[Skeptics] Is religion still relevant ?

[jmccr8]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Lol mate, I can't thank you enough for the seperation, I'm sure you know what I'm referring to. As you say, less confrontational. 

It doesn't matter, but it's not just the prose. I recognised the first annonymous poster from that, but this one wasn't just prose, it was the view. I don't think it's an average view myself. Which kinda gives it away. That's why I don't think genuine believer posters fear discussion with skeptics. It's a view that is I feel showing annoyance at the hurdles facts put in the way of wild beliefs and the extraordinary claims that tend to accompany such. When you said you hope that posters do not fear posting in the appropriate thread, I don't think that's anything to be too concerned about. Its more mudslinging at skeptics in advance than a genuine concern. The best posters on these boards aren't divided by belief. 

Hi Psyche

I hope it isn't going to go that way for them as they are representing and should show some respect for each other as they don't all share the same beliefs so may not want to confront someone that they see as an allies against us and would like to see them engage each other without us. 

Of course many of us do hold like positions but that does not define why we have those positions individually and most of the usual members are watching rather that engaging and may enter if there is enough activity to garner discussion.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

There's still that superior issue. Do you think that could be overcome in such a process?

Hi Psyche

I'm still typing with 2 finger so am a bit slow. I think if people chose to be accepting of each other on the individual basis it will weaken the complex of superiority on it's own with it's own members, thee are a lot of people that identify with Christianity but are new age and the religious structure fractures with their losses with integration of cultures ones sees other aspects other than religious that have a lot of value in a society and recognizing that is a step in acceptance. I see people scarfing down food from different cultures then hear them talking crap about their culture without knowing what that culture actually is about.

14 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

But they do borrow credibility from it, that's the elephant in the room I think.

True some hold more abstract views than others but you see that in every aspect of life as well so it is not unique to religion, In this thread they cannot say anything although they can peak their mind in the other thread, I know not all of them agree with fanatics and am sure would express their thoughts in counter if that part of this thread concept works. They can see what we are saying and for the most part no one is actually speaking down to or against anyone and if they are objective and read what we are saying maybe they will come out and make this interesting

jmccr8

22 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Cheers bud, I try, most say I'm trying. As I told Hab, I'm a diplomatic guy I will listen but I think that entitles me to a say as well. You may have noticed.....

Cheers back 

Yes I know I put a silk bag on my sledgehammer the other night.

jmccr8

[quillius]

51 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Lol mate, I can't thank you enough for the seperation, I'm sure you know what I'm referring to. As you say, less confrontational. 

It doesn't matter, but it's not just the prose. I recognised the first annonymous poster from that, but this one wasn't just prose, it was the view. I don't think it's an average view myself. Which kinda gives it away. That's why I don't think genuine believer posters fear discussion with skeptics. It's a view that is I feel showing annoyance at the hurdles facts put in the way of wild beliefs and the extraordinary claims that tend to accompany such. When you said you hope that posters do not fear posting in the appropriate thread, I don't think that's anything to be too concerned about. Its more mudslinging at skeptics in advance than a genuine concern. The best posters on these boards aren't divided by belief. 

Hey Psyche,

this reminded me of our old friend Boony ...... super intelligent guy, great poster......hardened skeptic yet he was religious.....

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

Quote

[Skeptics] Is religion still relevant ?

Ultimately, it depends on the context. I think, first, we need to hash out what is meant by "relevant", as dictionary.com defines it as the following:

"bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand"

I think that most of us here can think of examples in which religion bears upon a matter at hand, such as some state constitutions ("At the state level, the constitutions of the states of California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,^[7] New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, Iowa, Texas, and Massachusetts, and the U.S. territory Puerto Rico, make a reference to God. They generally use an invocatio of 'God the Almighty' or the 'Supreme Ruler of the Universe';  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_references_to_God), other forms of legislation (Iranian law [integrates some components of Sharia Law]), etc) but to avoid going down a rabbit hole I think relevance as it applies to religion should be more clearly defined.

What does the relevance of religion mean to you? In what areas, specifically?

For example, "is religion still relevant to science today?", etc.

Quote

We see a lot of turmoil in the world today can religious perspectives overcome the divisions that exist

The interesting thing about this is that religion is still tied to some of the tumultuous divisions that exist today, so asking "can religious perspectives overcome the  divisions that exist" would be met with a resounding "it entirely depends on the circumstance" considering it can serve as the very basis of the division in the first place.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[+Nuclear Wessel]

6 minutes ago, quillius said:

Hey Psyche,

this reminded me of our old friend Boony ...... super intelligent guy, great poster......hardened skeptic yet he was religious.....

 

@booNyzarC  is certainly a very intelligent person. Still is religious, as far as I know.

If I can recall, a lot of his posts were focused more on the ET/conspiracy side of things (it was always interesting to read his posts about 9/11) and less on the religious  side of things, though.

[quillius]

7 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

@booNyzarC  is certainly a very intelligent person. Still is religious, as far as I know.

If I can recall, a lot of his posts were focused more on the ET/conspiracy side of things (it was always interesting to read his posts about 9/11) and less on the religious  side of things, though.

HI NW, yes years ago a majority of my time was on the ET/UFO side of things, and did occasionally follow threads such as the 9/11 one (what a thread that was).....but rarely posted on those.

I dont quite remember you from back then, did you post much or just follow threads? I see you joined 2015, I thought he had stopped posting prior to that...obviously not....

 

have you always been Nuclear Wessel?

[+Nuclear Wessel]

39 minutes ago, quillius said:

HI NW, yes years ago a majority of my time was on the ET/UFO side of things, and did occasionally follow threads such as the 9/11 one (what a thread that was).....but rarely posted on those.

I dont quite remember you from back then, did you post much or just follow threads? I see you joined 2015, I thought he had stopped posting prior to that...obviously not....

 

have you always been Nuclear Wessel?

I had a handle many moons ago but it has long since been forgotten. I stopped posting/lurking for quite a time and just created a new one as I couldn't be arsed to remember the credentials.

Like you, I also did not post much... I just read the shenanigans.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[quillius]

21 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I had a handle many moons ago but it has long since been forgotten. I stopped posting/lurking for quite a time and just created a new one as I couldn't be arsed to remember the credentials.

Like you, I also did not post much... I just read the shenanigans.

ah ok fair enough.

well if you ever cross his path do say hello from me. 

 

 

 

[+Desertrat56]

11 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I do not see much of a life if all a person does is wish for the next better life. That just sounds depressing to me.

But it is very common, or at least I know a lot of people who do, one way or another feel bad enough about themselves and their lives and refuse to take responsibility so they hope/wish for a better life after this one.   I even know one who believes in reincarnation who mopes about karma and how she is paying it all back now and looks forward to clearing all the burdens.  I don't think any of them realize that they get to choose what perspective they have on what is going on around them and how they contribute to it.   But they get stuck in an emotional mind loop. We all do it to some extent but most of us know how to jump off that merry go round.

[+Sherapy]

49 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

But it is very common, or at least I know a lot of people who do, one way or another feel bad enough about themselves and their lives and refuse to take responsibility so they hope/wish for a better life after this one.   I even know one who believes in reincarnation who mopes about karma and how she is paying it all back now and looks forward to clearing all the burdens.  I don't think any of them realize that they get to choose what perspective they have on what is going on around them and how they contribute to it.   But they get stuck in an emotional mind loop. We all do it to some extent but most of us know how to jump off that merry go round.

Exactly, I observe a loyalty to the dogma that creates mindsets that need constant micromanaging and validation. In some cases, fantastical tales become a basis for hope and getting through the day. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Nuclear Wessel]

5 hours ago, quillius said:

I wonder where Jordan Peterson would sit with regards the two threads....

My initial reaction is to say "believer", but I think he would assume a more neutral position. 

I strongly suspect that, in either case, he could make some very interesting arguments.

Quote

he doesn't believe but says if asked whether he is religious :

'I act as if God exists'

 I quite like the stance, I am sure its how many of us live our lives.

I cannot seem to find a quote in which he claims not to believe, but I did find this interview in which he claims: "I think of religious matters a lot--I would consider myself a deeply religious person", followed up by the quote that you noted in the above quote.

I think it would be great to have him as a member here on UM. It'd be an exceptional intellectual exercise for all of us, including Peterson. 

Also, since you mentioned him I took the liberty in checking any readings that he recommends. 

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/great-books/

Quite a fascinating list.

(Sorry to detract Jay--I'm out )

[Dejarma]

21 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Dejarma

Odas has made a choice to participate as a skeptic and will take his word on that and as you can see he has made good points as a skeptic so am content to let things be as they are

jmccr8

when someone says they are a skeptic & also believe in their god explaining that it's the religion they are skeptical of..

Maybe the word <<disagree>> would have been a better word to use rather than <<skeptical>> with the way it's run/ organized etc, I'm  just confused that's all

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

when someone says they are a skeptic & also believe in their god explaining that it's the religion they are skeptical of..

Maybe the word <<disagree>> would have been a better word to use rather than <<skeptical>> with the way it's run/ organized etc, I'm  just confused that's all

Hi Dejarma

Yes I understand that there is a grey area but unless someone is known to argue from a religious point of view I will accept that they are arguing as a skeptic and if they change during the discussion will direct them to the other thread.

jmccr8

[Dejarma]

Just now, jmccr8 said:

Yes I understand that there is a grey area but unless someone is known to argue from a religious point of view I will accept that they are arguing as a skeptic

how can you argue as a skeptic if you believe in god??? i'm still confused

[jmccr8]

8 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Ultimately, it depends on the context. I think, first, we need to hash out what is meant by "relevant", as dictionary.com defines it as the following:

"bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand"

I think that most of us here can think of examples in which religion bears upon a matter at hand, such as some state constitutions ("At the state level, the constitutions of the states of California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,^[7] New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, Iowa, Texas, and Massachusetts, and the U.S. territory Puerto Rico, make a reference to God. They generally use an invocatio of 'God the Almighty' or the 'Supreme Ruler of the Universe';  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_references_to_God), other forms of legislation (Iranian law [integrates some components of Sharia Law]), etc) but to avoid going down a rabbit hole I think relevance as it applies to religion should be more clearly defined.

What does the relevance of religion mean to you? In what areas, specifically?

For example, "is religion still relevant to science today?", etc.

The interesting thing about this is that religion is still tied to some of the tumultuous divisions that exist today, so asking "can religious perspectives overcome the  divisions that exist" would be met with a resounding "it entirely depends on the circumstance" considering it can serve as the very basis of the division in the first place.

Hi Nuke

Yes I could have spent a little more time in developing the OP but just wanted to keep it simple as I was not sure anyone would get involved in either thread but am glad that things have been moving along and with the simplicity it allows latitude to wander a bit. I think atheists are more open to discuss some of this because it is not personal and no one has actually been condemning of believers which I think demonstrates that t's not just about what individuals believe in as much as the barriers of differing religions having a problem with each other.

Thanks for being open to this avenue of discussion and for stepping in when I was not online.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

10 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

how can you argue as a skeptic if you believe in god??? i'm still confused

Hi Dejarma

I am not going to ask anyone to show me their mark of the beast for verification. There are new age and some who may have a god construct but is not the main driver in their daily lives as it is more of a ideal that they would like to find some comfort in life and am willing to let things be as their choice and if they post from a contrary position after they will be ask to continue participating in the other thread. We can moderate that on our own and things in this thread have been running smoothly so will not sweat it on my part.

[Dejarma]

4 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Dejarma

I am not going to ask anyone to show me their mark of the beast for verification. There are new age and some who may have a god construct but is not the main driver in their daily lives as it is more of a ideal that they would like to find some comfort in life and am willing to let things be as their choice and if they post from a contrary position after they will be ask to continue participating in the other thread. We can moderate that on our own and things in this thread have been running smoothly so will not sweat it on my part.

Hiya, jm...

nope, i've no idea what you're talking about, sorry

[jmccr8]

From the perspective of a believer reading the other thread, it seems a lot of posters seem fixated on critiquing the believer and not the religion. They think believers are stupid, deluded, ignorant, crazy, brainwashed--anything but ordinary, reasonably intelligent people, like themselves, who made a cognitive choice in life philosophy. 

 

This is a good response as it shows why we are divisive and something that we should address individually, as of yet in this thread I have tried to not identify anyone when bringing a copy/paste comment from one thread to another and once during discussion inference was made about the poster and the conversation was redirected and I will say again that in these threads that I do not want biases brought forward and to discuss the comment on it's material context as we are trying to build bridges and show that we can discuss topics not individuals.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

6 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

Hiya, jm...

nope, i've no idea what you're talking about, sorry

Hi Dejarma

No problem sorry I can give a better answer for you but you are welcome to be a part of the discussion in this thread.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

yes that is the idea and you are a believer so that would mean you post in the other thread but here is an idea if you like the principal of the dual thread then maybe you would like to be their group leader and get them talking. Like I said you can copy/paste a comment from this thread and take it there but cannot name the author of the post and just discuss the comment. If someone is interested in who said what they can go to the other thread and read it.

jmccr8

No I am NOT a believer 

I neither believe, nor disbelieve, in things i do not know.

I claim to know gods exist, just as i know dogs exist .

Same proofs and evidences ( to me) for both.

I don't believe dogs exist. I know they do.

I don't believe gods exist. I know they do. 

Hard to accept, I know, especially for those convinced they do not exist, but has nothing to do with belief  

Religion is simpler 

Of course it relevant and always will be, due to the evolved nature of human thought/cognition.

Like all human constructs, it can be constructive or destructive, depending on how it is applied  

[jmccr8]

12 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No I am NOT a believer 

I neither believe, nor disbelieve, in things i do not know.

I claim to know gods exist, just as i know dogs exist .

Same proofs and evidences ( to me) for both.

I don't believe dogs exist. I know they do.

I don't believe gods exist. I know they do. 

Hard to accept, I know, especially for those convinced they do not exist, but has nothing to do with belief  

Religion is simpler 

Of course it relevant and always will be, due to the evolved nature of human thought/cognition.

Like all human constructs, it can be constructive or destructive, depending on how it is applied  

Hi Walker

You argue from the Christian perspective all the time and proclaim to have a 50+ year relationship with your god so that pretty much puts you in the other thread and would like to see you stimulate some activity in that thread as a personal favor.

I will read your posts in the other thread and will not answer personal requests unless it has something to do with the thread itself. I will leave this post as a remind but please do work with your group in the appropriate thread.

I know that many think that atheists are their problem but what I would like to see is how differing religions interact as I have seem plenty of Christians make slurs against Muslims and yet this is an aspect that needs to be addressed by religious communities atheists are not going to fix that for you. How is religion going to relevant in the future as mankind moves on to great challenges like space if they cannot resolve their problems. I am not suggesting war but am looking a how would believers try to resolve these issues on their own

Thank you

jmccr8

[Will Due]

21 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No I am NOT a believer 

I don't believe gods exist. I know they do. 

 

You're not the only one by far. 

 

 

[jmccr8]

11 minutes ago, Will Do said:

 

You're not the only one by far. 

 

 

Will I am asking for this post to be deleted as you are knowingly in the wrong thread.

jmccr8

[Will Due]

 

I am a skeptic. A skeptic of believing. I am also not a believer.

Without knowing God, believing in him does nothing.

And without becoming what you know, knowing isn't much better than believing. 

And all of that, is very relevant. 

 

 

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Will Do said:

 

I am a skeptic. A skeptic of believing. I am also not a believer.

Without knowing God, believing in him does nothing.

And without becoming what you know, knowing isn't much better than believing. 

And all of that, is very relevant. 

 

 

Bubble gum 

Take it to your thread Will you are deliberately trying to derail and have been reported, no one insists that you be a part of any thread.

jmccr8