Pat Condell is one of my favorite atheist comedian/commentators.
This one made me think of the Church of Virus. The ideas he works with here sounds very much like our early discussions during the GREAT FAITH WARS . . . heh, they continually grow bigger in retrospect . . . when we finally resolved ourselves on Dogma as a sin in the Church.
Re:The Curse of Faith
« Reply #1 on: 2008-12-19 01:20:41 »
I just had the pleasure of watching this one again. Pat Conell is a really sharp wit . . . "free rattlesnake with puchase of every bunny rabbit". He clearly pins the sin on dogmatism.
Re:The Curse of Faith
« Reply #3 on: 2009-05-26 00:06:34 »
I think he's a bit over-the-top in hoping that religious indoctrination of children will become against the law. That will never happen in my opinion, but it makes a great point of rhetoric when ridiculing dogma of all types. Dogma IS like a child's fairytale only with real adult-world consequences. The only real inoculation against childhood fairytales turning into adult nightmares is giving children a strong understanding of current science as we best know it, in addition to a good logical and philosophical understanding of science and the scientific method. Then it probably won't matter how much you frighten your children with fairy tales, they'll eventually sort it all out - perhaps after they leave the nest if not sooner.
Although I certainly empathize with Pat's position on outlawing religious indoctrination of children, I'm sure any politician can appreciate the large number of death threats from pitchfork wielding mobs of religionists such a move would inspire. While his is an important message to consider, I'm sure Condell isn't seriously expecting many votes for this idea in parlaiment in the next dozen generations or so.
Re:The Curse of Faith
« Reply #4 on: 2009-05-26 00:32:48 »
Religious indoctrination of children was frowned upon in Russia. Religious prolytization being indistinguishable from the symptoms of other forms of schizophrenia, it was treated as such. It still is diagnosed in the same way in China, and treated appropriately.
Given that we don't have long to reduce populations globally, not just in China although their programs will certainly help equalize the impact when we finally adopt a one child per mother program, or die in the mother of all resource wars, and given that several religions, including some of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic nightmares, as well as Hinduism, still advocate breeding like flies, we might recognise that these beliefs are counter survival and take steps to prevent their propagation. In there lies the reason why I hope that the banning of indoctrination of children becomes law sooner rather than later, in the hope, probably vain, that it will prevent many of them having to die rather unpleasantly.
When it becomes a choice between the propagation of religious memes and survival some humans, will prefer to survive. I suspect that many people who currently think of themselves as religious, will find that they can dispense with the indoctrination of infants.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:The Curse of Faith
« Reply #5 on: 2009-05-26 01:39:42 »
Hermit,
Ah, yeah one child. Well good luck with that. You might make inroads on a few religious dogmas, but you'll never banish all religious indoctrination. I think there are other ways to get there with less coercion. So far, reducing poverty has been shown to work well with varied success, but mostly success.
On the other hand, there are many specifically pro-birth government redistributions that can be eliminated, like you don't get tax breaks for minor dependents simply because they are minors, perhaps shifting the tax & government benefits toward those who are primary caretakers for medically needy seniors or the genuinely "handicapable" instead.
Just when the Social Security system finally runs dry, we craft a convenient shift towards a life-extension (and hence immortalist) agenda AND implement a less-coercive-than-the-communists agenda towards birth control. No need to involve religion directly. Politically probably lots of hate mail and a couple of nutcases to harrass you for putting a few large families into poverty, but few to no death threats and certainly respecting the elders will get little objection from the religious community. We simply reward people more for remaining childless and taking care of our greatest time investments, instead of simply breeding more maggots.
-Mo
PS. Not to denigrate the Communist solutions either, especially not Chinese ones these days. Different cultures will need different solutions, and I'm sure there is always more than one in the universe. While I certainly would never argue with the Chinese about birth control (although Intellectual property, and free speech are an entirely different thing), the US solution will be different if still collectivist in different ways. There's no getting past the fact that we are all (with the exception of the few astro-tourist or satellite-mechanic) stuck on this on this same planet, and that isn't likely to change in the next 10,000 years.
Re:The Curse of Faith
« Reply #7 on: 2009-05-27 19:14:28 »
Re: Children of a Stupid God
Hah,
Yeah when it comes to criticizing typical religious mainstays, Condell is great.
The other day Walter and I got into an IRC conversation, where I informed him that I was raised a deist. Specifically a Unitarian Universalist. And while we didn't really waste too much time fretting about the mean abusive desert god, we did imagine a more naturalistic creator god, but then I think even this one is far from an object to be admired.
Walter and I were imagining what such a god would be like, and first off, a naturalistic god would certainly be a compulsive gambler. This god loves to play dice more than any other lowlife human you could imagine meeting. This compulsion is the very engine of evolution/creation, but with all the carnage "creative destruction" is probably the better way to describe it. If this god were to take human form, you would have to go to Las Vegas to find him, and then you would probably have to look in a dumpster in an alley where he just got the crap beat out of him for welching on his debts to someone in organized crime.
Perhaps we could take comfort in the fact that this god clearly doesn't hate us, but then despair in the fact that he never gave a crap to begin with. However, given his compulsive risk taking, that might be a lucky thing too . . . if he actually thought we were worth something he might throw us into the pile with his next ten bets. If you had any thin hopes for immortality, or even longevity, you'd do best to not hang out with him.
Re:The Curse of Faith
« Reply #8 on: 2009-05-29 14:08:27 »
Interesting but nothing new. Very funny though. Personally if one is to have a "God" or "Gods" why not sit down a design him/her/it/them yourself (a personal memetic virus?), with your best interests in mind. Yep it still is just Tom-foolery but it is at least entertaining, I have notice we humans need/love ritual, drama and yes dogma, while it is a Virian Sin (thus still a dogma), the proper self application could be useful. Spirituality is about how you live and approach life and not about what you profess. Do my children get religious indoctrination? I would have to be honest and say yes, they are being raised by me (and my wonderful wife), our very actions and attitudes towards life have a major impact. No I do not tell my children what to believe but they witness my life and I hope make better decisions than I have in all areas. The one thing I do inject into their brain from their birth is that, "they can learn to do anything and to always think for themselves," and like it or not that too is indoctrination.
Indeed not. Its very much in line with the Gnostics's concept of the Demiurge
Quote:
[Tas6]Personally if one is to have a "God" or "Gods" why not sit down a design him/her/it/them yourself (a personal memetic virus?), with your best interests in mind.
Well, if its your private hell, then certainly yes. My suggestion is to consider some ideas that have at least some memetic fidelity so you can at least compare your experiences with other sharing the same program.
Quote:
Yep it still is just Tom-foolery but it is at least entertaining, I have notice we humans need/love ritual, drama and yes dogma, while it is a Virian Sin (thus still a dogma), the proper self application could be useful. Spirituality is about how you live and approach life and not about what you profess. Do my children get religious indoctrination? I would have to be honest and say yes, they are being raised by me (and my wonderful wife), our very actions and attitudes towards life have a major impact. No I do not tell my children what to believe but they witness my life and I hope make better decisions than I have in all areas. The one thing I do inject into their brain from their birth is that, "they can learn to do anything and to always think for themselves," and like it or not that too is indoctrination.
Re:The Curse of Faith
« Reply #10 on: 2009-08-08 00:00:15 »
"Well, if its your private hell, then certainly yes. My suggestion is to consider some ideas that have at least some memetic fidelity so you can at least compare your experiences with other sharing the same program."
MoEnzyme
Why would it be a private hell? Why would one bother with that? Typically we as humans are social animals, so even a custom design would incorporate at least some level of memetic fidelity (or even the OE concept of Troth), for it to both fulfilling and self sustaining. So if one were to design/create a personal god, especially using the concept of a Daemon or Genius as in the original Greek or Roman concept or even the Holy Guardian Angel of Hermetic Magick, why would that preclude memetic fidelity or cause a private hell as it could be an effective symbol for personal Sapience. Whether or not it has any objective value or reality could only be displayed on the impact it has on life around you. It could have great subjective value as long as it was viewed as a memetic device for the development of your life and not a master to serve in submission.
Re:The Curse of Faith
« Reply #11 on: 2009-08-15 10:49:17 »
"Yesterday at work I discovered "God." A lot of people who go through a midlife crisis do. The God I discovered is the God "Asshole." Because most who I meet in the grind of my wyrd occupation (Cab Driver), who are believers in some way, tend to be ignorant assholes. So if these are his/her/its' agents, then their if faith truly represents their god, well: " Hail Asshole and amen!" should be their battle cry.
"Yesterday at work I discovered "God." A lot of people who go through a midlife crisis do. The God I discovered is the God "Asshole." Because most who I meet in the grind of my wyrd occupation (Cab Driver), who are believers in some way, tend to be ignorant assholes. So if these are his/her/its' agents, then their if faith truly represents their god, well: " Hail Asshole and amen!" should be their battle cry.
With Love, Tas6
In talking to religionists, I often hear them trying to say that I shouldn't hold the acts of some of them against others of them. I tell them that I ALWAYS hold the acts of individuals against their whole team. If they are going act in collective ways - the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, Dar al Islam, etc - there is simply no other way to play the game. If they want me to believe that their God is loving etc. then I can't think of any other way to hold them responsible for others of their community as well as them individually.
However, I sometimes wonder how it would be to deal with believers in an evil god thingy. That's rather exceptional as religionists go. I'd probably still hold them individually responsible, but then I don't know about other (not people I'm currently talking with) similar believers. If God is evil (an asshole), then perhaps we are individually even more responsible for our actions ethically regardless of our metaphoric/metaphysical beliefs about the universe, while collective responsibility becomes more problematic. If God is evil, than who can reasonably complain if ANY collective acts evilly. We can then only take responsibility for our own individual behavior and let the ethical chips fall where they may for anyone else regardless of whether they share some abstract metaphysical beliefs with me. We can thus only hold humans individually ethically responsible rather that some (admitedly) evil god thingy(ies).
Just a little thought experiment . . . personally if I were to pick an anthropomorphism to endorse at any moment I'd go for a negligent or a reckless (gambling) god. Not exactly an evil god (whom I could more easily blame for misfortune) but one who by its very nature leaves the ethical virtue/blame game in human hands. Frankly I find a benevolent god thingy the most difficult to accept given the material evidence.
In any case, I sympathize with your having to deal with assholes no matter what their beliefs may be. God must love 'em because he(she/it) made so many. As for gender, I'd tend to think of a reckless god as male and a negligent god as female. Just my take, but if I'm going to anthropomorphize - males are more likely to be risk takers. Anyways . . . don't let the bastards keep you down.
Just a little thought experiment . . . personally if I were to pick an anthropomorphism to endorse at any moment I'd go for a negligent or a reckless (gambling) god. Not exactly an evil god (whom I could more easily blame for misfortune) but one who by its very nature leaves the ethical virtue/blame game in human hands. Frankly I find a benevolent god thingy the most difficult to accept given the material evidence.
<snip>
Oh boy! A new game! "Pick an Anthropomorphism".
I'll play.
Of course my first choice is NO anthropomorphism, since I don't weyken there is anything to anthropomorphize in the first place.
But for fun I'll go ahead and pick:
#1) Kind of an absent-minded scientist, not malicious, but preoccupied with other things like building and fine-tuning various emergent models at various levels of material detail throughout the multiverse. Possibly not monitoring and/or unaware of suffering (or success) at biological/human levels. Very much a compulsive gambler, as this gives him the exaptative engine needed for his strive for excellence in emergent outcomes. However, the idea that this god thingy doesn't monitor and is possibly unaware of suffering (or success) at biological/human levels doesn't make a whole helluva lot of sense since such an awareness would be essential to evaluating the outcomes of the whole undertaking.
So, given the cognitive dissonance associated with the idea that the whole god thingy idea doesn't make a lick of sense to this suffering (or successful) biological/human entity, I'm gonna revert back to my original pick of NO orchestrated undertaking and NO anthropomorphism to begin with.
Things just are how they are.
Unless you go into the sub-Planck realm, where I'm pretty sure there are pink bunnies and purple unicorns tied together with either eleven or twelve strings underlying EVERYTHING.
Re:The Curse of Faith
« Reply #14 on: 2009-08-15 22:11:14 »
Quote:
Oh boy! A new game! "Pick an Anthropomorphism".
I'll play.
Of course you will. You are human aren't you? Simply can't help yourself that way. Neither can I.
Quote:
Of course my first choice is NO anthropomorphism, since I don't weyken there is anything to anthropomorphize in the first place.
Nice disclaimer. You are a well-trained atheist that way.
Quote:
But for fun I'll go ahead and pick:
#1) Kind of an absent-minded scientist, not malicious, but preoccupied with other things like building and fine-tuning various emergent models at various levels of material detail throughout the multiverse. Possibly not monitoring and/or unaware of suffering (or success) at biological/human levels. Very much a compulsive gambler, as this gives him the exaptative engine needed for his strive for excellence in emergent outcomes. However, the idea that this god thingy doesn't monitor and is possibly unaware of suffering (or success) at biological/human levels doesn't make a whole helluva lot of sense since such an awareness would be essential to evaluating the outcomes of the whole undertaking.
I'm intrigued with your direction on this. As for your doubts. . . I dunno. You could monitor quite a lot without stepping into the minds of any creatures you inadvertently create. A simple monitoring of medical/biological measurements could tell you a lot more about their well being than any one human super genius could process assuming he/she/it cared in the first place.
I think you might be inadvertently attributing omniscience to this anthropomorphism where its unnecessary. Personally I just think of it as a creator first and foremost since creation is a phenomenon many humans can understand without having to be omniscient about its results. While some humans may desire omniscience, I've never met one to actually achieve it with or without artificial help, so I tend to leave it out of my anthropomorphisms. Perhaps the god thingy knows a lot, maybe even more than your or me, but omniscience is too high an expectation for any human or anthropomorphism as far as I'm concerned.
Quote:
So, given the cognitive dissonance associated with the idea that the whole god thingy idea doesn't make a lick of sense to this suffering (or successful) biological/human entity,
See my previous thoughts on this.
Quote:
I'm gonna revert back to my original pick of NO orchestrated undertaking and NO anthropomorphism to begin with.
Things just are how they are.
Once again, nice disclaimer. You are a well trained atheist, if still an amateur anthropomorphizer. I do however suggest that There ARE concievable realities between nothing and some impossible infinite, whether or not they actually exist. I bet your imagination can yet concieve of them if you cared to. Of course religionists don't normally play on such slippery slopes, but perhaps its only because they are waiting for us evil atheists to define them first.
Quote:
Unless you go into the sub-Planck realm, where I'm pretty sure there are pink bunnies and purple unicorns tied together with either eleven or twelve strings underlying EVERYTHING.
Now we are talking! I knew you could do it!! A very nice start.
Author
heh, they continually grow bigger in retrospect 
Logged
. He clearly pins the sin on dogmatism.
