Is There Anything On This Planet More Intellectually Redundant Than Religion?

MayCaesar

@maxx

I am not sure why you keep engaging with Nom and Dee, the two people on this website who contribute nothing but endless logical fallacies and petty insults. Just put them on ignore and move on: when they stop getting any attention here, they will move elsewhere.

On the topic, very intelligent people can have blind spots, especially when entire societies have the same spots. Furthermore, some of the most intelligent people in human history went into some of the deepest philosophical rabbitholes in complete detachment from reality: overthinking is a thing, and the more intelligent a person is, the more in danger they are in engaging in it.

In case of Einstein, the brilliant physicist's work actually measurably suffered from his philosophical errors: for instance, it took him far longer than it should have to accept many ideas of quantum mechanics that begged to be accepted in light of a very concrete evidence, yet did not sit well with "hard determinists" like Einstein. Remember his "the god does not play dice" proclamation? Turns out that the "god", if exists, very much like playing dice, or, at least, acts as if he did. Chances are, were Einstein to live in a less religious world at the time, he would not have made such a blunder setting him a decade behind his contemporaries when it comes to this field.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

I am not sure why you keep engaging with Nom and Dee, the two people on this website who contribute nothing but endless logical fallacies and petty insults.

That's the last petty insult you throw my way. You're now being blocked, like the worthless, delusional, self-aggrandising troll you are. How dare you come into my debate just to insult me! And like the pure coward you are, you don't even insult me directly.

maxx

in a way you are correct. einstien was religious but started out as a catholic i believe, changed his views to where he believed the universe was god and changed his views many times afterwards, till he recanted it all. regardless as nom fails to understand, and even though i am not religious, there is much more to religion than a belief in god and miracles; however he does not understand that. I have asked nom many times to explain why art, music, poetry, social unity, and other aspects of religion, in which has been a part of religion since it started; to explain as to why my examples are intellectually redundant. Yet he refuses to answer. You are correct as to me dis-engaging the individual, for even though he created the post, he continues not to debate it. instead, with no other recourse available , he resorts to insults to ease his suffering ego. @MayCaesar

Nomenclature

@maxx

in a way you are correct. einstien was religious but started out as a catholic i believe

He wasn't religious and he wasn't Catholic. He was born into a Jewish family. 

If you won't take Einstein's own word that he wasn't religious then clearly this is a pointless conversation. 

changed his views to where he believed the universe was god and changed his views many times afterwards

He didn't change his views. He never believed in a personal God. He occasionally used God as a metaphor and that fact has been seized upon and distorted by believers.

MayCaesar

@maxx

Eh, I believe you are committing the broken window fallacy here by assuming that all the music, poetry, philosophy and so on that was produced in a religious context would not have been produced outside of such context. Is the poetry that was written in the Medieval England a product of religion, or is it a product of independent human mind caught in a particular culture?

Isaac Newton was a heavily religious man, yet his scientific work was not religious. William Shakespeare was a heavily religious man, yet his literature works were not religious. It is much like Japan being a country in which it is considered polite to bow to others, yet Toyota Camry is not a product of that bowing culture.

At the core religion is just the idea of existence of higher powers coupled with the philosophy outlining the role of a human individual with respect to those powers. This core is embedded in a much larger cultural slice that regularly references the core, but that slice is not a part of the religion. The US and Russia are both heavily Christian cultures, yet music, poetry and philosophy differ drastically between these cultures. What unites them is belief in the Christian god and the interpretation of the Bible as the word of god - but that is where the intersection ends.

Dee

@maxx


Maxx your st- pity is something I've accepted a long time ago ( I make allowances for it) , but seriously your constant  lying is pitiful  , you're actually posting up a piece by a nut who believes in" theistic evolution......seriously?

Enlightened Crowd is the blog of Edward J Dale, home of my projects in transpersonal psychology, theistic evolution, computing, etc.

Albert Einstein 

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

.Albert Einstein....

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel’s second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God’s favoured people.

“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them

Please stop lying Maxx.

Dee

@MayCaesar

I am not sure why you keep engaging with Nom and Dee, the two people on this website who contribute nothing but endless logical fallacies and petty insults

Says you the raging egotist who contradicts himself every comment he makes and  once told the whole site only his comments should be taken seriously as " I have a degree in physics " ......now you attempt to act the know all again by pointing out the flaws in Einsteins reasoning proving you don't want to debate but just play your favorite game as in the usual crowing " I have a degree in physics so only I can have an opinion" 


Just put them on ignore and move on: when they stop getting any attention here, they will move on

Another example of the failed physicist MC giving out advice he doesn't follow but no doubt thinks others should ,your obsession with Nom and  me is touching but Says more about you than us.

You really do hold grudges and get very annoyed when you  cannot defend your piss poor arguments , remember you stated those on minimun wage in the US could " easily " pay for health care , education,  food , clothing and housing with as you the elitist called it " prudent choices" , you went inton a rage when you  couldn't defend your gibberish and now resort to petty sneak attacks like the cowardly dog you are.

Dee

@Nomenclature


The guy as you know is a pretty average physicist who's just waiting to be pensioned off as he will never achieve anything of note in physics , a mere pencil pusher who has an out of control ego which he hasn't the slightest justification for.

Nomenclature

@Dee

Says you the raging egotist who contradicts himself every comment he makes and  once told the whole site only his comments should be taken seriously as " I have a degree in physics " ......now you attempt to act the know all again by pointing out the flaws in Einsteins reasoning proving you don't want to debate but just play your favorite game as in the usual crowing " I have a degree in physics so only I can have an opinion" 

He's honestly such a pompous buffoon. His writing stinks of a desperation for intellectual authority which, if he actually had, he wouldn't be desperate for in the first place. I'm sick of reading his cowardly digs so I just blocked the childish imbecile. Let him rant into thin air.

You really do hold grudges and get very annoyed when you  cannot defend your piss poor arguments

That's literally the reason he has a problem with me. The first or second day after I came back I criticised the argument underpinning one of his industrial length rants and he's never forgiven me. He has the emotional maturity of a child.

Nomenclature

@Dee

The guy as you know is a pretty average physicist who's just waiting to be pensioned off as he will never achieve anything of note in physics , a mere pencil pusher who has an out of control ego which he hasn't the slightest justification for.

To be absolutely honest Dee I'd be extremely shocked to discover he is actually a physicist at all. It seems more like something he says to give his trash posts the illusion of intellectual weight. I certainly haven't seen any indication that he understands even elementary physics. 

Dee

@Nomenclature

I think you're right Nom , I give the clown credit he's not due. Most of his opinions on physics are copy and pasted opinions of others as originally is an alien concept to him.

maxx

I am referring to religious artifacts, religious paintings, religious music, religious poetry and so on, i am not referring to the idea that such works could not or has not been produced in other context.@MayCaesar

maxx

oh dee, you didnt come here to debate noms post or to debate my examples that i produced; now did you?@Dee

Dee

@maxx


oh dee, you didnt come here to debate noms post or to debate my examples that i produced; now did you?@Dee



Oh Maxx,  I came here to correct you yet again regards you lying about Einstein's views on religion which as usual  you ignored , instead you rely on a young earth creationists views on what Einstein said , you truly are a retard of spectacular proportions

maxx

i never ignored anything, read the link i sent on einstein. he was religious until his latter days until he recanted. Also mr dee, noms post is not about einstein; i used him as an example, in which i could show many more top scientists who are religious. This post is about if religion is intellectually useless.  I believed i proved thatwrong, for nom will not debate the ideas i showed him. If you wish to debate that, then i suggest you read  what i wrote in response to him, and then debate that.@Dee

Nomenclature

@maxx

he was religious

Einstein Was Not Religious

https://medium.com/the-geeky-pub/einstein-was-not-religious-9bd3354f038

This is what conversation with you is like.

Nom: I'm not religious.

Maxx: Yes you are.

Nom: No I'm not.

Maxx: Yes you are.

You are pointless Maxx. 

maxx

you are pointless, i sent you a link that showed his affiliation with religion. Read it. and as for pointless, your own post is about if religion is intellectually useless, so stick to your own damn subject.@Nomenclature

Nomenclature

@maxx

you are pointless, i sent you a link that showed his affiliation with religion

I sent you a copy of his own letter, where he called religion irrational. 

Go away Maxx. You don't acknowledge when you've been proven wrong and it makes talking to you completely and utterly pointless.

Dee

@maxx

i never ignored anything,

You did you totally ignored what Einstein said in his own words.

 read the link i sent on einstein.

I read your piece by the young earther who like you denies what Einstein actually said 


 he was religious until his latter days until he recanted

Nonsense, Einstein was only religious like most as a  boy , he renounced religion at 12 years of age you troll.

. Also mr dee, noms post is not about einstein; i used him as an example, in which i could show many more top scientists who are religious

Yet another appeal to authority from mad Maxx

. This post is about if religion is intellectually useless

Well stop making up lies about Einstein and appealing  to authority 

.  I believed i proved thatwrong,

You proved nothing as usual all you did was give your opinion which as usual you think is all the proof you need



for nom will not debate the ideas i showed him. If you wish to debate that, then i suggest you read  what i wrote in response to him, and then debate that.

Poor Maxx deflecting again , Now gave up on you because you're an imbecile , if you want to impress me try posting up a coherent argument instead of lies , distortions and deflecting 

MayCaesar

maxx said:

I am referring to religious artifacts, religious paintings, religious music, religious poetry and so on, i am not referring to the idea that such works could not or has not been produced in other context.@MayCaesar

But why do you call them religious then? The music they play in churches, for instance, draws from multiple genres played in other contexts. You could say that said music is a part of the culture many Christians live in, but calling it a part of Christianity is quite a stretch. It is like calling the music I play in my Ford car a part of the Ford company.

Religion is what it is: a particular set of ideas and beliefs. It is not the works of art those professing them happen to produce.

maxx

again, that was AFTER he recanted his religion. duh. What part of him not being originally religious do you not understand?  As well, as you reminded me, your post is not about him. remember?? What is the matter, cant you even debate your pown post correctly?@Nomenclature

maxx

may i seriously doubt that music and art would be quite different today if it ere not for the earliest religions. Religion began in ancient humans as superstition and the music and art they created were to appease the gods.It is very possible that the earliest humans created music and art because of their beliefs; so what you call off-shoots of religion, is in fact part of religion since its beginnings.Sure, drawings on a cave wall is hardly the art we have today, but it is all relative It was the beginnings of art and because of religion. The same with chants to the gods It is not music as we now know it, (although\ rap comes close) but it was a form of religious music. .  As well, you stated religion is a set of ideas and beliefs; however it is more so than that. Regardless, i fail to see where such ideas and beliefs are intellectually redundant as noms post states. A belief in a god may be useless from an atheist point of you, yet I doubt if it is intellectually useless.@MayCaesar

maxx

yeah  just like nom you came on here to do nothing but refuse to debate the actuall topic. @Dee

Nomenclature

@maxx

again, that was AFTER he recanted his religion.

He didn't recant anything. He'd outgrown religion by age 12:-

By age 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories, and his religiosity faded.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Einsteins-Religion-Theist-Deist-Pantheist-Humanist-Atheist

You are honestly such an imbecile Maxx. It doesn't matter whether Einstein was religious or not, because it has zero influence over whether religion is irrational. You're arguing about something which not only are you demonstrably wrong about, but which doesn't even matter in the first place.

Dee

@maxx

yeah  just like nom you came on here to do nothing but refuse to debate the actuall topic. 

Wow! That's your best response all because you cannot back your lies up, same old Mad Maxx 

Nomenclature

@Dee

Wow! That's your best response all because you cannot back your lies up, same old Mad Maxx 

Lol. The most hilarious thing of all is that it's my topic!! I refuted all of his initial objections, but he just keeps repeating the exact same things without acknowledging anything you say. Then, after you get bored explaining the same stuff to him over and over again, he accuses you of ignoring his points. He's a complete waste of time and effort.

MayCaesar

maxx said:

may i seriously doubt that music and art would be quite different today if it ere not for the earliest religions. Religion began in ancient humans as superstition and the music and art they created were to appease the gods.It is very possible that the earliest humans created music and art because of their beliefs; so what you call off-shoots of religion, is in fact part of religion since its beginnings.Sure, drawings on a cave wall is hardly the art we have today, but it is all relative It was the beginnings of art and because of religion. The same with chants to the gods It is not music as we now know it, (although\ rap comes close) but it was a form of religious music. .  As well, you stated religion is a set of ideas and beliefs; however it is more so than that. Regardless, i fail to see where such ideas and beliefs are intellectually redundant as noms post states. A belief in a god may be useless from an atheist point of you, yet I doubt if it is intellectually useless.@MayCaesar

That does not accord with my knowledge of history, flawed and incomplete as it is. Art and music are inherent in humans, and more primitive animals are known to produce their simplified versions: birds sing and wolves howl (beyond what is required by pure communication needs), apes build primitive structures that appear to only have sentimental value and dogs play with toys and become attached to them. It is not clear what exactly causes this behavior, but it appears to be a universal biological phenomenon. It appears to be more accurate to say that art and religion co-evolved in human societies and had certain mutually shaping interactions. And even if works of art were originally inspired by religion, the fact that they exist independently of it today means that they are not intrinsically religious. 

As for the belief in god being useful, I am not going to pretend that believing in god has never made anyone's life better. The question though is whether it is sensible to believe in fantasy because in some cases you being detached from reality happens to help you, or if believing in fantasy is intrinsically problematic because it is not grounded in reality. To me it is the latter. It is rolling a dice and hoping that the outcome happens to be good, as opposed to having a reality-driven strategy that consistently pushes you up the happiness mountain.

There are people who at some point in their lives considered committing suicide and the fear of hell was what stopped them. Is it a good outcome? Yes. Is religion to thank for it? Yes. However, had the person not been prone to believing in these weird things and had he been taught to think rationally, he would likely have never even seriously considered killing himself, just as I have not: killing oneself seems to me to be the ultmate act of idiocy, and I do not think that anyone who is capable of thinking straight and willing to do so even when everything seems to be crumbling around them would ever do that.

When I say that religion is not useful, I do not mean that religion does not help anyone: in general, having a bad philosophy of life (religion) is better than having none at all and being deeply troubled and confused. My point though is: why choose between these? A person who needs religion to feel good in life has some serious issues that believing in fantasies can only mask, not solve, and who knows when those issues suddenly blow up in their face?

Dee

@Nomenclature
It's always the same old game with poor old Maxx the guy ties himself in knots and resorts to accusing his opponents of exactly the behaviour he's guilty of

Nomenclature

@Dee

the guy ties himself in knots and resorts to accusing his opponents of exactly the behaviour he's guilty of

That's exactly right Dee. One hundred percent. Plus, he gets so angry.

Dee

@Nomenclature

He sure does, Aarong has warned him about his trolling and anger issues in the past , the big gurl told me that he and his " men " were coming over here to sort me out as he's an " expert " in matial arts

Why do all Amercans act like Rambo when mostly  they're a pretty cowardly bunch of cretins .....did you ever look at Mad Maxxs profile photo ? Long greasy hair, glasses borrowed from his granny  and a grin like the local village loon

Nomenclature

@Dee

the big gurl told me that he and his " men " were coming over here to sort me out as he's an " expert " in matial arts

Why do all Amercans act like Rambo when mostly  they're a pretty cowardly bunch of cretins

It's a good question. I think the proliferation of guns probably has something to do with it. They feel naked without a hand cannon in their pocket, but they'll talk smack to you all day just so long as they're armed.

Dee

@Nomenclature

Most people laugh at threats from Americans , they have only ever won one war and that was against Grenada which is about the size of my back garden , they needed the help of 6 other nations and hilariously called their invasion "operation fury".

MortieSpahn

Argument Topic: Observation of the "switching off"

@Nomenclature
The extent I see self-righteousness in those deeply immersed in faith, as opposed to the degree in the secular crowd, lends to your assertion. Self-righteousness is very much about turning away from reason and logic.

But the interesting thing is(as an aside), if in fact the switch is being thrown, aren't there some tenets of religion desirable? As in some source of authority and morality?

Nomenclature

@MortieSpahn

if in fact the switch is being thrown, aren't there some tenets of religion desirable?

Definitely. That's why it's so dangerous.

Dee

@MortieSpahn

aren't there some tenets of religion desirable? As in some source of authority and morality?

The religious would agree with you, in Islam under Sharia law Muslims find punishment of those who disagree with their dictates " desirable " does this make it so? 

Religions are ( mostly) divisive and regressive and they set up a "them and us" mentality as justification for bullying , discrimination and victimisation of those who disagree with their tenets

MortieSpahn

@Dee

Hi Dee. The part of my comment you quoted removes it from the overall context. If a person *does* abandon some  degree of rational thought when they participate in religion, are we not relieved (in maybe some small way) to see that there are at least some decent ideas that are part of the equation? As I mentioned: a source of authority, or a source of morality(like golden rule stuff) ...because if there were nothing like those, then abandoning rational thought would be even more problematic, bereft of any "decent" teachings. And the assessment of what is desirable would be from someone outside the mix.

Dee

@MortieSpahn

Hi Dee. The part of my comment you quoted removes it from the overall context. If a person *does* abandon some  degree of rational thought when they participate in religion, are we not relieved (in maybe some small way) to see that there are at least some decent ideas that are part of the equation?

Hi M. I think one could make the same argument regards any ideology,  as a whole I believe religions do  far more damage than good.

As I mentioned: a source of authority, or a source of morality(like golden rule stuff) ...because if there were nothing like those, then abandoning rational thought would be even more problematic, bereft of any "decent" teachings.

But the golden rule is way older than most religious teachings we have, humans learn to figure these things out  for themselves with or without religions 


 And the assessment of what is desirable would be from someone outside the mix.

What is  desirable can be worked out by common consensus  mostly

21CenturyIconoclast

@MortieSpahn

YOUR QUOTE OF SOME TENETS OF CHRISTIANITY BEING DESIRABLE: "if in fact the switch is being thrown, aren't there some tenets of religion desirable?"

Most certainly in Christianity, like the following tenets that ALL TRUE Christians are to follow in Jesus' name:

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou BEATEST him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt BEAT HIM with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs.23:13-14)

 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.” (Exodus 21:7)

JESUS SAID: “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.  (Matthew 15: 3-4)

.

maxx

. he was a catholic and was  religious until he recanted.  and again dee and nom the post is not about him  duh  cant you figure that out yet??It is about if religion is intellectually useless as you. You can not even unederstand what the post is about.
are you going to debate the post as posted or not?  @Nomenclature @Dee

maxx

I am not sure art and music is inerrant in humans or not, for if so it would be genetic. however it could be. still i have never seen young children singing or anything resembling music until they are shown by someone. Yet let that slide, and assume it is true. That still would not be the origins of music. wolves howling and birds chirping are not music, they are communicative noises. Even imitating such sounds are nothing more that howling and chirping. imitation of animal communication is a far cry from developing into any kind of music.It is far more logical and plausible to say both music and art, such as it was began with superstition and belief in the idea that certain gods had the power make rain, or there was a sun god that brought warmth, gods that brought animals in area for the hunt of food; and when ancient humans lacked as such, they would make as much noise as possible to appease and talk to such gods to gain such needs. This would include banging on sticks and stones, jumping up and down, and chanting, being as loud as possible to get the gods to hear. we even se such behaviorism in backward tribes of today, and imitating animal noises do not play an actual part i such rituals. think about it.  As for art, we can easily see the ancient cave drawings. As for the rest of your statement, from an atheist point of view, of course a belief in god is not useful. However it is all relevant . A belief in such a god is not a security blanket, but rather a way of life which is not only useful and purposeful, it also is intellectually  useful to them in many degrees. Enen if it is just the social unity that brings such people together, the discussions alone regardless if it is mere story telling is an intellectually behavior. As i have said, religion is more than just a belief in a god and miracles and i am sure they're many intelligent people who believe in god. also, the music that somehow originated diverged into manyaspects, including religious music. many of the music arrangements are far better written than some of the junk we have today. What I am saying is regardless of the belief, intelligence can play a very strong part.  @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx

. he was a catholic and was  religious until he recanted

He stopped believing at 12 years of age.


.  and again dee and nom the post is not about him  duh  cant you figure that out yet?

So why did you make it about him? Your only contribution was that Einstein was religious which has been  debunked


?It is about if religion is intellectually useless as you. You can not even unederstand what the post is about.

Yet your only contribution was " Einstein was religious" and when your lies were exposed  you attempted to bolster them with a piece by a relgios loon who believes in a young Earth 



are you going to debate the post as posted or not?  @Nomenclature @Dee

 Quote  Persuaded Fallacy Fist Bump Irrelevant Great argument Strong Argument Agree Disagree Informative Funny

Reply

Still waiting on you to start , so have you anything else to say apart from your lies regarding Einsteien?

You clearly stated ............ there are lots on intelligent people who aare religious; rationality has nothing to do with it.


Yes we all know rationality doesn't come into religious belief , you  have to be deluded to believe in a god , delusion is a recognised mental health condition Einstein worked this out when he was child  you still cannot because of your genetic imbecility.

Every single time I beat Maxx using his own words to prove his own words wrong .


So again Maxx beats his own arguments by admitting belief in a god is irrational,  watch him once again tie himself in knots as he tries to deny his own words.........

Nomenclature

@maxx

 he was a catholic and was  religious until he recanted.  and again dee and nom the post is not about him  duh  cant you figure that out yet??

It's my post you absolutely ridiculous halfwit. You were the one who brought Einstein up, and I was the one who told you his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) aren't relevant. The only reason Dee and I are even arguing with you is because you refuse to accept the fact that Einstein wasn't religious.

MortieSpahn

@Dee

Whether religions do more harm than good, that'll keep us busy for quite some time. But in the end, as you framed it: "as a whole," I'd agree. Especially when one considers the outcomes religion yields, as you stated in your previous response (religions are divisive...) 

And you're right, religion is not the only source of the golden rule, but at least it's discussed there with some regularity, at least some variation of it. I don't see many secular families discussing virtues these days, much less emphasizing that they are essential. And further, how much do people "want" to hear those ideas, much less discuss them?  It's so 18th century to discuss virtues. Further, when one becomes one's own authority, there's no reverence for ideas that don't align with their own. Cancel culture is a nice example of that. So not only are they not being discussed, if a virtue doesn't align exactly with one's core beliefs, it's dismissed, and rendered undesirable. 

All that said, I wish there was some entity that would command reverence and teach morality, and teach what is desirable (by consensus, as you mentioned (if a consensus could be reached)) and have people adhere to it. What do you see as sources of morality nowadays?

MortieSpahn

@21CenturyIconoclast

Yeah there are some very *undesirable* passages in the Bible, but I don't think they are taught with any regularity, if even taught at all anymore. 

maxx

yes i did bring him up as an example; and you so rudely pointed out that your post was not about him, remember? You told me it was about religion being intellectually useless and yet here you are unable and unwilling to debate your own topic as you posted it. mr no wit. all you and dee are on this site for is to throw insults. If you wish to prove differently, then retirn to your post as written, then address my points. @Nomenclature

MayCaesar

maxx said:

I am not sure art and music is inerrant in humans or not, for if so it would be genetic. however it could be. still i have never seen young children singing or anything resembling music until they are shown by someone. Yet let that slide, and assume it is true. That still would not be the origins of music. wolves howling and birds chirping are not music, they are communicative noises. Even imitating such sounds are nothing more that howling and chirping. imitation of animal communication is a far cry from developing into any kind of music.It is far more logical and plausible to say both music and art, such as it was began with superstition and belief in the idea that certain gods had the power make rain, or there was a sun god that brought warmth, gods that brought animals in area for the hunt of food; and when ancient humans lacked as such, they would make as much noise as possible to appease and talk to such gods to gain such needs. This would include banging on sticks and stones, jumping up and down, and chanting, being as loud as possible to get the gods to hear. we even se such behaviorism in backward tribes of today, and imitating animal noises do not play an actual part i such rituals. think about it.  As for art, we can easily see the ancient cave drawings. As for the rest of your statement, from an atheist point of view, of course a belief in god is not useful. However it is all relevant . A belief in such a god is not a security blanket, but rather a way of life which is not only useful and purposeful, it also is intellectually  useful to them in many degrees. Enen if it is just the social unity that brings such people together, the discussions alone regardless if it is mere story telling is an intellectually behavior. As i have said, religion is more than just a belief in a god and miracles and i am sure they're many intelligent people who believe in god. also, the music that somehow originated diverged into manyaspects, including religious music. many of the music arrangements are far better written than some of the junk we have today. What I am saying is regardless of the belief, intelligence can play a very strong part.  @MayCaesar

I am not saying that wolves howling are producing music, but I am saying that part of it is a primitive version of the same biological mechanism that makes humans appreciate and create music. Music is not something one can explain intellectually (not yet): one cannot mathematically derive the "perfect song". However, one can experimentally derive some necessary attributes of it such as the "nice" ratios of tone frequencies in a scale and connect them to biological resonances in human bodies and brains - resonances that, to my best knowledge, are quite similar to those happening in wolves' bodies and brains while howling.

Can a song be inspired by religion and shaped by religious stories? Sure. Is this a fundamental aspect of any song? Certainly not. Regardless of any context, a beautiful piece of music can be appreciated for what it is. I can listen to a beautiful Arabic instrumental song and not know a thing about Islam that has inspired the song in the first place, yet still enjoy it tremendously.

People have produced music in prehistoric times for many reasons, and shamanic dances accompanied by drumming were just one sample from the set of contexts in which music was produced.

In response to your argument for utility and width of religion, I have to reemphasize the importance of "separating grains from discards" as one of the modern dictarors put it. You have to separate things religion is responsible for from things religion happened to be a part of. Someone blowing himself up on a crowded plaza while yelling "Allahu Akbar!" is certainly a product of religion, and while people may commit such acts for a variety of reasons, this particular instance would not have happened had it not been for this particular version of Islam having been adopted by the person. Someone playing a beautiful song on a Hammond in a church though? That very song could be played on a very secular concert instead and there is nothing special that religion contributes to it that cannot be contributed by secular sources. Similarly, someone doing charity work voluntarily at a local park is not doing anything that a secular person with a warm heart would not do. There is no reason to believe that this old Christian picking up trash on the streets would not do the same in the absence of religion.

When you strip anything down to the core of its religious component, you will not find any unity, or comfort, or empathy there: these are extraneous entities. What you will find is a fantasy story taken seriously by a lot of people, and everything surrounding this story art- and culture-wise is a product of those extraneous entities coming in contact with this fantasy story. Just like Star Wars is a fantasy story despite featuring a lot of music, art and other works of fiction that has grown on top of it. Star Wars is not a great culture-ideological framework and has little to no utility when it comes to the real world decision-making, and you can only go so far by trying to explain everything through the Force and the Light and the Dark side.

Nomenclature

@maxx

Maxx, I'm done wasting my time with you because you're an absolute moron. You simply deserve to be laughed at.

Dee

@MortieSpahn

Whether religions do more harm than good, that'll keep us busy for quite some time. But in the end, as you framed it: "as a whole," I'd agree. Especially when one considers the outcomes religion yields, as you stated in your previous response (religions are divisive...) 

And you're right, religion is not the only source of the golden rule, but at least it's discussed there with some regularity, at least some variation of it.

In what way is it discussed? The church I was a member of did so in a damaging way. 



 I don't see many secular families discussing virtues these days, much less emphasizing that they are essential

I don't agree at all most children's morality is learned through a parents agreed stances on moral questions as we get older and more independent many different factors and influences come into play before we have a set moral code 


. And further, how much do people "want" to hear those ideas, much less discuss them?  It's so 18th century to discuss virtues

Again I'm afraid I disagree as these things I find are discussed daily where I live, the latest manifestation of this is the worldwide  debate on woke culture and its destructive influences on society , daily people engage in virtue signalling to prove how " virtuous" they are. 

Depending on the side you take regarding woke culture you're either deemed to be virtuous or someone who needs to be " outed" , " cancelled " and re - educated

. Further, when one becomes one's own authority, there's no reverence for ideas that don't align with their own.

Any ideas that don't align with my own I have no " reverence" for,  why should I ? 

 Cancel culture is a nice example of that. So not only are they not being discussed, if a virtue doesn't align exactly with one's core beliefs, it's dismissed, and rendered undesirable. 

I detest what's happening worldwide with these ridiculous people and their attempts to tell people what they can and cannot say.


 All that said, I wish there was some entity that would command reverence and teach morality, and teach what is desirable (by consensus, as you mentioned (if a consensus could be reached)) and have people adhere to it

But there is not  and cannot be a moral code that fits all only on a very limited basis is there universal agreement 


. What do you see as sources of morality nowadays?

Sources can be found everywhere Mortie but people take from them what suits their own needs , drives and personalities.

I changed from devout Catholic to a fan of philosophy and much of my thinking is informed by the teachings of Niezstche and his brilliant concept of the " will to power" ,I also admire  David Humes brilliant clear cut thinking on the big questions including morality he claimed that moral  distinctions are not derived from reason but rather from sentiment.

Humans I decided many years ago as to quote Thomas Hobbes are " red in tooth and claw ", we are the most savage , irrational, destructive creatures on the face of the Earth. We have constant wars , recessions , savagery , destruction and devastation on a daily basis this demonstates clearly we just cannot get on with each other , look at it in isloation most extended family units cannot get on with each other as they argue , fight , cheat and destroy each other the truth of my claims is normally proved correct when a family will is on the table.

My ideas on fellow humans actually took tremendous pressure of me as a young man as I'd been thought to see the good in everyone , now I can and do fully enjoy myself by not expecting anything from others except their presence for socialising when it's agreeable tooth parties 

Dee

@maxx

All you and dee are on this site for is to throw insults

Right , it's an "insult" now to ask you to admit your lies regards your  Einstein claims? Wow!

21CenturyIconoclast

@MortieSpahn


YOUR QUOTE GOING DIRECTLY AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN GOD, JESUS:  "Yeah there are some very *undesirable* passages in the Bible, but I don't think they are taught with any regularity, if even taught at all anymore."


WHAT? Where does any pseudo-christian get the authority to NOT follow Jesus' direct words within the scriptures as again shown below?

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou BEATEST him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt BEAT HIM with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs.23:13-14)

 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.” (Exodus 21:7)

JESUS SAID: “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.  (Matthew 15: 3-4)

The Bible inept pseudo-christians DO NOT have the authority to not follow all of the direct words by Jesus as God!

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” (James 1:22)

He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” (Luke 11:28)