That's a tricky subject, however I would contest that modern systems of law and government are predicated on certain "religious" or moral axioms, such as the golden rule, and that religious systems played a role in the development of modern ones. — IvoryBlackBishop

It would make more sense to say that religions sprang from men trying to impose laws upon others and failing. So they started to say(invent) that there was a higher power that they represented to scare the people into following the rules.

Tricky subject, but I assume you mean the Justices aren't held to be "infallible" or have a "god-appointed status", akin to a medieval pope or monarch? — IvoryBlackBishop

Why is everything a "tricky subject"? Yes I mean just that. Bosses and leaders have been around a lot longer that religions based on an unseen, all knowing, all powerful god.

I don't agree with that assessment but to each their own.

Are you an anarchist? What is your ideal form of government?

Or as far as modern example, "scientism" is probably the most popular.

(This isn't "science" itself nor conflatable with "atheism", but rather blind faith or trust in scientists, or in Bacon's 17th century scientific method, based on induction or arguments from authority, rather than personal expertise or having invented the methodology or the theories themselves, such as a teleological faith in "science" or "scientists" in general as a specific institution, often based on pop culture myths regarding its development and its various key figures, which don't actually stand up to history).

Which even during the Enlightenment era In which it originated, was and still is not the only school of thought available. (For example, evolutionary though has been a subject of philosophy as far back as the pre-Socratic philosophers, as well as contemporaries of Darwin such as Holmes, so the popular myth which gives Darwin sole credit for the theory may be historically inaccurate or false).

Much as how most mass media which "promotes" science is based on outdated 19th century information, and marketed to the 6th grade reading level, so most popular positive sentiments or affirmations expressed about "science" as a method or an institution (often falsely conflating science and natural scientific theories with other things to begin with) aren't based on higher level expertise, such as an actual Newton or Einstein, but just on faith in scientific media and propaganda, or personal bias toward one's industry on behalf of low-level employers in a natural scientific field or who hold a "scientist" title regardless of what their actual work or job description consists of.

I don't agree with that assessment but to each their own. — IvoryBlackBishop

But please tell me where I am wrong.

Are you an anarchist? — IvoryBlackBishop

:lol: :rofl: :cry: I am I don't give a shitist.

What is your ideal form of government. — IvoryBlackBishop

I really cannot say that any of the world's governments and political systems really attract me. Most of them are screwed up versions of what they proclaim to be.

I am a dreamer and I believe that a good system would be one that provides people with what they have earned and deserve. But that does not exist and probably never will.

Or as far as modern example, "scientism" is probably the most popular. — IvoryBlackBishop

Scientism is neither a religion nor a system of government, it is a way of thinking and living.

I agree, my argument is just that it's a modern example of people acting or thinking in quasi-"religious" way.

As far as theological or philosophical thoughts on God or a higher power, I don't believe that all of it was simply a "ruse" which wanted to reduce it to a fear of hell or damnation, no, but that's a deep subject which I can't get into here.

I agree, my argument is just that it's a modern example of people acting or thinking in quasi-"religious" way. — IvoryBlackBishop

Nothing even quasi religious about it. Worship and faith, large parts of religion, are totally absent.

If you mean "rituals", fair enough.

As far as "faith", that's another term that often never gets consistently defined, but if you mean people having some axiomatic trust or affirmation towards it as an institution (which isn't coming from expertise, like a Newton or Einstein, but merely from trust in the institution or the popular figures), I would consider that faith, yes.

Likewise, regardless of what one's belief or philosophy is, I would argue that all beliefs and systems are based on some axiom(s) or "prime truth" held to be absolute, this is not attempting to compare and contrast different systems, which ones are 'better' or worse, and so on and so forth, just stating what is.

As far as truth itself, I believe that other than in pure mathematical theory, nothing can be "perfectly": defined,but realistically it could be defined "better or worse".

(Most people for example, would say without a doubt that a legal system which prohibits rape and murder is far better than one which allows it).

As far as "faith", that's another term that often never gets consistently defined — IvoryBlackBishop

Some definitions are fixed by the context in which they are used. A scientist might have faith that a cure for cancer will be found, but that is not the context in which I used it.

So by "faith", It has to involve belief specifically in a "God"?

Belief in any other prime truth or axiom held to be absolute doesn't qualify?

So by "faith", It has to involve belief specifically in a "God"?

Belief in any other prime truth or axiom held to be absolute doesn't qualify? — IvoryBlackBishop

Did you not read what I wrote?

I said that I used faith in a specific context in which it has a specific definition. The rest of the definitions of faith have their places and uses, but not in the context I used it.

When the shit hits the fan my kids will survive while yours are down on their knees trying to get divine intervention on their behalf. And it won't get them anywhere. — Sir2u

My kids will believe that they can make it out of their predicament. They will have faith. The future looks bright because God takes care of us. That is why their plans will succeed. That is why it is worth struggling and fighting no matter how difficult things may become. Things will work out just fine. Do your part and God will take care of the rest.

Believers have the motivation to deal with setbacks. They know that they can do it, and that is why they can. Praise the Lord!

As an example, if you want to use a stereotypical "rabid Trump supporter" as an example, they may not literally believe Trump is a "God", however they may refuse to say anything negative about him whatsoever, and treat any criticism even if constructive as a 'personal attack' or insult.

(The same may be true of rabid 'supporters' of any person, cause, idea, but I'm using Trump as this example).

As an example, if you want to use a stereotypical "rabid Trump supporter" as an example, they may not literally believe Trump is a "God", however they may refuse to say anything negative about him whatsoever, and treat any criticism even if constructive as a 'personal attack' or insult.

(The same may be true of rabid 'supporters' of any person, cause, idea, but I'm using Trump as this example). — IvoryBlackBishop

What the hell has this got to do with what I said? I have no idea what the connection is!

My kids will believe that they can make it out of their predicament. They will have faith. — alcontali

My kids will believe that they can make it out of their predicament. Because they will have an education

The future looks bright because God takes care of us. That is why their plans will succeed. — alcontali

The future looks bright because they know how to take care of themselves. That is why their plans will succeed.

That is why it is worth struggling and fighting no matter how difficult things may become. Things will work out just fine. Do your part and God will take care of the rest. — alcontali

That is why it is worth struggling and fighting to get a good education no matter how difficult things may become. Things will work out just fine. Do your part and you will be capable of taking care whatever comes your way.

Why is your way of saying things better than mine? Why would anyone want to risk their well being on something that has no evidence of existence?

Can I choose any religion for me & my children?

Can I choose any religion for me & my children? — EricH

Sorry mate, but for them to be happy you have to sign up with theirs. :cool:

Sorry mate, but for them to be happy you have to sign up with theirs. :cool: — Sir2u

@alcontali is a Muslim and I am a believer in Christ. We get along just fine.

That is why it is worth struggling and fighting to get a good education no matter how difficult things may become. — Sir2u

I guess that the first red pill to take concerning "a good education" is Aaron Clarey's notorious book "Worthless".

Clarey's first book, "Worthless: The Young Person's Indispensable Guide to Choosing the Right Major", is the kind of small, hard-hitting book that jolts a young person away from the present-day swamp of lies. A swamp created by the government, the media, and the higher education establishment. Without exaggeration, this little book could save a young person scores of thousands of dollars and prevent decades of angry misery - the lot of so many young Americans who are un- or underemployed, crushed by debt, and begin their day by wretchedly sending out resumes on various websites. — "

But then again, even high school is a dangerous public-school indoctrination camp. Even if young men may (or may not) manage to find that elusive "well-paid job" after decades of indoctrination, these hereto feminized boys will still have to contend with the prospect of spending their lives as friend-zoned beta orbiters. It is incredible difficult to undo the usually fatherless boy's emasculation -- pretty much equivalent to a physical castration -- that takes place in the education system.

Rollo Tomassi's book The Rational Male is undoubtedly another red pill to take on the subject:

The school will simply castrate your boys.

The meta red pill is to understand that almost everything you believe is a manipulative and deceptive lie that does not serve your own interests but the ones of the corporate oligarchy.

Even the evil, anti-biological, crappy food -- worthless calories -- that you buy from Walmart is purposely designed to make you sick. Without expensive corporate health insurance you are not supposed to survive for too long the onslaught on your body of worthless processed food surreptitiously laced with sickening high-fructose corn syrup.

According to Rollo Tomassi, somehow still a Catholic, it is the Church that has become the worst scam of all:

Church culture is now openly hostile towards any expression of conventional masculinity that doesn’t directly benefit women and actively conditions men to be serviceable, gender-loathing Betas.

The social contract of marriage from a religious perspective has shifted into the ultimate leap of faith for men. They literally risk everything in marriage – child custody, sexual access, any expectation of true, male authority or respect, long-term financial prospects, etc. – but this leap of faith comes with a metaphysical price tag.

For over five generations now, the modern church has become a Beta farm existing only to produce the same masculinity-confused men that the secular world has perfected today.

Either there is nothing for him there or he is despised and denigrated, openly in a faith altering way or discreetly in resentment, or in pandering ridicule of his juvenilized maleness. — Rollo Tomassi in 'Losing My Religion'

Why is your way of saying things better than mine? Why would anyone want to risk their well being on something that has no evidence of existence? — Sir2u

Islam has a tremendously red-pilling effect. It helps you understand that most messages flying around in modern society through school, mass media, church, workplace, and so on, are manipulative and deceptive lies.

The core red-pill message is:

All of society's institutions are now highly corrupt and try to manipulate you with their deceptive lies. If you don't fight back, you will simply start believing these lies and become very unhappy, if these dangerous lies do not kill end up killing you first.

Can I choose any religion for me & my children? — EricH

Yes, certainly. It is your choice.

I would like to add: be careful with organized clergy. There is a major difference between asking advice to an independent religious scholar of your choice, who gives you an answer that entails from scripture, versus organized clergy who may manipulate you into adopting society's imperatives, especially, when that society is obviously corrupt. The corporate oligarchy controls pretty much all organized clergy nowadays.

Yes, certainly. It is your choice. — alcontali

One problem I'm having with this statement is that different religions make different claims about what happens to me after I die and there's no way that they can all be correct - at most only one religion is correct and all the others are wrong to some degree.

If I guess wrong and choose the wrong religion, then after I die? Really, really bad stuff will happen to me. Depending on which religion is actually the true correct religion my eternal soul will burn in hellfire for all eternity - OR - maybe I'll suffer in purgatory from some period of time - OR - maybe I'll be re-incarnated as a cockroach.

This is bad enough for me - but if my children choose the same religion (as is most typical) then the same terrible fate will befall them as well.

Today Religion should be seen as vital as ever. We have come a long way as a civilization. Through science and technology we have been able to discover and achieve a great deal. We have uncovered many mysteries regarding the Earth and the universe. Through medicine we have been able to overcome disease, and through technology overcome the treachery of nature. We now know so much of what is, as a result of these discoveries. We have discovered billions of facts and will continue to do so. Yet none of that allows us to understand what values we should have. The philosopher David Hume famously made this distinction. The fact-value distinction implies that it is impossible to derive ethical claims from factual arguments. For this reason religion is still as vital as ever, because even though we have discovered many facts about the natural world we can never derive value from these facts. Which makes religion necessary for that purpose.

We have no need for religion.

Though we could use getting together to serve a moral objective.

China built a hospital in a quick time recently.

We all can improve the habitat, quickly. So that's the use of grouping together.

Don't tell me I missed the apple?

And so my fellow philosophers: ask not, what your religion can do for you; ask what you can do for your religion!

LOL

Don't you see that religion is typo-typo hippyish?

There's grouping up for a moral cause, and then there's grouping up for some other regime.

What's beleiving in a God going to achieve?

We're more likely to make the numbers for a moral push? Then, that religion is temporary les' it become maleficent.

I suppose it could work, but it seems more like a costly, and pointless alternative to raw communication. "We need to group up and work together", "we're going to use religion - due to the amount of non intellectuals who can't reason with standard data, of course". "No we just need to group up and fix the habitat - don't worry bout' them".

The point I'm trying to make is that people can act in a "religious" or "fanatical" way about things even if they aren't traditionally what is defined or perceived as a "religion".

The point I'm trying to make is that people can act in a "religious" or "fanatical" way about things even if they aren't traditionally what is defined or perceived as a "religion". — IvoryBlackBishop

Sure, but I think it makes a big difference if the fanaticism is making an appeal to the supernatural. Its easier to justify the most extreme acts/beliefs when you can measure them against things beyond the natural world (eternal life in paradise, an eternity of suffering, seeing all your dead loved ones, satisfying the plans of a divine, perfect being etc.)

"Supernatural" is another term which gets used and abused.

If anything which isn't "natural" in the sense of matter / energy is "supernatural", then one could easily say that mathematics, thoughts, logic, ideas, etc are "supernatural".

Generally this term gets used to refer to "God" or a very clichéd or childish archetype of what a "God" or something similar is to begin with, usually something more akin to one of Carl Jung's archetypes than anything else.

In reality, I believe that such "childish" archetypes and people's perceptions of them exist in other instances, even one's not traditionally thought of as referring to the "supernatural".

I meant it in the sense of those things which exist outside the ability to detect or test or interact with science. Ghosts, magic, gods etc...the things that rationality, logic, reason, science etc cannot be used upon.

I think you're conflating different things, if by "science" you mean Francis Bacon's method based on "induction" or "empiricism", that's a completely separate institution or method from "deduction", aka logic / reason or "rationalism".

As far as "ghosts, magic, gods", unless someone attempts an actual definition, rather than just a very stereotyped 'image' or 'archetype' of one, I find that discussion rather points.

For the same reason I would find a discussion on aliens pointless, if a person's fictitious idea of an "alien" was a stereotyped cartoon image of "Marvin the Martian", rather than a real discussion about what actually makes an alien an alien to begin with.