current discussion and turn our attention to the far more pressing issue of whether the the Tree of Knowledge, traditionally envisioned as an apple tree, was actually some other kind of tree that bore a different kind of succulent fruit that the first naughty humans couldn't eat without condemning their entire species to a perverse condition.

This went over my head. You're far too bright and witty for me Monocle.

And just so we're clear, the above wasn't sarcasm.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Me too. I consider myself a fan of the whole "Christian Atheism" thing, but hardly anything is ever said about it.

I never heard of this one. Care to elaborate?

 

[Ashes]

I never heard of this one. Care to elaborate?

like secular atheist Jews. Keep up with the culture and tradition, but someone who doesn't believe in god.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

If you care about PR, then ought you to be Christian? Much more PR friendly religions out there. Buddhism? deism?

You're concerned is with the truth, right? even if it isn't glamorous, or has a ring to it.

When one is parsing words, it's best not to use phrases that could be interpreted as slanderous. Should I have used just said fruit and have been done with it? Possibly. I didn't honestly expect confusion to be a result of referring to the fruit as an apple. Silly me.

 

[Ashes]

When one is parsing words, it's best not to use phrases that could be interpreted as slanderous. Should I have used just said fruit and have been done with it? Possibly. I didn't honestly expect confusion to be a result of referring to the fruit as an apple. Silly me.

Calling it a fruit, allows the other person to share in the knowledge that it is fruit that is mentioned, and that future generations called it an apple, much more further down the line. Why spread further ignorance?

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

like secular atheist Jews. Keep up with the culture and tradition, but someone who doesn't believe in god.

I see. Thanks.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Calling it a fruit, allows the other person to share in the knowledge that it is fruit that is mentioned, and that future generations called it an apple, much more further down the line. Why spread further ignorance?

Oh ignorance is plenty well accounted for.

 

[Ashes]

Oh ignorance is plenty well accounted for.

Are you arguing for argument's sake? or are you here to reason, debate and take part in dialogue. All you're teaching me is that you have remarkable wit.

I suppose I'm done here. Enjoy your thread.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

The concept that we are all born as unforgiven sinful creatures doomed to a lake of fire in the "afterlife" if we do not accept the christian belief of a 3 piece god makes me shake my head.

That´s not even what the Bible says. It actually say we are born in God´s image, which should be perfect.