Is religiousity a matter of aesthetics?

Figleaf · October 12, 2006

What was done to me by Greg was outrageous.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

M.Dancer · October 12, 2006

I have 2 aspects of this thought:
First, could it be that the main difference between persons of religious vs. non-religious mind-set is simply that the latter just don't like the indeterminate/meaningless quality of religious concepts?

Second, since there is no rational way to choose the 'right' religion, can we conclude that a person's choice of religion is basically an aesthetic one (eg. between an angry vs. loving deity)?

People choose religions the same way people choose hockey teams.

Michael Hardner · October 12, 2006

Morris, I agree with you - but to add: if you don't like the Leafs, you're going to hell.

Charles Anthony · October 12, 2006

I would add that if you have to drive OUT of your hometown to watch YOUR OWN hometown team playing as visitors, you deserve to go straight to Heaven.

M.Dancer · October 12, 2006

Morris, I agree with you - but to add: if you don't like the Leafs, you're going to hell.

I was privileged to be born in one of the world's most beautiful cities, adorned with a mountain park, inhabited by the most attractive and friendly women to ever grace the boulevards of any modern metropolis. In the summer we sat in the sidewalk cafes drinking sangria and ice cold beer and in the winter we went to the brasseries and watched the world's most successful sports franchise win cup after cup.

Richard, Beliveau, Cournoyer, Geoffrion, Dryden, Lafleur, Savard, Lapointe, Robinson, Shutt, Gainey......

As such my allegiance to Les Glorieux is firm and not even the migration to a city perpetually self conscious of it's inferiority will cause me to root for the leafs, with the only exception being if the leafs are the last Canadian team....and as long as there is a Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton or Vancouver, that won't happen.

Leafless · October 12, 2006

I have 2 aspects of this thought:
First, could it be that the main difference between persons of religious vs. non-religious mind-set is simply that the latter just don't like the indeterminate/meaningless quality of religious concepts?

Second, since there is no rational way to choose the 'right' religion, can we conclude that a person's choice of religion is basically an aesthetic one (eg. between an angry vs. loving deity)?

The most primitive tribe worships some form of God.

With no knowledge of the outside world it appear primitive tribes including most other humans worldwide are dependent on a God for salvation.

Those who assume religion is not a necessity and God is a folklore hold these brave assumptions in the safety of large groups (society) along with man's advanced technology.

This country was built on Christianity and I doubt would exist in it's present form in the absence of Christianity.

There comes a time in every one's lives when all the education, all the computers, all the technology in the world won't help you one bit when the time comes to sign off or exit this place we call Earth.

The facts are, most people belong to some form of organized religion, for spiritual leadership to support the human spirit and mental well being.

Just think of it for a moment as to whom you rather primarily put your faith in, organized religion or someone like Dancer?

M.Dancer · October 12, 2006

Just think of it for a moment as to whom you rather primarily put your faith in, organized religion or someone like Dancer?

Is that like a choice of being robbed and anally raped or coming over and having a few beers while we watch the game?

I'll take anal rape for 500 Alex!

Figleaf · October 12, 2006

<_< Well, Dancer is capricious, self-satisfied, and stubborn, but so far as I know, he's never declared a deadly fatwa or burned a witch.

Tough choice.

jbg · October 13, 2006

Morris, I agree with you - but to add: if you don't like the Leafs, you're going to hell.

If your idea of heavan is a Stanley Cup, then the Leaf fans are going to h*ll.

jbg · October 13, 2006

People choose religions the same way people choose hockey teams.

I was reflecting on the issue of religion today. It occurred to me that my religion, Judaism, has not been successful in proselytizing since it is a cerebral, legalistic religion. We have many intellectually attractive aspects, and our way of handling the death of loved ones is comforting. Man non-Jews admire our dedication to study and to family. Again, however, our religion is not an easy sale to non-Jews, or even to idolators or atheists.

Christianity was, for a long time, more successful. As the religion became more sophisticated and less primally bigoted, it became a harder sale in the non-Christian world.

The most successful religion in converting people these days is the simplistic, primal, xenophobic religion of Islam. Their essential creed, boiled down is "we are good, they are bad, death to everyone else". That's simple and sells well to people that are insecure and uneducated. Thus, Islam is doing rather well in the prosetylization game.

This poplularity of Islam reminds me of the popularity of war when we were killing _________ (ethnic ephithet for Japanese) or when we were killing __________ (ethnic ephithet for Germans). I remember childhood games, back in 1964-5, where we played, "kill the __________ (ethnic ephithet for Japanese). When war became more complicated, i.e. the Viet Nam war's emphasis on "containment" and "defensive warfare" the opponent was not demonized, and pr-war fever never gained traction. Thus, religions that are all sweetness, light and intellect do not attract converts.

gc1765 · October 13, 2006

Just think of it for a moment as to whom you rather primarily put your faith in, organized religion or someone like Dancer?

I put my faith in science & logic.

Charles Anthony · October 13, 2006

To summarize...

the simplistic, primal, xenophobic religion of Islam. Their essential creed, boiled down is "we are good, they are bad, death to everyone else". That's simple and sells well to people that are insecure and uneducated.

?

I put my faith in science & logic.

Do you study everything in the universe yourself or do you take some "science & logic" for granted by trusting what the "scientists & logicians" have to say?

Hicksey · October 13, 2006

I have 2 aspects of this thought:
First, could it be that the main difference between persons of religious vs. non-religious mind-set is simply that the latter just don't like the indeterminate/meaningless quality of religious concepts?

Second, since there is no rational way to choose the 'right' religion, can we conclude that a person's choice of religion is basically an aesthetic one (eg. between an angry vs. loving deity)?

After you have a shit on me over my question on abortion/death penalty you come here and basically give us a choice between equating our religious beliefs to a fashion accessory and determining them altogether meaningless?

Just because you do not have a use for religion we're all idiots for believing?

What a loaded question this one is. Gee, where have I heard that one before?

jbg · October 13, 2006

To summarize...
the simplistic, primal, xenophobic religion of Islam. Their essential creed, boiled down is "we are good, they are bad, death to everyone else". That's simple and sells well to people that are insecure and uneducated.
?

Basically, in the days when Christianity was spreading fast, that was its "sales pitch" as well. I doubt Judaism was any better before the Christians took over as the montheistic prosyletizing religion.

myata · October 13, 2006

The most successful religion in converting people these days is the simplistic, primal, xenophobic religion of Islam. Their essential creed, boiled down is "we are good, they are bad, death to everyone else". That's simple and sells well to people that are insecure and uneducated. Thus, Islam is doing rather well in the prosetylization game.

The minor aspect missing from your brief and comprehensive description of Islam is that unlike Christians in the earlier ages, they weren't coming for us before we started coming to them (big time). It could therefore be surmised that maybe, just maybe they would be content to live in their primal and so on world if not bothered from outside. Unless you can prove it not to be the case, of course.

M.Dancer · October 13, 2006

Well, Dancer is capricious, self-satisfied, and stubborn, but so far as I know, he's never declared a deadly fatwa or burned a witch.
Tough choice.

I am not capricious.

Drea · October 13, 2006

There comes a time in every one's lives when all the education, all the computers, all the technology in the world won't help you one bit when the time comes to sign off or exit this place we call Earth.

This is of course assuming there is life after death. Me, I believe we simply wink out like a light bulb. We have approx 80 or so years on this earth. Better make the best of it, 'cause that's all there is folks.

The facts are, most people belong to some form of organized religion, for spiritual leadership to support the human spirit and mental well being.

In times of strife we look to anyone to "look after us". A "Daddy". As in "Oh, please Daddy, let me be ok in my time of trouble". We are such an immature species.

Just think of it for a moment as to whom you rather primarily put your faith in, organized religion or someone like Dancer?

Dancer gets my vote! As a logical human being I just cannot believe in an "almighty" sitting on high, judging our actions. Does this entity judge the actions of my cat too? He clawed my leg the other day -- is he going to burn in hell? LOL

Leafless · October 13, 2006

Just think of it for a moment as to whom you rather primarily put your faith in, organized religion or someone like Dancer?

Is that like a choice of being robbed and anally raped or coming over and having a few beers while we watch the game?

I'll take anal rape for 500 Alex!

"I'll take anal rape for 500 Alex!"

Fabricating quotes now Dancer--that's not part of my post.

I do notice however rectums and $9.95 books of power words seem to be right up your alley.

Figleaf · October 13, 2006

[e.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

Jerry J. Fortin · October 13, 2006

Unfortunately adult choice doesn't come into play to a large degree with respect to religious beliefs, it tends to be a matter of heritage and upbringing that factor into the equation for the most part.

M.Dancer · October 13, 2006

Unfortunately adult choice doesn't come into play to a large degree with respect to religious beliefs, it tends to be a matter of heritage and upbringing that factor into the equation for the most part.

ergo...sports teams......

If you are unlucky enough to be born in Toronto, you root for the leaf....if you are lucky enough to be born in the High Church....you sing All Things Bright and Beautiful........

Jerry J. Fortin · October 13, 2006

Or if you are born in Bagdad its death to the infidel!

M.Dancer · October 13, 2006

Or if you are born in Bagdad its death to the infidel!

I have a friend who was born in Baghdad. She celebrates hanukka on the 16th of December this year.

gc1765 · October 14, 2006

I put my faith in science & logic.
Do you study everything in the universe yourself or do you take some "science & logic" for granted by trusting what the "scientists & logicians" have to say?

I would never put my "faith" in something that I couldn't confirm myself. In terms of religion, for example, I can say that determinism (which is logical) means that it doesn't make much sense for God to judge us when we have no control over our actions. I can also say, using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (again very logical & intuitive), that God (if one exists) is not omnipotent. Using Olber's paradox, or similar paradoxes, I can say that the Universe is not infinite in age. While I can not prove that man evolved from apes without putting my faith in other scientists, I can prove using verifiable science, that evolution exists. I know that mutations occur (easily verifiable), that mutations can occasionally be beneficial (easily verifiable) and that those genetic traits are passed onto the next generation (easily verifiable).

Charles Anthony · October 14, 2006

I would never put my "faith" in something that I couldn't confirm
----SNIP---- - ----SNIP---- - ----SNIP----

that those genetic traits are passed onto the next generation (easily verifiable).

I will cut to the chase.

All of that stuff, I "know" too but I never did the original research to rediscover it all from scratch. I take most of it for granted because it simply makes sense or it is just easier to do so.

By the way, I have never seen DNA. Have you?

Also, I have never seen tectonic plates, either. In fact, I have never even seen the other side of the Earth but I believe it is there.

When you say "confirm" you are hiding your faith in science. You are actually accepting bodies of common scientific knowledge on a faith basis too. You must.