Why do the God-haters persist?

[holston]

The "God Haters" persist because who needs a God that won't give him everything he wants?
Isn't that the real reason why we all get "pissed" at the idea of "God"?
Any "God" that won't give me what I want and when I want it is worthy only of my unwavering contempt.

No one in their right minds would want to take up a cross when they could have fame and fortune instead.

What kind of monstrous God would it have to be that wouldn't give you all the money, sex, acclaim, and whatever else you want that you asked for?
Just tell me what in life could possibly be more important than those things and why should God almighty pay the least bit of attention to them, especially when they might interfere with my own good pleasure and entertainment?

Besides, since "God" is supposed to be so "good" then it ought to be safe to hate him since a "good" God would never do anything to hurt me personally. On the other hand, BAD God's, like bad guys WOULD. So it pays to know who to look out for and who not to sass. We KNOW what THEY are capable of!



Another reason that "God haters" persist may also be because every one knows that the Jews are God and everybody hates the Jews.

That's what the Jews say, and who are you to disagree with the Gods?

Since the Jewish religion does more than any other religion to gain it's adherents the highest standard of living, then it must be the right one.
Too bad they don't proselytize or at least make it easier for more people to join the club. Maybe then everyone would be a member and the whole world's problems would be solved once and for all. Then we could ALL sit and eat like an effendi!

 

[holston]

'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens

God has produced at least one, possibly the other, whereas man could create neither except perhaps in his imagination of multiple universes where ANYTHING can happen which he dreams up himself.

"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".

- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Then if the facts we observe lead us to conclude that the universe cannot be rationally explained by any other means than there was an intelligent creator behind it, then we should be honest enough to admit it, or at least admit that we don't know enough to rule that possibility out.

 

[Steven_R]

Ask any scientist worth his salt and they will flat out say it is entirely possible that there is some supernatural cause for the universe or life on Earth, but there is no evidence to point in that direction. Even someone like Dawkins will acknowledge the possibility, but the next question out of his mouth will be "so where's the evidence of God?"

 

[Boss]

The question makes an assumption that is not accepted as a given.
Based on you being a practitioner of what you believe to be a connection with the spiritual nature it doesn't appear that it foments any particular goodwill among men.

Questions don't make assumptions. That is the point of a question, to ascertain information so an assumption doesn't happen. My position notwithstanding, I asked what you thought. I'm not really seeing an answer. You are simply trying to push the question back in my face.

You are indicating you don't believe spirituality foments any particular goodwill among men. I am trying not to assume anything here, I ask you again, would mankind be better off (i.e. more moral) if we completely abandoned spiritual reality? Clarify your position, please?

Questions absolutely can make assumptions. Yours most certainly did. You called spirituality a "reality", which by answering the question I am accepting that, so as asked the question won't be addressed.
If I asked you "Why are you an asshole?", would that question have any assumptions? If you say "No", you are accepting the premise of the question.
I know, English isn't your forte.
I am observing that your particular brand of spirituality foments no particular goodwill.
Restating the question would be necessary for me to answer it.

No sir, YOU said: "Men of all stripes. Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual reality through their own rationalizations." So you acknowledged that people invest in a "great spiritual reality" because there is your direct quote. I merely asked you a follow-up question based on your previous response.

What is my "particular brand of spirituality?" How can you possibly know anything about my personal brand of spirituality? And what does that have to do with my question? I asked you if mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spiritual reality? You want to now object to the very word you previously used, "reality" so... Do you think mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spirituality?

It sounds like that is your argument, but before I comment further, I wanted to clarify it and give you a chance to speak up for what you believe. Now is your chance! Rather than dodging the question, just answer it!

 

[Boss]

Ask any scientist worth his salt and they will flat out say it is entirely possible that there is some supernatural cause for the universe or life on Earth, but there is no evidence to point in that direction. Even someone like Dawkins will acknowledge the possibility, but the next question out of his mouth will be "so where's the evidence of God?"

Where do you look for your evidence? If you are looking to physical science to provide evidence for spiritual things, doesn't that seem a bit dumb? And why do you call spiritual nature "supernatural?" Is it just because physical science can't presently explain it? Are black holes, dark energy and dark matter also "supernatural" because science can't presently explain them? Is string theory delving into the "supernatural" by theorizing multiple universes?

You toss this word around rather casually because you believe it denigrates spiritaul nature to do so. It makes spiritual nature something "paranormal" and whimsical. Evidence is clear, humans have been connecting with spiritual nature as a part of our fundamental being since there have been humans to do so. It's every bit a part of general nature as physical nature, you just can't evaluate it with physical sciences at the moment.

There is actually a LOT of evidence to point in that direction, but it is spiritual evidence. If you don't accept a such thing as spiritual nature, you can't acknowledge or evaluate spiritual evidence, your brain doesn't allow you to do that because it would be illogical in your mind to do so. This doesn't mean there isn't any evidence, it just means you can't recognize the evidence.

 

[Steven_R]

There is direct physical evidence that shows the existence of black holes, dark matter, and dark energy. We may not understand what is going on, but we can see there is something there.

The existence of the spiritual world? Not so much.

Do you see the difference?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Questions don't make assumptions. That is the point of a question, to ascertain information so an assumption doesn't happen. My position notwithstanding, I asked what you thought. I'm not really seeing an answer. You are simply trying to push the question back in my face.

You are indicating you don't believe spirituality foments any particular goodwill among men. I am trying not to assume anything here, I ask you again, would mankind be better off (i.e. more moral) if we completely abandoned spiritual reality? Clarify your position, please?

Questions absolutely can make assumptions. Yours most certainly did. You called spirituality a "reality", which by answering the question I am accepting that, so as asked the question won't be addressed.
If I asked you "Why are you an asshole?", would that question have any assumptions? If you say "No", you are accepting the premise of the question.
I know, English isn't your forte.
I am observing that your particular brand of spirituality foments no particular goodwill.
Restating the question would be necessary for me to answer it.

No sir, YOU said: "Men of all stripes. Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual reality through their own rationalizations." So you acknowledged that people invest in a "great spiritual reality" because there is your direct quote. I merely asked you a follow-up question based on your previous response.

What is my "particular brand of spirituality?" How can you possibly know anything about my personal brand of spirituality? And what does that have to do with my question? I asked you if mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spiritual reality? You want to now object to the very word you previously used, "reality" so... Do you think mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spirituality?

It sounds like that is your argument, but before I comment further, I wanted to clarify it and give you a chance to speak up for what you believe. Now is your chance! Rather than dodging the question, just answer it!

I called spirituality a rationalization. Fascinating you ignored that to "take it out of context" as you like to say. At least you were blatant about it by quoting the entire context and revealing boldly that you are a lying hack. Kudos!
As to your question, perhaps. Can't say with any certainty, but without the rationalization of spirituality we might start taking more direct responsibility for our actions toward each other and not pretend there is some unseen excuse for treating people like your signature persona chooses to on these boards with your professed spiritual anchor. There would just be you, foul-mouthed and rude and language impaired with no place to run. Maybe that would force the false bravado into submission and the humility of simple humanity would be unleashed, unadorned by the hubris of the fantasy that you are connected to a greater good the troglodytes can't share.
Or not.
Either way, it doesn't really matter. Whether we improved our ways or sank into chaos, neither would indicate the reality of spirituality. This is Pascal's Wager Light. If you're better off pretending in the spiritual nature why not invest in that bank? The answer of course is that if you don't actually believe it, you live your life in a fantasy.

 

[orogenicman]

The "God Haters" persist because who needs a God that won't give him everything he wants?
Isn't that the real reason why we all get "pissed" at the idea of "God"?
Any "God" that won't give me what I want and when I want it is worthy only of my unwavering contempt.

No one in their right minds would want to take up a cross when they could have fame and fortune instead.

What kind of monstrous God would it have to be that wouldn't give you all the money, sex, acclaim, and whatever else you want that you asked for?
Just tell me what in life could possibly be more important than those things and why should God almighty pay the least bit of attention to them, especially when they might interfere with my own good pleasure and entertainment?

Besides, since "God" is supposed to be so "good" then it ought to be safe to hate him since a "good" God would never do anything to hurt me personally. On the other hand, BAD God's, like bad guys WOULD. So it pays to know who to look out for and who not to sass. We KNOW what THEY are capable of!



Another reason that "God haters" persist may also be because every one knows that the Jews are God and everybody hates the Jews.

That's what the Jews say, and who are you to disagree with the Gods?

Since the Jewish religion does more than any other religion to gain it's adherents the highest standard of living, then it must be the right one.
Too bad they don't proselytize or at least make it easier for more people to join the club. Maybe then everyone would be a member and the whole world's problems would be solved once and for all. Then we could ALL sit and eat like an effendi!

Well that is just about the most sophomoric response I've seen in a while. Atheists don't believe in god because they don't see any evidence for it, and plenty of evidence that the concept is manmade. We don't go around whining about what we did or did not get from a non-existent god. Why would we? It would be like a grown up complaining because the tooth fairy didn't leave a dollar bill under his pillow. Is that what you aspire to? A religion that is all about personal gain? Seems to be a rather self-limiting, selfish religion, in my view.

 

[orogenicman]

'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens

God has produced at least one, possibly the other, whereas man could create neither except perhaps in his imagination of multiple universes where ANYTHING can happen which he dreams up himself.

"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".

- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Then if the facts we observe lead us to conclude that the universe cannot be rationally explained by any other means than there was an intelligent creator behind it, then we should be honest enough to admit it, or at least admit that we don't know enough to rule that possibility out.

If we were at a point where we had explained everything we were able to explain, and were still left with unanswered questions, you might have a point. I don't believe we are there yet, assuming that we will ever get there at all.

 

[orogenicman]

Questions absolutely can make assumptions. Yours most certainly did. You called spirituality a "reality", which by answering the question I am accepting that, so as asked the question won't be addressed.
If I asked you "Why are you an asshole?", would that question have any assumptions? If you say "No", you are accepting the premise of the question.
I know, English isn't your forte.
I am observing that your particular brand of spirituality foments no particular goodwill.
Restating the question would be necessary for me to answer it.

No sir, YOU said: "Men of all stripes. Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual reality through their own rationalizations." So you acknowledged that people invest in a "great spiritual reality" because there is your direct quote. I merely asked you a follow-up question based on your previous response.

What is my "particular brand of spirituality?" How can you possibly know anything about my personal brand of spirituality? And what does that have to do with my question? I asked you if mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spiritual reality? You want to now object to the very word you previously used, "reality" so... Do you think mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spirituality?

It sounds like that is your argument, but before I comment further, I wanted to clarify it and give you a chance to speak up for what you believe. Now is your chance! Rather than dodging the question, just answer it!

I called spirituality a rationalization. Fascinating you ignored that to "take it out of context" as you like to say. At least you were blatant about it by quoting the entire context and revealing boldly that you are a lying hack. Kudos!
As to your question, perhaps. Can't say with any certainty, but without the rationalization of spirituality we might start taking more direct responsibility for our actions toward each other and not pretend there is some unseen excuse for treating people like your signature persona chooses to on these boards with your professed spiritual anchor. There would just be you, foul-mouthed and rude and language impaired with no place to run. Maybe that would force the false bravado into submission and the humility of simple humanity would be unleashed, unadorned by the hubris of the fantasy that you are connected to a greater good the troglodytes can't share.
Or not.
Either way, it doesn't really matter. Whether we improved our ways or sank into chaos, neither would indicate the reality of spirituality. This is Pascal's Wager Light. If you're better off pretending in the spiritual nature why not invest in that bank? The answer of course is that if you don't actually believe it, you live your life in a fantasy.

Kudos.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Ask any scientist worth his salt and they will flat out say it is entirely possible that there is some supernatural cause for the universe or life on Earth, but there is no evidence to point in that direction. Even someone like Dawkins will acknowledge the possibility, but the next question out of his mouth will be "so where's the evidence of God?"

Where do you look for your evidence? If you are looking to physical science to provide evidence for spiritual things, doesn't that seem a bit dumb? And why do you call spiritual nature "supernatural?" Is it just because physical science can't presently explain it? Are black holes, dark energy and dark matter also "supernatural" because science can't presently explain them? Is string theory delving into the "supernatural" by theorizing multiple universes?

You toss this word around rather casually because you believe it denigrates spiritaul nature to do so. It makes spiritual nature something "paranormal" and whimsical. Evidence is clear, humans have been connecting with spiritual nature as a part of our fundamental being since there have been humans to do so. It's every bit a part of general nature as physical nature, you just can't evaluate it with physical sciences at the moment.

There is actually a LOT of evidence to point in that direction, but it is spiritual evidence. If you don't accept a such thing as spiritual nature, you can't acknowledge or evaluate spiritual evidence, your brain doesn't allow you to do that because it would be illogical in your mind to do so. This doesn't mean there isn't any evidence, it just means you can't recognize the evidence.

What you like to call "evidence" leads to all kinds of incompatible conclusions for all kinds of people. It leads nowhere consistently and provides no reliable roadmap, so what is it evidence of?
Need.
What you think is connecting with spiritual nature I see as the natural fears and longings that cognitive man confronts with the awareness of his mortality and the unknown. He tries desperately to fill the vacuum, and in desperation can convince himself of a myriad of outlandish things.
All through history, consistently.
As the unknown lessens, the spiritual vision changes as it must as new testable, real evidence replaces the myths. There is no lightning god any more. It is no longer needed, but primitive man couldn't leave that vacuum, so he filled it and believed in it. The lightning god was undeniably "true".
Zeus has been retired. Thor. As knowledge increases the myths recede. You still need to fill the void, rather than acknowledge it has always been there but is dwindling.
The void still exists. The unknown remains, and probably always will. Some now have an awareness that the void can't arbitrarily be filled any more. It can be acknowledged, but the lie that we can see into it can not be supported in any way. Only time and brilliant people will penetrate it, and its revelation must wait.
But you will still draw cave paintings and howl at the moon.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Reminder:

This is a Zone2 thread. Remember to include
relevant discussion in every post. It can't
descend into flame exchanges..

flacaltenn

 

[Boss]

There is direct physical evidence that shows the existence of black holes, dark matter, and dark energy. We may not understand what is going on, but we can see there is something there.

The existence of the spiritual world? Not so much.

Do you see the difference?

Nope, because there is "direct physical evidence" that humans connect to something greater than self and have always had this attribute. No difference, we don't understand what is going on but we can see something is happening there.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Of course it is a religion! You are one of the most devout of them. A bunch of people who find solace in worshiping hedonism together ! LOL How is that different then people worshiping God together?

i'd say you're fucking ignorant but that would be stating the obvious...

Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it's such a common claim, though, it's worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.

Belief in Supernatural Beings:

Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and thus excludes belief in gods, but it does not exclude belief in other supernatural beings. More important, however, is that atheism does not teach the existence of such beings and most atheists in the West do not believe in them.

Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:

Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of a supernatural realm. Atheism excludes believing in things that are "sacred" for the purpose of worshiping gods, but otherwise has nothing to say on the matter - neither promoting nor rejecting the distinction. Many atheists probably have things, places, or times which they consider "sacred" in that they are venerated or esteemed highly.

Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:

If people believe in something sacred, they probably have associated rituals. As with the very existence of a category of "sacred" things, however, there is nothing about atheism which either mandates such a belief or necessarily excludes it - it's simply an irrelevant issue. An atheist who holds something as "sacred" may engage in some sort of associated ritual or ceremony, but there is no such thing as an "atheist ritual."

Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:

Most religions preach some sort of moral code which is typically based upon its transcendental and supernatural beliefs. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Atheists have moral codes, but they don't believe that those codes are derived from any gods and it would be unusual for them to believe that their morals have a supernatural origin. More importantly, atheism doesn't teach any particular moral code.

Is Atheism a Religion? Defining Atheism and Religion

Yet just saying it doesn't make it true does it? Face it. Atheism is a religion.

That's it?
That's your response to that very clear and definitive post?
Nanny-nanny-boo-boo is all you have?
Seriously?

 

[Boss]

Questions absolutely can make assumptions. Yours most certainly did. You called spirituality a "reality", which by answering the question I am accepting that, so as asked the question won't be addressed.
If I asked you "Why are you an asshole?", would that question have any assumptions? If you say "No", you are accepting the premise of the question.
I know, English isn't your forte.
I am observing that your particular brand of spirituality foments no particular goodwill.
Restating the question would be necessary for me to answer it.

No sir, YOU said: "Men of all stripes. Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual reality through their own rationalizations." So you acknowledged that people invest in a "great spiritual reality" because there is your direct quote. I merely asked you a follow-up question based on your previous response.

What is my "particular brand of spirituality?" How can you possibly know anything about my personal brand of spirituality? And what does that have to do with my question? I asked you if mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spiritual reality? You want to now object to the very word you previously used, "reality" so... Do you think mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spirituality?

It sounds like that is your argument, but before I comment further, I wanted to clarify it and give you a chance to speak up for what you believe. Now is your chance! Rather than dodging the question, just answer it!

I called spirituality a rationalization. Fascinating you ignored that to "take it out of context" as you like to say. At least you were blatant about it by quoting the entire context and revealing boldly that you are a lying hack. Kudos!
As to your question, perhaps. Can't say with any certainty, but without the rationalization of spirituality we might start taking more direct responsibility for our actions toward each other and not pretend there is some unseen excuse for treating people like your signature persona chooses to on these boards with your professed spiritual anchor. There would just be you, foul-mouthed and rude and language impaired with no place to run. Maybe that would force the false bravado into submission and the humility of simple humanity would be unleashed, unadorned by the hubris of the fantasy that you are connected to a greater good the troglodytes can't share.
Or not.
Either way, it doesn't really matter. Whether we improved our ways or sank into chaos, neither would indicate the reality of spirituality. This is Pascal's Wager Light. If you're better off pretending in the spiritual nature why not invest in that bank? The answer of course is that if you don't actually believe it, you live your life in a fantasy.

As we can see, you are still not answering my question. You say that without rationalizing spirituality we might start taking more responsibility for our own actions toward each other. You don't explain on what basis this would occur, just that it might happen.

Now, here is where real science kicks in. We can observe other animal behavior and we see that the natural inclination of animals which lack spiritual 'rationalization' is to behave in a certain way. They simply don't 'take responsibility' for their actions against each other. It's a brutal and heartless world in the wild. Watch the Nature Channel sometime. So what natural basis do you actually have for this supposition that we MIGHT conduct ourselves in a more responsible manner toward others?

The answer is, you have no basis for this belief. You simply wish to live in a fantasy world where you think spirituality is pointless and without it, we'd be just fine and no more people would kill each other and hate would cease to exist. Nothing we observe in nature supports this idea, it's just your fantasy. The actual reality of animals living in the wild is brutal and unforgiving. No moral conscience resides there, it's kill or be killed. You think it is a problem to have to endure foul language, but imagine if I had no sense of moral constraint and humans handled things the way rivals in the wild handle things? Don't you think your problems might be just a little more disconcerting?

 

[Boss]

What you like to call "evidence" leads to all kinds of incompatible conclusions for all kinds of people.

People will always have incompatible conclusions about everything. There are over 150 incompatible theories regarding abiogenesis. Theoretical physicists have probably 30~40 various incarnations of string theory they are working on at present, they can't all be correct. Countless theories on how the universe came into existence. There are even conflicting theories on basic elements like gravity and electromagnetism. Very little is universally conclusive and most anything has an opposing or contradictory theory or idea. So you are applying a criteria to spiritual evidence that nothing else has to meet.

Spirituality can be summed up very simply, it is the human comprehension of something greater than self. Yes, our ideas of what exactly that is, are all over the board... but this is because we are human beings.

 

[earlycuyler]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

This is covered in the word. And its no big thing. After I unwind some, and get over my hangover I'll post up some scripture that will splane it all. In the mean time, don't get pissed. Contemplate turning the other cheek, and dig around in 1 Corinthians some. I'll be along in a bit.

 

[Boss]

What you think is connecting with spiritual nature I see as the natural fears and longings that cognitive man confronts with the awareness of his mortality and the unknown. He tries desperately to fill the vacuum, and in desperation can convince himself of a myriad of outlandish things.

Yes, I call this the "mass delusion" theory, and I find it laughable for several reasons. Most notably, you are suggesting that the most intellectually advanced species of all, has basically tricked itself into believing a falsehood for the entirety of it's existence. Furthermore, humans are far from the only creatures with sentience or cognizance. We see no signs from any other living creatures of having to invent placebo imaginary things to pacify awareness of mortality or the unknown. Not only do they lack desperation to do so, they don't even seem to be phased by this. I would think, if what you claim is a natural phenomenon, we'd at least see some indications of it in upper primates like apes and chimpanzees. Therefore, it's very much NOT a natural fear at all.

What you are misinterpreting as a natural fear is a concern that is caused through our awareness of something greater than ourselves. That's why we don't see this behavior anywhere else but humans. As humans, we are aware of something immortal and beyond the physical but we can't quite comprehend it. We have a sense of connection to it, and this 'thing' gives us courage, inspiration, strength, and an ability to rationalize morality and ethics. Some of us believe that we are compelled to obey and show reverence to this 'thing' and in return we may one day become a part of it, and that constitutes our 'purpose' here and reason for being.

 

[thebrucebeat]

No sir, YOU said: "Men of all stripes. Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual reality through their own rationalizations." So you acknowledged that people invest in a "great spiritual reality" because there is your direct quote. I merely asked you a follow-up question based on your previous response.

What is my "particular brand of spirituality?" How can you possibly know anything about my personal brand of spirituality? And what does that have to do with my question? I asked you if mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spiritual reality? You want to now object to the very word you previously used, "reality" so... Do you think mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spirituality?

It sounds like that is your argument, but before I comment further, I wanted to clarify it and give you a chance to speak up for what you believe. Now is your chance! Rather than dodging the question, just answer it!

I called spirituality a rationalization. Fascinating you ignored that to "take it out of context" as you like to say. At least you were blatant about it by quoting the entire context and revealing boldly that you are a lying hack. Kudos!
As to your question, perhaps. Can't say with any certainty, but without the rationalization of spirituality we might start taking more direct responsibility for our actions toward each other and not pretend there is some unseen excuse for treating people like your signature persona chooses to on these boards with your professed spiritual anchor. There would just be you, foul-mouthed and rude and language impaired with no place to run. Maybe that would force the false bravado into submission and the humility of simple humanity would be unleashed, unadorned by the hubris of the fantasy that you are connected to a greater good the troglodytes can't share.
Or not.
Either way, it doesn't really matter. Whether we improved our ways or sank into chaos, neither would indicate the reality of spirituality. This is Pascal's Wager Light. If you're better off pretending in the spiritual nature why not invest in that bank? The answer of course is that if you don't actually believe it, you live your life in a fantasy.

As we can see, you are still not answering my question. You say that without rationalizing spirituality we might start taking more responsibility for our own actions toward each other. You don't explain on what basis this would occur, just that it might happen.

Now, here is where real science kicks in. We can observe other animal behavior and we see that the natural inclination of animals which lack spiritual 'rationalization' is to behave in a certain way. They simply don't 'take responsibility' for their actions against each other. It's a brutal and heartless world in the wild. Watch the Nature Channel sometime. So what natural basis do you actually have for this supposition that we MIGHT conduct ourselves in a more responsible manner toward others?

The answer is, you have no basis for this belief. You simply wish to live in a fantasy world where you think spirituality is pointless and without it, we'd be just fine and no more people would kill each other and hate would cease to exist. Nothing we observe in nature supports this idea, it's just your fantasy. The actual reality of animals living in the wild is brutal and unforgiving. No moral conscience resides there, it's kill or be killed. You think it is a problem to have to endure foul language, but imagine if I had no sense of moral constraint and humans handled things the way rivals in the wild handle things? Don't you think your problems might be just a little more disconcerting?

You ARE the guy that made that long post on how we are very different from the animal kingdom in so very many ways, aren't you?
Here you are making the case that without your professed spirituality we are exactly the same.
Seems like you haven't come to a consistent conclusion.
Mine was that man has the cognitive ability to recognize his mortality and the unknown, and like you his fear seeks to fill the void. The animals recognize none of this. They operate without the constrictions that a rational reasoning power necessitates.
To equate them is silly.
Simply silly.
And I most certainly answered your question.
We have a hint how men would act without your fear based spirituality. There are many on here that reject your theory. I don't think any of them are bloodthirsty sociopaths. Do you?

 

[thebrucebeat]

What you think is connecting with spiritual nature I see as the natural fears and longings that cognitive man confronts with the awareness of his mortality and the unknown. He tries desperately to fill the vacuum, and in desperation can convince himself of a myriad of outlandish things.

Yes, I call this the "mass delusion" theory, and I find it laughable for several reasons. Most notably, you are suggesting that the most intellectually advanced species of all, has basically tricked itself into believing a falsehood for the entirety of it's existence. Furthermore, humans are far from the only creatures with sentience or cognizance. We see no signs from any other living creatures of having to invent placebo imaginary things to pacify awareness of mortality or the unknown. Not only do they lack desperation to do so, they don't even seem to be phased by this. I would think, if what you claim is a natural phenomenon, we'd at least see some indications of it in upper primates like apes and chimpanzees. Therefore, it's very much NOT a natural fear at all.

What you are misinterpreting as a natural fear is a concern that is caused through our awareness of something greater than ourselves. That's why we don't see this behavior anywhere else but humans. As humans, we are aware of something immortal and beyond the physical but we can't quite comprehend it. We have a sense of connection to it, and this 'thing' gives us courage, inspiration, strength, and an ability to rationalize morality and ethics. Some of us believe that we are compelled to obey and show reverence to this 'thing' and in return we may one day become a part of it, and that constitutes our 'purpose' here and reason for being.

You really are all over the map.
Animals are like us.
They're completely different.
Any argument in a storm, right?
Your explanation is the afore mentioned baying at the moon. It is the new arbitrary explanation of the void that, like Thor or the lightning god, can't be supported in any way but a desire to fill it, the fear of the unknown.
What you once described as a spiritual nature you were connected to and knew it had no personal interest in you and was unlike the Christian god and other details of the specifics of it is now an enigma we can't quite comprehend, that we just "feel", we are aware of or have a sense of, all jello terms that you call "evidence".
Your inconsistencies are voluminous and your argument is non-existent.
History shows man filling the void and moving the goalpost of what he describes to fill it with as knowledge increases and forces the change. Man hasn't convinced himself of a falsehood for his entire existence. He has convinced himself of thousands of them, but always smaller and smaller, as the void contracts and knowledge increases.
You are the next iteration of the caveman.