Modern society is very much at odds with religion. It advocates behaviour that is contrary to religion. — alcontali

I doubt that any society advocates bad behavior, they do permit it though.

If modern society says one thing and religion says another on the morality of behaviour, then you can safely assume that religion is right while modern society is depraved, wrong, and even dangerous. — alcontali

So the church when the church says that you cannot use birth control because it is not beneficial for mankind and therefore incorrect behavior I should believe them?

So the church when the church says that you cannot have sex outside of marriage(even though they do) because it is not beneficial for mankind and therefore incorrect behavior I should believe them?

So the church when the church says that you cannot separate from your spouse that is beating you because it is not beneficial for mankind and therefore incorrect behavior I should believe them?

Don't think so.

All institutions of modern society are now totally corrupt: public-school indoctrination camp, mass media, politics, medicine, organized clergy, workplaces, corporations, and so on. — alcontali

Does the "and so on" include churches and religions? Don't answer, it was a rhetorical question.

Do you seriously think that this is a problem that has just popped up in the last few years? The only difference between today and 2 thousand years ago is the technology that helps to spread the ideas.

They all advocate horrible depravities. They cannot be trusted in any way. — alcontali

Could you give us some examples of this? I still cannot get my head around this advocating depravities thing. I have not heard anything about the college of medicine in any country advocating any depravities. But maybe we different definitions of depravities.

In my opinion, concerning morality, all other sources besides religious scriptures are entirely corrupt and depraved. So, yes, amidst this cesspool of corruption, you need the scriptures as a reminder about the truth on morality. — alcontali

But if the leaders of the religions do not practice what they preach, why should anyone follow their lead.

But given the state of our planet, with overconsumption of resources especially our food, and we are limited in our abilities to manufacture it on our farms, combined with climate change, too many children is God's curse on us and he delights in our suffering! — Michael Lee

But the holy brothers keep on getting the holy sisters pregnant, because that is what a god said they should does. Most of the atheist I know don't have more than one or two kids, how many catholic families can you say that about. Most other religions still believe it is the place of the woman to stay at home raising they kids. Luckily the women seem to be getting smarter and are refusing to accept this status in life.

So it would appear, but she sure has balls.

It is similar to avoiding the death penalty on earth by not overly misbehaving. How many people end up on death row each year? Not that many either. — alcontali

Death row and religion of any sort should not be mixed up like that.

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

Religious,
Concerned with sacred matters, religion or the church
Having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity
Of or relating to clergy bound by monastic vows
Extremely scrupulous and conscientious

Fanatical
Marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea

Dingo already said the first part of my answer.

Trump supporters or other rabid follower of any group or person are nor generally counted as religious, fanatical and rabid yes, but not religious.

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

Does education mean only going to school? I am a teacher and even I know that most schools and universities are as useless a hell at preparing kids for their future. Education to me means being prepared for life, not going to school.

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. — alcontali

Does this apply to religions as well? I guess it must because most religions are nothing more than money making corporations.

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. — alcontali

I live in a backward, third world country, so this does not really apply too much yet.

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

I agree, but that is about the religion, the church, not about the people. Just like every other religion there are good and bad people in it. As a muslim you should understand that the bad part of the religion is the one that out shines all of the good that exists in it.

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. — alcontali

Why do I or my kids need a religion to tell me what are lies and what is truth?

alcontali is a Muslim and I am a believer in Christ. We get along just fine. — Noah Te Stroete

I am an atheist and I work in a catholic school. :gasp: I have friends that are mormons, jehovas witnesses, hindu, and even a witch. And I get along with everyone.

As I said, I don't give a shit about religion. As long as the person is nice and does not try to convince me they are right.

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:

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

However, in a way, that is similar to the law of any modern nation, such as the Common Law in America or Britain, which does impose a bare minimum of morality on people by force, based on its own moral axioms (e.x. that acts such as rape or murder are inherently "immoral", and that society or the state therefore has a right to use force to prevent or punish those crimes, for example). — IvoryBlackBishop

But you don't see people worshiping the Supreme Court, or treating the judges as priests. And you have the right to defend you actions that is given to you by those same laws.
Whereas religions say you are wrong and that is the end of it, you have to grovel to the unseen high and mighty just because another human that says that he is the voice of the high and mighty tells you to.

This is turning into more of an anti-religion rant — IvoryBlackBishop

I am not ranting against religion, I am inquiring about the things you say. I have nothing against religion itself, my wife is religious.

less of a discussion about the finer details — IvoryBlackBishop

The finer details of what? To be able to say that religions have been and are useful then there should be some proof of that, what good has religion done for humanity?

While I certainly do not believe God, as described in sacred texts, exists, I certainly do believe Spinoza's imperfect description of God is. But my question is, since God could not care less about our well being nor will change the nature of the Universe to suit our desires, then is there any value engaging in religious thought and reflection? — Michael Lee

The answer to the question is a simple no, why bother.

I'd assume that credible business do provide some measure of financial accountability — IvoryBlackBishop

If we are talking about religion, I don't see how those 2 words are being used.
What exactly is the business of religion?
And just how can any of the western religions be called credible?

Almost all of the "churches" belonging to the religions have some stigma attached to them. Maybe some of the individual buildings in general have not been smeared by unholy priests and pastors, but the churches have been corrupt for centuries.

Every business has to make a profit, — IvoryBlackBishop

Religion as a business, that is new! Not really.

so if this is just a discussion about greed or using religion as a money-making tool, I'd prefer not to go there. — IvoryBlackBishop

As far as I know there is no discussion about it, nearly all religions take their believers money and have no responsibility to explain where it goes. And that is a truth that does not need to be discussed.

I've seen more and more churches broadcasting on social media as of late. — IvoryBlackBishop

And most of them have Apps to do their most important work. Collect the money.

You cannot reasonably expect two atheists to believe the same things. — alcontali

That is the insidious part of it. Atheists do believe things about morality but they may not even know themselves what exactly they believe, especially, given the subtle manipulations from the public-school indoctrination system, the mass media, the commercial advertisements, and so on. — alcontali

That is so much shit I do not even know where to start putting you straight. It is obvious that you read to much religious based literature and probable do not even know a non believer.

As an atheist you may still be able to reproduce but your progeny is pretty much scheduled to die out. So, you are probably just wasting your time. — alcontali

My kids all know how to look after themselves and do not need to go groveling to some unknown being begging for help. 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.

You can clearly notice that unbelievers are gradually but surely losing the ability to form families and to reproduce, which is something that the old adage already had predicted : children are a gift from God. — alcontali

I am a non believer, and I have no problems reproducing!

Children in a lot of cases, even for believers, are a miscalculation of time of month. Most believers, especially the most fanatical, cannot say that they have planned to have children. They say that they just come because god sends then.

Did S change his name to Frank somewhere along the line? :chin:

Generally speaking, by "giving up" I mean, the rejection of commonly held values that guide Western economically driven sociopolitical mechanisms of incentives and disincentives that shape or to some degree govern human behavior in those particular societies. — Wallows

That is one classy way to declare your hippy-ness. You should have come out a long time again, you would have been happier.

The paltry quantity is offset by the superior quality. It is here most come for the final word on all topics. — Hanover

Yeah, OK. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Your response will be critical to the future success of this site. — Hanover

:rofl:

Haha, that was a sneaky way to get the last word! :up:

You will win the prize eventual.

OOOPPss, I did it again. :blush:

It would be nice to have someone like him around.

Do you think Plato would work?

https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Googleplex-Philosophy-Wont-Away/dp/B00JBEM1TO

https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Platypus-Aristotle-Aardvark-Washington/dp/B00ATGR6AC

Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god” (not being without a “belief” in a god)…and that was the use of the word throughout history. (Until debating atheists got hold of it.) — Frank Apisa

Some etymology sites give slightly different ways of looking at it. And disagree with you.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=Atheist
atheist (n.)

1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).

“Atheist”, it should be noted, was introduced to the English language BEFORE theist…so it could not have been derived the way some atheists want to insist, by “a” (without) + “theist” (a “belief” in a god) = without a “belief” in a god.) — Frank Apisa

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=theist
theist (n.)
1660s, from Greek theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.

As they both have the same root there is no need for one to be derived from the other. They were just words created for different purposes.

Ooops. Did I just ruin something?

Looks like Tiff is in line to win this thread as well.

Go girl. :up:

Are you keeping it secret? — fishfry

Of course he is, but all will be revealed when he goes to pick up his Nobel prize.

My 3. and 4. are hardware, yours software. — Zelebg

3. Display A: visual output inner -> feeds into 4.
4. Camera B: visual input inner -> feeds into 5.

How do you figure that it HAS to be hardware? Why would software need internal a viewing screen for another camera to watch? Why not just go from 2 to 5 without the BS in the middle.

It would make more sense if the external camera feed "showed" (3) the recognition program the data so that it could "see" (4) it. which is exactly as what a facial recognition program does.

Have you been watching Giorgio again?

Most importantly, or for a start, it does not have the same hardware configuration. — Zelebg

Does not have the same hardware configuration as WHAT?

Your idea of an conscious computer or a human being that has no hardware?

The example I gave you fits exactly to your specs, so what is the problem with it? Can you explain that to me?

I suppose it might be questioned what exactly should "Program A" be doing and what part of that should go onto inner screen


But what I am suggesting here is both what and how to implement, and relevant part is hardware configuration, not software modules. — Zelebg

Make up your mind, is it the software or the hardware that you think is important? Because, as the song goes, you can't have one without the other.

Sounds hasty.. — Monist

Not really, if you don't know and I don't know there is probably no one that does know. Hence there is no answer or at least no answer that is accepted universally.

I do not know if I know anything. — Monist

So there is your answer, we do not know.

I already told you where/why I think you are wrong. "5. Program B: consciousness & free will -> feeds into 6.& 2" does not equal "a visual recognition program" — Sir Philo Sophia

In what way do you think it is different?

and it is Zelebg job to explain to you why not, — Sir Philo Sophia

But you are the one that said I was wrong, not him.

or your job to explain to us why you logically conclude they are equal or highly similar. — Sir Philo Sophia

I did, if you did not understand the comparison just say so.

I think Zelebg will explain it to us when he replies. stay tuned... — Sir Philo Sophia

So you don't have an answer, but I am wrong? :chin:

It is raining, that is the truth.

Do you agree with that?