who wrote the Bible?

[Gribble]

Religion is bullshit. It does not warrant serious consideration. There's a difference between defined religion and something more along the lines of deism, however. A deist can be respected. A Christian cannot. Anyone who claims to know is full of it. Atheist or theist. We don't know what lies beyond. We can only make educated guesses. To say that this particular god exists and did these things and sent its son to Earth, etc, etc. is ridiculous. To say that there absolutely cannot be something out there is equally ridiculous.

So rest assured that though I refer to myself as an atheist out of ease I am in fact an agnostic. I don't believe there can't possibly be some kind of god-like entity. I doubt it very much. However, I despise anyone who would belittle themselves through worship and I think little of anyone who follows a particular religion, be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhism, whatever.

DM, if you are a Christian and if you believe there is any truth to your little bible you're no better than an atheist.

[Doc Durian]

Gribble, I'm sensing that you're incomplete in this realm and you like it that way. Am I wrong to think this?

[Mish]

A deist can be respected. A Christian cannot. Anyone who claims to know is full of it. Atheist or theist.

And this is the problem I have with labeling. Why does deist deserve respect and Christian does not? A Christian can be a theist and a deist and even an atheist. Same as a follower of any other faith. You have to remember that when you refer to a Christian you are referring to almost two billion people almost two thirds of the world's population. It's simply impossible to make a statement that all of them are like this or like that. There are Christians who are even less Religious than you out there.

[Yggdrasil]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNy6ziOyxoA"]YouTube - George Carlin: Religion is Bullshit[/ame]

[Gribble]

I don't believe it's enough to state that you are a Christian, Mish. There are very few Christians out there. Now we're diverging but I believe most people are agnostics who either won't admit it or who have convinced themselves otherwise. That or they call themselves Christians but follow few if any of the tenets of their faith.

Put it this way, if you believe in virgin birth you're irrational. You should not be respected. You should be a laughing stock. If I'm the only person on this earth who can see that, so be it. I'll laugh alone.

[ecojeanne]

i think you're right gribble, i do think a lot of people are agnostic but don't admit it, however i also think that people really want to believe and tbh it's healthier for an individual to believe there is more. whether there is more or not. like i said previously people like to be part of a community and that is slowly being eroded throughout society (maybe because people are rejecting religon for facts and science etc) and religon gives comfort and community to people therefore giving them a sense of belonging and healthier mental and physical life.

[IndiReloaded]

The terms atheist or agnostic are irrelevant to me. Either you live your life like there is a 'higher power' out there to answer to, or you don't.

The former group are those that have a need to subjugate their free will to someone or something. Its not a mindset I subscribe to, but (as Mish correctly says) all evidence says that most of humanity seems to require it to varying degrees. I suppose its what makes us social animals. I've done the thought experiment, and I've decided that if *everyone* thought the way I did, and acted on it, then we would have a very different kind of society. None at all, in fact.

There are sheep (98% of humans, according to the genetics) and shepherds (2%). This has always been so. Genetically, that 2% of the population has been enough to drive the other 98% forward.

Mother Nature has had a long time to work out the ratios for all this. I think that we are meeting resistance at trying to adjust them is perfectly understandable.

I think perhaps, its just more important for that 2% to identify themselves as such. Then, act accordingly (to whatever needs and goals they view as important). Don't beat on the other 98% for being something other than they are. Take careful note here I am not denigrating either population in any way; clearly both are required, but their functions are different. The 98% could make very good use of that 2% and not resent them; likewise for the 2% who have most of humanity as their tool to help drive things forward, with skill and finesse. Just don't expect them to recognize your efforts, its not in their mindset to do so. Generally only that 2% can see each other for what they are.

[lovesjoyajm]

There are sheep (98% of humans, according to the genetics) and shepherds (2%). This has always been so. Genetically, that 2% of the population has been enough to drive the other 98% forward.

I think perhaps, its just more important for that 2% to identify themselves as such. Then, act accordingly (to whatever needs and goals they view as important). Don't beat on the other 98% for being something other than they are. Take careful note here I am not denigrating either population in any way; clearly both are required, but their functions are different. The 98% could make very good use of that 2% and not resent them; likewise for the 2% who have most of humanity as their tool to help drive things forward, with skill and finesse. Just don't expect them to recognize your efforts, its not in their mindset to do so. Generally only that 2% can see each other for what they are.

What I find interesting about this description of humanity is the same thing I found interesting about Nietzsche's Übermensch theory (which is more or less the same, with different titles, anyway) and to a lesser degree, the idea of predestination. (Don't get me started on that.) It's all well and dandy to identify these concepts in a general sense and point out the existence of these two contrasting groups, but the problem comes up when people start to, as you described it, identify themselves as one group or the other. Ultimately, 2% of the population won't single themselves out as "the shepherds"; maybe 40% (yes, I made this number up) will.

Running with the 98:2 ratio, it's obvious that some (38%) of the population are mistaken about their classification. So how do you tell which is which? I'm not arguing that person X, who claims to be in the 2%, couldn't be in the 2%, just that it's impossible to know because there are 37x others making the same claims.

But then again, maybe that's the point...if 40% of the population is trying to be shepherds in order to fit into that 2%, we end up with a lot more productivity?

Anyway, just a thought [process].

Also, just wanted to throw out there from gut instinct that religion is not synonymous with subjugating your free will to the will of another. However twisted or convoluted it may have gotten in the meantime, the idea of free will is supposed to be central to Christianity.

One more thing. I appreciate the pursuit of truth for truth's sake; but if you don't believe in afterlife or a higher meaning to life, why should there be any problem with making the most of human relationships? What is the point of seeking truth for truth's sake at the risk of alienating other people? Once you're gone, there's no "I told you so".

[Gribble]

Also, just wanted to throw out there from gut instinct that religion is not synonymous with subjugating your free will to the will of another. However twisted or convoluted it may have gotten in the meantime, the idea of free will is supposed to be central to Christianity.

Yeah, we have free will. But what does the Christian bible tell us will happen if we don't accept Jesus as our savior? Essentially the Christian god is telling us that we're free to make our own choices so long as those choices fall in line with its demands. That isn't free will at all.

[ecojeanne]

One more thing. I appreciate the pursuit of truth for truth's sake; but if you don't believe in afterlife or a higher meaning to life, why should there be any problem with making the most of human relationships? What is the point of seeking truth for truth's sake at the risk of alienating other people? Once you're gone, there's no "I told you so".

Loves that point is why I don’t focus on truth and facts on this subject to an extreme like other condescending intellectuals do. It makes them happy to pursue and debunk through what they call logic. It doesn’t seem logical to me. If the truth was to be found out how happy would they be? Maybe for 5 mins or so and then that would be it. So all this arguing and insults towards something that (as we all admit can’t be proven) is a waste of time. The way I see it is if one can derive goodness and fulfillment from something, whether it be organized or not, then it’s a good thing. That’s my logic on it anyway. The pursuit of truth doesn’t always make one happy long term and that’s why I reckon the intellectuals miss out.

[Sonrisa]

Yeah, we have free will. But what does the Christian bible tell us will happen if we don't accept Jesus as our savior? Essentially the Christian god is telling us that we're free to make our own choices so long as those choices fall in line with its demands. That isn't free will at all.

or how about the biggest cardinal sin being not believing in God? you can commit murder and be forgiven but rejecting God will send you straight to hell. you can lead your life as the nicest person on the face of the earth, but you will end up in hell if you are an atheist.

[Junket]

Aw, it's like a little hatefest in here!

[IndiReloaded]

Ultimately, 2% of the population won't single themselves out as "the shepherds"; maybe 40% (yes, I made this number up) will.

Running with the 98:2 ratio, it's obvious that some (38%) of the population are mistaken about their classification. So how do you tell which is which? I'm not arguing that person X, who claims to be in the 2%, couldn't be in the 2%, just that it's impossible to know because there are 37x others making the same claims.

But then again, maybe that's the point...if 40% of the population is trying to be shepherds in order to fit into that 2%, we end up with a lot more productivity?

Anyway, just a thought [process].

Its a good thought. But not what I mean. By my definition, anyone 'trying' to fit into that 2% is not part of that group. I think its something largely wired by genes that emerges in particular circumstance.

I would agree that arbitrary ~40% could be defined as a subclass of that original 98%. There are all sorts of ways one could subdivide those numbers. In fact, I figured someone would post this idea, but it doesn't change anything about where you naturally fit. Again, I state there is nothing wrong with whatever group one is in, its just a different way of existing. Its funny to me tho that anyone would associate the smaller percentage as something that should necessarily be strived for. It can be a very painful existence, being that far off the curve.

Rand would have described this distinction as those who want to be vs. those who simply ARE. There is nothing wrong with those who want to be as striving for this as a goal. Increased productivity, as you say. Or, perhaps, genetically they might be 'almost' and their children might benefit the full benefit (or suffering, depending).

But, for examples, I would look to natural leaders, the truly innovative (inventors), etc. They occur with about the frequency I describe. Not too many can emulate their level of results.

[lovesjoyajm]

Its a good thought. But not what I mean. By my definition, anyone 'trying' to fit into that 2% is not part of that group. I think its something largely wired by genes that emerges in particular circumstance.

I would agree that arbitrary ~40% could be defined as a subclass of that original 98%. There are all sorts of ways one could subdivide those numbers. In fact, I figured someone would post this idea, but it doesn't change anything about where you naturally fit. Again, I state there is nothing wrong with whatever group one is in, its just a different way of existing. Its funny to me tho that anyone would associate the smaller percentage as something that should necessarily be strived for. It can be a very painful existence, being that far off the curve.

Rand would have described this distinction as those who want to be vs. those who simply ARE. There is nothing wrong with those who want to be as striving for this as a goal. Increased productivity, as you say. Or, perhaps, genetically they might be 'almost' and their children might benefit the full benefit (or suffering, depending).

But, for examples, I would look to natural leaders, the truly innovative (inventors), etc. They occur with about the frequency I describe. Not too many can emulate their level of results.

But do you think everyone who "is", knows they "are"? (That sounds much too much like some sort of "chosen one" philosophy, I realize, rather than simply a division into one big and one small group.) I'm not talking about the 40% trying to be in the 2% (maybe I made it sound like that) but rather thinking they are.

[Mish]

Yeah, we have free will. But what does the Christian bible tell us will happen if we don't accept Jesus as our savior? Essentially the Christian god is telling us that we're free to make our own choices so long as those choices fall in line with its demands. That isn't free will at all.

There are several ways this can be interpreted though. One interpretation is there are no demands. People are free to choose what life they want to live. It's just if they choose to help others then they will have a life of harmony and if they choose to spread chaos, be greedy and self indulgent then they will live a life of chaos (which according to Christians carries through to afterlife). People themselves ultimately choose their destiny, God doesn't choose it for them.

Believing in Jesus as prerequisite can also be interpreted several ways. It can be interpreted that his actions and himself are a role model, if people are confused and don't know the difference between harmony and chaos then they should follow his examples to live a fulfilling life, be happy and be surrounded by a lot of love from people around them.