[BeardFisher-King]

The collegial, respectful attitude that you foster here at the TSA Forum is an example of what all Christians, indeed, all people should strive for.

It's important to remember that the average person of any creed/ideology isn't able to have the conversation we're having right now. This might render us all heretics to the average embedded faithful.

No, its a testament to what you and Wilshire and many other have created. A place discuss an issue like Religion and someone not totally flip out.

Hey, your dad could've just watched Ancient Aliens!

^ Can't reiterate this enough. I've been on a number of forums but this is the first one where I could discuss my religious views and have this kind of discussion. This is not normal for the internet or maybe even real life for that matter. Truth be told, you guys have likely given my posts more courtesy than their content actually deserves.

It probably helps that you make an effort to include new members on the podcast. I suspect establishing that vocal connection fosters a bit more civility than we would otherwise have.

The judicious brandishing and occasional application of the BanHammer certainly helps....

[TaoHorror]

Unless.....there's a mysterious black Sarcophagus....

I laughed hard at this one, BFK - brilliant response 

TL, I think your mutilated your post, it's just quotes, don't see your comments on them.

Tangent to the discussion on the history of religious war, I proffer that religion is so ingrained in human history, so much of the human experience, that to say what it would be like without it is like saying what would we have been like if we didn't have the opposable thumb, prohibiting the grasp of a gun. Even if any/all religions "are wrong", it's significance saturates human reality so much so it transcends the significance of it's accuracy. So much is going on with religion on so many levels, to dismiss it as mere manipulation is to overly simplify perhaps the most powerful moving sociological force in human history with several of you yielding so much ground to it that you're "blaming" it for most of the wars.

[BeardFisher-King]

Unless.....there's a mysterious black Sarcophagus....

I laughed hard at this one, BFK - brilliant response 

Well, MSJ informs us that there's all kinds of random crap hidden away, most of it valuable. There's gotta be a sealed room with a sign saying "Open ONLY in the event of extraterrestrial invasion!"

Tangent to the discussion on the history of religious war, I proffer that religion is so ingrained in human history, so much of the human experience, that to say what it would be like without it is like saying what would we have been like if we didn't have the opposable thumb, prohibiting the grasp of a gun. Even if any/all religions "are wrong", it's significance saturates human reality so much so it transcends the significance of it's accuracy. So much is going on with religion on so many levels, to dismiss it as mere manipulation is to overly simplify perhaps the most powerful moving sociological force in human history with several of you yielding so much ground to it that you're "blaming" it for most of the wars.

Exactly right, my friend. The fact that the religious impulse is so ingrained in humanity is the only way it makes any sense at all to blame a modern war like WWII on religion.

[MSJ]

Well, MSJ informs us that there's all kinds of random crap hidden away, most of it valuable. There's gotta be a sealed room with a sign saying "Open ONLY in the event of extraterrestrial invasion!"

I'm not getting what you mean here?

[BeardFisher-King]

Well, MSJ informs us that there's all kinds of random crap hidden away, most of it valuable. There's gotta be a sealed room with a sign saying "Open ONLY in the event of extraterrestrial invasion!"

I'm not getting what you mean here?

Sorry, MSJ, that's a reference to our Vatican discussion (the Coffers!) and to my little joke about a mysterious black Sarcophagus hidden among the valuables. Wouldn't that be something?

[Madness]

The wealth of the Vatican doesn't give it worldly political power. Wealth is not a source of political power. Plutocracies, if they exist, are not powerful. I would consider them the equivalent of gated communities or tax-shelter nations. Powerful enough to be left alone, and that's pretty much the geopolitical status of the Vatican.

I'm not sure that's accurate.

I *feel* (and data could very easily prove me wrong) like more people punch each other out over religion than sports

-1

alcohol is number 1

I didn't suggest religion is the "number one" reason people punch each other out.

I'm not sure anyone is purposefully trying to invalidate the "everyday spiritual experience" of faithful individuals.

Not the point. The ( complaints? critiques? ) of religion in this thread appear to denote Religion is more trouble than it's worth.

Really?

Per H, religion is following et al with corruption, abuse, etc. So singling it out is an error. The point is the experience is desired, so the failed leadership of religion(s) should not fall upon followers to pay for that. I think those of us defending religion are selling it short by saying it "only" does some good ( although should be good enough, reducing human misery is awesome, connection and fellowship is powerful ), but it's massive footprint simply cannot be fathomed what it would be like to be without it. Some of the drive to learn/be more/better can be owed to spiritual experience of "dreaming" the cosmos. "Being" with God can be an impressive driver. I suspect we would still be throwing shit at each other in caves if not for religion.

And as follow up to "really?," I'm not reading the same thread you are apparently.

I get it, there are freaks out there - but most of the Christians I've shared my life with sport an interest in many things secular.

Lol, I feel like a zoo feature or a museum exhibit.

Hey, your dad could've just watched Ancient Aliens!

Nah, he'd dismiss that as garbage. Something something "the word of god(s)" or GTFO.

The collegial, respectful attitude that you foster here at the TSA Forum is an example of what all Christians, indeed, all people should strive for.

It's important to remember that the average person of any creed/ideology isn't able to have the conversation we're having right now. This might render us all heretics to the average embedded faithful.

No, its a testament to what you and Wilshire and many other have created. A place discuss an issue like Religion and someone not totally flip out.

...

^ Can't reiterate this enough. I've been on a number of forums but this is the first one where I could discuss my religious views and have this kind of discussion. This is not normal for the internet or maybe even real life for that matter. Truth be told, you guys have likely given my posts more courtesy than their content actually deserves.

It probably helps that you make an effort to include new members on the podcast. I suspect establishing that vocal connection fosters a bit more civility than we would otherwise have.

Aw-shucks.

So.....a truly excellent museum?

And (mostly) unread primary texts (outside of the hierarchical scholarship of the Vatican itself). The Vatican "Coffers" might very well equal a contemporary Alexandria.

...

Was "we a tetering on the edge of a global war because Islam and the West (Christianity) don't see eye to eye" what you wanted to highlight here, tleilaxu?

Tangent to the discussion on the history of religious war, I proffer that religion is so ingrained in human history, so much of the human experience, that to say what it would be like without it is like saying what would we have been like if we didn't have the opposable thumb, prohibiting the grasp of a gun. Even if any/all religions "are wrong", it's significance saturates human reality so much so it transcends the significance of it's accuracy. So much is going on with religion on so many levels, to dismiss it as mere manipulation is to overly simplify perhaps the most powerful moving sociological force in human history with several of you yielding so much ground to it that you're "blaming" it for most of the wars.

I'm curious how you reconcile these thoughts with pre-historical (written record) shamanism/matriarchies/etc/etc/etc, Tao.

Exactly right, my friend. The fact that the religious impulse is so ingrained in humanity is the only way it makes any sense at all to blame a modern war like WWII on religion.

I don't think I necessarily agree with either MSJ or Tao but the rhetoric on the part of the Allies certainly seemed to rely on religiosity.

[BeardFisher-King]

The wealth of the Vatican doesn't give it worldly political power. Wealth is not a source of political power. Plutocracies, if they exist, are not powerful. I would consider them the equivalent of gated communities or tax-shelter nations. Powerful enough to be left alone, and that's pretty much the geopolitical status of the Vatican.

I'm not sure that's accurate.

Well, since one of the many areas of discussion in this thread has become whether or not Christianity is still a worldly political power, I would argue that the reduced geopolitical status of Vatican City (at one time part of the Papal States) is a political fact of our times. My other points (e.g., the relationship between wealth and political power) are certainly debatable.

Tangent to the discussion on the history of religious war, I proffer that religion is so ingrained in human history, so much of the human experience, that to say what it would be like without it is like saying what would we have been like if we didn't have the opposable thumb, prohibiting the grasp of a gun. Even if any/all religions "are wrong", it's significance saturates human reality so much so it transcends the significance of it's accuracy. So much is going on with religion on so many levels, to dismiss it as mere manipulation is to overly simplify perhaps the most powerful moving sociological force in human history with several of you yielding so much ground to it that you're "blaming" it for most of the wars.

Exactly right, my friend. The fact that the religious impulse is so ingrained in humanity is the only way it makes any sense at all to blame a modern war like WWII on religion.

I don't think I necessarily agree with either MSJ or Tao but the rhetoric on the part of the Allies certainly seemed to rely on religiosity.

So, Madness, would your perception of Allied rhetoric during WWII being reliant on "religiosity" then lead you to a conclusion that Christianity is still a worldly political power?

My point is that Christendom as a worldly political entity no longer exists. There's no Holy Roman Empire. There's no Holy Roman Emperor. Those days are over. I suppose I should have specified "Christendom" at the outset, but I truly thought my description of Christianity as a "worldly political power" was sufficient.

In other words, I'm not saying that Christianity is politically irrelevant. I'm saying that Pope Francis cannot realistically wage war against another geopolitical state...well, maybe Malta.... .

(Unless I'm overlooking something, "Quick Reply" doesn't seem to have a "cut and paste" feature. That would really help me cope with these multiquote posts.)

[MSJ]

In other words, I'm not saying that Christianity is politically irrelevant. I'm saying that Pope Francis cannot realistically wage war against another geopolitical state. (Well, maybe Malta.... )

I agree with this as an accurate state of Christianity. Though, I can see where others would just say the U.S. is basically a Christian power. Were overwhelmingly Christian, and hell, good ol' Dubya waged a war with God on our side a decade and some change ago.

Its relevant in the U.S. and plays a major role in who is in office. But, I know you know this.

I mean right now I could very well claim that we are in a endless war of Islam vs the West. The bombings and killings haven't stopped.

Call me crazy, but I've read a few books on Revelation and the "end times". It paints a very accurate description of the war/standoff going on right now. That it would start in Syria and a showdown between a Russia/Islam/Chinese vs the West/USA would be the end result of what we're seeing right now. I read the book ten years ago and I'm sure it was written way before that. Do I believe it? No. Not wholly. But, its eerie as shit when you see it playing out like it said it would. I believe we control our own future though. What scares the shit outta me for definite is a president that tweets nuclear threats. Scary stuff.

[Wilshire]

I don't get where one might claim catholicism, or christianity, isn't a political power.
Wealth prescribes power in a world that turns on capitalism, and as such, major religious institutions are some of the wealthiest entities in the world. (Secretly, of course, wouldn't want to make public the ledgers).
Most major world powers follow , in many respects, the religious doctrine setforth therein. As pointed out above, the declaration of a particular allegiance to a religion is a massive deciding factor in who gets elected president in the US - and I imagine something similar in most countries.
Perhaps reality if far different, but that's the conclusion I've drawn from what I've seen.

If the Pope called for a crusade, an army would show up where he pointed, the place on the map would disappear. Choosing not to use power does not mean that power isn't held. And nothing could be more dangerous on a worldwide level than such a declaration. No way to test this difference in opinion until it happens - I hope I'm wrong. (beating a dead horse on that one, I'll stop bringing it up lol)

The altruistic view of religious people largely 'doing good' is illusory, in my experience. Plenty of other entities perform such functions - declaring 'god' and putting a cross on the deed doesn't make it inherently more or less good. Or actually, if I'm being honest, it makes it less good. Unfortunately, for me I see such declarations as selfish, a means to buy one's way into heaven, a method of placing oneself in higher regard to other's. Using religion, or god, to back up ones actions is a power play. In my mind it has no other use than to manipulate people's minds and thoughts, or a cheap recruitment tactic. It rankles.
Example: Want to donate to a charity? Great! Calling it a tithe really ruins it for me.

While I might feel that a future where any religion as a major power no longer exists, and is no longer used to excuse actions, I don't think such a reality will exist. Nor do I think that there is anything to be gained by trying to force that change in any way.

I think the practice of restricting any religion is ridiculous. IMO, there are no differences between banned death cults and the trillion dollar industry of catholicism. No difference between extremest terror groups and the parent religions they come from. No one claim to divine inspiration is any more legitimate than any other. I think they are all equally invalid, but if for those who believe in one, it seems hypocritical to not accept all of them. (that's not really fair, more like hypocritical to not accept most major views that don't appear to be purposefully created for personal gain). How can you possibly sort them out? ... So to me better none than all.

But that's the easy part . *Wilshire:* declares "I think this!", affects nothing, then moves on to other forum posts. Lol. I should stick to watching for a while, I think of my 'belives' have been put down at this point.

[BeardFisher-King]

I don't get where one might claim catholicism, or christianity, isn't a political power.
Wealth prescribes power in a world that turns on capitalism, and as such, major religious institutions are some of the wealthiest entities in the world. (Secretly, of course, wouldn't want to make public the ledgers).
Most major world powers follow , in many respects, the religious doctrine setforth therein. As pointed out above, the declaration of a particular allegiance to a religion is a massive deciding factor in who gets elected president in the US - and I imagine something similar in most countries.
Perhaps reality if far different, but that's the conclusion I've drawn from what I've seen.

If the Pope called for a crusade, an army would show up where he pointed, the place on the map would disappear. Choosing not to use power does not mean that power isn't held. And nothing could be more dangerous on a worldwide level than such a declaration. No way to test this difference in opinion until it happens - I hope I'm wrong. (beating a dead horse on that one, I'll stop bringing it up lol)

The altruistic view of religious people largely 'doing good' is illusory, in my experience. Plenty of other entities perform such functions - declaring 'god' and putting a cross on the deed doesn't make it inherently more or less good. Or actually, if I'm being honest, it makes it less good. Unfortunately, for me I see such declarations as selfish, a means to buy one's way into heaven, a method of placing oneself in higher regard to other's. Using religion, or god, to back up ones actions is a power play. In my mind it has no other use than to manipulate people's minds and thoughts, or a cheap recruitment tactic. It rankles.
Example: Want to donate to a charity? Great! Calling it a tithe really ruins it for me.

While I might feel that a future where any religion as a major power no longer exists, and is no longer used to excuse actions, I don't think such a reality will exist. Nor do I think that there is anything to be gained by trying to force that change in any way.

I think the practice of restricting any religion is ridiculous. IMO, there are no differences between banned death cults and the trillion dollar industry of catholicism. No difference between extremest terror groups and the parent religions they come from. No one claim to divine inspiration is any more legitimate than any other. I think they are all equally invalid, but if for those who believe in one, it seems hypocritical to not accept all of them. (that's not really fair, more like hypocritical to not accept most major views that don't appear to be purposefully created for personal gain). How can you possibly sort them out? ... So to me better none than all.

But that's the easy part . *Wilshire:* declares "I think this!", affects nothing, then moves on to other forum posts. Lol. I should stick to watching for a while, I think of my 'belives' have been put down at this point.

I thought about attempting to counter your post paragraph by paragraph, but I will limit myself to a couple of observations.

1. Imho, your view of the Pope's ability to call for a crusade demonstrates the real-world limits of the power of the Papacy. What army, in actual fact, would show up? Presumably, some nation's army. What nation would literally take "marching orders" from the Vatican? As Vizzini would say, "Inconceivable!"

2. I'm really disheartened to read that you view religiously-motivated charitable activity as "manipulative" and "a cheap recruitment tactic". As for the "buy your way into heaven" accusation.....all I'll say is that it would take a pretty ignorant Catholic to try that long-discredited method. Besides, charitable activity shouldn't be "shouted from the rooftops", and certainly not private individual charity. I realize that some public acknowledgement seems to be unavoidable, mostly due to the hecklers inside and outside the Church asking "Where's the money going?"

Thanks for sharing, Wilshire!

[H]

I think everyone should listen to, or watch, this lecture, even if you aren't religious, or if you are:

Introduction to the Idea of God

A very short synopsis: a psychological look at the Bible.  Seriously though, even if you are not at all spiritual, this is a must hear.  My own views would be pretty much in line, no doubt because I, like Peterson, studied clinical psychology, read Jung and so on.  Still, bias aside, it's a very astute analysis.

[BeardFisher-King]

I believe that there is a God, in a very trivial and general sense. And free will is trivially false.

Life (capital L) as we know it is basically a system that works towards two things: increased complexity (intelligence) and decreased chaos (entropy).

Entropy will always increase for an isolated system.
In that sense, life is not ontologically different from the rest of matter. Free energy goes in, the system consumes to maintain a steady state, heat comes out.
What is special about is that we are configurations of matter aware of ourselves and the universe. I would love to live long enough to see how it all ends.

I don't think the thread ever got around to really tackling Tleilaxu's OP. I was wondering if Tleilaxu could expand on what he means by God being trivially true and free will being trivially false.

Also, is it true that the universe is a closed system and that entropy applies to the universe as a whole?

[H]

Also, is it true that the universe is a closed system and that entropy applies to the universe as a whole?

It is hard for me to imagine the universe as anything but a closed system.  What is outside the system and where does it enter?

I also have a hard time imagining that entropy is increasing in the universe.  Stars are massive engines and they specifically work to decrease entropy.  In fact, such a decrease might well be the "primary function" of life itself.  I believe the predicted future "heat death" is the exact prediction of such low entropy that free energy is almost nonexistent.

[TLEILAXU]

I was wondering if Tleilaxu could expand on what he means by God being trivially true

That's not exactly what I said though. I believe there is a god in a general sense, as in there is some sort of creator. This is just personal belief though, I have no evidence of such. The part about free will has been addressed in other posts.

Also, is it true that the universe is a closed system and that entropy applies to the universe as a whole?

It is hard for me to imagine the universe as anything but a closed system.  What is outside the system and where does it enter?

I also have a hard time imagining that entropy is increasing in the universe.  Stars are massive engines and they specifically work to decrease entropy.  In fact, such a decrease might well be the "primary function" of life itself.  I believe the predicted future "heat death" is the exact prediction of such low entropy that free energy is almost nonexistent.

It's exactly the other way around, i.e. stars and life increase entropy, but that's probably what you meant to say.

[BeardFisher-King]

Then what do you mean by saying that free will is trivially false, Tleilaxu?