09-09-2008, 09:34 AM | #161 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|
09-09-2008, 09:56 AM | #162 | |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
But I don't really expect someone who operates under the assumption that, until proven otherwise, there is a God, to comprehend this. It's frankly laughable that you lable atheists as irrational, as if we were born on this Earth with strong, religious faith (Pun!) That atheism is irrational because atheists cannot disprove God, when it's perfectly obvious that one can neither disprove the existence of the Toothfairy. But please, go ahead, disgard reason for fantasy Opium for the people..
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 09-09-2008 at 10:03 AM. |
|
09-09-2008, 10:01 AM | #163 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
09-09-2008, 10:21 AM | #164 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
Quote:
AToothFairyism is one of the most notable belief systems for the fact that it has zero evidence supporting it. It is the blindest faith outlook I've ever seen, because all of its adherents have only their own opinions that there is no Tooth Fairy, and not the the tiniest shred of evidence at all that there is no Tooth Fairy. They never can have any evidence at all that there is no Tooth Fairy, because it's impossible to prove a negative. Hey, this is fun- anyone want to do the Great Pumpkin? the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Zeus, Father of Gods and Men? [/QUOTE]
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
|
09-09-2008, 12:37 PM | #165 | |||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
People often criticize Christianity for the faith element of the religion, but I'm pointing out the absurdity of this. If it was blind faith, the criticism would be warranted, but seeing as Christianity is actually seeing faith, faith based on evidence (of which personal, interactive relationship with the divine is a crucial part), it falls into the same category of beliefs that we hold to all over the world. Whether scientific theories or social stability theories or other. It's faith based on evidence, reasonable, seeing faith, not blind faith. It is pure ignorance to accuse it of being in the blind faith category, because there is so much evidence supporting it. Quote:
No, I am not saying that one should assume there's a God until proven otherwise. I'm saying that one should say, "I don't know if there's a God or not," unless confronted with good evidence pointing either way. Quote:
As for the Tooth Fairy (and this is to GrayMouser too), that's a different matter because no one believes she exists but children, and parents all over the world admit to making up that story, like Santa Claus, as a good fiction. Comparing that to religion is ludicrous. Religious believers DON'T admit to making up their experiences with God as a good fiction, and hundreds of millions of ADULTS around the world believe they know Him because of their own, interactive personal experiences with Him. Not to mention all the objective historical or scientific evidence for the reality of the Christian God. Comparing the two is absolutely laughable .
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|||
09-09-2008, 12:51 PM | #166 | |||
The Ñoldóran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mishawaka, IN
Posts: 2,050
|
Wow, people are getting mean in this thread.
Why, people? Are we not all adults who can participate in civil discourse without ad hominem attacks? Grow up, all of you haters. Quote:
Quote:
And on a very non-religious manner, I do not believe that there is any possible way that I am 'causing harm' to anyone. I live my life in such a way that if I have ever harmed anyone (even animals, for that matter, as I'm a devout vegetarian) that it was entirely accidental. Quote:
__________________
Then Celegorm no more would stay, And Curufin smiled and turned away... ~The Lay of Leithian |
|||
09-09-2008, 01:23 PM | #167 | |||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
But how do you know your deities aren't deceiving you, may I ask? It seems that a lot of people's deities must be deceiving them, in view of the vast variety of contradictory religious beliefs that are out there, which people often come to hold because of supernatural experiences. I had a dream about you last night, by the way. I dreamed that you went into the sea in search of your husband, but were kidnapped by a Greek God. He rode away with you into the sky, in a chariot. I take it to refer to what you told me earlier, about how you originally sought intimacy with the Christian God, but ended up in a pantheistic/polytheistic worldview. Of course, the dream could just be my own psychology talking to me. I don't think so, though. You see what I mean about contradictory religious experiences? Quote:
I don't remember what you said about your position on abortion, when we discussed it last , but if you support the legality of that (if I recall correctly, you do), that would be another big one. You see what I mean about people defining harm, and righteousness vs. evil, differently? Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 09-09-2008 at 01:29 PM. |
|||
09-09-2008, 02:12 PM | #168 | ||||
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, that doesn't always happen. Quote:
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle Last edited by Gwaimir Windgem : 09-09-2008 at 02:26 PM. |
||||
09-09-2008, 02:22 PM | #169 |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Just a side note: "Deity" means "Godness". The reference to God as "Deity" arises from Thomistic conception of the simplicity of God making his being the same as his essence, such that God (Deus) and Godness (Deitas) are the same thing. Thus, since the essence of Godness and the perfectly simply God are the same thing, this conception of God=Deity (which is the translation of Deitas) is one that actually presupposes a monotheistic worldview. Which all amounts to: speaking of "deities" doesn't make too much sense.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
09-09-2008, 11:49 PM | #170 | |||||
The Ñoldóran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mishawaka, IN
Posts: 2,050
|
Quote:
Personally, I'm of the belief that 'there is more than one way to the top of the mountain' - that all Gods tha t we worship are the same God (or aspects of the same God) and everyone, because we are different people, simply sees it differently. But that's just me. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Then Celegorm no more would stay, And Curufin smiled and turned away... ~The Lay of Leithian |
|||||
09-09-2008, 11:56 PM | #171 | ||
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
||
09-10-2008, 12:07 AM | #172 |
The Ñoldóran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mishawaka, IN
Posts: 2,050
|
Well, I think of it this way. Let's say ten people are standing around a prism. Everyone is going to see the light refracted differently, even though at its core, it's the same beam of light in its essence.
In the same way, people see the truth reflected differently - that doesn't mean that at its base it's a different truth.
__________________
Then Celegorm no more would stay, And Curufin smiled and turned away... ~The Lay of Leithian |
09-10-2008, 12:16 AM | #173 |
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Lief, there's a reason it's called faith. It basically means it isn't evidence-based, as an obvious fact. It means having faith. It means trusting in things that no one really can prove to you. That's faith! You're just making things up when you try to elevate your faith to the evidence- and reason-based level of science.
I think you need to read a bit about Atheism because it's getting tedious reading the ignorant views you hold about it. Actually I suspect you know perfectly well what atheism is, but your rigid religious beliefs are trapping you. As to your comments Gwaimir, I can't really help you. Spare me the 'If-only-this-debate-was-more-civil'. That you don't understand the message behind the words and arguments I've written so far will have to be your own problem. There have been countless instances where I've passed the ball to the other side of the court, but you've not chipped in on this thread and answered some of the questions I've posed to the Catholics in here. Here's a neat little summary of my views in this thread, in a song (written by a Swedish musician), to show my view of the pompous extravagance of the Vatican: "A man stands up on the hillside.. ..He has body, he has soul, he has life And he takes care of all three He can chase, and he can feel He can go up on the hillside and pray He doesn't need any cathedrals He has his temple right where he stands He doesn't need any cardinals He only needs the wind in his hair Do you want to see a miracle? Do you want to see a miracle today? Go up on the hillside, go up on the mountain Go up there and stand there each day You don't need grand processions You don't need gold-braided capes You don't need orgel music to go up and meet God"
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 09-10-2008 at 01:46 AM. |
09-10-2008, 03:03 PM | #174 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 102
|
Coffeehouse,
I've enjoyed much of your posts on this subject so far. I think the value you put on an individuals experience is very important and I also very much agree with your view on the harmful aspects of organized religion. But I also think that you take it a little far and that you fall into something called the pre/trans fallacy, as described by the current philosopher Ken Wilber. Check out his Wikipedia entry for more info on the pre/trans fallacy, or maybe look into getting one of Wilber's books, if you're interested, which I think you might be. It seems to me that although I do think it rather silly to say "you can't disprove the existence of God because Science doesn't work that way, so he must exist!", I think that by the same token it's mislead to say that since you have no scientific evidence of God you know for certain that God doesn't exist. Science, as I think you know, is always and has always been deepening it's own understand of the universe. We learn more all the time. So, logically speaking, if we are able to learn more all the time, there must be something out there that we don't already know that is able to be known to find, if you follow me. Our knowing about it is not, I believe, what makes it true. Three hundred years ago the idea of an atomic bomb would have sound silly and probably very unscientific. Does that mean science shouldn't believe it today? So keep an open mind, mate. Tomorrow we might split open an atom and Whoosh! out pops Satan. Probably not. But maybe in a couple hundred years science will prove the idea of reincarnation. Or maybe it won't. There very well may be a stopping point for how far science can know. But does that really mean there's nothing beyond that? I believe, as a Buddhist, that human consciousness itself is actually the most profound tool for exploring the universe. I think it's capabilities actually go beyond reason and faith, and you can leave them both behind for something transrational: Pure, enlightened intuition. But that's just me.
__________________
Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up. Thoreau. Last edited by D.Sullivan : 09-10-2008 at 05:49 PM. |
09-10-2008, 06:20 PM | #175 | ||||||
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I found this part interesting (from the Wiki on Ken Wilber): "Wilber describes the current state of the "hard" sciences as limited to "narrow science", which only allows evidence from the lowest realm of consciousness, the sensorimotor (the five senses and their extensions). What he calls "broad science" would include evidence from logic, mathematics, and from the symbolic, hermeneutical, and other realms of consciousness. Ultimately and ideally, broad science would include the testimony of meditators and spiritual practitioners. Wilber's own conception of science includes both narrow science and broad science, e.g, using electroencephalogram machines and other technologies to test the experiences of meditators and other spiritual practitioners, creating what Wilber calls "integral science".[citation needed] According to Wilber's theory, narrow science trumps narrow religion, but broad science trumps narrow science. That is, the natural sciences provide a more inclusive, accurate account of reality than any of the particular exoteric religious traditions. But an integral approach that evaluates both religious claims and scientific claims based on intersubjectivity is preferable to narrow science." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That the human consciousness is the most profound tool for exploring the universe is I think, quite right. One of the more appealings sides of Buddhism is the focus on transcending, and not because of a God or to reveal a closer relationship with that God, but to transcend for the sake of inner clarity (the jumpboard to a good life). Not transcending out of fear of Hell, nor transcending one's mind and heart because it is written somewhere, but doing so because it reveals so many of the ingenious ways of the mind, freeing from in-the-box constraints that often bog down human beings: taking a birdsview (is healthy) of everything in life, including scientific reasoning: which is after all the product of man, the best understanding we have, but fallible. You say that I may be taking it a bit too far, and yeah, I think you're on to something. Let me explain though, if I understand your criticism right, why I judge the Catholic Church the way I do. All my (extremely short!) life I've been fascinated by history and what it can teach us here in the modern-day world. I therefore think in a historican context when I look at the larger religions in the world, Christianity and Islam, and try to see how right they were duing different points in time, and what decisions were made by prominent followers of the religion. So to speak setting up a check-list between what these religions say they do and are, and what history has shown them to doing and being. Don't know if that made sense That means that when I look at Catholicism I hold it to the standard that it itself has imposed, namely that it alone holds the true word of God, and thus holds the universal truths. That it alone holds the true ear to God. Thus, what the religion says it is, the conveyor of God's message. So from the Bible we can deduct from the ten commandments a set of rules, according to the Catholic faith the true word of God if we are to believe them, and we look at these rules. In these rules I see messages that are seemingly quite healthy; don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat: a.k.a. don't do onto others what you wouldn't want others to do to you. What I realized though was that there are so many times in history since the advent of the Catholic Church, in times where it has held great sway, where it has committed errors, murders, injustices, social oppression, psychological oppression, aggressions that in no way stand up-right in the face of the rules and messages that the Church itself has outlined as its grander theme: love under one God. Therefore, despite the fact that there are many Catholic priests in the world who probably do alot more good than they do harm, and that there are many instances in the history of Catholicism where it has promoted good things in the face of very bad things, I can't help but conclude that this Church just doesn't live up to its promises. It has shown that it's justice isn't infallible. It has shown that it has been wrong on some of the most fundamental aspects of how the world works and how human beings works. The choice is simple: For all its good-natured sides, the Catholic Church must be held to its own standards, and since it fails these, then the only thing to do is move on, look elsewhere. Where am I today? I am an atheist.
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 09-10-2008 at 06:52 PM. |
||||||
09-10-2008, 09:28 PM | #176 |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
An atheist is just as likely to be a morally good person, or morally bad person, as anyone of any faith is. That really says it all.
Personally, I've found morality to have a lot more to do with one's parents than one's religion.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
09-11-2008, 02:32 AM | #177 | |||||||
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 102
|
Quote:
I appreciate the value you put on the experience of the individual and how you believe it's important that people really look for themselves to find the answers to all the questions religion says it can answer for us. Basically, I appreciated this: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But as much as I have an aversion to certain forms of organized religion, I feel that too often people, especially atheists, put religion and spirituality in the same boat, which I think is generalizing things too much. I feel that my spiritual practice is very important to me, and though I largely practice it in a religious context, I still don't really feel like the claims of atheists about horrors of religion really apply to me and my practice, but they're sent my way anyway. I find that troubling. Oh well, I suppose. That also makes me wonder...why go right to atheism after rejecting Catholicism? Is there nothing else? No in-between? I read a book about a Christian Mystic once, and I remember him saying something I really liked. I believe it was something along the lines of: "I'd rather have a conversation with an open-minded atheist than a closed-minded religious person." I think you've verified that for me. Thanks for your reply, Coffeehouse. Quote:
__________________
Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up. Thoreau. |
|||||||
09-11-2008, 02:53 AM | #178 |
The Ñoldóran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mishawaka, IN
Posts: 2,050
|
Hey, atheists often have it easy next to pagans.
At least atheists only get attacked from one side.
__________________
Then Celegorm no more would stay, And Curufin smiled and turned away... ~The Lay of Leithian |
09-11-2008, 05:10 AM | #179 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
Quote:
Merriam-Webster dictionary: Quote:
Rules of Linguistics: Synchronicity tops diachronicity; or, usage tops etymology.
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
||
09-11-2008, 06:59 AM | #180 | |||||
Entmoot Minister of Foreign Affairs
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 2,145
|
Yeah, and I was suprised that I hadn't heard of him before.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
They might be wrong, and it's also counter-productive because what I f.ex. am against isn't the belief in God or Gods, or a spiritual world co-existing with one's material world, but like I explained earlier, the ugly face that rigidly organized religion often exhibits. It might not seem like it, but I think there's a certain spiritual level in my own life, though I'm still struggling to define it. Which leads me to your question, Quote:
Being a Norwegian I've been raised in a family that, although not very practicing, is of the Lutheran faith, and that goes for most of the Norwegian population. So I've been baptized, and confirmed when I was 15 (although by then I was pretty much an atheist already). What did it for me was when my Science teacher touched upon Evolution when I was 13 years old and the bubble just burst, though that was only the trigger. I've believed in God, but I turned more and more sceptical seeing that there were many things that just didn't fit with what the faith asserted. Having lived in Brazil for two years reinforced that image, seeing the weird conflict between Protestants and Catholics there, trying to convert one another's followers (like missionaries coming from Europe, trying to convert Catholic to Protestantism). Seemed absurd. It's a big puzzle of reasons I can't really explain (would take hours upon hours!), but the bottom-line is that reading and watching about all sorts of religions, and their past, from Christianity to Islam to Hinduism to New Age (the latter admittely not one religion), I have too many disagreements with them to accept any. What I've ended up with is a humanist approach, with a positive focus on what the human mind is capable of. I'm also a staunch supporter of the rule of law! (But that has much to do with my own nation's history and position in the world. Norway is a rich, but small and pretty much defenseless nation that is totally dependent on good relations with the rest of the world) I don't view myself as a die-hard atheist that denies that any spiritual world can exist. But I'll remain sceptical until further You too!
__________________
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare." Last edited by Coffeehouse : 09-11-2008 at 07:03 AM. |
|||||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Science | ayarella | General Messages | 804 | 04-13-2012 09:05 PM |
muslims PART 2 | Spock | General Messages | 805 | 02-03-2011 03:16 AM |
Theology III | Earniel | General Messages | 1007 | 07-02-2008 02:22 PM |
Theological Opinions | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 992 | 02-10-2006 04:15 PM |
REAL debate thread for RELIGION | Ruinel | General Messages | 1439 | 04-01-2005 02:47 PM |