Originally posted by @fmfOnce again you've side-stepped the actual question I asked and have answered questions of your own making. You only pretend to engage. It's what you do.
Does religious sentiment and doctrine confuse believers about the actual source of their human creativity? Yes, sure. One could say that.
Does their human creativity fill them with a feeling of gratitude towards - or dependency on - their god figures? Yes, maybe.
Does it make some creative humans feel meek or modest or pious or empowered or inspired by ...[text shortened]... ivity of the superstitious human mind works. I don't see it as a "denigration" of humans at all.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneYou seem to have shifted your side of this dialogue to talking about me.
Once again you've side-stepped the actual question I asked and have answered questions of your own making. You only pretend to engage. It's what you do.
I am still happy to talk about human creativity, religious inspiration, and "denigration".
I haven't side-stepped your question at all. I have answered it point blank. And explained my thinking. Do you have a response?
Originally posted by @fmfI haven't side-stepped your question at all. I have answered it point blank.
You seem to have shifted your side of this dialogue to talking about me.
I am still happy to talk about human creativity, religious inspiration, and "denigration".
I haven't side-stepped your question at all. I have answered it point blank. And explained my thinking. Do you have a response?
This is an example of your having side-stepped a question followed by a denial of having side-stepped it.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI would say that more than a dozen of my posts on pages 5 and 6 of this thread - individually and collectively - have engaged specifically what you have been saying and have done so head on and unequivocally. I don't think I am side-stepping anything.
This is an example of your having side-stepped a question followed by a denial of having side-stepped it.
Originally posted by @fmfThis is an example of your having side-stepped a question followed by a denial of having side-stepped it and followed by yet another denial of your having side-stepped it.
I would say that more than a dozen of my posts on pages 5 and 6 of this thread - individually and collectively - have engaged specifically what you have been saying and have done so head on and unequivocally. I don't think I am side-stepping anything.
Originally posted by @fmfI hope they do. I hope they recognize how disingenuous you are when you pretend to "engage" the posts of others. I hope they recognize how disingenuous you are when you claim to "engage" the posts of others.
Innocent passers-by can decide for themselves who is side-stepping whose posts here. 🙂
Originally posted by @thinkofoneIf you wish to engage any of the dozen or so posts replying to you on pages 5 and 6 of this thread, I'd be more interested in that than these generic personal remarks you have been resorting to on this thread and also on the thread about the morality of government pro-poor policies.
I hope they do. I hope they recognize how disingenuous you are when you pretend to "engage" the posts of others. I hope they recognize how disingenuous you are when you claim to "engage" the posts of others.
I don't think religions denigrate human creativity for the reasons I have explained. I know you disagree, which makes the prospect that you might engage what I have said all the more potentially interesting.
Originally posted by @fmfI hope they read through all our posts and recognize the disingenuousness of this latest post of yours as well.
If you wish to engage any of the dozen or so posts replying to you on pages 5 and 6 of this thread, I'd be more interested in that than these generic personal remarks you have been resorting to on this thread and also on the thread about the morality of government pro-poor policies.
I don't think religions denigrate human creativity for the reasons I have e ...[text shortened]... makes the prospect that you might engage what I have said all the more potentially interesting.
This is yet another example of you presenting a distortion of what I've written whilst pretending to be seeking a genuine dialogue. It's what you do.
1 edit
Originally posted by @thinkofoneAny time you feel like returning to the thread's topic, I'm happy to discuss it.
I hope they read through all our posts and recognize the disingenuousness of this latest post of yours as well.
This is yet another example of you presenting a distortion of what I've written whilst pretending to be seeking a genuine dialogue. It's what you do.
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfThis is an example of you having presented a distortion of what I've written whilst pretending to be seeking a genuine dialogue and following it by once again pretending to be seeking a genuine dialogue. It's what you do.
Any time you feel like returning to the thread's topic, I'm happy to discuss it.
Originally posted by @fmfI think you are taking my statement wrong. I never said there was no impact of religion on the human mind. Of course religion effects the human mind but just like a psychologist analyzes a persons mental state, and comes up with a plan of action, it is a human making that determination not a deity.
Quite frankly, sonhouse's atheism is of little or no interest to me. I don't care if he wants to assert that there aren't any gods. However, what he has claimed about the impact of religion on the human mind is demonstrably untrue.
I am just saying it is humans doing the creative writing in relgious aspects and the inspiration was not from some telepathically generated message from a deity.
The inspiration came from within the individual writer.
I say religion puts down the mind of man in that a religious person will defer to the writings of the bible (if that person is Christian) thinking that now, any other thought is no good, ONLY that passage in the bible affecting the decision of the day, human thought is put on a lower plane by that person since OBVIOUSLY any word in the bible came straight from *God* therefore, don't tell ME how to run my life, I defer to the bible, it says give that 10% and I therefore will. Not 9% or 11% but 10 frigging percent like it says in the bible and anyone who says different is talking to the devil.
Originally posted by @sonhouseIt also says God loves a cheerful giver. With the exception of your family and incredibly talented musical abilities there any anything you get joy from?
I think you are taking my statement wrong. I never said there was no impact of religion on the human mind. Of course religion effects the human mind but just like a psychologist analyzes a persons mental state, and comes up with a plan of action, it is a human making that determination not a deity.
I am just saying it is humans doing the creative writi ...[text shortened]... rigging percent like it says in the bible and anyone who says different is talking to the devil.
Originally posted by @sonhouseReligions cannot be said to put down the mind of mankind when they have, in so many cases, caused the mind of mankind to achieve its very best and given rise to many of the pinnacles of human culture. If it 'puts down the mind' of some individual person in particular here or there, or even individuals everywhere, or even lots of them, then there's no disputing that; any kind of ideology that seeks to remove doubt - and make redundant genuine inquiry - can have that effect on people. But I just cannot agree with the sweeping generalization encapsulated by your thread title. I hear what you say. But we just don't agree.
I think you are taking my statement wrong. I never said there was no impact of religion on the human mind. Of course religion effects the human mind but just like a psychologist analyzes a persons mental state, and comes up with a plan of action, it is a human making that determination not a deity.
I am just saying it is humans doing the creative writi ...[text shortened]... rigging percent like it says in the bible and anyone who says different is talking to the devil.