I am a non-believer. I don't consider verses from any fiction book to be "evidence" of any higher power. Is there any other reason I should "believe" in religion? Other than some book?

SOB

Didnt they tell you as a child?
If you dont you will be tortured and raped for eternity in the firey pits of hell with some monster sticking bricks up your ass.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 11:18am:

Didnt they tell you as a child? If you dont you will be tortured and raped for eternity in the firey pits of hell with some monster sticking bricks up your ass.

Lol. No. I never even heard of "jesus" until I was 12 and by then I was old enough to laugh @ the concept.

SOB

"Why Should I Believe?"




There is no 'ulterior motive'......

"Goodness, is its own reward."

"Be good, for goodness sake."






1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.




Yadda said.....

Quote:

I believe that we can be persuaded by reason and by argument, on spiritual issues, especially by meditation upon spiritual matters.        [...but in a world full of sensual stimulation, is meditation very appealing to our senses ?] But i think is is a mistaken path to 'force' religion upon a child, any child. And how can you 'force' a foolish child, to learn wisdom ??? You can't. The child with either seek out wisdom, because it see's some value in wisdom, OR, the child will take the path of the world. I believe that in the end we all come to make our own choices, in the secular world, and in 'spiritual matters. On wisdom..... Proverbs 8:32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. 33  Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. 34  Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. 35  For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. 36  But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 3:11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: 12  For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth. 13  Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. 14  For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.

More stuff from a book . . . . .

Goodness might be its own reward but insanity is its own reward too.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 11:23am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 11:18am: Didnt they tell you as a child? If you dont you will be tortured and raped for eternity in the firey pits of hell with some monster sticking bricks up your ass. Lol. No. I never even heard of "jesus" until I was 12 and by then I was old enough to laugh @ the concept. SOB

Lucky

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

More stuff from a book . . . . . Goodness might be its own reward .......but insanity is its own reward too. SOB

Exactly so, spot.




A simple definition of INSANITY;


Quote:

Typically, an unrestrained sane person will act in ways which are harmless to others, and in ways which are creative, and productive [for himself, others, and society]. And typically, and conversely, an unrestrained INSANE person will act in ways which are harmful and destructive to himself, and, or, others around him.

"...typically, an unrestrained INSANE person will act in ways which are harmful and destructive to himself and, or, others around him."






'Normal' criminal behaviour - in mankind
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1293669294/0#0

Uhhh yeah. And your point?

SOB

Quote:

"Goodness, is its own reward."

If this is true, why not just be good?
Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 12:11pm:

Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else?

Goodness as conduct, is acceptable to [my] God.

Yadda wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 12:22pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? That is acceptable to [my] God.

Do you do it because you fear god and hell, or because you want to please him and get into heaven?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:22pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? That is acceptable to [my] God. Do you do it because you #1, fear god and hell, or because you #2, want to please him and get into heaven?

#1, No.


#2, No.   [.....well, maybe a little        ;)     ]




But mostly because i have come to the knowledge that.....


"Goodness, is its own reward."

"Be good, for goodness sake."


Those who love God, know that those things are true, and worthy, and that seeking goodness, is seeking to please God.

If we achieve goodness in our lives, we do please God.

So far I see no reason to believe anything. "Goodness" is universal as is "badness". Not that i would believe something just because i decided to. Belief doesnt really happen that way despite what some ppl claim.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 12:34pm:

So far I see no reason to believe anything. "Goodness" is universal as is "badness". Not that i would believe something just because i decided to. Belief doesnt really happen that way despite what some ppl claim. SOB

Then go your way.

Walk your own path.

Yadda wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 12:31pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:23pm: Yadda wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:22pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? That is acceptable to [my] God. Do you do it because you #1, fear god and hell, or because you #2, want to please him and get into heaven? #1, No. #2, No.   [.....well, maybe a little        ;)     ] But mostly because i have come to the knowledge that..... "Goodness, is its own reward." "Be good, for goodness sake." Those who love God, know that those things are true, and worthy, and that seeking goodness, is seeking to please God. If we achieve goodness in our lives, we do please God.

So if goodness is its own reward why does your god use heaven and hell to make people be good?

Yadda wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:34pm: So far I see no reason to believe anything. "Goodness" is universal as is "badness". Not that i would believe something just because i decided to. Belief doesnt really happen that way despite what some ppl claim. SOB Then go your way. Walk your own path.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D OH Yadda, that really is the weakest capitulation i have seen.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 11:16am:

I am a non-believer. I don't consider verses from any fiction book to be "evidence" of any higher power. Is there any other reason I should "believe" in religion? Other than some book? SOB

Don't believe, question. You want clear reasoning and logic as to why you should believe. I found when i started asking questions is when i was not welcome anymore.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:31pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:23pm: Yadda wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:22pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? That is acceptable to [my] God. Do you do it because you #1, fear god and hell, or because you #2, want to please him and get into heaven? #1, No. #2, No.   [.....well, maybe a little        ;)     ] But mostly because i have come to the knowledge that..... "Goodness, is its own reward." "Be good, for goodness sake." Those who love God, know that those things are true, and worthy, and that seeking goodness, is seeking to please God. If we achieve goodness in our lives, we do please God. So if goodness is its own reward why does your god use heaven and hell to make people be good?

My God doesn't 'use' heaven and hell to 'make people' 'be good'.

The whole point, is that we, each of us, chooses how to behave here, IN THIS LIFE.

AND, we can make good choices, OR, we can make poor choices.

God does not compel us, how to choose.

We choose.

Quote:

My God doesn't 'use' heaven and hell to make people be good. The whole point, is that we all choose who to behave here, IN THIS LIFE. AND, we can make good choices, OR, we can make poor choices. God does not compel us, how to choose. We choose.

So we have a choice,
but if we dont do what he says we have to endure horrible torture for an eternity no matter if your a women or child.

Does that really sound like much of a choice?

I mean if I had a gun to your head and said hand over your money or I will shoot you, thats not much of a choice is it.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 12:11pm:

Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else?

If goodness is its own reward, then there is no need for god.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? If goodness is its own reward, then there is no need for god.

NoN,

You are mistaken.

But you go ahead and believe that, if it pleases you to do so.

Yadda wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 3:03pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 2:01pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? If goodness is its own reward, then there is no need for god. NoN, You are mistaken. But you go ahead and believe that, if it pleases you to do so.

But Yadda you still miss the point. What use is a god that rules by threat. BE GOOD OR BURN IN THE ETERNAL HELL FIRE. Ihave heard these words to many times and now that this idea is challenged within the community the church simply changes it's story.

So why should we believe Yadda?

nairbe wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 3:20pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 3:03pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 2:01pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? If goodness is its own reward, then there is no need for god. NoN, You are mistaken. But you go ahead and believe that, if it pleases you to do so. But Yadda you still miss the point. What use is a god that rules by threat. BE GOOD OR BURN IN THE ETERNAL HELL FIRE. Ihave heard these words to many times and now that this idea is challenged within the community the church simply changes it's story. So why should we believe Yadda?

Yadda said.....

Quote:

......how can you 'force' a foolish child, to learn wisdom ??? You can't. The child with either seek out wisdom, because it see's some value in wisdom, OR, the child will take the path of the world.

nairbe,

Go your own way.

Make your own choices.

Its OK.

You know that it is.

There will not be any accounting, for our poor choices.

You know that this is correct, don't you ?







Psalms 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2  The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3  They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

IMO we need a different xtian in this thread. Or maybe a muslim I dunno. Some evangelical that will answer our questions.

SOB

Yadda answer my last post?
Also,
If god is needed to be good, is the church or similar religious organisations?

Yadda wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 3:03pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 2:01pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? If goodness is its own reward, then there is no need for god. NoN, You are mistaken. But you go ahead and believe that, if it pleases you to do so.

How am I wrong if I accept your proposition that goodness is its own reward?

Can you imagine a god that takes no interest in your life nor offers reward or paradise for good deeds done or a good life led?

If not then your faith is likely only a selfish quid pro quo... Worship for reward... Or an escape from existential angst.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? If goodness is its own reward, then there is no need for god.

How have we learned about the 'good'? In every society and every history, it is some sort of ancestral, revelatory gift.

On the other hand, when we make up what's good in each generation (coz we wants to be 'relevant'), without reference to millennial wisdom, as it were, we introduce gay adoption and all the other crazy stuff dreamt up in the last 5 minutes under the rubric of 'hey, kids. let's be, like, progressive!!, Yay!!' (ie going downhill)

Soren wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 9:30pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 2:01pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? If goodness is its own reward, then there is no need for god. How have we learned about the 'good'? In every society and every history, it is some sort of ancestral, revelatory gift. On the other hand, when we make up what's good in each generation (coz we wants to be 'relevant'), without reference to millennial wisdom, as it were, we introduce gay adoption and all the other crazy stuff dreamt up in the last 5 minutes under the rubric of 'hey, kids. let's be, like, progressive!!, Yay!!' (ie going downhill)

(Like scripture reading in the Whitehouse... To evoke the favour of Christ?... Or Mars - the crypto-protagonist of the Apocalypse.)

Buddhism demonstrates that god is superfluous to the human intuition of goodness.

Soren wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 9:30pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 2:01pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? If goodness is its own reward, then there is no need for god. How have we learned about the 'good'? In every society and every history, it is some sort of ancestral, revelatory gift. On the other hand, when we make up what's good in each generation (coz we wants to be 'relevant'), without reference to millennial wisdom, as it were, we introduce gay adoption and all the other crazy stuff dreamt up in the last 5 minutes under the rubric of 'hey, kids. let's be, like, progressive!!, Yay!!' (ie going downhill)

That doesnt make any sense @ all.

SOB

Soren wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 9:30pm:

How have we learned about the 'good'? In every society and every history, it is some sort of ancestral, revelatory gift. On the other hand, when we make up what's good in each generation (coz we wants to be 'relevant'), without reference to millennial wisdom, as it were, we introduce gay adoption and all the other crazy stuff dreamt up in the last 5 minutes under the rubric of 'hey, kids. let's be, like, progressive!!, Yay!!' (ie going downhill)

Going downhill is being stuck in the Medieval Period. Can you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that Christianity is absolute, in as much that it has not changed in its mainstream interpretation/ implementation since the first Century AD?

The status quo of today  is not the same status quo of 50 years ago or 150 years ago.  The status quo is evanescent. Human beings made the status quo, and human beings will continue to change it.

In that most Christian of countries, the USA, marriage of 12 year old girls to 50 year old men was common about 150 years ago. (and you talk about the  crazy stuff of today) Clearly this fundamental standard of decency is not the rock of ages that you claim.

The status quo is dynamic. It will change as it has always done through the forces of an ever changing society- and religion will change with it as it has always done - or it will subliminate into irrelevance.

The only thing that has not changed is tired old men like Cicero who bleat their disapproval of the tempores and mores throughout the centuries.

MInd you, he did come up with some gems.

Quidem concessum est rhetoribus ementiri in historiis ut aliquid dicere possint argutius.

You can Google that one.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 11:23am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 11:18am: Didnt they tell you as a child? If you dont you will be tortured and raped for eternity in the firey pits of hell with some monster sticking bricks up your ass. Lol. No. I never even heard of "jesus" until I was 12 and by then I was old enough to laugh @ the concept. SOB

That's a bit of a shame, your education suffered no doubt. Knowing about Jesus is important because the religion that was created after his death, Christianity, has had a huge influence on human development over the past couple of thousand years. In fact it's probably responsible for more human progress than any other religion we've known. Except for Judaism perhaps, they have some excellent humour. Oh and Hinduism and Islam which were good for science and philosophy. But perhaps Christianity benefited from its Hellenisation as well. Anyway it's been a huge influence and it was started by just one man, St Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus. You should read up on it, very interesting.

oscarmitre wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 10:49pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 11:23am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 11:18am: Didnt they tell you as a child? If you dont you will be tortured and raped for eternity in the firey pits of hell with some monster sticking bricks up your ass. Lol. No. I never even heard of "jesus" until I was 12 and by then I was old enough to laugh @ the concept. SOB That's a bit of a shame, your education suffered no doubt. Knowing about Jesus is important because the religion that was created after his death, Christianity, has had a huge influence on human development over the past couple of thousand years. In fact it's probably responsible for more human progress than any other religion we've known. Except for Judaism perhaps, they have some excellent humour. Oh and Hinduism and Islam which were good for science and philosophy. But perhaps Christianity benefited from its Hellenisation as well. Anyway it's been a huge influence and it was started by just one man, St Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus. You should read up on it, very interesting.

Why is it a shame? I know about it now dont i? Cant say I have benefited from the knowledge except I have learned to see them coming when they start on the hellfire crap I get out of the way. @ least i know they cant help it they were brainwashed from birth.

SOB

You're right, you do know about it now. And you know enough to meet your own needs.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 5:01pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 3:03pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 2:01pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Quote: "Goodness, is its own reward." If this is true, why not just be good? Why do you need to do it in the name of a book or god or whatever else? If goodness is its own reward, then there is no need for god. NoN, You are mistaken. But you go ahead and believe that, if it pleases you to do so. How am I wrong if I accept your proposition that goodness is its own reward? Can you imagine a god that takes no interest in your life nor offers reward or paradise for good deeds done or a good life led? If not then your faith is likely only a selfish quid pro quo... Worship for reward... Or an escape from existential angst.

Do you think that i am trying to get to 'heaven' ?

Am i trying to avoid 'hell' ?

Should my life and all of my [life] choices be predicated upon achieving the 1st and avoiding the 2nd ???

Is that what being a believer, or a 'Christian', is about ???

Do ya think ?         ;D


Again, if you think so, then, imo....


Quote:

You are mistaken. But you go ahead and believe that, if it pleases you to do so.

IMO, 'heaven' isn't so much a reward, and 'hell' isn't so much a punishment.

Rather, i look upon God as a fisherman, God is an olive farmer, God is a wheat farmer, etc.

One day, God is going to 'take in' his harvest.

And in the harvest process, God is going to discard the 'rubbish'.




Matthew 13:47
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48  Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.



This same basic message to men, is contained in the OT....


Isaiah 5:1
Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
2  And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
3  And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4  What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
5  And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
6  And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
7  For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.


Ezekiel 15:1
And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2  Son of man, What is the vine tree more than any tree, or than a branch which is among the trees of the forest?
3  Shall wood be taken thereof to do any work? or will men take a pin of it to hang any vessel thereon?
4  Behold, it is cast into the fire for fuel; the fire devoureth both the ends of it, and the midst of it is burned. Is it meet for any work?
5  Behold, when it was whole, it was meet for no work: how much less shall it be meet yet for any work, when the fire hath devoured it, and it is burned?
6  Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; As the vine tree among the trees of the forest, which I have given to the fire for fuel, so will I give the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
7  And I will set my face against them; they shall go out from one fire, and another fire shall devour them; and ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I set my face against them.
8  And I will make the land desolate, because they have committed a trespass, saith the Lord GOD.


i.e.
Matthew 7:19
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.



God [our creator] is an investor, we [all of mankind] are his 'care', and [in the end] those souls who are judged to be worthless [to God!] will be discarded.

Is God unjust, in so doing ?

And do you think that i [or any believer!] can i trick God, by pretending to be, what i think God wants me to be ?

1 Chronicles 28:9
And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.



If God wants me [that is, if God decides that he will redeem me], it will be because God sees something of worth in me.

And not because i have somehow been clever enough to fool God.

That is what i believe.


Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35  But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.




God offers redemption, as something for us to seek, to attain to.

I believe that my redemption, is available [something to be sought after], AND, that it is a gift from God, to wise 'children'.

Why is spiritual repentance so difficult for men ???

I suspect, because so many of us believe that we have so much to lose, in the world.

That is the choice, each of us must make.



Jeremiah 17:14
Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for thou art my praise.

Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


+++


My position is this;

I firmly believe that God is wise, and above all, i know that he is just.

Therefore;
....When my life is over, whether i am discarded, or redeemed, i accept that my 'reward' [or my judgement] will be just.

i.e.
Hey!, its like if i did a crime, and if i was brought up on charges before a court, and the judge, then judges me according to the evidence, and judges me righteously, then i will be happy [or satisfied] with his judgement.

Why?

Because [i hope that] i am a person who loves righteousness.




I'm a 'black and white' kind of person.

And all of my life being a 'black and white' kind of person has caused me grief in this world.

But hey!, i can wear it.

I have so far!     :D

Yadda wrote on Apr 18^th, 2012 at 12:24am:

I'm a 'black and white' kind of person. And all of my life being a 'black and white' kind of person has caused me grief in this world. But hey!, i can wear it. I have so far!     :D

Nah!  :P

Thanks for providing an insight into your beliefs, Yadda. I believe that you mean well.

If its bringing you grief why not change and let a little grey in?

SOB

muso wrote on Apr 16^th, 2012 at 10:41pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 15th, 2012 at 9:30pm: How have we learned about the 'good'? In every society and every history, it is some sort of ancestral, revelatory gift. On the other hand, when we make up what's good in each generation (coz we wants to be 'relevant'), without reference to millennial wisdom, as it were, we introduce gay adoption and all the other crazy stuff dreamt up in the last 5 minutes under the rubric of 'hey, kids. let's be, like, progressive!!, Yay!!' (ie going downhill) Going downhill is being stuck in the Medieval Period. Can you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that Christianity is absolute, in as much that it has not changed in its mainstream interpretation/ implementation since the first Century AD? The status quo of today  is not the same status quo of 50 years ago or 150 years ago.  The status quo is evanescent. Human beings made the status quo, and human beings will continue to change it. In that most Christian of countries, the USA, marriage of 12 year old girls to 50 year old men was common about 150 years ago. (and you talk about the  crazy stuff of today) Clearly this fundamental standard of decency is not the rock of ages that you claim. The status quo is dynamic. It will change as it has always done through the forces of an ever changing society- and religion will change with it as it has always done - or it will subliminate into irrelevance.....

muso,

You talk of a 'status quo' [of our social mores ? ] of today [or looking back 150 years ago].

The status quo of [our social mores] today [or 'then'] have never been successful as a 'plimsol line' or as a moral guide to a society of men, ......and they [i.e. man's 'self taught' social mores] have not taught man in society, how to embrace social righteousness [or given man a sense of personal responsibility, for his actions].

Rather such a 'status quo' of [our social mores] of man's society, are merely what could be termed a 'lowest common denominator' of what we [as a society] collectively accept, as acceptable social mores ['rules'].

And as we should all recognise, 'lowest common denominators' always tend to reflect a qualitative low, NOT a qualitative high.



And imo, acceptance of a societal status quo of [our social mores], imo, is just more of the morally inept, and failed 'humanist' >> religion <<, and humanist social experimentation, being loaded upon [a morally 'challenged'] mankind and their societies.

And, adopting this humanist social experimentation, of a moral consensus 'status quo', how is that going for us ?

What is the result of our abandonment of moral rules, and at the same time, the disparagement of those persons who attempt any 'moral delineation' within their lives ?

What have been the fruits of this humanist social experimentation ?

Look at our children, look at their broken and confused lives.
Look at our broken and morally confused societies.
Look at our corrupt and self serving governments.
Look at mankind's failed stewardship of the earth and its environment.
And look at our corrupted, 'GODLESS', traditional religions [because 'to remain relevant', many of our societal religions today, have indeed been 'morally guided' by the current social 'status quo' of society].

And muso, would you, or anyone else care to suggest where is the apex of human moral accomplishment in these modern days ?

It is in the peace keeping, in the worlds trouble spots, sponsored by that august moral body, the United Nations ?

[of course, i jest!]




+++

We [mankind] have abandoned any sense of a moral imperative in our lives, as we have abandoned God's societal rules.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gvXwPghPsU4/TiV9dY_RIKI/AAAAAAAAC-k/yA0crbVWgvA/s320/10commandments.jpg
God's 10 commandments - instituted [if adhered to] to guide a human society to peace and justice

So called 'Christian' societies today, have totally abandoned and poo hoo'ed commandments 1-4
And what do we [as a 'moral' society today] think of God's commandments, numbers 5-10 ?

5 - Honour thy father and thy mother.
6 - Thou shalt not kill.
7 - Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8 - Thou shalt not steal.
9 - Thou shalt not bear false witness.
10 - Thou shalt not covet.

The truth is that [excepting for #6], most people today think that such rules are irrelevant, and shouldn't apply to people living a modern 'sophisticated' society like ours, not in any 'ironclad' sense.

Our collective attitude today [the attitude of those who hold humanist 'values'] is that;

'[morality] Rules are for other people.
Rules are 'crazy', and restrictive, and they are not for us.'



+++

But we are hypocrites.

And the 'proof of the pudding', of that last accusation, is that when >> we << are wronged, >> we << want justice.

The TRUTH is that >> we << hate injustice, when injustice bears down upon >> OURSELVES <<.

But we humans tend to reject those [moral] rules [that would protect peace and justice], when those restrictive [moral] rules must also apply to, OURSELVES.

The TRUTH is that >> we << human beings, are moral hypocrites.



The TRUTH is that most 'normal' human beings are vain, selfish, lustful, greedy, violent creatures, who, when we are without restraint, demonstrate very clearly, that we have no moral compass.
AND, we like it that way, .....so long as circumstances are going our way.

AND, as far as most of humanity are concerned, God and his 10 commandments can take a jump.



And that assessment, is correct, isn't it ?

That, again.....
'[morality] Rules are for other people.
Rules are 'crazy', and restrictive, and they are not for us.'

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 18^th, 2012 at 9:49am:

If its bringing you grief why not change and let a little grey in? SOB

Two reasons come immediately to mind......

I am happy, and, i am not confused about life.




A black and white view of this world, is good.

Matthew 16:6
Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
7  And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
.....
11  How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12  Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.



+++




I trust God.

I trust God, because i know something of him.

I am not saying that i have a perfect knowledge of God.

Because i don't.

But i do know something of his nature.

And knowing that, i trust God.



[If you want to know 'something' about the God that i know, read the Psalms.]

Yadda wrote on Apr 18^th, 2012 at 10:56pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 18th, 2012 at 9:49am: If its bringing you grief why not change and let a little grey in? SOB Two reasons come immediately to mind...... I am happy, and, i am not confused about life.

Well i don't know about happy as i don't know you personally, but confused you most certainly are from your posts.

Happiness is there for all and we don't need some fairytale character to get us there, though Shrek does make me laugh on the side. Life is good Yadda just as it is, all you have to do is live it.

Yadda wrote on Apr 18^th, 2012 at 12:24am:

Do you think that i am trying to get to 'heaven' ? Am i trying to avoid 'hell' ? Should my life and all of my [life] choices be predicated upon achieving the 1st and avoiding the 2nd ??? Is that what being a believer, or a 'Christian', is about ??? Do ya think ?         ;D Again, if you think so, then, imo.... Quote: You are mistaken. But you go ahead and believe that, if it pleases you to do so. IMO, 'heaven' isn't so much a reward, and 'hell' isn't so much a punishment. Rather, i look upon God as a fisherman, God is an olive farmer, God is a wheat farmer, etc. One day, God is going to 'take in' his harvest. And in the harvest process, God is going to discard the 'rubbish'. God [our creator] is an investor, we [all of mankind] are his 'care', and [in the end] those souls who are judged to be worthless [to God!] will be discarded. Is God unjust, in so doing ? And do you think that i [or any believer!] can i trick God, by pretending to be, what i think God wants me to be ? If God wants me [that is, if God decides that he will redeem me], it will be because God sees something of worth in me. And not because i have somehow been clever enough to fool God. That is what i believe. God offers redemption, as something for us to seek, to attain to. I believe that my redemption, is available [something to be sought after], AND, that it is a gift from God, to wise 'children'. Why is spiritual repentance so difficult for men ??? I suspect, because so many of us believe that we have so much to lose, in the world. That is the choice, each of us must make. My position is this; I firmly believe that God is wise, and above all, i know that he is just. Therefore; ....When my life is over, whether i am discarded, or redeemed, i accept that my 'reward' [or my judgement] will be just. i.e. Hey!, its like if i did a crime, and if i was brought up on charges before a court, and the judge, then judges me according to the evidence, and judges me righteously, then i will be happy [or satisfied] with his judgement.

All this only confirms that your worship is conditional... God must be just... in your opinion he is an investor charged with looking after mankind and who will 'discard' the unworthy and (no doubt) reward the worthy. He must be 'wise'... And on we go... A quid pro quo... (I gave to you, now you give to me)... Worship for reward.

you know I am pretty sure I stipulated @ the beginning of this thread that I wanted reasons outside of an old book. Verses from a book are just verses from a book. I can find verses in books too. In fact I might.

"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife." Douglas Adams

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."  Douglas Adams

Wow. Now theres a book to live your life by.

SOB

I think that Atheists in Australia should be tolerant towards people of all religions. Times have changed in the last 50 years. Christianity doesn't represent the establishment nowadays, and most people who identify as "Catholics" or "Anglicans" are basically culturally Christian Atheists, for want of a better word. They follow Christian cultural norms but  the concept of God has no real meaning in their lives and this will regress further as time goes on. I wonder how much Christianity has fallen by in the last census. The results should be out soon.

There will come a time when it's no longer necessary to identify as an Atheist. What's the point of having a mouse trap if you never get mice?

Christians had their moments throughout history (as did every other group of human beings), but  it represents a tradition that we should try not to  lose.

Evangelicals can be fun. They have so much enthusiasm.

Those who would ban religion should be careful of what they wish for. What would be next?

Anyway, since we're into Atheist quotes,

"If God exists, he should be ashamed of himself"

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 8:57am:

I think that Atheists in Australia should be tolerant towards people of all religions. Times have changed in the last 50 years. Christianity doesn't represent the establishment nowadays, and most people who identify as "Catholics" or "Anglicans" are basically culturally Christian Atheists, for want of a better word. They follow Christian cultural norms but  the concept of God has no real meaning in their lives and this will regress further as time goes on. I wonder how much Christianity has fallen by in the last census. The results should be out soon. There will come a time when it's no longer necessary to identify as an Atheist. What's the point of having a mouse trap if you never get mice? Christians had their moments throughout history (as did every other group of human beings), but  it represents a tradition that we should try not to  lose. Evangelicals can be fun. They have so much enthusiasm. Those who would ban religion should be careful of what they wish for. What would be next? Anyway, since we're into Atheist quotes, "If God exists, he should be ashamed of himself"

Imo most atheists are tolerant of religious ppl. Unless they are accosted by them. Heck my flatmate is religious. Heh I cant talk to him because everything I ever say is stupid because I dont believe in his god but we ignore each other and live in the same flat okay.

The thing is though that this is an atheist section of a debate forum. Here I should be able to get some answers. I want to know why I should believe in a deity without the aid of some book. Is there any religion without the books? Do they have any reason to "believe" apart from a book? A book they cant be sure where it came from or who wrote it and which mostly doesnt even make any sense?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 9:42am:

Imo most atheists are tolerant of religious ppl. Unless they are accosted by them. Heck my flatmate is religious. Heh I cant talk to him because everything I ever say is stupid because I dont believe in his god but we ignore each other and live in the same flat okay. The thing is though that this is an atheist section of a debate forum. Here I should be able to get some answers. I want to know why I should believe in a deity without the aid of some book. Is there any religion without the books? Do they have any reason to "believe" apart from a book? A book they cant be sure where it came from or who wrote it and which mostly doesnt even make any sense? SOB

IMHO we shouldn't concentrate on the mere concept of existence (of gods). For one thing, (1) almost everybody agrees that it's impossible to have the knowledge, so why be concerned with the issue of divine existence when even (eg) Christians don't have the knowledge (they rely on faith). Why waste time being concerned about such issues?  What is it actually going to achieve if we can't ever know?  For another thing (2) existence alone doesn't actually get any consequences. You need to have existence plus consequences/ interactions. The mere fact that a particular pebble on a beach exists, is inconsequential on its own. If somebody throws that pebble at us, then we have interactive consequences, beneficial or otherwise. Anything that exists must be either dangerous, important, pleasurable or interesting (DIPI) to us to have any significance for us.

So, any reasons for personal faith and belief must also (or primarily?) include potentially beneficial (or DIPI)  reasons for the 'believer' and for society. The only way we can advance our state of personal development or the state of civilisation is by means of abstract concepts that don't actually exist (yet). If you want to realise a technopolis, first you need to imagine it before you actually start to play in the sandpit.  If you want to realise a divinity, you'll also need a business plan. Some day, check off the requirements of a business plan against the contents of the Bible.  The best way to communicate these imaginary plans is by using the written word, and that's true for all imaginary mental concepts, including our great Stock Market (blessed be its name).

Handling abstract concepts is what makes humanity powerful. ( or - translating into theist language: "God created man in his own image")

So, getting back to  "Do they have any reason to believe? ", maybe that reason is one of perceived or actual personal security/ wellbeing/ richness.

I know somebody who thinks he's happy (considers himself to be happy), and I know another person who is actually happy. What's the difference between the two?

Yadda will like this one:

If a person is perpetually sad, how can he believe in happiness? He might say that happiness is just an imaginary concept that doesn't actually exist, or "happy people just believe in fairy tales"

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 9:42am: Imo most atheists are tolerant of religious ppl. Unless they are accosted by them. Heck my flatmate is religious. Heh I cant talk to him because everything I ever say is stupid because I dont believe in his god but we ignore each other and live in the same flat okay. The thing is though that this is an atheist section of a debate forum. Here I should be able to get some answers. I want to know why I should believe in a deity without the aid of some book. Is there any religion without the books? Do they have any reason to "believe" apart from a book? A book they cant be sure where it came from or who wrote it and which mostly doesnt even make any sense? SOB IMHO we shouldn't concentrate on the mere concept of existence (of gods). For one thing, (1) almost everybody agrees that it's impossible to have the knowledge, so why be concerned with the issue of divine existence when even (eg) Christians don't have the knowledge (they rely on faith). Why waste time being concerned about such issues?  What is it actually going to achieve if we can't ever know?  For another thing (2) existence alone doesn't actually get any consequences. You need to have existence plus consequences/ interactions. The mere fact that a particular pebble on a beach exists, is inconsequential on its own. If somebody throws that pebble at us, then we have interactive consequences, beneficial or otherwise. Anything that exists must be either dangerous, important, pleasurable or interesting (DIPI) to us to have any significance for us. So, any reasons for personal faith and belief must also (or primarily?) include potentially beneficial (or DIPI)  reasons for the 'believer' and for society. The only way we can advance our state of personal development or the state of civilisation is by means of abstract concepts that don't actually exist (yet). If you want to realise a technopolis, first you need to imagine it before you actually start to play in the sandpit.  If you want to realise a divinity, you'll also need a business plan. Some day, check off the requirements of a business plan against the contents of the Bible.  The best way to communicate these imaginary plans is by using the written word, and that's true for all imaginary mental concepts, including our great Stock Market (blessed be its name). Handling abstract concepts is what makes humanity powerful. ( or - translating into theist language: "God created man in his own image") So, getting back to  "Do they have any reason to believe? ", maybe that reason is one of perceived or actual personal security/ wellbeing/ richness. I know somebody who thinks he's happy (considers himself to be happy), and I know another person who is actually happy. What's the difference between the two? Yadda will like this one: If a person is perpetually sad, how can he believe in happiness? He might say that happiness is just an imaginary concept that doesn't actually exist, or "happy people just believe in fairy tales"

Yeah I agree with most of that but I think some religious ppl are religious because they are afraid of not being religious. Or they arent really and want to be in the social group.

SOB

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

Handling abstract concepts is what makes humanity powerful. ( or - translating into theist language: "God created man in his own image")

Exactly so.

Like making [or imagining] choices we can make, and imagining what may be the ['real world'] consequences from those [our] choices.

And imo, it is not the 'real world' that is 'important'  [...or rather, put another way, the 'real world', imo, does not deserve the importance which we humans give to it.      but i understand why humans do give the world that importance.    it is because the world is clearly apparent.].

And though our choices can change the world around us, our choices will also change and re-form us.

And when i use the term 'us', i mean our choices re-form what we essentially are [apart from our perception of who we are;  e.g. our body, and our worldly possessions, and our status].



Life is a wonderful game, imo.

So many choices, and so many opportunities, TO BE.

But to 'be' what ???      ;)








muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

So, getting back to  "Do they have any reason to believe? ", maybe that reason is one of perceived or actual personal security/ wellbeing/ richness. I know somebody who thinks he's happy (considers himself to be happy), and I know another person who is actually happy. What's the difference between the two? Yadda will like this one: If a person is perpetually sad, how can he believe in happiness? He might say that happiness is just an imaginary concept that doesn't actually exist, or "happy people just believe in fairy tales"

muso,

Isn't [physiological] happiness only some particular synapses in my brain being electrically stimulated ???

And if i just wanted to be happy, couldn't i just take 'recreation' drugs to activate those particular synapses ?

Hmmm ?

And, by the way, many people who can't handle 'reality', do choose to take 'happy pills'.

And how does that work out for them ???







I don't do that [........i don't take 'recreation' drugs, to 'get happy'].

Do you want to know how i get happy ?

I get happy >> by meditating << upon possibilities.     ::)
.....and [most of the time] the world passes me by [....and all of its cares too].



Quote:

"Handling abstract concepts is what makes humanity powerful."

Who said that ?          ;D




muso,

Who is handling reality better ???

Is it those ppl who choose to take 'happy pills' ?

Or is it someone like Yadda, who chooses to meditate >> UPON << reality ?         :D            ;D

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

Yeah I agree with most of that but #1, I think some religious ppl are religious because they are afraid of not being religious. #2, Or they arent really and want to be in the social group. SOB

Don't look at me, when you make those statements.     ;D




But i do agree, and believe that for many 'believers', they 'embrace' their religion because of the social 'experience' that they derive, and because of the feeling of a social 'belonging' that being a member of that social group offers to them.

But imo, such people are really missing the underlying need which they need to express, as a religious person [at least as a REAL Christian or as a REAL Jew].

To KNOW their God.




Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
5  And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.


Matthew 22:36
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38  This is the first and great commandment.

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 8:57am:

I think that Atheists in Australia should be tolerant towards people of all religions. Times have changed in the last 50 years. Christianity doesn't represent the establishment nowadays, and most people who identify as "Catholics" or "Anglicans" are basically culturally Christian Atheists, for want of a better word.

I agree with your assessment.







muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 8:57am:

They follow Christian cultural norms but  the concept of God has no real meaning in their lives....

Again, i agree.




Christians, real Christians, imo, are those who are searching for an understanding of the concept of God, [and regularly reading their bibles, is one way real Christians demonstrate that they are searching for an understanding of what 'God' is, imo].

And my opinion is that the majority of 'cultural Christians' [even those 'Christians' who attend church] are 'careless' in their faith.



Jesus denounced the 'official church' [the Jewish religion] of his day.

Why so ?




Matthew 20:25
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Popes???

'Papa'?

"....And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
"...But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."
Matthew 23:1-13


Q.
If Jesus was the Jewish messiah, why didn't the religious Jews in Jesus time recognise Jesus, or at least acknowledge his Godly power, in his raising the dead, and healing the sick ?

Luke 24:25
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26  Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27  And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.





Psalms 119:2
Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.



"The Bible will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from the Bible."
Dwight L. Moody (American Evangelist, 1837-1899)







muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 8:57am:

Those who would ban religion should be careful of what they wish for. What would be next? Anyway, since we're into Atheist quotes, "If God exists, he should be ashamed of himself"

This is the age we live in, muso.

Men have no respect, or fear, of God.

And why should they.

God doesn't exist   [.....they can't see him!].




Where there is no shame before men, there's no fear of God.
Yiddish proverb

Freedom, means not having to lie.
'THE WORLD AT WAR' TV PROGRAM
(comm. Freedom means having no fear for our thoughts, or our actions. Only beings, with perfect thoughts and perfect actions possess freedom - GODS. Yet, humans aspire to freedom!).




muso,

Atheists don't want to ban 'religion'.

They want to ban all remembrance of God.

Because they want, they WORSHIP, 'lawlessness'.

Is that what you want too, muso ?




Psalms 2:1
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3  Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4  He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Yadda wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 11:44pm:

muso wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 10:06am: So, getting back to  "Do they have any reason to believe? ", maybe that reason is one of perceived or actual personal security/ wellbeing/ richness. I know somebody who thinks he's happy (considers himself to be happy), and I know another person who is actually happy. What's the difference between the two? Yadda will like this one: If a person is perpetually sad, how can he believe in happiness? He might say that happiness is just an imaginary concept that doesn't actually exist, or "happy people just believe in fairy tales" muso, Isn't [physiological] happiness only some particular synapses in my brain being electrically stimulated ??? And if i just wanted to be happy, couldn't i just take 'recreation' drugs to activate those particular synapses ? Hmmm ? And, by the way, many people who can't handle 'reality', do choose to take 'happy pills'. And how does that work out for them ??? I don't do that [........i don't take 'recreation' drugs, to 'get happy']. Do you want to know how i get happy ? I get happy >> by meditating << upon possibilities.     ::) .....and [most of the time] the world passes me by [....and all of its cares too]. muso, Who is handling reality better ??? Is it those ppl who choose to take 'happy pills' ? Or is it someone like Yadda, who chooses to meditate >> UPON << reality ?         :D            ;D

I have never taken happy pills myself. I don't drink and I'm "boringly" monogamous.  I thought you'd appreciate the irony in my statement about sad people not believing that happiness exists. Don't you see the parallel between "militant atheists" and Theists?  Didn't you get the "fairy stories" bit?

Highlighted section: So do I. I find these discussions very stimulating.

Happiness is a difficult concept to grasp. As the Scottish poet Robert Burns said (in Tam O' Shanter):

Quote:

But pleasures are like poppies spread, You sieze the flower, its bloom is shed; Or like the snow falls in the river, A moment white--then melts for ever; Or like the borealis race, That flit ere you can point their place; Or like the rainbow's lovely form Evanishing amid the storm.--

I'd consider myself happy/ tranquil/untroubled. However I'd disagree with your physiological assessment of happiness. In my opinion happiness doesn't exist on its own, and it certainly doesn't manifest itself in terms of neurons and synapses.

The opposite of happiness could be defined as unease,  constant cravings,  a troubled mind, suffering. Those things certainly exist in a tangible way, and if you minimise them, you get something close to true happiness. - and you'll find a lot of firing of neural activity associated with all of the above.

It's a bit like the Theist/Atheist concept in fact. You can decide which of the two is tangible and unhappy in that analogy. I make no comment but amusement  ;D

I think I'll invent a new worldview. Atheists and Theists are both concerned with, or even obsessed with the notion of gods. Richard Dawkins is  certainly obsessed with God. He seems to write about nothing else. It's a concept that they share, albeit  at different ends of the spectrum.  OK, I am the opposite of that worldview, and that can be summed up as the position that  belief in, or lack of belief in the supernatural are equally unimportant in my life. 

Think of yin and yang,  the old feng shui symbol. Remove the dark portion and the light portion becomes invisible. Alternatively, remove the light portion and the dark portion becomes invisible      ;D


Quote:

[quote] "Handling abstract concepts is what makes humanity powerful."

Who said that ?  [/quote]

I said that  ;)  - and it comes pretty close to the "theist translation" in my OP.   

Your beliefs are quite different from mine, yet I can admire the wisdom in religions like Christianity, Buddhism and Jainism to name but three. This wisdom comes down to us from people from ancient times who (just like us)  gained happiness by meditating upon possibilities.

---

I cant make myself be PC enough to "admire" the teachings of any religion but maybe some parts of budhism. Have you read the bible or the koran? They are full of stuff we see as bad nowadays. Bigotry killing stoning burning dashing babies heads on rocks turning towns into salt giving daughters away to strangers @ the door - real life lessons those.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

I cant make myself be PC enough to "admire" the teachings of any religion but maybe some parts of budhism. Have you read the bible or the koran? They are full of stuff we see as bad nowadays. Bigotry killing stoning burning dashing babies heads on rocks turning towns into salt giving daughters away to strangers @ the door - real life lessons those. SOB

I don't hold my worldview as a result of being PC. Human history is full of suffering no matter where we go. As far as Holy Books being full of "bad stuff", well, it's like my next point:

You need to have contrast to make a point. Enlightenment is all in the context.

Does that make sense? (You might have to highlight it with your mouse. )  ;D

muso wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 9:08am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 8:46am: I cant make myself be PC enough to "admire" the teachings of any religion but maybe some parts of budhism. Have you read the bible or the koran? They are full of stuff we see as bad nowadays. Bigotry killing stoning burning dashing babies heads on rocks turning towns into salt giving daughters away to strangers @ the door - real life lessons those. SOB I don't hold my worldview as a result of being PC. Human history is full of suffering no matter where we go. As far as Holy Books being full of "bad stuff", well, it's like my next point: You need to have contrast to make a point. Enlightenment is all in the context. Does that make sense? (You might have to highlight it with your mouse. )  ;D

Maybe @ context but wouldn't it be easier to get enlightenment from something thats straight up and you dont have to twist your mind around to make yourself think its positive?

SOB

Quote:

Maybe @ context but wouldn't it be easier to get enlightenment from something thats straight up and you dont have to twist your mind around to make yourself think its positive?

Twisting your mind and strenuous thought are not bad things. I can live with the God reference in the next passage, but you might be prepared to ritually force your fingers down your throat at that point.


Quote:

The Butterfly A man found a butterfly cocoon. He watched his cocoon for several days. One day a tiny opening appeared in the cocoon. He sat very still and watched as the butterfly struggled for several hours to force itself through the tiny hole of it’s cocoon. Then it seemed to stop making progress. It appeared to the man as if the butterfly had gone as far as it could, and could go no further. So the man decided to help the butterfly out of the cocoon. He snipped the remaining bit of the cocoon with scissors, and the butterfly emerged effortlessly. There was something strange, however. The butterfly had a swollen body, and it’s wings were shriveled. The man watched closely, expecting that the wings would enlarge and expand to support the body, which would contract in time.Neither happened. In fact, the butterfly spent the rest of its life crawling around with a swollen body and deformed wings. It was never able to fly. Though the man acted in kindness, what he did not understand was that the restricting cocoon and the struggle required for the butterfly to get through the small opening of the cocoon are God’s way of forcing fluid from the body of the butterfly into its wings so that it would be ready to fly once it has achieved its freedom from the cocoon. Author Unknown

Why does a god have to be mentioned @ all in that story? Its just added in there as an explanation for something that is easily understood without the "god dunnit" reference.

SOB

I didn't write it, but I take it that you see the relevance. Substitute the word nature for God, and it works pretty well.

muso wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 3:20pm:

I didn't write it, but I take it that you see the relevance. Substitute the word nature for God, and it works pretty well.

Kinda. It doesnt make me believe in a deity though.

Maybe this thread should be moved to the religious section to get some religious ppl into it.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

muso wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 3:20pm: I didn't write it, but I take it that you see the relevance. Substitute the word nature for God, and it works pretty well. Kinda. It doesnt make me believe in a deity though. Maybe this thread should be moved to the religious section to get some religious ppl into it. SOB

I don't think there are many religious people who post here. Apart from Yadda, I think we just have "Christian Atheists".

In the Jain religion, supernatural belief is optional.  I think I have explained my own position before. God can be defined any way that you want even within individual religions.

I believe in mass sociological phenomena. Humanity has always acted as a form of neural network. We communicate by totally non-supernatural means - verbal, written, body language etc, but the main thing is that as elements of an overall neural network (which is probably becoming more powerful as a result of the internet), we communicate and what we have is a collective super intelligence that is immanent in one sense of the word, but totally non-mystical, but we don't quite understand it, just as we don't quite understand the basics of life and consciousness. LIfe in itself has an inexplicable element to it. Eastern philosophy tends to focus on this immanent aspect.

Is that supernatural? It depends on definition. Is that a type of god? It can be if you define it thus. If I define it as a god, then I'm a theist, but from the view of a traditional Christian, I could be called an atheist. I compromise by calling myself an atheistic theist, but the best term is probably "Ignostic" because I don't believe we can define gods in a universally acceptable way, and even if we could, we couldn't anticipate all future definitions  of gods.

Therefore, I regard terms like theist and atheist as cognitively meaningless.

In terms of how the current universe came about, my beliefs tend to change. I have previously considered multiverse theory, but It seems to be clumsy and inelegant. In contrast, some kind of prime cause or primus motor is quite elegant. I waver between a very basic Deist (non-interventionist) and agnostic positions.

Alain de Botton's "Atheism 2.0"

http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 10:55pm:

Alain de Botton's "Atheism 2.0" http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html

That guy has some great "nutshell" atheist stuff.

Do you reckon he realizes why (or if in fact) he is a theologically-hated atheist?

...Helian?

"Therefore, I regard terms like theist and atheist as cognitively meaningless. "

Hence my describing myself as a "non believer". Starting from a position of nothing and someone tells you a story and its obviously fiction you dont believe it. Thing is the religious ppl want to label the ppl that are different from themselves and thats the only label that works for me ATM.

The concept of an xtian atheist is strange though. Do you mean socially xtian but mentally atheist? Like a "non-practicing" catholic? Why xtian? Why not muslim-atheist?

SOB

Thanks Helian.... er North. I watched the entire clip. I agree with a lot of what he says, but it still doesn't convert me to contheism*.  It's true that many new atheists are of the opinion that religion is "ridiculous" and don't stop to see what's relevant in them. They have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can also see an unhealthy "craving" developing - a kind of revolutionary zeal to embrace the idea that there is no God/ gods. It's almost a kind of cowboy diplomacy in the mould of George W Bush. - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists (theists)" and religions are caricatured to the extent that they portray the very worst aspects of religions. In that frantic search for truth, the truth itself is lost.   Personally I see this as being no different to religious zeal.

*Contheism- The believe that the concept of "gods" is useful. Contheism includes theism and atheism.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 8:19am:

"Therefore, I regard terms like theist and atheist as cognitively meaningless. " Hence my describing myself as a "non believer". Starting from a position of nothing and someone tells you a story and its obviously fiction you dont believe it. Thing is the religious ppl want to label the ppl that are different from themselves and thats the only label that works for me ATM. The concept of an xtian atheist is strange though. Do you mean socially xtian but mentally atheist? Like a "non-practicing" catholic? Why xtian? Why not muslim-atheist? SOB

OK, in that case, I'm a believer. I believe in an entirely naturalistic world free of supernatural and mystical elements, and my ethics and beliefs are based on a naturalistic worldview. I also believe in allowing people the freedom to decide whatever religion they choose, including no religion.

I prefer not to use labels. If I was speaking to a Christian who asked me, I'd describe myself as a non-Christian. If I was speaking to a Muslim, I'd describe myself as a non-Muslim. If I was speaking to an Atheist, I'd describe myself as a non-Atheist, because being an atheist is not significant for my life.

A "Christian atheist" is somebody who goes to church for weddings and funerals, and might describe themselves as a Christian on a census paper, yet don't practice their religion in any shape or form. There are a lot of them about.   

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 8:21am:

Thanks Helian.... er North. I watched the entire clip. I agree with a lot of what he says, but it still doesn't convert me to contheism*.  It's true that many new atheists are of the opinion that religion is "ridiculous" and don't stop to see what's relevant in them. They have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I can also see an unhealthy "craving" developing - a kind of revolutionary zeal to embrace the idea that there is no God/ gods. It's almost a kind of cowboy diplomacy in the mould of George W Bush. - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists (theists)" and religions are caricatured to the extent that they portray the very worst aspects of religions. In that frantic search for truth, the truth itself is lost.   Personally I see this as being no different to religious zeal. *Contheism- The believe that the concept of "gods" is useful. Contheism includes theism and atheism.

"New athiests"?

Religion is ridiculous. The entire concept is silly. There is nothing to be "gained" from religious texts that you cant gain from other sources without the doublethink or the need for a deity.

Atheism is a lack of belief. Therefore it cannot be included in your definition of a belief.

Atheism is the default position. Religion has to be added. IMO if little children werent exposed to religion so young more people would be able to make up their own minds.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 8:42am:

muso wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 8:21am: Thanks Helian.... er North. I watched the entire clip. I agree with a lot of what he says, but it still doesn't convert me to contheism*.  It's true that many new atheists are of the opinion that religion is "ridiculous" and don't stop to see what's relevant in them. They have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I can also see an unhealthy "craving" developing - a kind of revolutionary zeal to embrace the idea that there is no God/ gods. It's almost a kind of cowboy diplomacy in the mould of George W Bush. - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists (theists)" and religions are caricatured to the extent that they portray the very worst aspects of religions. In that frantic search for truth, the truth itself is lost.   Personally I see this as being no different to religious zeal. *Contheism- The believe that the concept of "gods" is useful. Contheism includes theism and atheism. "New athiests"? Religion is ridiculous. The entire concept is silly. There is nothing to be "gained" from religious texts that you cant gain from other sources without the doublethink or the need for a deity. Atheism is a lack of belief. Therefore it cannot be included in your definition of a belief. Atheism is the default position. Religion has to be added. IMO if little children werent exposed to religion so young more people would be able to make up their own minds. SOB

Watch Helian's clip. Atheism 2.0

"A "Christian atheist" is somebody who goes to church for weddings and funerals, and might describe themselves as a Christian on a census paper, yet don't practice their religion in any shape or form. There are a lot of them about. "

Aha okay like a non-practicing catholic then. I have a friend who calls himself a non-practicing catholic. Brought up catholic and sometimes follows the dogma and puts it on forms and stuff and weddings and funerals.

Cant watch clips. Flash stuffed up on this computer.

SOB

Amadd wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 4:49am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 20th, 2012 at 10:55pm: Alain de Botton's "Atheism 2.0" http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html That guy has some great "nutshell" atheist stuff. Do you reckon he realizes why (or if in fact) he is a theologically-hated atheist? ...Helian? ..'cause truth is disrespected within religion...that's why. Religion is always the enemy of truth. ..or more aptly, the realization of truth existed before any concept of God, and truth is the natural enemy of religious control. ..within the order of truth, religion does not exist. At all!

I'd be surprised if de Botton is hated even by theists... He is a successful and very popular philosopher who rarely discusses religion and god (i.e. he is not an 'evangelising atheist').

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 8:42am:

"New athiests"? Religion is ridiculous. The entire concept is silly. There is nothing to be "gained" from religious texts that you cant gain from other sources without the doublethink or the need for a deity. Atheism is a lack of belief. Therefore it cannot be included in your definition of a belief. Atheism is the default position. Religion has to be added. IMO if little children werent exposed to religion so young more people would be able to make up their own minds. SOB

Yes, its true that wisdom (or consolation) can be had from non-religious texts (and now that de Botton has been introduced to the discussion, check out his "Consolations of Philosophy" - one episode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtW3cLWAC3I)...

And you'd be surprised who would agree with de Botton's idea of "Atheism 2.0"... None other than the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett, to name three, all of whom admit to enjoying something of religious ritual.

It would be hard to deny that Paul's 1 Corinthians 13 does not say everything that should be said about the need for charity (compassion)... For atheists reading that chapter, its not hard to see that Paul was betraying his closet agnosticism ("For we know in part, and we prophesy in part"... "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"... "For now we see through a glass, darkly").

If only we all lived like we could only comprehend in part, that conviction is only the art of certainty, not certainty itself... That there is always the veil of doubt before our eyes (looking through a glass darkly)... Socrates would be proud.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:05am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 8:42am: "New athiests"? Religion is ridiculous. The entire concept is silly. There is nothing to be "gained" from religious texts that you cant gain from other sources without the doublethink or the need for a deity. Atheism is a lack of belief. Therefore it cannot be included in your definition of a belief. Atheism is the default position. Religion has to be added. IMO if little children werent exposed to religion so young more people would be able to make up their own minds. SOB Yes, its true that wisdom (or consolation) can be had from non-religious texts (and now that de Botton has been introduced to the discussion, check out his "Consolations of Philosophy" - one episode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtW3cLWAC3I)... And you'd be surprised who would agree with de Botton's idea of "Atheism 2.0"... None other than the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett, to name three, all of whom admit to enjoying something of religious ritual. It would be hard to deny that Paul's 1 Corinthians 13 does not say everything that should be said about the need for charity (compassion)... For atheists reading that chapter, its not hard to see that Paul was betraying his closet agnosticism ("For we know in part, and we prophesy in part"... "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"... "For now we see through a glass, darkly"). If only we all lived like we could only comprehend in part, that conviction is only the art of certainty, not certainty itself... That there is always the veil of doubt before our eyes (looking through a glass darkly)... Socrates would be proud.

As I said before I cant view "clips" because the flash is stuffed up on this machine. Geez.

A point though - just because 1 atheist says 1 thing it doesnt mean another would say it too. Atheists are all different. The only thing they have in common is a lack of belief in a diety.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:18am:

A point though - just because 1 atheist says 1 thing it doesnt mean another would say it too. Atheists are all different. The only thing they have in common is a lack of belief in a diety. SOB

All true... Worth noting though that at least three of the world's leading English speaking atheists (one being the world's most renowned militant atheist) agree that there is something worthy, not in religious belief, but in religious ritual.

And its not hard to understand why... Central to a human sense of well-being is the need for routine and ritual.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:24am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:18am: A point though - just because 1 atheist says 1 thing it doesnt mean another would say it too. Atheists are all different. The only thing they have in common is a lack of belief in a diety. SOB All true... Worth noting though that at least three of the world's leading English speaking atheists (one being the world's most renowned militant atheist) agree that there is something worthy, not in religious belief, but in religious ritual. And its not hard to understand why... Central to a human sense of well-being is the need for routine and ritual.

Doesnt matter who or what they claim to be they speak for no other atheists than themselves. There are no "leading" atheists because there is no group of atheists. It is just a lack of belief in a deity.

Routine may be part of our makeup (I dont know enough to say) but belief in a deity is not. Ritual is another thing altogether with religious connotations. A primitive thing imo.

I got those definitions both from the same source so you can see the difference.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 11:16am:

I am a non-believer. I don't consider verses from any fiction book to be "evidence" of any higher power. Is there any other reason I should "believe" in religion? Other than some book? SOB

I agree - I only use quotes from the Bible when it suits my arguments - that's it.

I don't believe in the fairy tales written all through the Bible.
It's no better than Jack & the Beanstalk.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:32am:

Doesnt matter who or what they claim to be they speak for no other atheists than themselves. There are no "leading" atheists because there is no group of atheists. It is just a lack of belief in a deity.

And yet atheists so often defer to them (particularly Dawkins).


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:32am:

Routine may be part of our makeup (I dont know enough to say) but belief in a deity is not. Ritual is another thing altogether with religious connotations. A primitive thing imo. I got those definitions both from the same source so you can see the difference. SOB

Yes, I was not using them as synonyms of each other.

Do you really think ritual necessarily has religious connotations?

Can atheists observe the rituals of ANZAC Day commemorations next week or are they only for the religious?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:36am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:32am: Doesnt matter who or what they claim to be they speak for no other atheists than themselves. There are no "leading" atheists because there is no group of atheists. It is just a lack of belief in a deity. And yet atheists so often defer to them (particularly Dawkins). Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:32am: Routine may be part of our makeup (I dont know enough to say) but belief in a deity is not. Ritual is another thing altogether with religious connotations. A primitive thing imo. I got those definitions both from the same source so you can see the difference. SOB Yes, I was not using them as synonyms of each other. Do you really think ritual necessarily has religious connotations? Can atheists observe the rituals of ANZAC Day commemorations next week or are they only for the religious?

Dawkins is some kind of expert on evolution or something. Thats why he gets deferred to a lot. He is famous too - another reason. He is not the "leader" of atheists though. In fact not all atheists even "believe" in evolution. some do some dont. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism since atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity.

Ritual has religious connotations in the dictionary so yeah. Its the accepted meaning of the word.

You still dont understand? Some atheists prolly will since its about soldiers. Some atheists may not for whatever reason they have. Me I dont observe it because i dont like it but i dont care if others observe it - its part of australia.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:44am:

Ritual has religious connotations in the dictionary so yeah. Its the accepted meaning of the word.

Ritual doesn't necessarily have religious connotations. There are cultural rituals, psychological rituals, sexual rituals. Animals have rituals.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:44am:

Dawkins is some kind of expert on evolution or something. Thats why he gets deferred to a lot. He is famous too - another reason. He is not the "leader" of atheists though. In fact not all atheists even "believe" in evolution. some do some dont. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism since atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity.

And , of course, he is more than just an atheist, he is a militant antitheist.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:44am:

Ritual has religious connotations in the dictionary so yeah. Its the accepted meaning of the word.

Are you saying a dictionary does not allow the possibility of ritual being anything other than requiring religious connotations? have you never observed ANZAC Day commemorations? Have you ever observed court proceedings? Parliamentary proceedings? Military proceedings? Citizenship proceedings? (I could go on but, as you'd expect from a species that has a deeply innate need for ritual, the numbers are legion).


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:44am:

You still dont understand? Some atheists prolly will since its about soldiers. Some atheists may not for whatever reason they have. Me I dont observe it because i dont like it but i dont care if others observe it - its part of australia.

How do they observe it? Ritualistically?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:51am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:44am: Ritual has religious connotations in the dictionary so yeah. Its the accepted meaning of the word. Ritual doesn't necessarily have religious connotations. There are cultural rituals, psychological rituals, sexual rituals. Animals have rituals.

Animals have rituals?

Heres the wikipedia definition.

A ritual is a set of actions, performed mainly for their symbolic value. It may be prescribed by the traditions of a community, including by a religious community. The term usually refers to actions which are stylized, excluding actions which are arbitrarily chosen by the performers.

Religious in our context here I would think. Symbolic.

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:55am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:44am: Dawkins is some kind of expert on evolution or something. Thats why he gets deferred to a lot. He is famous too - another reason. He is not the "leader" of atheists though. In fact not all atheists even "believe" in evolution. some do some dont. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism since atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity. And , of course, he is more than just an atheist, he is a militant antitheist. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:44am: Ritual has religious connotations in the dictionary so yeah. Its the accepted meaning of the word. Are you saying a dictionary does not allow the possibility of ritual being anything other than requiring religious connotations? have you never observed ANZAC Day commemorations? Have you ever observed court proceedings? Parliamentary proceedings? Military proceedings? Citizenship proceedings? (I could go on but, as you'd expect from a species that has a deeply innate need for ritual, the numbers are legion). Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:44am: You still dont understand? Some atheists prolly will since its about soldiers. Some atheists may not for whatever reason they have. Me I dont observe it because i dont like it but i dont care if others observe it - its part of australia. How do they observe it? Ritualistically?

Okay so rituals are symbolic sets of actions.

I disagree that we have any "need" for them. Especially in a religious context.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 10:57am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:51am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:44am: Ritual has religious connotations in the dictionary so yeah. Its the accepted meaning of the word. Ritual doesn't necessarily have religious connotations. There are cultural rituals, psychological rituals, sexual rituals. Animals have rituals. Animals have rituals? Heres the wikipedia definition. A ritual is a set of actions, performed mainly for their symbolic value. It may be prescribed by the traditions of a community, including by a religious community. The term usually refers to actions which are stylized, excluding actions which are arbitrarily chosen by the performers. Religious in our context here I would think. Symbolic. SOB

From your source:


Quote:

Ritual actions are not characteristic of human cultures only. Many animal species use ritualized actions to court or to greet each other, or to fight. At least some ritualized actions have very strong selective purpose in animals. For example, ritualized fights are extremely important to avoid unnecessary strong physical violence between the conflicting animals

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 11:00am:

Okay so rituals are symbolic sets of actions. I disagree that we have any "need" for them. SOB

So when you are introduced to new people formally (or even informally) what do you do? What actions will you perform? What actions do you expect the other party to perform?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 11:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:00am: Okay so rituals are symbolic sets of actions. I disagree that we have any "need" for them. SOB So when you are introduced to new people formally (or even informally) what do you do? What actions will you perform? What actions do you expect the other party to perform?

Just because we use them that doesnt mean we "need" them to survive. Not an inbuilt need.

What is your point? That we need religion? Is that your point? We do not need religion. Religion is primitive bs that was used to explain things that we didnt understand. Now we have science.

SOB

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 11:05am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:57am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:51am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 10:44am: Ritual has religious connotations in the dictionary so yeah. Its the accepted meaning of the word. Ritual doesn't necessarily have religious connotations. There are cultural rituals, psychological rituals, sexual rituals. Animals have rituals. Animals have rituals? Heres the wikipedia definition. A ritual is a set of actions, performed mainly for their symbolic value. It may be prescribed by the traditions of a community, including by a religious community. The term usually refers to actions which are stylized, excluding actions which are arbitrarily chosen by the performers. Religious in our context here I would think. Symbolic. SOB From your source: Quote: Ritual actions are not characteristic of human cultures only. Many animal species use ritualized actions to court or to greet each other, or to fight. At least some ritualized actions have very strong selective purpose in animals. For example, ritualized fights are extremely important to avoid unnecessary strong physical violence between the conflicting animals

Fine Annie. That is interesting.

Not that it has anything to do with the topic. It looks like it was a diversion employed to show that humans have some kind of innate need for religion. Thanks a lot for your input but humans have no such need. We are born with no beliefs. We have a need to learn.

I have said multiple times that we have no need for ritual in a religious context.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 11:18am:

Just because we use them that doesnt mean we "need" them to survive. Not an inbuilt need.

We don't use them for no reason, we need them. Subtract all those things ritualistic from your life for a month and assess the difference. Would it be a positive difference, do you think? Instead of, say, introducing yourself formally to an unknown party when required to do so, you instead do something else... Say, you break into a tap dance...


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 11:18am:

What is your point? That we need religion? Is that your point? We do not need religion. Religion is primitive bs that was used to explain things that we didnt understand. Now we have science. SOB

Ah, science!

I'll leave that chestnut to others on this board, except to say, is science your crypto-religion?

With regard to rituals and the human innate need for them... There's nothing so stark as the realisation of its fundamental utility when in a foreign culture... One where you are not aware of the rituals that all those within the alien culture appear to innately understand. The reaction is, of course, the aptly named culture-shock.

Religion, over millennia, has collected, enhanced and created human rituals within the society it (once) serves/d. We 'know' ourselves as who we are through many avenues, including religious ones, whether we believe in god or not... That is the point of de Botton's "Atheism 2.0"

You do not need to believe in god nor the myths that each respective culture developed around the notion of god, to accept that those rituals likely have had a profound and indelible effect on your sense of self.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 11:28am:

With regard to rituals and the human innate need for them... There's nothing so stark as the realisation of its fundamental utility when in a foreign culture... One where you are not aware of the rituals that all those within the alien culture appear to innately understand. The reaction is, of course, the aptly named culture-shock. Religion, over millennia, has collected, enhanced and created human rituals within the society it (once) serves/d. We 'know' ourselves as who we are through many avenues, including religious ones, whether we believe in god or not... That is the point of de Botton's "Atheism 2.0" You do not need to believe in god nor the myths that each respective culture developed around the notion of god, to accept that those rituals likely have had a profound and indelible effect on your sense of self.

Thank you :)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 19^th, 2012 at 8:28am:

All this only confirms that your worship is conditional... God must be just... in your opinion he is an investor charged with looking after mankind and who will 'discard' the unworthy and (no doubt) reward the worthy. He must be 'wise'... And on we go... A quid pro quo... (I gave to you, now you give to me)... Worship for reward.

Can't i also, morally, and legitimately, be an investor in my own interests ?

And if i am [an investor in my own interests], then shouldn't i also become in some sense a judge of myself [and my actions] ?  .....a judge who can also hold back, and stop myself, from acting against my own 'best interests' ?


Romans 3:5
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6  God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?


I don't know if each of us is somehow predestined to be either 'good' or 'bad'.
But i would like to think that i can have some influence over my fate.

But i also know that this world still has an influence upon me, sometimes still causing me to make poor choices.

e.g.
The bible gives the account that King David was an adulterer and a murderer [2 Samuel 11], [and though God rebuked David] David still, in the end, enjoyed God's favour.

Is God inconsistent ?

Maybe.

Psalms 32:1
Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2  Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity.....






NoN,

If you can't believe in the existence of an invisible God, can you perhaps believe that a behaviour which we choose to repeat will become habitual [in us] ?


Dictionary;
habitual = = done constantly or as a habit.


And can you believe that a ['good' or 'bad'] behaviour can have an influence [for 'good' or 'bad'] upon our general character ?

And as sentient beings, should we have a care, as to what 'type' of behaviours we choose to engage in, frequently ?

OR, should we humans [as social animals] try to NOT judge [i.e. to NOT have a care, as to] whether our conduct [our behaviour], is either 'good' or 'bad' ?

Is trying to make [i.e. >> CREATE <<] an 'moral' judgement, about what actions 'are' good, or, bad, pointless ?

Should we rather, always engage in pleasurable behaviour, whenever we can, simply because the behaviour is pleasurable to us ?

Coz, hey!, that is what we are all here for!        ;)



"You do what you are Jezzie." - Dr Alex Cross
"You mean, you are what you do." - Jezzie
"No, I mean you do what you are." - Dr Alex Cross
ALONG CAME A SPIDER - the movie

muso wrote on Apr 20^th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Yadda wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 11:44pm: muso wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 10:06am: So, getting back to  "Do they have any reason to believe? ", maybe that reason is one of perceived or actual personal security/ wellbeing/ richness. I know somebody who thinks he's happy (considers himself to be happy), and I know another person who is actually happy. What's the difference between the two? Yadda will like this one: If a person is perpetually sad, how can he believe in happiness? He might say that happiness is just an imaginary concept that doesn't actually exist, or "happy people just believe in fairy tales" muso, Isn't [physiological] happiness only some particular synapses in my brain being electrically stimulated ??? And if i just wanted to be happy, couldn't i just take 'recreation' drugs to activate those particular synapses ? Hmmm ? And, by the way, many people who can't handle 'reality', do choose to take 'happy pills'. And how does that work out for them ??? I don't do that [........i don't take 'recreation' drugs, to 'get happy']. Do you want to know how i get happy ? I get happy >> by meditating << upon possibilities.     ::) .....and [most of the time] the world passes me by [....and all of its cares too]. muso, Who is handling reality better ??? Is it those ppl who choose to take 'happy pills' ? Or is it someone like Yadda, who chooses to meditate >> UPON << reality ?         :D            ;D I have never taken happy pills myself. I don't drink and I'm "boringly" monogamous.  I thought you'd appreciate the irony in my statement about sad people not believing that happiness exists. Don't you see the parallel between "militant atheists" and Theists?  Didn't you get the "fairy stories" bit?

muso,

I'm sorry, but haven't you previously expressed the view that depressed people should seek professional psychological help ?

And along with counselling, don't psychologists prescribe 'chemical' relief, of the feelings of those who are not 'coping' ?



I can understand why society accepts such treatment, of those who have a damaged psyche.

But i do not agree with such treatment.

I believe that such treatments [with drugs], poisons the bodies of their patients, AND, also then makes them drug dependant.


Dictionary;
psyche = = the human soul, mind, or spirit.







Yes, i can see that we can all be seen to believe in one fairy tale or another.

Yadda wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 2:00am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 19th, 2012 at 8:28am: All this only confirms that your worship is conditional... God must be just... in your opinion he is an investor charged with looking after mankind and who will 'discard' the unworthy and (no doubt) reward the worthy. He must be 'wise'... And on we go... A quid pro quo... (I gave to you, now you give to me)... Worship for reward. Can't i also, morally, and legitimately, be an investor in my own interests ? And if i am [an investor in my own interests], then shouldn't i also become in some sense a judge of myself [and my actions] ?  .....a judge who can also hold back, and stop myself, from acting against my own 'best interests' ? I don't know if each of us is somehow predestined to be either 'good' or 'bad'. But i would like to think that i can have some influence over my fate. But i also know that this world still has an influence upon me, sometimes still causing me to make poor choices.

And, of course, I agree with you... "None is saved from himself except by himself".


Yadda wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 2:00am:

NoN, If you can't believe in the existence of an invisible God, can you perhaps believe that a behaviour which we choose to repeat will become habitual [in us] ? And can you believe that a ['good' or 'bad'] behaviour can have an influence [for 'good' or 'bad'] upon our general character ?

Of course.


Yadda wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 2:00am:

And as sentient beings, should we have a care, as to what 'type' of behaviours we choose to engage in, frequently ?

Yes.


Yadda wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 2:00am:

OR, should we humans [as social animals] try to NOT judge [i.e. to NOT have a care, as to] whether our conduct [our behaviour], is either 'good' or 'bad' ?

No.


Yadda wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 2:00am:

Is trying to make [i.e. >> CREATE <<] an 'moral' judgement, about what actions 'are' good, or, bad, pointless ?

No.


Yadda wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 2:00am:

Should we rather, always engage in pleasurable behaviour, whenever we can, simply because the behaviour is pleasurable to us ?

No.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 11:23am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:18am: Just because we use them that doesnt mean we "need" them to survive. Not an inbuilt need. We don't use them for no reason, we need them. Subtract all those things ritualistic from your life for a month and assess the difference. Would it be a positive difference, do you think? Instead of, say, introducing yourself formally to an unknown party when required to do so, you instead do something else... Say, you break into a tap dance... Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:18am: What is your point? That we need religion? Is that your point? We do not need religion. Religion is primitive bs that was used to explain things that we didnt understand. Now we have science. SOB Ah, science! I'll leave that chestnut to others on this board, except to say, is science your crypto-religion?

Yeah but we *can* stop rituals. Most cultures are different too. What is polite in one place is rude in another. And some ppl are just rude (dont do it).

As for your weird comment about science. Are you implying that science is in some way a religion? Here you may need this. Read it. Learn from it. Afterall learning is what normal humans do.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 9:01am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:23am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:18am: Just because we use them that doesnt mean we "need" them to survive. Not an inbuilt need. We don't use them for no reason, we need them. Subtract all those things ritualistic from your life for a month and assess the difference. Would it be a positive difference, do you think? Instead of, say, introducing yourself formally to an unknown party when required to do so, you instead do something else... Say, you break into a tap dance... Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:18am: What is your point? That we need religion? Is that your point? We do not need religion. Religion is primitive bs that was used to explain things that we didnt understand. Now we have science. SOB Ah, science! I'll leave that chestnut to others on this board, except to say, is science your crypto-religion? Yeah but we *can* stop rituals. Most cultures are different too. What is polite in one place is rude in another. And some ppl are just rude (dont do it).

Yes, of course... rituals wax, wane, morph, transmogrify, come into use and fall out of use.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 9:01am:

As for your weird comment about science. Are you implying that science is in some way a religion? Here you may need this. Read it. Learn from it. Afterall learning is what normal humans do. SOB

Not so weird. I am not implying that science is a religion, I'm asking if you embrace it as if it were... a crypto-religion?

Religion, for believers, answers (at least in their minds) their great existential questions and eases their existential angst... Others use philosophy to address the same... But is it science?

Yadda wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 2:27am:

muso, I'm sorry, but haven't you previously expressed the view that depressed people should seek professional psychological help ? And along with counselling, don't psychologists prescribe 'chemical' relief, of the feelings of those who are not 'coping' ? I can understand why society accepts such treatment, of those who have a damaged psyche. But i do not agree with such treatment. I believe that such treatments [with drugs], poisons the bodies of their patients, AND, also then makes them drug dependant. Dictionary; psyche = = the human soul, mind, or spirit. Yes, i can see that we can all be seen to believe in one fairy tale or another.

I agree with your last sentence.

However I think you're being very precious indeed to imply that no true Christians have mental conditions.  ;D

As a counter to that, I do think that many neo-atheists are in danger of neglecting their "spiritual" health. They throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Whilst I concur that wherever possible we should avoid taking any drugs, even prescription ones, there are certainly cases where it provides a person with the possibility of a normal life.

Epilepsy is a case in point. It's interesting the correlation between epilepsy and religion, don't you think?

http://www.mendeley.com/research/an-investigation-of-religiosity-and-the-gastautgeschwind-syndrome-in-patients-with-temporal-lobe-epilepsy/

Before our religiously atheistic zealots jump on this, a religious person might interpret this differently from a non religious person.   ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 9:09am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 9:01am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:23am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:18am: Just because we use them that doesnt mean we "need" them to survive. Not an inbuilt need. We don't use them for no reason, we need them. Subtract all those things ritualistic from your life for a month and assess the difference. Would it be a positive difference, do you think? Instead of, say, introducing yourself formally to an unknown party when required to do so, you instead do something else... Say, you break into a tap dance... Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:18am: What is your point? That we need religion? Is that your point? We do not need religion. Religion is primitive bs that was used to explain things that we didnt understand. Now we have science. SOB Ah, science! I'll leave that chestnut to others on this board, except to say, is science your crypto-religion? Yeah but we *can* stop rituals. Most cultures are different too. What is polite in one place is rude in another. And some ppl are just rude (dont do it). Yes, of course... rituals wax, wane, morph, transmogrify, come into use and fall out of use. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 9:01am: As for your weird comment about science. Are you implying that science is in some way a religion? Here you may need this. Read it. Learn from it. Afterall learning is what normal humans do. SOB Not so weird. I am not implying that science is a religion, I'm asking if you embrace it as if it were... a crypto-religion? Religion, for believers, answers (at least in their minds) their great existential questions and eases their existential angst... Others use philosophy to address the same... But is it science?

You are accusing me of thinking science is a philosophy or are you saying science is a philosophy? Are you that dim or are you trying to erk me?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 10:42am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 9:09am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 9:01am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:23am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:18am: Just because we use them that doesnt mean we "need" them to survive. Not an inbuilt need. We don't use them for no reason, we need them. Subtract all those things ritualistic from your life for a month and assess the difference. Would it be a positive difference, do you think? Instead of, say, introducing yourself formally to an unknown party when required to do so, you instead do something else... Say, you break into a tap dance... Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 11:18am: What is your point? That we need religion? Is that your point? We do not need religion. Religion is primitive bs that was used to explain things that we didnt understand. Now we have science. SOB Ah, science! I'll leave that chestnut to others on this board, except to say, is science your crypto-religion? Yeah but we *can* stop rituals. Most cultures are different too. What is polite in one place is rude in another. And some ppl are just rude (dont do it). Yes, of course... rituals wax, wane, morph, transmogrify, come into use and fall out of use. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 9:01am: As for your weird comment about science. Are you implying that science is in some way a religion? Here you may need this. Read it. Learn from it. Afterall learning is what normal humans do. SOB Not so weird. I am not implying that science is a religion, I'm asking if you embrace it as if it were... a crypto-religion? Religion, for believers, answers (at least in their minds) their great existential questions and eases their existential angst... Others use philosophy to address the same... But is it science? You are accusing me of thinking science is a philosophy or are you saying science is a philosophy? Are you that dim or are you trying to erk me? SOB

I am asking if you are embracing science as a crypto-religion. It was you (was it not?) who suggested above that science has replaced religion... So, again... (As you have implied) Do you believe science is a crypto-religion?

No. I didnt mean it has replaced religion. I meant it has made religion irrelevant as an explanation for things that in the past seemed magical.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 11:33am:

No. I didnt mean it has replaced religion. I meant it has made religion irrelevant as an explanation for things that in the past seemed magical. SOB

And yet the reason for being of religion is also to answer, for the believer, existential questions and ameliorate existential angst.

What should replace religion's more fundamental role of answering these non-scientific questions? What would it be like... This thing that superseded religion's utility in answering these deeply existential questions?

Philosophers like de Botton and Dennett suggest that the answer is to take from religion (and religious ritual) what is still useful. Do you agree?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 11:47am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:33am: No. I didnt mean it has replaced religion. I meant it has made religion irrelevant as an explanation for things that in the past seemed magical. SOB And yet the reason for being of religion is also to answer, for the believer, existential questions and ameliorate existential angst. What should replace religion's more fundamental role of answering these non-scientific questions? What would it be like... This thing that superseded religion's utility in answering these deeply existential questions? Philosophers like de Botton and Dennett suggest that the answer is to take from religion (and religious ritual) what is still useful. Do you agree?

If you need answers too bad they arent there. We dont know. If you need "relief from angst" you can pretend to believe in fairies but it doesnt change the fact that they dont exist and you dont really have those answers.

If you really do believe in fairies then well you have your answers dont you. Isnt reality the preferred answer though?

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 11:47am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:33am: No. I didnt mean it has replaced religion. I meant it has made religion irrelevant as an explanation for things that in the past seemed magical. SOB And yet the reason for being of religion is also to answer, for the believer, existential questions and ameliorate existential angst. What should replace religion's more fundamental role of answering these non-scientific questions? What would it be like... This thing that superseded religion's utility in answering these deeply existential questions? Philosophers like de Botton and Dennett suggest that the answer is to take from religion (and religious ritual) what is still useful. Do you agree?

Science does not seek to answer, but to understand.
There is no understanding in religion, only predetermined answers.

I believe philosophy is non scientific alternative to science.
Religion has never answered any questions.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 11:51am:

If you need answers too bad they arent there. We dont know. If you need "relief from angst" you can pretend to believe in fairies but it doesnt change the fact that they dont exist and you dont really have those answers. If you really do believe in fairies then well you have your answers dont you. Isnt reality the preferred answer though? SOB

Ah yes! Kick-arse existentialism!

I guess you now have some reason as to why religion still exists!

I'd say those who suffer deeply from existential angst are looking for a bit more than 'suffer in your jocks'.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 11:52am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:33am: No. I didnt mean it has replaced religion. I meant it has made religion irrelevant as an explanation for things that in the past seemed magical. SOB And yet the reason for being of religion is also to answer, for the believer, existential questions and ameliorate existential angst. What should replace religion's more fundamental role of answering these non-scientific questions? What would it be like... This thing that superseded religion's utility in answering these deeply existential questions? Philosophers like de Botton and Dennett suggest that the answer is to take from religion (and religious ritual) what is still useful. Do you agree? Science does not seek to answer, but to understand. There is no understanding in religion, only predetermined answers. I believe philosophy is non scientific alternative to science. Religion has never answered any questions.

So, how should we live?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 11:57am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:52am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:33am: No. I didnt mean it has replaced religion. I meant it has made religion irrelevant as an explanation for things that in the past seemed magical. SOB And yet the reason for being of religion is also to answer, for the believer, existential questions and ameliorate existential angst. What should replace religion's more fundamental role of answering these non-scientific questions? What would it be like... This thing that superseded religion's utility in answering these deeply existential questions? Philosophers like de Botton and Dennett suggest that the answer is to take from religion (and religious ritual) what is still useful. Do you agree? Science does not seek to answer, but to understand. There is no understanding in religion, only predetermined answers. I believe philosophy is non scientific alternative to science. Religion has never answered any questions. So, how should we live?

By eating, drinking, breathing, sleeping and pooing.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:01pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:57am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:52am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:33am: No. I didnt mean it has replaced religion. I meant it has made religion irrelevant as an explanation for things that in the past seemed magical. SOB And yet the reason for being of religion is also to answer, for the believer, existential questions and ameliorate existential angst. What should replace religion's more fundamental role of answering these non-scientific questions? What would it be like... This thing that superseded religion's utility in answering these deeply existential questions? Philosophers like de Botton and Dennett suggest that the answer is to take from religion (and religious ritual) what is still useful. Do you agree? Science does not seek to answer, but to understand. There is no understanding in religion, only predetermined answers. I believe philosophy is non scientific alternative to science. Religion has never answered any questions. So, how should we live? By eating, drinking, breathing, sleeping and pooing.

Yairs... You're out of your depth...

Next.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:03pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:01pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:57am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:52am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:47am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:33am: No. I didnt mean it has replaced religion. I meant it has made religion irrelevant as an explanation for things that in the past seemed magical. SOB And yet the reason for being of religion is also to answer, for the believer, existential questions and ameliorate existential angst. What should replace religion's more fundamental role of answering these non-scientific questions? What would it be like... This thing that superseded religion's utility in answering these deeply existential questions? Philosophers like de Botton and Dennett suggest that the answer is to take from religion (and religious ritual) what is still useful. Do you agree? Science does not seek to answer, but to understand. There is no understanding in religion, only predetermined answers. I believe philosophy is non scientific alternative to science. Religion has never answered any questions. So, how should we live? By eating, drinking, breathing, sleeping and pooing. Yairs... You're out of your depth... Next.

Sorry the praying to fairy tale characters is an essential part in living

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 11:55am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:51am: If you need answers too bad they arent there. We dont know. If you need "relief from angst" you can pretend to believe in fairies but it doesnt change the fact that they dont exist and you dont really have those answers. If you really do believe in fairies then well you have your answers dont you. Isnt reality the preferred answer though? SOB Ah yes! Kick-arse existentialism! I guess you now have some reason as to why religion still exists! I'd say those who suffer deeply from existential angst are looking for a bit more than 'suffer in your jocks'.

Lol. Sorry. The thing is that reality cant be changed. Philosophers try to answer these questions but they havent managed it yet.

Religions are great social networks though and humans love those. All you have to do is pretend to believe the same thing a bunch of other ppl are pretending to believe and hate the other lot that are pretending to believe something else and voila! Social paradise.

SOB

---

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:11pm:

Lol. Sorry. The thing is that reality cant be changed. Philosophers try to answer these questions but they havent managed it yet.

Philosophers try to answer many questions... Even the great existential ones, like... How should we live?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:11pm: Lol. Sorry. The thing is that reality cant be changed. Philosophers try to answer these questions but they havent managed it yet. Philosophers try to answer many questions... Even the great existential ones, like... How should we live?

So how should we live o holy one?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:34pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:30pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:11pm: Lol. Sorry. The thing is that reality cant be changed. Philosophers try to answer these questions but they havent managed it yet. Philosophers try to answer many questions... Even the great existential ones, like... How should we live? So how should we live o holy one?

Well, for you I think eat, drink, breathe and sh!t would be about right... Like a... ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:11pm: Lol. Sorry. The thing is that reality cant be changed. Philosophers try to answer these questions but they havent managed it yet. Philosophers try to answer many questions... Even the great existential ones, like... How should we live?

Do philosophers try to answer that question? Huh. Well for them I would expect the answer would be to sit around thinking all day ;). Seriously do you mean lifestyles or what?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:46pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:30pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:11pm: Lol. Sorry. The thing is that reality cant be changed. Philosophers try to answer these questions but they havent managed it yet. Philosophers try to answer many questions... Even the great existential ones, like... How should we live? Do philosophers try to answer that question? Huh. Well for them I would expect the answer would be to sit around thinking all day ;). Seriously do you mean lifestyles or what? SOB

Read some Alain de Botton.

The Consolations of Philosophy
Status Anxiety
The Architecture of Happiness
The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work
Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 12:55pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:46pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:30pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:11pm: Lol. Sorry. The thing is that reality cant be changed. Philosophers try to answer these questions but they havent managed it yet. Philosophers try to answer many questions... Even the great existential ones, like... How should we live? Do philosophers try to answer that question? Huh. Well for them I would expect the answer would be to sit around thinking all day ;). Seriously do you mean lifestyles or what? SOB Read some Alain de Botton. The Consolations of Philosophy Status Anxiety The Architecture of Happiness The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion

I dont have time or money to go read a bunch of books. Just nutshell it for me.

Though i can think of a use for religion for atheists. It is useful to keep all the fruitbats in distinctive boxes so we know where they are.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 2:04pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:55pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:46pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:30pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:11pm: Lol. Sorry. The thing is that reality cant be changed. Philosophers try to answer these questions but they havent managed it yet. Philosophers try to answer many questions... Even the great existential ones, like... How should we live? Do philosophers try to answer that question? Huh. Well for them I would expect the answer would be to sit around thinking all day ;). Seriously do you mean lifestyles or what? SOB Read some Alain de Botton. The Consolations of Philosophy Status Anxiety The Architecture of Happiness The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion I dont have time or money to go read a bunch of books. Just nutshell it for me. SOB

There's no external cure for wilful ignorance.
 

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 2:06pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 2:04pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:55pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:46pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:30pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 12:11pm: Lol. Sorry. The thing is that reality cant be changed. Philosophers try to answer these questions but they havent managed it yet. Philosophers try to answer many questions... Even the great existential ones, like... How should we live? Do philosophers try to answer that question? Huh. Well for them I would expect the answer would be to sit around thinking all day ;). Seriously do you mean lifestyles or what? SOB Read some Alain de Botton. The Consolations of Philosophy Status Anxiety The Architecture of Happiness The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion I dont have time or money to go read a bunch of books. Just nutshell it for me. SOB There's no external cure for wilful ignorance.

This is a forum. You brought up a point. I called you on it. You need to explain it. Not direct me to buy and read countless books.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 3:41pm:

This is a forum. You brought up a point. I called you on it. You need to explain it. Not direct me to buy and read countless books. SOB

You ask a massive and nebulous existential question like "Why should I believe" and expect to not have to read? ::)

You want me to "nutshell" it? ;D

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJd4lKYlpRs

No. Perhaps its gotten lost in all the quotes. I asked you what you meant by the "how we live" that the philosophers discuss.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 4:01pm:

No. Perhaps its gotten lost in all the quotes. I asked you what you meant by the "how we live" that the philosophers discuss. SOB

"How should we live?"

An even more massively nebulous existential question than "Why should I believe".

It is one of the great Socratic questions that should be asked by everyone of every age... The unexamined life being not worth living (a great Socratic adage).

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 4:02pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 4:01pm: No. Perhaps its gotten lost in all the quotes. I asked you what you meant by the "how we live" that the philosophers discuss. SOB "How should we live?" An even more massively nebulous existential question than "Why should I believe". It is one of the great Socratic questions that should be asked by everyone of every age... The unexamined life being not worth living (a great Socratic adage).

Geez. Im not asking how we live im asking what the question means. Is the question about whjat culture we should live in? Is it about our day to day chores? Im asking what the question is. what is it you reckon they are contemplating.

"why should i believe" was explained in my post what i meant with the question. I dont know what you mean with that question.

By the way I do realise you were attempting to answer my question about the belief by providing ideas of why ppl believe. I just dont think its possible to believe just because you think you should or need to. Believing in fairies requires a suspension of logic.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 4:59pm:

Geez. Im not asking how we live im asking what the question means. Is the question about whjat culture we should live in? Is it about our day to day chores? Im asking what the question is. what is it you reckon they are contemplating. "why should i believe" was explained in my post what i meant with the question. I dont know what you mean with that question. By the way I do realise you were attempting to answer my question about the belief by providing ideas of why ppl believe. I just dont think its possible to believe just because you think you should or need to. Believing in fairies requires a suspension of logic. SOB

"How should we live?"

Should we always be just? Should we always be courageous? Should we always be honest? Should we always be compassionate?

What do you believe?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 5:12pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 4:59pm: Geez. Im not asking how we live im asking what the question means. Is the question about whjat culture we should live in? Is it about our day to day chores? Im asking what the question is. what is it you reckon they are contemplating. "why should i believe" was explained in my post what i meant with the question. I dont know what you mean with that question. By the way I do realise you were attempting to answer my question about the belief by providing ideas of why ppl believe. I just dont think its possible to believe just because you think you should or need to. Believing in fairies requires a suspension of logic. SOB "How should we live?" Should we always be just? Should we always be courageous? Should we always be honest? Should we always be compassionate? What do you believe?

Okay I think I get it. What should our personal ethics be. Maybe how do we determine them.

People in the world nowadays have kinda agreed on a couple things (killing is bad). Not on others (raping is bad). Your culture determines a lot of it but imo religion has done more harm than good in that area. The "10 commandments" are completely useless in this day and age and the koran is even worse (imo).

The thing is you dont need "beliefs" to determine how you act in your life. Humans have empathy and other emotions that should influence decisions. Eg most ppl treat others as they would expect to be treated. Of course there are always exception and these exception are usually caused by either some kind of mental problem or religion or both. More and more I see religious ppl (especially in america) saying that emotions are evil. They are there for a reason. They are part of us.

Anyway thats just my theory. I dont believe anything.

SOB

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 11:52am:

I believe philosophy is non scientific alternative to science. Religion has never answered any questions.

Philosophy refuses point blank to answer any questions.

"For every philosopher, there is an equal and opposite philospher. "
Muso's Law.

I think the old Golden rule is a good enough rule of thumb.  Treat everybody as you expect to be treated.

Killing a living being is killing one's own self; showing compassion to a living being is showing compassion to oneself. He who desires his own good, should avoid causing any harm to a living being.

muso wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 9:25am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:52am: I believe philosophy is non scientific alternative to science. Religion has never answered any questions. Philosophy refuses point blank to answer any questions. "For every philosopher, there is an equal and opposite philospher. " Muso's Law. I think the old Golden rule is a good enough rule of thumb.  Treat everybody as you expect to be treated. Killing a living being is killing one's own self; showing compassion to a living being is showing compassion to oneself. He who desires his own good, should avoid causing any harm to a living being.

I obviously didnt read this properly before. Philosophy is NOT a non-scientific alternative to science. There is no alternative to science but philosophy does not address the same things as science nor in the same way so it is not even the same field. An alternative would be something you could use instead. You cannot use philosophy instead of science for anything. They are different things.

SOB

muso wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 9:25am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 11:52am: I believe philosophy is non scientific alternative to science. Religion has never answered any questions. Philosophy refuses point blank to answer any questions. "For every philosopher, there is an equal and opposite philospher. " Muso's Law. I think the old Golden rule is a good enough rule of thumb.  Treat everybody as you expect to be treated. Killing a living being is killing one's own self; showing compassion to a living being is showing compassion to oneself. He who desires his own good, should avoid causing any harm to a living being.

Philosophy depends on reality.
If there is nothing to answer then it cannot answer it.
When science uncovers what that 'nothing' might be as to the creation of the universe then philosophy will probably do a great job at analysing and interpreting it for people who need more then a spreadsheet.

I agree, this is why I treat theists like crap because this is how they have treated the rest of society for thousands of years.

Added a poll just to see . . .  I answered no

Spot

muso wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 10:07am:

Yadda wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 2:27am: muso, I'm sorry, but haven't you previously expressed the view that depressed people should seek professional psychological help ? And along with counselling, don't psychologists prescribe 'chemical' relief, of the feelings of those who are not 'coping' ? I can understand why society accepts such treatment, of those who have a damaged psyche. But i do not agree with such treatment. I believe that such treatments [with drugs], poisons the bodies of their patients, AND, also then makes them drug dependant. Dictionary; psyche = = the human soul, mind, or spirit. ....I think you're being very precious indeed to imply that no true Christians have mental conditions.  ;D As a counter to that, I do think that many neo-atheists are in danger of neglecting their "spiritual" health. They throw the baby out with the bathwater. Whilst I concur that wherever possible we should avoid taking any drugs, even prescription ones, there are certainly cases where it provides a person with the possibility of a normal life. Epilepsy is a case in point. It's interesting the correlation between epilepsy and religion, don't you think? http://www.mendeley.com/research/an-investigation-of-religiosity-and-the-gastautgeschwind-syndrome-in-patients-with-temporal-lobe-epilepsy/ Before our religiously atheistic zealots jump on this, a religious person might interpret this differently from a non religious person.   ;D

[I CLICKED THE LINK.....3 minutes later, i was still waiting for something to appear on my screen.   :(       i closed the page.       I hate the fact that many modern internet pages seem to have megabytes of 'padding', when the actual content [which you clicked the page for] is probably / maybe only 50-200 kb's.    in any case, all of the padding in their pages is wasted on me!        my dailup today is connected @ 21 kb/sec]



muso,

I think that everyone of us [humans] is psychologically flawed, including Christians.

I do not think that Jesus Christ was flawed, i think that he was healthy, and the perfect man.      ;)

But i think that i would define a Christian as a person who aspires to be Christ like.

But i don't believe that any human being has achieved his perfection.



hey muso,

"All the world is mad except me and thee, and even thou art a little strange!"
unkown

;D




Quote:

Epilepsy is a case in point. It's interesting the correlation between epilepsy and religion, don't you think?

[I did not view the material.]
Interesting yes.
But i don't find this surprising at all.
....being that i believe in the influence of evil angels [demons].


'Religion' is a 'doorway' to the spirit world.

SATAN wants, and is seeking to attract all of the company he can get.
And imo, he and his agents will do everything that they can to guide the human psyche to his abode.
It is a trap.
SATAN will ensnare the unwary, the foolish.iMatthew 7:13
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


Matthew 6:33
....seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;....

"spiritual" health

There is no such thing as spirits. This is why atheists "neglect" to take notice of it. This "spiritual" business that religious (and especially xtians) lately have been trying to disguise their religion with it transparent to any non-believer. Give it up.

SOB

Yadda wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 1:57pm:

muso wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 10:07am: [quote author=11292C2C29480 link=1334452618/85#85 date=1335025644] [quote]Epilepsy is a case in point. It's interesting the correlation between epilepsy and religion, don't you think? SATAN wants, and is seeking to attract all of the company he can get. And imo, he and his agents will do everything that they can to guide the human psyche to his abode. It is a trap. SATAN will ensnare the unwary, the foolish.

I hope i misunderstand this as i am angry beyond belief. What kind of sick and ignorant animal would connect Epilepsy to evil. I have an epileptic child and this is a serious neurological disease that is known but still has a long way to go. This type of ignorance is why i have no respect for religion. What do you want an exorcism, maybe some inquisition torture will drive the devil out.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 9:52am:

Philosophy depends on reality. If there is nothing to answer then it cannot answer it. When science uncovers what that 'nothing' might be as to the creation of the universe then philosophy will probably do a great job at analysing and interpreting it for people who need more then a spreadsheet. I agree, this is why I treat theists like crap because this is how they have treated the rest of society for thousands of years.

Stupid as ever.

If you were right, science would have emerged spontaneously in every society and every epoch.

But it didn't.

And even where it did (ancient Greece and 17th century Europe) it was a different kind of science because the respective philosophical outlooks were different. The former was non-experimental, the latter experimental.

Both ancient Greece and 16th century Europe were religious.

nairbe wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 7:06pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 1:57pm: muso wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 10:07am: [quote author=11292C2C29480 link=1334452618/85#85 date=1335025644] [quote]Epilepsy is a case in point. It's interesting the correlation between epilepsy and religion, don't you think? SATAN wants, and is seeking to attract all of the company he can get. And imo, he and his agents will do everything that they can to guide the human psyche to his abode. It is a trap. SATAN will ensnare the unwary, the foolish. I hope i misunderstand this as i am angry beyond belief. What kind of sick and ignorant animal would connect Epilepsy to evil. I have an epileptic child and this is a serious neurological disease that is known but still has a long way to go. This type of ignorance is why i have no respect for religion. What do you want an exorcism, maybe some inquisition torture will drive the devil out.

In my experience the ones that go too far and start seeing "demons" everywhere and rebuking them etc are actually suffering from neurological disorder and need treatment.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 3:57pm:

"spiritual" health There is no such thing as spirits. This is why atheists "neglect" to take notice of it. This "spiritual" business that religious (and especially xtians) lately have been trying to disguise their religion with it transparent to any non-believer. Give it up. SOB

I agree that there are no such things as spirits, but what I'm talking about is a function of the human mind. It's not mental health, but the term "spiritual health" is more apt.

It's one of these things that's hard to describe. It includes things like the beauty of nature, great music, inspiration, meditation in a quiet environment, the appreciation of the vastness of the universe from watching a clear clouless night sky in the outback. These are feelings that we all experience.

muso wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 3:57pm: "spiritual" health There is no such thing as spirits. This is why atheists "neglect" to take notice of it. This "spiritual" business that religious (and especially xtians) lately have been trying to disguise their religion with it transparent to any non-believer. Give it up. SOB I agree that there are no such things as spirits, but what I'm talking about is a function of the human mind. It's not mental health, but the term "spiritual health" is more apt. It's one of these things that's hard to describe. It includes things like the beauty of nature, great music, inspiration, meditation in a quiet environment, the appreciation of the vastness of the universe from watching a clear clouless night sky in the outback. These are feelings that we all experience.

Yeah spirituality is basically a religious concept. Atheists can appreciate a sunrise or mozart just fine without assigning "gods" to it.

You will prolly get all pedantic with me over the "word" but basically ppl use the word in a religious context.

SOB

Yadda wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 1:57pm:

muso, I think that everyone of us [humans] is psychologically flawed, including Christians. I do not think that Jesus Christ was flawed, i think that he was healthy, and the perfect man.      ;) But i think that i would define a Christian as a person who aspires to be Christ like. But i don't believe that any human being has achieved his perfection. hey muso, "All the world is mad except me and thee, and even thou art a little strange!" unkown ;D Quote: Epilepsy is a case in point. It's interesting the correlation between epilepsy and religion, don't you think? [I did not view the material.] Interesting yes. But i don't find this surprising at all. ....being that i believe in the influence of evil angels [demons]. 'Religion' is a 'doorway' to the spirit world. SATAN wants, and is seeking to attract all of the company he can get. And imo, he and his agents will do everything that they can to guide the human psyche to his abode. It is a trap. SATAN will ensnare the unwary, the foolish.

I think you put your foot in it well and truly.  You probably owe a few apologies. Epilepsy is a neurological condition that can be treated, and many Christians take medication for it.

The link correlates parietal lobe activity with religiosity. What I was getting at is that religious people may regard that as just a way in which God chooses believers.  A non religious person may look on it as evidence of physiological cause of religion.

People have been talking about cause and effect in nature for thousands of years.

Quote:

Whereas we believe lightning to be released as a result of the collision of clouds, they believe that the clouds collide so as to release lightning: for as they attribute all to deity, they are led to believe not that things have a meaning insofar as they occur, but rather that they occur because they must have a meaning.

Seneca the Younger

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 9:59am:

muso wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 9:54am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 3:57pm: "spiritual" health There is no such thing as spirits. This is why atheists "neglect" to take notice of it. This "spiritual" business that religious (and especially xtians) lately have been trying to disguise their religion with it transparent to any non-believer. Give it up. SOB I agree that there are no such things as spirits, but what I'm talking about is a function of the human mind. It's not mental health, but the term "spiritual health" is more apt. It's one of these things that's hard to describe. It includes things like the beauty of nature, great music, inspiration, meditation in a quiet environment, the appreciation of the vastness of the universe from watching a clear clouless night sky in the outback. These are feelings that we all experience. Yeah spirituality is basically a religious concept. Atheists can appreciate a sunrise or mozart just fine without assigning "gods" to it. You will prolly get all pedantic with me over the "word" but basically ppl use the word in a religious context. SOB

Well some people do, but there are plenty of non theists  or "not theists" who speak about spirituality without embarassment. You obviously haven't heard of them.

The Brights Forum is a good example. I don't post there any more because they annoy me , even though I broadly agree with their belief system.

http://www.the-brights.net

Here's another excellent site. Visit the link and read the Welcome page:

http://evolutionaryspirituality.wikia.com/wiki/Religious_Naturalism


Quote:

Spirituality – a spiritual response to life is possible without supernatural elements and entities. A spiritual life can be based on the combined objectivity of science and the emotional subjective responses to the natural world. Part of this spirituality is the wonder and awe that can exist without science, but which science amplifies. This spirituality provides a sense of humility and exuberance, and a reverence for a mysterious, magnificent Universe.

If they believe in a god or gods then they arent non-theists.

Spot

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 5:37pm:

If they believe in a god or gods then they arent non-theists. Spot

Most "Religious Naturalists" don't. You need to read the page. It's quite interesting/  They are divided into Neo-Theists, non-theists and not theists ( or non confrontational atheists if you prefer)

They basically all concur on this issue:


Quote:

The Supernatural – there is no such entity or realm

I don't even know how to differentiate the terms "supernatural" and "nonsense" except by reference to traditional religions and Hollywood productions. 

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 8:16am:

nairbe wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 7:06pm: Yadda wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 1:57pm: muso wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 10:07am: Yadda wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 2:27am: [quote]Epilepsy is a case in point. It's interesting the correlation between epilepsy and religion, don't you think? SATAN wants, and is seeking to attract all of the company he can get. And imo, he and his agents will do everything that they can to guide the human psyche to his abode. It is a trap. SATAN will ensnare the unwary, the foolish. I hope i misunderstand this as i am angry beyond belief. What kind of sick and ignorant animal would connect Epilepsy to evil. I have an epileptic child and this is a serious neurological disease that is known but still has a long way to go. This type of ignorance is why i have no respect for religion. What do you want an exorcism, maybe some inquisition torture will drive the devil out. In my experience the ones that go too far and start seeing "demons" everywhere and rebuking them etc are actually suffering from neurological disorder and need treatment. SOB Hey, Puss in Boots, aka SOB, That is correct. What ? You are one step away from suggesting that persons who don't agree with your reality [or who don't agree with the reality of 'normal' people ], are suffering from 'neurological disorder'. And should be detained against their will, institutionalised, and given psychotropic drugs [against their will] to help to 'heal' them. Hmmm ? Is that what you are suggesting ? That is just plain evil. Hey, SOB, What about politics ??? If i don't agree with your politics, should i be institutionalised too ??? Lots of people would agree with such a 'political' 'remedy'. That is the sort of thing what tyrants do, to shut people up, who don't agree with them. They silence their critics, by [one way or another,] 'removing' them from the debate.i +++ nairbe..... [quote] I hope i misunderstand this as i am angry beyond belief.

Hey nairbe,

Do you feel one of your 'fits' coming on ?

Better take your medication then !!

Or better still, see SOB, and he/she, will help, by having you committed to an institution.



OR, would you just feel so much better if your hands were grasped tightly around my neck ???

If so, then you are the one who needs help.

muso wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 10:08am:

Yadda wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 1:57pm: muso, I think that everyone of us [humans] is psychologically flawed, including Christians. I do not think that Jesus Christ was flawed, i think that he was healthy, and the perfect man.      ;) But i think that i would define a Christian as a person who aspires to be Christ like. But i don't believe that any human being has achieved his perfection. hey muso, "All the world is mad except me and thee, and even thou art a little strange!" unkown ;D Quote: Epilepsy is a case in point. It's interesting the correlation between epilepsy and religion, don't you think? [I did not view the material.] Interesting yes. But i don't find this surprising at all. ....being that i believe in the influence of evil angels [demons]. 'Religion' is a 'doorway' to the spirit world. SATAN wants, and is seeking to attract all of the company he can get. And imo, he and his agents will do everything that they can to guide the human psyche to his abode. It is a trap. SATAN will ensnare the unwary, the foolish. I think you put your foot in it well and truly.  You probably owe a few apologies. Epilepsy is a neurological condition that can be treated, and many Christians take medication for it. The link correlates parietal lobe activity with religiosity. What I was getting at is that religious people may regard that as just a way in which God chooses believers.  A non religious person may look on it as evidence of physiological cause of religion.

muso,

Google;
nobody has the right to not be offended





muso,

Irrational people will try to shut down >> debate << on an issue, by 'being offended'.

Is that what you agree with ?

That we should not be allowed to offend people who we are engaged in a debate against, about politics, or spirituality, or mental issues, or religion ???






My opinion is that,     ..........nairbe is presenting himself/herself, in this forum as a person who is too 'precious' to be able to engage in debate about epilepsy and its causes.

If that is the fact, then nairbe should withdraw from this debate, rather than trying to gag me, or trying to make me feel guilty, about my own beliefs on this issue.




muso.......

Quote:

I agree that there are no such things as spirits,

muso,

I'm happy for you to express such a thing.

I'm happy for you to express that my God does not exist, and that he is just my imaginary friend.



My position is that
God,
SATAN,
angels,
and demons [evil angels],
...are spirits,
...and my experience is that they are real.

And, there is a spiritual realm which is imperceptible to man's carnal mind, and it is real.

Yadda wrote on Apr 25^th, 2012 at 12:49am:

muso, I'm happy for you to express such a thing. I'm happy for you to express that my God does not exist, and that he is just my imaginary friend. My position is that God, SATAN, angels, and demons [evil angels], ...are spirits, ...and my experience is that they are real. And, there is a spiritual realm which is imperceptible to man's carnal mind, and it is real.

Yadda,

I respect your position. I understand that you genuinely believe what you say, and in no way am I being patronising (unlike some). I understand that perception has a large bearing on determining what is real.

I think you understand my position too. It's difficult to define, but it hovers around somewhere between religious naturalism, neo-theism and Deism.

I don't accept the Christian interpretation of God and I don't accept any other Gods as being "supernatural" beings, but I do believe that the whole of humanity and nature is interconnected in non mystical ways that I have described before.  Mysterious perhaps, but not mystical.

I don't have a problem with those who believe in traditional religions. In fact, I think ithey are mostly beneficial from a spiritual perspective. 


Quote:

Emotions underlie how people feel about living. Spirituality is a subjective response to a person's appraisal of that being. We are religious in that spirituality. Our sense of beauty provides us with insights into Nature and the human arts.

(Link near the end of the post)


Quote:

I'm happy for you to express that my God does not exist, and that he is just my imaginary friend.

Well I'm certainly not. Apart from being disrespectful, it's an arrogant position to take. For one thing it assumes that mental processes are inconsequential, and as I've said before, the ability to handle abstract concepts is what makes humanity so special. 

For another thing, it's taking the rather childish view that "my perception is better than your perception". (We've had this discussion about mountain top views before.) The scientific method just help us to extend our perception. It doesn't initiate us into some hidden knowledge about reality. It's not neo-gnosticism. It's just an extended use of our senses. The fundamentals are still unknown and probably always will be. Anyone who uses this excuse of science having all the answers is self deluded. It's a cop out. Truth and meaning are obtained by free and responsible inquiry and that's the bottom line.

I've said this before. I don't claim to know the true nature of humanity, life and god. I'm just a man like any other man trying to make sense of my existence.

Hopefully this page should load up quickly for you.
http://religiousnaturalism.info/Tenets_of_Religious_Naturalism.html

I don't hold to any tenets, but I find myself roughly in accord with many of these points, particularly this:


Quote:

We do not impose our philosophy on others; rather we share its beauty with those who wish to experience it. We exchange our own unique individual interpretations of our being to help enrich others.     We advance our outlook with purpose, dignity and intellectual integrity. We listen and respect the traditional religious language of others and translate it into our own more naturalistic frames and visualizations.

- and Yadda, I enjoy this dialogue. I think it's useful to understand other points of view without being adversarial. Don't you?

Yadda wrote on Apr 25^th, 2012 at 12:04am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 8:16am: nairbe wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 7:06pm: Yadda wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 1:57pm: muso wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 10:07am: Yadda wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 2:27am: [quote]Epilepsy is a case in point. It's interesting the correlation between epilepsy and religion, don't you think? SATAN wants, and is seeking to attract all of the company he can get. And imo, he and his agents will do everything that they can to guide the human psyche to his abode. It is a trap. SATAN will ensnare the unwary, the foolish. I hope i misunderstand this as i am angry beyond belief. What kind of sick and ignorant animal would connect Epilepsy to evil. I have an epileptic child and this is a serious neurological disease that is known but still has a long way to go. This type of ignorance is why i have no respect for religion. What do you want an exorcism, maybe some inquisition torture will drive the devil out. In my experience the ones that go too far and start seeing "demons" everywhere and rebuking them etc are actually suffering from neurological disorder and need treatment. SOB Hey, Puss in Boots, aka SOB, That is correct. What ? You are one step away from suggesting that persons who don't agree with your reality [or who don't agree with the reality of 'normal' people ], are suffering from 'neurological disorder'. And should be detained against their will, institutionalised, and given psychotropic drugs [against their will] to help to 'heal' them. Hmmm ? Is that what you are suggesting ? That is just plain evil. Hey, SOB, What about politics ??? If i don't agree with your politics, should i be institutionalised too ??? Lots of people would agree with such a 'political' 'remedy'. That is the sort of thing what tyrants do, to shut people up, who don't agree with them. They silence their critics, by [one way or another,] 'removing' them from the debate.i +++ nairbe..... [quote] I hope i misunderstand this as i am angry beyond belief. Hey nairbe, Do you feel one of your 'fits' coming on ? Better take your medication then !! Or better still, see SOB, and he/she, will help, by having you committed to an institution. OR, would you just feel so much better if your hands were grasped tightly around my neck ??? If so, then you are the one who needs help.

You seem to have read a lot into my 1 sentence there.

If the shoe fits . . . . .

Well. This is a surprise. I really didnt think you were one who actually sees demons. Mainly I assumed you werent since you managed to get onto a computer and into a forum. Guess I was wrong.

No I am not suggesting that someone not agreeing with my reality are suffering from a neurological disorder. I would only do that in jest. I am suggesting that the ppl that see demons and think they are everywhere are suffering from a neurological disorder. It can be fixed.

I also never said anything about taking such ppl against their will. In fact I never mentioned how they should get help should they need it. However - to clear up your concerns I dont think anyone should be taken against their will for anything unless they are a danger to the ppl around them. Okay? If you do need help then you should go to a qualified psychiatrist (I dont think a psychologist could help you but thats my opinion).

Haha @ politics. you obviously dont read the political threads because I have been speaking out against censorship.

Why are you so afraid of "medication"? Have ppl tried to get you to take it?

SOB