what the fuck

[Mindf!3ldzX]

Image may or may not represent disdain of something.

[Sgt-PieFace]

I'm laughing WAY too hard plz send help

[MadGypsy]

You mean, why do Americans name their kids a bunch of transliteral Jew names?

Even my name is straight up transliterated hebrew

Mi(who?) cha(is like) el(God)

[Adam]

It was probably something that occurred when being translated into European languages.

I think it was first published in Aramaic or Sumerian or similar then it was dragged into Latin then into German, English, Spanish etc.

Name localisation would make sense if you want to increase the attraction of your cult.

Apologies if you are religious, it's not personal. I just think religion should be dead by now and written about only in history books.

[Syluxguy28O3]

It was probably something that occurred when being translated into European languages.

I think it was first published in Aramaic or Sumerian or similar then it was dragged into Latin then into German, English, Spanish etc.

Name localisation would make sense if you want to increase the attraction of your cult.

Apologies if you are religious, it's not personal. I just think religion should be dead by now and written about only in history books.

I agree with the translation theory, makes sense.

@death of religion

If you look at history, you will find that religion is a powerful tool to control and manipulate masses into doing crazy stuff. (Not always the case, mind you) A weapon that powerful will never go away.

[Baker]

Apologies if you are religious, it's not personal. I just think religion should be dead by now and written about only in history books.

Stalin, Mao and Karl Marx would agree!

Getting rid of religion is akin to eliminating freedom of thought, and declaring humans to be perfect.

That's the scariest religion. There may or may not be a God or sky gods.

But I would be very scared of any universe where humans were considered smart.

I think I'd prefer possibly imaginary deities to that.

[Adam]

I wasn't saying it should be banned or outlawed.
Each to their own, you can believe in whatever you like.

I'm just sad that humanity as a whole, hasn't moved on from it.

I think it had a purpose once, to explain things prior to science and yes,
it probably had some positive, behaviour control mechanisms, which obviously benefited
a certain privileged few (eg the meek shall inherit the earth--sorry life is so rubbish now, though)

The caste system in Hinduism was also a way of making sure that people in the lower class knew their place and a way of controlling population. Reincarnation and karma meant that you should just be happy with your lot and hope that you did better next time.

But on the other hand, it has positive effects. Australian Aboriginal mythology, for example, was a way of explaining where people came from, and their relation to the world around them, and considering they live(d) in a harsh climate, it was important to pass on knowledge and stories to help the people survive. Stuff like only hunting certain animals at certain times of year or in certain places, so the populations would have a chance to recover.

I'd hope that if we have advanced at all, it's to improve the conditions of everyone on the planet and instead of cherry picking whatever phrases from some old book to our own benefit, we should be imagining ourselves as part of a much bigger system, where we're responsible for how we treat each other as well as our impact on the natural world.

Humanity sucks as a whole, it's not religion or communism or whatever system, it's people who screw things up. But it doesn't help if you follow a text which tells you your 'people' (whoever they are) are the best, the greatest, the chosen ones, and your god is the only god.

I don't even have a problem with them teaching religions in schools, as long as it's comparative religion and not indoctrination of one particular faith.

[Baker]

I wasn't saying it should be banned or outlawed.
Each to their own, you can believe in whatever you like.

I'm just sad that humanity as a whole, hasn't moved on from it.

I think it had a purpose once, to explain things prior to science and yes,
it probably had some positive, behaviour control mechanisms, which obviously benefited
a certain privileged few (eg the meek shall inherit the earth--sorry life is so rubbish now, though)

Here are issues I have with modern thought.

Let's say for a moment that all religions were made by man.

Christianity was still put together by brilliant philosophers who had thought very hard about the questions of being a good person and very wise people, as was Judaism before it.

Our modern scholars suck compared to those guys:

a) They are all ivory tower, disconnected with reality, never had to do hard work or work at a gas station, pick lettuce or milk a cow or choose between 2 wrong choices for survival, or bury 5 kids who got a disease.

b) I get scared that people don't know what science is. Science is overcoming human weakness and bias and doing the opposite of what comes naturally to man to try to establish a set of things that are likely true. And that science can be wrong often is wrong, sometimes it needs tuned and other times some other factor is required to see it in context.

A big human weakness is to say "hey look at everything we have accomplished" then call ourselves "great".

That isn't how we got what we have. Humanity has to overcome its own nature to be better, not celebrate it.

[Baker]

Humanity sucks as a whole, it's not religion or communism or whatever system, it's people who screw things up. But it doesn't help if you follow a text which tells you your 'people' (whoever they are) are the best, the greatest, the chosen ones, and your god is the only god.

I don't even have a problem with them teaching religions in schools, as long as it's comparative religion and not indoctrination of one particular faith.

Humanity doesn't suck if it strives to be more and strives to take care of its people.

We live in the age of globalism where no country is interested in taking care of its own people.

Well, to get somewhere, you do have to take care of your own people. Everything we've ever had in this world is because countries took care of their own people.

It went out of style. Mostly so some rich people could make more money.

[Roy Batty]

Money and Power is the new religion.

[Adam]

Look, let me just say that I doubt I am going to convince you otherwise so we will have to agree to disagree on some of your statements.
Hopefully, you are fine with that.

Here are issues I have with modern thought.

Let's say for a moment that all religions were made by man.

All religions are man made.

Christianity was still put together by brilliant philosophers who had thought very hard about the questions of being a good person and very wise people, as was Judaism before it.
Our modern scholars suck compared to those guys:

When you say 'modern', what do you mean? Philosophers even in the last 200 years have come up with some pretty important and significant ideas. Descartes, Kierkegaard, Hume, Locke, Kant, to name a few. If you're talking really modern day (still living), then how about Chomsky, Dennett, Searle?

a) They are all ivory tower, disconnected with reality, never had to do hard work or work at a gas station, pick lettuce or milk a cow or choose between 2 wrong choices for survival, or bury 5 kids who got a disease.

Come on, you have no idea what social status the writers of the bible were, unless of course, you're using the bible as a reference work (surely not)?
As far as I am aware, the bible was pieced together from many documents over a large number of years. And I'd say that scholars in previous times were even more disconnected from what really goes on in the wider society, than they are today. For centuries, the bible was only available in Latin, which basically excluded most average people from ever being able to read it themselves, so they had to rely on a priest or monk (as ivory tower as they come) to explain it to them.

b) I get scared that people don't know what science is. Science is overcoming human weakness and bias and doing the opposite of what comes naturally to man to try to establish a set of things that are likely true. And that science can be wrong often is wrong, sometimes it needs tuned and other times some other factor is required to see it in context.

Science is often wrong. That's the idea. We test, retest and refine what we know till we have enough evidence. And scientists have their own prejudices and preconceptions and that's why it's important that we should have opposing views, everyone looking at the evidence from different angles, to try and see where the truth lies.

Science isn't a religion. It isn't a direct replacement for religion.
Science is the advancement of ideas, continually tested that at times, disproves a lot of the supernatural rubbish that was made up by early humans to explain things.

A big human weakness is to say "hey look at everything we have accomplished" then call ourselves "great".

This is just a general statement, right?
No one, no matter their beliefs, whether religious or not, benefits from lacking any self reflection.
Human arrogance and the blind adherence to the thought that "we are on the right side" has caused many of humankind's problems. Not to say that we can't say "well done" for achievements we have made.
Being humble is, in my opinion, always a good idea.
So, I guess I am saying, I agree to that statement.

That isn't how we got what we have. Humanity has to overcome its own nature to be better, not celebrate it.

To be honest, this doesn't really make sense.
I am guessing you mean "humanity needs to overcome its dark nature and strive to do better things"?
I agree, if that's what you mean.
And also "not celebrate the bad things" Right?

Humanity doesn't suck if it strives to be more and strives to take care of its people.

It is a personal opinion of mine that in general, people suck.
I could make a list of things why but it's easily countered by an opposing list so, ya know, its a bit of a waste of time.
If you have a more optimistic world view, that's totally fine.

We live in the age of globalism where no country is interested in taking care of its own people.

As a general statement, I agree but there are countries that have excellent social policies for looking after their people. And I would like to see a removal of large corporations (and their lobby groups) from politics because I feel that profits are valued over lives and the wellbeing of the population.

Well, to get somewhere, you do have to take care of your own people. Everything we've ever had in this world is because countries took care of their own people.

Again, I agree that stable countries that have good social policies are better breeding grounds for forward thinking and thus academic advancement.

It went out of style. Mostly so some rich people could make more money.

I think that is probably an age old problem throughout history, but I do think involving money (or profits) into things like, for example, healthcare are not in any way beneficial. More problems with capitalism are for another discussion, I think.

[Baker]

Science isn't a religion. It isn't a direct replacement for religion.
Science is the advancement of ideas, continually tested that at times, disproves a lot of the supernatural rubbish that was made up by early humans to explain things.

I see people using science as a replacement for religion all the time. It's rather gross.

I really can't disagree with anything you said, but consider this: Misguided people will be misguided, with or without a religion.

In the US, our immigrants are mostly Mexican or South American. Hispanics are Christian and most of them are the nicest people who know right from wrong and are kind.

Now, how can Christianity be bad with results like that?

I'm just using that as a reference point and providing an example of very positive results.

(In the US, when there are discussions about illegal immigrations, it is the sheer quantity of it and the drug trade and organized crime aspect.)

[Baker]

I think that is probably an age old problem throughout history, but I do think involving money (or profits) into things like, for example, healthcare are not in any way beneficial. More problems with capitalism are for another discussion, I think.

Well, the capitalism has gotten worse and is going to get far worse. At least for sure in the United States.

Again, I agree that stable countries that have good social policies are better breeding grounds for forward thinking and thus academic advancement.

I envy European governments that are close to the people.

Now, the US federal government would be one of the modern day Seven Wonders of The World.

It is an entity nearly entirely isolated and disconnected from the citizens it is supposed to represent, does an extraordinary job in some of its functions (food safety and health inspections are miraculously high quality).

It is also like Skynet in the Terminator movies, it is self-funded by the ability to borrow and print unlimited amounts of money and has military might and human staffing capabilities that are the envy of the world. And it probably even monitors most of your government's communications, haha.

It might be great at ruling the world, policing the seas and maintaining stability.

But it kind of sucks as a responsive government apparatus, unlike say the Netherlands or Sweden.

Oh well, no one is starving and it could probably kill 80% of the world's dictators in 72 hours in a single night if it ever decided to!

I guess as an American, I should at least be happy it is "ours".

[nahuel]

Religion is just a social tool. In bad hans you will get bad results.

[Baker]

All religions are man made.

Philosophers even in the last 200 years have come up with some pretty important and significant ideas. Descartes, Kierkegaard, Hume, Locke, Kant, to name a few.

Decartes didn't get any further than "I think therefore I am" in his list of things he can prove. In fact, it might be the only thing he considered provable.

Godel, the mathematician, is known for proving via math (according to some schools of thought) that within a closed system it is impossible to self-validate it.

1) No doubt you would probably agree that given the size of universe, there likely exists other intelligent life on par or beyond our level of sophistication.

2) You might also agree that within a few centuries, we will likely be capable of incredibly sophisticated simulations.

3) Given a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years, we would likely be capable of creating unimaginably sophisticated simulations.

Now ...

A) If in a universe our size it is likely that there are possibly thousands of civilizations that current have or will have this capability.

B) The inability to prove that one is in a simulation.

What do you think the odds are that we ARE NOT in a simulation?

Some have calculated that the odds we are not in a simulation at 0.03%

If you can't prove we aren't in a simulation, you can't know whether or not there is a creator or some sort of special intentions involved (i.e. creationism) or the possibly purposeful injection of religion.

That's just one possibility that can't be disproved which include things like panspermia or "alien picnic" theories or past direct intervention by alien life. In fact, in "crowded universe" theories, humans are just ignorant and not advanced enough to have achieved sophisticated thoughts.

Ironically, eliminating the above kind of unknowns isn't science and can't be done by science.

If you have ruled out the above, you aren't against religion and for science. You are vehemently anti-science and have embraced the religion called nihilism.

Which is the ultimate paradox!!

And why I am not very impressed by where intellectualism generally takes people. I can trust the religious guy to know he is religious, the non-religious guy almost always is religious, but doesn't know it!