The End of Faith - Religion impairs logical thinking

Eliot Rosewater

I heard this on NPR a couple of days ago and thought maybe some of you clear thinkers on here could appreciate it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6181732

surferdude

don't gimme no wrote:

I heard this on NPR a couple of days ago and thought maybe some of you clear thinkers on here could appreciate it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6181732

Sam Harris is as committed to you believing his way is right just as much as any religion is.

Cosmo

I would have no problem with the removal of the Separation of Church and State... if it goes both way. Go ahead and bring religious prayer into schools public spaces... and bring governmental regulations into church. That is, tax the church just as you would any other business and look at their congregation as simply patrons, spending taxable dollars in exchange for the religious service. And the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the courthouse... bill it as you would any advertisement.
Also, remove the tax write-off of church donations. You cannot include TIPs to your waiters and bartenders, right?
Seperation... whos needs it?

Infinity_Now

WEAR YOUR COBWEBS PROUDLY
IN YOUR CHEAP AND BRITTLE SIGHT
MY GLANDS EMIT THIS CARNAGE
THESE PEWS BEND BACK YOUR KNEES

THAT UNIFORM IT WEARS YOU
WHEN THE ULTIMATUM PLEADS

BARE THEM
SEVENS
THREE TO A PALL
MARKS THE
VENOM
LUSH AND TERMINAL

THAT CESSPOOL IT BECOMES YOU
JUST NORTH OF THE EYEBROWS - TMV

If you can't figure out what that means, you're probably too religious. It's hard to measure distance past the rulers, so it's equally hard to figure out we're all here to no circumstance and we are the only ones on this planet who make or break our lives. We have rule over life and death, no god or priest amung us can overrule the eye of the individual. Isn't it true of sympathy that is learned without the guard of gods, that sympathy is truer to the human who has willed to learn it without them?

(mushrooms might have effected my ability to communicate thoroughly) All in all, you're unique, nothing can alter that. Religions can't stop you from thinking. Gods can't stop you from f'ing. Alter the altar, and then there will be more to life than just religions and books.

http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/

harmless_little_f***

Ah, that old chestnut. I wrote a book review of this.

http://www.christianbookshops.org.uk/reviews/endoffaith.htm

Infinity_Now

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Ah, that old chestnut. I wrote a book review of this.

http://www.christianbookshops.org.uk/reviews/endoffaith.htm

God is dead, if you want it to be.

It was dead to Nietzsche because Nietzsche chose to kill it.

Atheists choose to kill off God in their own minds because it proves their point, that they can, and thus an all powerful God that chooses to separate itself from the beings it controls over moral and "supernatural" rule is unjust. It can't influence our minds or spirits in any way - it's doctrine is flawed, thus all of it's laws are flawed - because it refuses to accept the vitality of our plane of existence.

Saying "God is dead,"
is a defense against God saying, "kill yourself."

(Show me one religion that does not require death as certificate of it's worth, most rewards from religious thinking only happen inn the realm of the unreal.)

The only thing religion dominates is after-life, thus the only thing religion needs to prove itself is after-life.

This "killing off God," is imperative in your mind only. Nietzsche wasn't declairing God is dead for everybody - this was not a social assertion or critique of his. Rather, it is central to Nietzsche himself, and to understanding his docrtine, that statement is the criterion upon which the reader can figure out what Nietzsche says in later books like The Anti-Christ and Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

yosi1

Infinity_Now wrote:

God is dead, if you want it to be.

It was dead to Nietzsche because Nietzsche chose to kill it.

Atheists choose to kill off God in their own minds because it proves their point, that they can, and thus an all powerful God that chooses to separate itself from the beings it controls over moral and "supernatural" rule is unjust. It can't influence our minds or spirits in any way - it's doctrine is flawed, thus all of it's laws are flawed - because it refuses to accept the vitality of our plane of existence.

Saying "God is dead,"
is a defense against God saying, "kill yourself."

(Show me one religion that does not require death as certificate of it's worth, most rewards from religious thinking only happen inn the realm of the unreal.)

The only thing religion dominates is after-life, thus the only thing religion needs to prove itself is after-life.

This "killing off God," is imperative in your mind only. Nietzsche wasn't declairing God is dead for everybody - this was not a social assertion or critique of his. Rather, it is central to Nietzsche himself, and to understanding his docrtine, that statement is the criterion upon which the reader can figure out what Nietzsche says in later books like The Anti-Christ and Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Nietzsche didn't say God is dead because he chose to kill it. He said God was dead because he believed the way that people practicing religion at his time had killed God.

angelica

Infinity_Now wrote:

WEAR YOUR COBWEBS PROUDLY
IN YOUR CHEAP AND BRITTLE SIGHT
MY GLANDS EMIT THIS CARNAGE
THESE PEWS BEND BACK YOUR KNEES

THAT UNIFORM IT WEARS YOU
WHEN THE ULTIMATUM PLEADS

BARE THEM
SEVENS
THREE TO A PALL
MARKS THE
VENOM
LUSH AND TERMINAL

THAT CESSPOOL IT BECOMES YOU
JUST NORTH OF THE EYEBROWS - TMV

If you can't figure out what that means, you're probably too religious. It's hard to measure distance past the rulers, so it's equally hard to figure out we're all here to no circumstance and we are the only ones on this planet who make or break our lives. We have rule over life and death, no god or priest amung us can overrule the eye of the individual. Isn't it true of sympathy that is learned without the guard of gods, that sympathy is truer to the human who has willed to learn it without them?

(mushrooms might have effected my ability to communicate thoroughly) All in all, you're unique, nothing can alter that. Religions can't stop you from thinking. Gods can't stop you from f'ing. Alter the altar, and then there will be more to life than just religions and books.

http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/

Must the individual bow to the rule of the natural laws around us or else accept the consequences?

Infinity_Now

angelica wrote:

Must the individual bow to the rule of the natural laws around us or else accept the consequences?

Of course there are natural consequences. But I, as atheist chose to separate God from the natural body. "God is a concept."

And... no - we don't have to "accept," the consequences. We only are able to obey them, those natural wonders... that make up our fate. Ying and Yang, Bruce Lee style.

Infinity_Now

yosi wrote:

Nietzsche didn't say God is dead because he chose to kill it. He said God was dead because he believed the way that people practicing religion at his time had killed God.

TRUE. Did you read that in Camus as well?

But, also - he was as a philosopher trying to influence the dominion of men, introducing a concept, that "God is dead," which would help to explain his athiesm in general. I'd defend that <- by saying that he used that concept in more than one context. I'm thinking mainly later Nietzsche, but I don't have a quote at hand to defend this.

Collin

Infinity_Now wrote:

God is dead, if you want it to be.

It was dead to Nietzsche because Nietzsche chose to kill it.

Atheists choose to kill off God in their own minds because it proves their point, that they can, and thus an all powerful God that chooses to separate itself from the beings it controls over moral and "supernatural" rule is unjust. It can't influence our minds or spirits in any way - it's doctrine is flawed, thus all of it's laws are flawed - because it refuses to accept the vitality of our plane of existence.

Saying "God is dead,"
is a defense against God saying, "kill yourself."

(Show me one religion that does not require death as certificate of it's worth, most rewards from religious thinking only happen inn the realm of the unreal.)

The only thing religion dominates is after-life, thus the only thing religion needs to prove itself is after-life.

This "killing off God," is imperative in your mind only. Nietzsche wasn't declairing God is dead for everybody - this was not a social assertion or critique of his. Rather, it is central to Nietzsche himself, and to understanding his docrtine, that statement is the criterion upon which the reader can figure out what Nietzsche says in later books like The Anti-Christ and Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Most atheist I know didn't choose to "kill" god.

angelica

Infinity_Now wrote:

God is dead, if you want it to be.

It was dead to Nietzsche because Nietzsche chose to kill it.

Atheists choose to kill off God in their own minds because it proves their point, that they can, and thus an all powerful God that chooses to separate itself from the beings it controls over moral and "supernatural" rule is unjust. It can't influence our minds or spirits in any way - it's doctrine is flawed, thus all of it's laws are flawed - because it refuses to accept the vitality of our plane of existence.

Saying "God is dead,"
is a defense against God saying, "kill yourself."

(Show me one religion that does not require death as certificate of it's worth, most rewards from religious thinking only happen inn the realm of the unreal.)

The only thing religion dominates is after-life, thus the only thing religion needs to prove itself is after-life.

This "killing off God," is imperative in your mind only. Nietzsche wasn't declairing God is dead for everybody - this was not a social assertion or critique of his. Rather, it is central to Nietzsche himself, and to understanding his docrtine, that statement is the criterion upon which the reader can figure out what Nietzsche says in later books like The Anti-Christ and Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

If one chooses to go unconscious of the consequences of their actions and deny natural law, they will have to live out natural law unconsciously, ie: not understanding why they keep getting certain problems in their lives.

To me, when one does so, they choose to allow the power and control of the institutions that programmed them to take control (in the form of being ensnared in ego or the false-self). When one does so, one is caught in unresolved past inner cycles, while operating out the illusion of personal power. It is the ultimate "rebelling against mom and dad, or teachers". One acts out the unresolved inner problem. The solution to the problem does not lie in rebellion from life and the authority of truth--that shows one is still controlled by the falsity of the twisted institutions. Rebellion takes one to the flip side of the coin which continues to perpetuate the religion problem. The solution lies in resolution. It lies in at-one-ment. It lies in integration of the Self.

Infinity_Now

Collin wrote:

Most atheist I know didn't choose to "kill" god.

Ah, but there are "converts" like myself. A serious tragedy, from religious dominion to radical atheism (radical - meaning rebellious, or set against theism).

angelica

Infinity_Now wrote:

Of course there are natural consequences. But I, as atheist chose to separate God from the natural body. "God is a concept."

And... no - we don't have to "accept," the consequences. We only are able to obey them, those natural wonders... that make up our fate. Ying and Yang, Bruce Lee style.

So when something yucky happens in your life, you don't accept it?

You say "we are only able to obey them", referring to those natural wonders. That sounds like what I said: "bow to the rule"--obey/bow are similar to me. Either way we can't dodge the fact that we work around the natural rule--we can't rise above it....or maybe we can, but that is with raised consciousness, which entails resolution of dichotomy and harmony with all. That is beyond death and killing of any concept. Frankly, it's about embracing the All.

Infinity_Now

yosi wrote:

Nietzsche didn't say God is dead because he chose to kill it. He said God was dead because he believed the way that people practicing religion at his time had killed God.

" - Ultimately the point is to at what end a lie is told. That "holy," ends are lacking in Christianity is my objection to its means. Only bad ends: the poisoning, slandering, denying of life, contempt for the body, the denigration and self-violation of man through the concept of sin (insert: and God as sins' controller, as he introduced sin and constantly COMBATS it.) - consequently its means are too bad."

Here he is saying exactly what you said, he believed the way that people practicing religion at his time had killed God.

And here, Nietzsche defends god,

"The Christian conception of God - God as God of the sick, God as spider, God as spirit - is one of the most corrupt conceptions of God arrived at on earth: perhaps it even represents the low water-mark in the descending development of the God-type. God denigrated to the contradiction of life, instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yes!"

So, we must be clear we are speaking of the dicotomy of what was - god, life - and what never was - God, Christian concept. A natural state and an invention.

So, Nietzsche was saying, Christians destroyed god. And he is defending that forgotten, lower-case deity.

In all cases Niezsche is asserting that uppercase Christian invention God is not only dead, that it never was.

Infinity_Now

angelica wrote:

So when something yucky happens in your life, you don't accept it?

You say "we are only able to obey them", referring to those natural wonders. That sounds like what I said: "bow to the rule"--obey/bow are similar to me. Either way we can't dodge the fact that we work around the natural rule--we can't rise above it....or maybe we can, but that is with raised consciousness, which entails resolution of dichotomy and harmony with all. That is beyond death and killing of any concept. Frankly, it's about embracing the All.

You don't "have to accept it." - You can if you like, deny.

Still,
You can only accept. Even in denial. On that I think we agree.

angelica

The bottom line is that the Self is always in control of us, from beyond our awareness. The faster we align with and work with the Self, the more and more empowered we become. Cutting off the Self for the purposes of the self can be the exact loss of freedom we dread, so by de-aligning with life, or "killing God" we essentially create a self-fulfilling prophecy. We bring our worst nightmare of control issues into being. It's All good, though. Because in the end, what we learn is that the opposite of good, is an illusion--one that helps us climb the inner heights of our truth.

Infinity_Now

angelica wrote:

The bottom line is that the Self is always in control of us, from beyond our awareness. The faster we align with and work with the Self, the more and more empowered we become. Cutting off the Self for the purposes of the self can be the exact loss of freedom we dread, so by de-aligning with life, or "killing God" we essentially create a self-fulfilling prophecy. We bring our worst nightmare of control issues into being. It's All good, though. Because in the end, what we learn is that the opposite of good, is an illusion--one that helps us climb the inner heights of our truth.

But what if "God" wasn't there to begin with??

What if we are "killing" this phantom - would that be a positive thing, and further help align oneself with... the Self?

Umn - cause I'm curious, the closest thing I can think of to conceptualize what the Self is - is the idea of a current.

Would you say that what the Self is, is a "current," is this accurate?

angelica

Infinity_Now wrote:

But what if "God" wasn't there to begin with??

Trying to prove a negative" is a faulty premise. We could can entertain ourselves with it for the next 40 years. It's an illusion, your idea--this question of no-thing. A concept exists. It is not no-thing or nothing. It IS. It is a thing. It may be invisible--it may not follow physical laws. It may only be appreciated with refined awareness or senses. But a thing cannot not exist.

What if we are "killing" this phantom - would that be a positive thing, and further help align oneself with... the Self?

If you are saying what if this illusion helps us align with the Self, I see your valid point. That's EXACTLY what the illusions are about.

Umn - cause I'm curious, the closest thing I can think of to conceptualize what the Self is - is the idea of a current.

Would you say that what the Self is, is a "current," is this accurate?

I'm finding the Self to be infinite and eternal so far. If I reach the edges of it's potential, I'll be sure to let you know my own experiences. I say eternal, because when I plug into it, via resonating with gratitute/Love, or by meditating, or by contemplation, or prayer, or by living on Purpose, I can see through it to eternity. Current could work. On a couple of levels. A major KEY aspect of the eternity of the Self, is that it is the ETERNAL NOW that exists, only, which makes it "current" in another sense from the more obvious one.

Ms. Haiku

I haven't read the article, just responding to the title. Leaps of faith are not logical so by saying that religion results in the end of logical thinking is a mute point. The idea of having a soul is illogical because too many people would interpret it in different ways if there was empircal data that it exists. However, how many religions base the idea of religion on the existence of a soul? I'm logical when I add 2+2 to equal 4, but I couldn't care less if my belief in the existence of a soul is construed as illogical. I wouldn't even talk to people who would argue with me on it. What a waste of time for all involved. A person who would go out of his/her way to try to prove to me that a soul does not exist is a cruel person.

paisley

:rolleyes: what a load of liberal horseshit.

yosi1

Infinity_Now wrote:

TRUE. Did you read that in Camus as well?

But, also - he was as a philosopher trying to influence the dominion of men, introducing a concept, that "God is dead," which would help to explain his athiesm in general. I'd defend that <- by saying that he used that concept in more than one context. I'm thinking mainly later Nietzsche, but I don't have a quote at hand to defend this.

Nope. Got it from reading The Gay Science.

The scene with the Madman describes it pretty well.

Eliot Rosewater

Ms. Haiku wrote:

What a waste of time for all involved. A person who would go out of his/her way to try to prove to me that a soul does not exist is a cruel person.

I agree. But Sam Harris is not trying to prove to you or anyone else that a soul does not exist. He's pointing out the obvious fact that no one fucking knows and to claim that you know brings everything else you say into question. More specifically, political leaders who claim such nonsense cannot be trusted to make decisions for the masses.

rebornFixer

I'd amend the title of this thread a bit ... "Extreme Versions of Religion Impair Logical Thinking". Religion is like any concept ... It can be reasoned, rational (not empirical, there's a difference), balanced ... Or it can be just flat out nutty, sadistic, close-minded ... How many people in the world are behaving these days (e.g., reactions to a cartoon) certainly leads me to believe that there's a bit of a problem ... But it doesn't have to be that way.