Obama's Undoing

[j_b]

“The Bible, and most other religious books, contain numerous examples of low-level moral reasoning, and this makes them poor vehicles for moral development. Consider, for example, the popular Sunday school story of David and Goliath. In the tale, David becomes enraged at the taunting challenge Goliath makes to the Israelites. After volunteering to answer the challenge, David brutally kills Goliath and becomes a tribal hero. To the literal understanding of most children and inmates, the story teaches that violence is an appropriate way to resolve conflict and its use will gain you respect among your peers. Inner-city youths use the same level of moral reasoning when they commit drive-by shootings against those who have offended them.”

 

“If, then, biblical instruction and the basic doctrines of religion do not contribute to moral growth, does a high level of religiosity improve moral reasoning? This question has special relevance since inmates seem particularly inclined to ‘zealotry’ and are attracted to extremes such as the Calvinistic view of humanity as vile and depraved. Such a perspective seems to speak directly to their own inadequate self-esteem and sense of identity. But it reinforces a belief that they are compelled by their nature to sin, a view that can serve as a rationalization for committing further crime.”

 

“The high number of religious child molesters illustrates that religiosity provides no guarantee of moral behaviour. It is well recognized that religiosity is central to the personality structure of certain types of child sex offenders (Schouweiler). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hathaway and McKinley), a widely employed psychological assessment, uses religiosity as one indicator of paedophilia. In the reasoning often associated with such individuals, they have been forgiven for all sin (and criminal behaviour) through acceptance of ‘Jesus Christ,’ who redeemed their sinful deeds before they were born. As a consequence, they relinquish all personal accountability for their actions. In addition, a religiously deterministic rationale for criminal behaviour could claim that such conduct is all part of ‘God's Plan.’"

 

“Research thus indicates that both religious instruction and high levels of religiosity should not be expected to contribute to moral development. Advancement in moral reasoning depends on exposure to the thought processes of Kohlberg's higher stages. The absolutism of religious reasoning encourages an inflexibility that stifles the cognitive conflict. This stifling obviates the mental processes required to advance to the next stage/s of personal moral development.”

 

[StevenSeagal]

Liberals and conservatives aren't born. They're created. Those ideologies are social constructs augmented by developmental influences. Both sides have some factual basis but at the heart of their ideologies is social conditioning.

 

Ok, that gets a , we can agree on something at last. Besides the fact that you really need a new job.

 

"Nothing is true". Is that what you're saying?

 

All we are is dust in the wind. Dust in the wind. Everything is dust in the wind.

 

[Stonehead]

Here’s another link for you, j_b:

The Top One Reason Religion Is Harmful

 

I disagree with the central thesis of the article.

 

My partial defense of religion:

 

I’m of the mind that religion is innate, that there are areas in the human brain that respond to religious feeling, that religion has a basis in physiology but that the body is not the final word just as consciousness cannot be explained easily through reductionist science.

 

The crux, however, is how you define religion. I don’t see religion as the sole territory of the monotheist, or the polytheist, or even the monist. It encompasses all of these modes. Religions such as Buddhism even go beyond the idea of deity to a state of mind. All however seem to have some supernatural aspect.

 

Some people say that religion is mind control yet eradication of religion will not necessarily make you free. Maybe there are memes in some religions that are helpful in preventing enslavement to ideas such as excessive material consumption, etc.

 

When religion itself is reduced or deconstructed it loses its numinosity. For better or worse, that aspect of numinosity is a mysterious quality that functions similar to a kind of cosmic cauldron where all things are placed, things like new and old knowledge, to be mixed and consumed by society. Sometimes religion is a mirror that shows us who we are. We’re social creatures who need myth to inform our place in the universe, where we’ve been and where we’re headed.

 

Religion cannot remain static. It must evolve. There are examples from history that show that it has and it will again.

 

When E.T. phones the pope

 

God is not the Creator, claims academic

 

 

[JosephH]

I’m of the mind that religion is innate, that there are areas in the human brain that respond to religious feeling, that religion has a basis in physiology but that the body is not the final word just as consciousness cannot be explained easily through reductionist science.

 

Much of what follows this intro paragraph seem reasonable enough (minus the numinosity part). I would, however, suggest that areas in human brain 'respond' to all feelings and that there is no discrete or unique "religious" or "god" feeling. But your mention of both the roots of consciousness and numinosity in general bring up the essential point of how we humans respond to the unknown and unknowable. Again, I would say that the predominant reaction is fear, uncertainty, and doubt. If anything, we as a species abhor the vacuum unanswered questions represent and cannot tolerate this state of void. They gnaw at us without end and, eventually, they must be filled; if not by fact, then by the fruits of one of our most powerful capabilities - our imagination.

 

When you speak of numinosty and mysteriousness being lost in the deconstruction of religion, what I hear is mourning and grief over the deconstruction of often beautiful imaginary constructs - many admittedly inspired works of genius or that exhibit an evolved complexity from generations of story evolution. I would say these coping constructs acquire an aesthetic and life of their own over time and many of them we call religions. Don't you find it striking that we now consider Egyption, Roman and Greek religions, which ruled the life of empires for thousands of years, to be mere 'mythologies' yet somehow vast tracts of our population consider christian mythology to be literal truths? It would seem to fail even the most rudimentary test of common sense. What makes Christians' belief in their mythology any different from, special, or more valid than that of the Egyptians? What about Mayan and Inca societies? They didn't sacrifice just one of their own, the sacrificed their own on a regular basis - pretty strong indicator of a deeply held and committed belief in literal truths. How are Christian beliefs today any different from a validity and mythology perspective?

[ivan]

keep chopping - you boys have almost Got It All Figured Out!

[billcoe]

BHO and the Dems can kiss Congress goodbye.

 

Angelina Jolie and you agree. "Barack Obama does not have Angelina Jolie's seal of approval. "She hates him," a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now)."

 

Gratuitous picture of Jolie expressing displeasure.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

BHO and the Dems can kiss Congress goodbye.

 

Angelina Jolie and you agree. "Barack Obama does not have Angelina Jolie's seal of approval. "She hates him," a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now)."

 

Gratuitous picture of Jolie expressing displeasure.

 

 

Damn she's got some DSL

[Stonehead]

Much of what follows this intro paragraph seem reasonable enough (minus the numinosity part). I would, however, suggest that areas in human brain 'respond' to all feelings and that there is no discrete or unique "religious" or "god" feeling. But your mention of both the roots of consciousness and numinosity in general bring up the essential point of how we humans respond to the unknown and unknowable. Again, I would say that the predominant reaction is fear, uncertainty, and doubt. If anything, we as a species abhor the vacuum unanswered questions represent and cannot tolerate this state of void. They gnaw at us without end and, eventually, they must be filled; if not by fact, then by the fruits of one of our most powerful capabilities - our imagination.

 

When you speak of numinosty and mysteriousness being lost in the deconstruction of religion, what I hear is mourning and grief over the deconstruction of often beautiful imaginary constructs - many admittedly inspired works of genius or that exhibit an evolved complexity from generations of story evolution. I would say these coping constructs acquire an aesthetic and life of their own over time and many of them we call religions. Don't you find it striking that we now consider Egyption, Roman and Greek religions, which ruled the life of empires for thousands of years, to be mere 'mythologies' yet somehow vast tracts of our population consider christian mythology to be literal truths? It would seem to fail even the most rudimentary test of common sense. What makes Christians' belief in their mythology any different from, special, or more valid than that of the Egyptians? What about Mayan and Inca societies? They didn't sacrifice just one of their own, the sacrificed their own on a regular basis - pretty strong indicator of a deeply held and committed belief in literal truths. How are Christian beliefs today any different from a validity and mythology perspective?

 

Feelings? Personally, I don’t believe that feelings such as fear, doubt, and grief are in themselves to be regarded in any negative sense.

 

I believe you’re right about the generality of feelings however, I thought I had read an article of MRI study of the brain involving subjects contemplating religion and other triggers. Could I have imagined it? Anyway, this work indicated some specificity in activation of the brain. Whether the specific areas of activation evolved directly or are the byproduct of the development of another function does not matter since the effect is physiological. Doesn't it still point to the primacy of religious affect?

 

Imagination. Magic. Mage. These words have the same etymological root.

 

The imagination can produce phastasms but it is also the birthplace of many things which manifest in the material world. One can believe that all we do is copy nature and modify what evolution has unfolded.

 

Other things may exist independently on another plane such as an imaginal realm. These include such things as mathematical formulas or depictions of relationships in reality, e.g., E = mc2. Some religions refer to this plane as the Ground of Being (alaya in Buddhism). These ideas are common to the esoteric flavors of the mainstream religions.

 

I’m not really qualified to speak of this but perhaps you get the picture. Anyway, my point is I won’t disparage the importance of the imagination in our existence. I know that what we’re actually talking about is more a discussion of people’s reaction to Christianity in particular and not so much to religion in general. But there’s indicators that point to validity. There's a passage in the Bible that says man was created in God’s image. Image. Imagination again.

 

Regarding the brain’s tendency to fill the void:

Sensory deprivation lasting only 15 minutes is enough to trigger hallucinations in healthy members of the public, according to a new study published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/10/hallucinations_in_se.html

 

Psychological readjustment: The ExtraRoom, a space to achieve psychological alterations.

 

[video:vimeo]5319345

 

 

I would say more but I gotta go. Got an appointment in the snow.

 

Edited November 25, 2009 by Stonehead

[Fairweather]

Never challenge a part time middle school professor who claims 5.13 at the local outdoor sport gym.

[tvashtarkatena]

Much of what follows this intro paragraph seem reasonable enough (minus the numinosity part). I would, however, suggest that areas in human brain 'respond' to all feelings and that there is no discrete or unique "religious" or "god" feeling. But your mention of both the roots of consciousness and numinosity in general bring up the essential point of how we humans respond to the unknown and unknowable. Again, I would say that the predominant reaction is fear, uncertainty, and doubt. If anything, we as a species abhor the vacuum unanswered questions represent and cannot tolerate this state of void. They gnaw at us without end and, eventually, they must be filled; if not by fact, then by the fruits of one of our most powerful capabilities - our imagination.

 

When you speak of numinosty and mysteriousness being lost in the deconstruction of religion, what I hear is mourning and grief over the deconstruction of often beautiful imaginary constructs - many admittedly inspired works of genius or that exhibit an evolved complexity from generations of story evolution. I would say these coping constructs acquire an aesthetic and life of their own over time and many of them we call religions. Don't you find it striking that we now consider Egyption, Roman and Greek religions, which ruled the life of empires for thousands of years, to be mere 'mythologies' yet somehow vast tracts of our population consider christian mythology to be literal truths? It would seem to fail even the most rudimentary test of common sense. What makes Christians' belief in their mythology any different from, special, or more valid than that of the Egyptians? What about Mayan and Inca societies? They didn't sacrifice just one of their own, the sacrificed their own on a regular basis - pretty strong indicator of a deeply held and committed belief in literal truths. How are Christian beliefs today any different from a validity and mythology perspective?

 

I believe you’re right about the generality of feelings however, I thought I had read an article of MRI study of the brain involving subjects contemplating religion and other triggers. Could I have imagined it? Anyway, this work indicated some specificity in activation of the brain. Whether the specific areas of activation evolved directly or are the byproduct of the development of another function does not matter since the effect is physiological. Doesn't it still point to the primacy of religious affect?

 

Imagination. Magic. Mage. These words have the same root. The imagination can produce phastasms but it is also the birthplace of many things which manifest in the material world. One can believe that all we do is copy nature and make modifications upon what nature has produced through evolution. Other things may preexist independently on another plane, an imaginal realm. These include such things as mathematical formulas or depictions of relationships in reality, e.g., E = mc2. Some religions refer to this plane as the Ground of Being (alaya in Buddhism). I’m not really qualified to speak of this but perhaps you get the picture. Anyway, my point is I won’t disparage the importance of the imagination in our existence. I know that what we’re actually talking about is more a discussion of people’s reaction to Christianity in particular and not so much to religion in general. There’s something in the Bible that points about man being created in God’s image. Image. Imagination…

 

Feelings? Personally, I don’t believe that feelings such as fear, doubt, and grief are in themselves to be regarded in any negative sense.

 

Regarding the brain’s tendency to fill the void:

Sensory deprivation lasting only 15 minutes is enough to trigger hallucinations in healthy members of the public, according to a new study published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/10/hallucinations_in_se.html

 

Psychological readjustment: The ExtraRoom, a space to achieve psychological alterations.

 

[video:vimeo]5319345

 

 

I would say more but I gotta go. Got an appointment in the snow.

 

First the subhuman atheist, now being nonreligious constitutes a lack of imagination.

 

There's at least one atheist artist out there who thinks you're a fucking moron.

[Stonehead]

Well then, why do you emulate me with my icon?

[Bug]

I love it when you guys think you have it all figured out and post long explanations with links. I'm serious.

 

Still,

There is little or no discussion.

There is little or no give and take or cooperative development.

There is mostly pontification.

 

Perhaps it is an expression of the medium in that it takes a long time to put all of this down in type. None of us puts this endevour at the top of our priorities. Not in this forum at least.

 

I certainly do NOT have it all figured out.

But I do have strong opinions backed up by decades of study in the soft science of Socio-cultural Anthropology. In my opinion, the primary driver of the disagreements in internet boards is the inability of the individual to internalize a significant portion of the information available on a given topic. More precisely, there is no structure to the interaction as in a debate or a classroom, etc,. On top of all that, there is no reward for collaboration or compromise. The opposite is in fact the case. It is a purely competitive environment where each post is like a swipe of the sword.

 

In spite of that, I enjoy your links and general impressions of what is being said.

From the social scientific perspective it is almost a complete microcosmic holigram.

We and our children are the generations that will be studied for a thousand years.

[ivan]

there is little room for compromise in conversations about invisible guys in bathrobes hanging out in the clouds

[Bug]

I didn't see a link.

[Kimmo]

There's at least one atheist artist out there who thinks you're a fucking moron.

 

hey don't flatter yourself buddy. i've seen your "art".

[Kimmo]

I love it when you guys think you have it all figured out and post long explanations with links. I'm serious.

 

Still,

There is little or no discussion.

There is little or no give and take or cooperative development.

There is mostly pontification.

 

Perhaps it is an expression of the medium in that it takes a long time to put all of this down in type. None of us puts this endevour at the top of our priorities. Not in this forum at least.

 

I certainly do NOT have it all figured out.

But I do have strong opinions backed up by decades of study in the soft science of Socio-cultural Anthropology. In my opinion, the primary driver of the disagreements in internet boards is the inability of the individual to internalize a significant portion of the information available on a given topic. More precisely, there is no structure to the interaction as in a debate or a classroom, etc,. On top of all that, there is no reward for collaboration or compromise. The opposite is in fact the case. It is a purely competitive environment where each post is like a swipe of the sword.

 

In spite of that, I enjoy your links and general impressions of what is being said.

From the social scientific perspective it is almost a complete microcosmic holigram.

We and our children are the generations that will be studied for a thousand years.

 

i'm an agnostic. and an atheist.

[j_b]

hey don't flatter yourself buddy. i've seen your "art".

 

I am no art critic but from what Tvash has posted here, it looks pretty cool (imaginative, use of materials, ...)

 

What don't you like about it? and why the use of quotes?

[Kimmo]

explanation of my retort:

 

what is to be called "art"? does everything (if properly "framed") qualify? (to me, the "framing" can be as interesting (or more so) as the "object" itself, but that's another discussion.)

 

 

the problem i have with it is the same problem i have with tvash in general (on-line): an over-bearing display of "self", lacking in any subtlety. i don't like being hit over the head with someone's opinions any more than i like being hit over the head with a 50 pound study in over-wrought pretentiousness masquerading(?) as "art". he seems to wield everything (ideas, "art") like a neanderthal's club, smashing away in a fit of testosterone. monster truck art. trailer park art. wal-mart art with no self-recognition(?).

 

but fuckin-a, he's having fun! seems to, at least. don't matter shit what i think: i gotta hand it to him that at least he's engaged and "creating" some "thing", however hideous it may be. more power to him. seriously. hell yeah. like fo sho.

[Fairweather]

There's at least one atheist artist out there who thinks you're a fucking moron.

 

hey don't flatter yourself buddy. i've seen your "art".

 

Yes--but have you seen his piece called The Table?

 

It is often held up as a metaphor for atheism.

 

It's magnificent.

 

Or so I've heard.

 

From him.

[Kimmo]

dude, tvash himself is a metaphor for atheism. with him in existence, i have a hell of a hard time believing in an intelligent creator.

[Fairweather]

But it's possible.

 

I suppose.

 

I mean

 

I'm not ruling it out at this point.

[Pete_H]

the problem i have with it is the same problem i have with tvash in general (on-line): an over-bearing display of "self", lacking in any subtlety.

 

You just described 90% of the posters here, including yourself.

[Bug]

Even God was willing to compromise.

[prole]

[Bug]

Is it kosher?