Jesus was a Marxist

[Lootifer]

How about this modification: All else being equal, is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or tend to adhere to a scientific approach toward matters in general?

You cant really say "all else being equal" and hope to get an answer though. You are stripping out your premise from the question: You are asking if theres a negative correlation between thiesm and logic/scientific approach and then saying lets assume that other than believing in god the two sides are equal: since you didnt specificallly exclude logic/scientific approach we have to assume that those are equal too so the answer is deterministically no.

TLDR: You have locked yourself in a dark room.

[thegreekdog]

Is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

By using "consistently" and "matters" do you mean everything? Then I say yes. If you don't mean everything, then of course not. I'm a theist and I'm a pretty good tax attorney and am able to consistently exercise logic and adhere to the "scientific approach" associated with tax law. But if we're talking about areas of theology, I have a diminished capacity to exercise logic because of my particular faith.

Of all the scientists in the history of the world, how many were theists ballpark? 90%? Did they have problems consistently exercising logic and/or adhering to a scientific approach towards matters of which they studied? No.

Let me put it another way, being an atheist does not give you an advantage in any debate other than one about the existence of a god or gods.

Sure, they had problems. It reminds me of Neil deGrasse Tyson's lecture, the Perimeters of Ignorance, where he showed a few cases of ground-breaking scientists reaching the end of their intellectual inquiry by regressing to a 'god did it' argument. Nevertheless, even though they had these problems, their relative ability to reason was much better than most atheists and theists. That is not the topic though.

All else being equal, is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

I'm not talking about advantages of rhetoric in debates; I'm asking about the truth of an indicator.

Again, it depends on what matters you're talking about. A theist will not ignore an indicator because he/she is a theist unless it is with respect to one particular question (or series of related questions).

How about this modification: All else being equal, is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or tend to adhere to a scientific approach toward matters in general?

No, that's ridiculous.

[BigBallinStalin]

betiko

Anyway, in my original post here I mentioned that religion, organized religion, became a tool for the control of the masses. Of course much of what's written in the scriptures is not real. But some of what might sound naive nowadays you have to understand that it might have another meaning now that what it had in those days: language evolves.

Other things you have to understand is not for the rational mind to understand, because it's meant to be spiritual instructions. In spiritualist matters, you can be communicated with language what it's trying to be shared, but you cannot "get it" by understandig. You need to experience it, to meditate.

Is not a religion also the reflection of a group of people's customs and mores? Specifically, people believe in a manner through which its members (and sometimes non-members) should act, so they can come together as a group which abides by the same moral rules.

There are many organizations which can used as a tool of control--e.g. governments, neighborhood associations, bowling leagues, etc. Nevertheless, these organizations vary in their goals for retaining and increasing members, so it's not interesting to say that an the organization is a tool of control. Pretty much all organizations are systems which require control.

[BigBallinStalin]

How about this modification: All else being equal, is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or tend to adhere to a scientific approach toward matters in general?

You cant really say "all else being equal" and hope to get an answer though. You are stripping out your premise from the question: You are asking if theres a negative correlation between thiesm and logic/scientific approach and then saying lets assume that other than believing in god the two sides are equal: since you didnt specificallly exclude logic/scientific approach we have to assume that those are equal too so the answer is deterministically no.

TLDR: You have locked yourself in a dark room.

Hm? How does your conclusion follow from my failure to separate science and logic? "Science and logic" are close enough in kind--in regard to the question.

[nietzsche]

How about this modification: All else being equal, is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or tend to adhere to a scientific approach toward matters in general?

You cant really say "all else being equal" and hope to get an answer though. You are stripping out your premise from the question: You are asking if theres a negative correlation between thiesm and logic/scientific approach and then saying lets assume that other than believing in god the two sides are equal: since you didnt specificallly exclude logic/scientific approach we have to assume that those are equal too so the answer is deterministically no.

TLDR: You have locked yourself in a dark room.

Hm? How does your conclusion follow from my failure to separate science and logic? "Science and logic" are close enough in kind--in regard to the question.

They are teaming up against you dude, they will eliminate you on the race for Master Debateer, but I'm not sure why Lootifer is doing it, because he's helping tgd who is also ahead... maybe he'll start attacking tgd when you are out of the race..

Let's team up BBS.

[warmonger1981]

Enemy of my enemy = friend.

[AndyDufresne]

Enemy of my enemy = friend.

The enemy of my enemy's enemy = ?


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

Enemy of my enemy = friend.

The enemy of my enemy's enemy = ?

Obama

[AndyDufresne]

Enemy of my enemy = friend.

The enemy of my enemy's enemy = ?

Obama

The Obama of my Obama's Obama = ?


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

Enemy of my enemy = friend.

The enemy of my enemy's enemy = ?

Obama

The Obama of my Obama's Obama = ?


--Andy

Boehner

[AndyDufresne]

Enemy of my enemy = friend.

The enemy of my enemy's enemy = ?

Obama

The Obama of my Obama's Obama = ?


--Andy

Boehner

The Boehner of my Boehner's Boehner = ?


--Andy

[notyou2]

Enemy of my enemy = friend.

The enemy of my enemy's enemy = ?

Obama

The Obama of my Obama's Obama = ?


--Andy

Boehner

The Boehner of my Boehner's Boehner = ?


--Andy

Woody

[AndyDufresne]

We've sufficiently derailed this topic. Well played other participants.


--Andy

[Dukasaur]

Enemy of my enemy = friend.

The enemy of my enemy's enemy = ?

Obama

The Obama of my Obama's Obama = ?


--Andy

The enema of my ohbumma?

[universalchiro]

We've sufficiently derailed this topic. Well played other participants.


--Andy

The topic is not my favorite, but let the adults continue with their conversation without meddling and derailing.

Was Jesus a Marxist? I'm not seeing any evidence. Jesus focused on the condition of the heart (soul/mind/thoughts/desires) and mankind's relationship with mankind and God. The rubric of Marxist focused on social-economic conditions.

There's a closer relationship of Jesus being a cook than a Marxist however I respect your premise.

[chang50]

We've sufficiently derailed this topic. Well played other participants.


--Andy

The topic is not my favorite, but let the adults continue with their conversation without meddling and derailing.

Was Jesus a Marxist? I'm not seeing any evidence. Jesus focused on the condition of the heart (soul/mind/thoughts/desires) and mankind's relationship with mankind and God. The rubric of Marxist focused on social-economic conditions.

There's a closer relationship of Jesus being a cook than a Marxist however I respect your premise.

For once I'm in complete agreement with you here..

[nietzsche]

betiko

Anyway, in my original post here I mentioned that religion, organized religion, became a tool for the control of the masses. Of course much of what's written in the scriptures is not real. But some of what might sound naive nowadays you have to understand that it might have another meaning now that what it had in those days: language evolves.

Other things you have to understand is not for the rational mind to understand, because it's meant to be spiritual instructions. In spiritualist matters, you can be communicated with language what it's trying to be shared, but you cannot "get it" by understandig. You need to experience it, to meditate.

Is not a religion also the reflection of a group of people's customs and mores? Specifically, people believe in a manner through which its members (and sometimes non-members) should act, so they can come together as a group which abides by the same moral rules.

There are many organizations which can used as a tool of control--e.g. governments, neighborhood associations, bowling leagues, etc. Nevertheless, these organizations vary in their goals for retaining and increasing members, so it's not interesting to say that an the organization is a tool of control. Pretty much all organizations are systems which require control.

I missed this yesterday. But I don't really know what should I answer.. I'm gonna give it a try.

Religion is the tool or means some people use to connect to god. I guess you could say in a broader sense that the definition includes the belief in how people must behave, or ethics. On how this first core scope of the concept evolves to include the broadened definition we could give it a try to speculate, although I'm hessitant because I'll make more than one mistake for sure and then that single mistake would be used to debunk all I've said.

When I say that religion became a tool to control masses what I'm trying to point at is at the fact that it's very likely much of what it is in the scriptures, or simply is told about Jesus has been manipulated. Why did it became a tool of control, well, it was right there, it was only natural to those who saw the opportunity to take it. Priests, and those who ally with or subject the Priests. In history, for Christianism it was Constantino the Great.

[mrswdk]

No 're-interpreting' of the original scriptures is needed. Christianity is inherently a tool of control. It is a system of beliefs that involves obeying whatever the beard in the sky tells you to do. Jesus dictated morality to people. By practicing Christianity you are offering yourself into the service of someone else and their ideology.

[BigBallinStalin]

betiko

Anyway, in my original post here I mentioned that religion, organized religion, became a tool for the control of the masses. Of course much of what's written in the scriptures is not real. But some of what might sound naive nowadays you have to understand that it might have another meaning now that what it had in those days: language evolves.

Other things you have to understand is not for the rational mind to understand, because it's meant to be spiritual instructions. In spiritualist matters, you can be communicated with language what it's trying to be shared, but you cannot "get it" by understandig. You need to experience it, to meditate.

Is not a religion also the reflection of a group of people's customs and mores? Specifically, people believe in a manner through which its members (and sometimes non-members) should act, so they can come together as a group which abides by the same moral rules.

There are many organizations which can used as a tool of control--e.g. governments, neighborhood associations, bowling leagues, etc. Nevertheless, these organizations vary in their goals for retaining and increasing members, so it's not interesting to say that an the organization is a tool of control. Pretty much all organizations are systems which require control.

I missed this yesterday. But I don't really know what should I answer.. I'm gonna give it a try.

Religion is the tool or means some people use to connect to god. I guess you could say in a broader sense that the definition includes the belief in how people must behave, or ethics. On how this first core scope of the concept evolves to include the broadened definition we could give it a try to speculate, although I'm hessitant because I'll make more than one mistake for sure and then that single mistake would be used to debunk all I've said.

When I say that religion became a tool to control masses what I'm trying to point at is at the fact that it's very likely much of what it is in the scriptures, or simply is told about Jesus has been manipulated. Why did it became a tool of control, well, it was right there, it was only natural to those who saw the opportunity to take it. Priests, and those who ally with or subject the Priests. In history, for Christianism it was Constantino the Great.

Yeah, I mas o menos agree, but if we agree on this, then we should agree that religion itself is not the issue. Instead, our criticism of religion should be levelled against that select group of people who take advantage of the members and cause more problems for non-members.

Another criticism involves the means through which that problem is mitigated or exacerbated. For example, when Mussolini teamed up with the Catholic Church, he gained more support, thus enabling him to exert more control over others. Another example is governments in general granting subsidies/tax credits to religious organizations. Governments have also used religion as a means for supporting wars against others (now, it's nationalism + religion).

The problem isn't religion, but rather how and why certain people are allowed to use religion for certain goals.

[mrswdk]

Religion/the media/Hollywood/schools etc.

Is the answer by any chance the expansion of free markets and the reduction of government penetration of society?

[BigBallinStalin]

Religion/the media/Hollywood/schools etc.

Is the answer by any chance the expansion of free markets and the reduction of government penetration of society?

The answer to what?

[mrswdk]

The problem.

The problem isn't religion, but rather how and why certain people are allowed to use religion for certain goals.

Mm. Problemo.

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem.

The problem isn't religion, but rather how and why certain people are allowed to use religion for certain goals.

Mm. Problemo.

Can ya rephrase your question?

[mrswdk]

I can repeat it, in the context of our recent clarification.

[BigBallinStalin]

I can repeat it, in the context of our recent clarification.

Then go forth and repeat the question, good sir.