RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Zensee -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 10:24:46 PM)

Keep flinging enough poo lucky and some of it is bound to stick.

Enjoy debating yourself, you hold enough mutually contradictoray views, you don't need me any more.


Z.



Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 10:50:33 PM)

quote:

the need for testing of the hypothesis under varying conditions


Actually, it has to be under controlled conditions, but thanks for sharing.

quote:

Did you know Pythagorus was a fortune teller?  Thats what he was doing when he noticed his great Theory. 


Actually, he was measuring the nodes and anti-nodes of a transverse wave, but thanks for sharing.

quote:

of course you never actually gave me any such source


Actually, I gave a list of several, but thanks for sharing.

quote:

you were absolutly wrong on the origins of Alchemy


I never made any assertions as to the origins of Alchemy, I only refuted your claim that the observation and description of a phenomenon, the development of an hypothesis, the use of the hypothesis to predict, and the experimental testing of the predictions, was Alchemy if performed by pre-Christians.

Again, thanks for sharing.










meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/6/2008 11:51:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Actually anti semitism is a view held by many different culturesm, and originated in Pagan Rome.  Modern Anti Semitism was created in hte culture of Christianity, as was modern Science, which replaced alchemy.    I didn't cite the nazis as an officially athiestic state, I cited (someof) the Socialists of the 20th century. 

Circumsision was certainly developed through random trial and error, which is what some of you keep arguing science is.  Leaving out the forming and testing of hypothesis part, which really would get you an F in a science class. 

I don't know what circumsion has to do with mastrubation, Jonanus is on his own there.

Keeping on with my constant noting of people misstating my argument.  I am in no way attempting to proove that there is a divine.  Just pointing out that it has not been disproven by science, and the 2 can very easily co exist.

And way back to a point I missed responding to,  Galileo was indeed a Chirstian, and was a product of the Christian culture.

Science is a paticular way of observing and thinking about the world.  It is a (in the existance of man)  very recent and usefull phenomena.


I'm trying to figure out how you come to the idea Rome created anti-semiticism. Yes Rome destroyed Jerusalem, killed thousands of Jews and sold thousands of others into slavery but that is what the Romans did to any one who tried to get in their way. Just look at Dacia, Gaul, Carthage, the Britons, just look at the revenge they took on the Germans. The Jews survived Rome, many cultures didn't. Rome didn't pick the Jews out of a bunch for special treatment, they just gave them what they normally hand out. There is no doubt, western anti-semiticism is tied up with Christianity, the early Chritian Church blaming the Jews for killing Jesus (many think for political reasons) rather than the Romans, even though crucifixion was a Roman judicial punishment. Anti-semiticism had nothing to do with pagan Rome, Christian Rome, yes. As I pointed out, pagan Rome didn't pick the Jews out for special treatment, genocide was normal buisness for the Romans and the fact the Jews survived and many other peoples were utterly destroyed shows that.

Circumcision comes from the middle east to the west through religion. There is no evidence at all that it was  practiced in Europe before the introduction of Abramic religions. Some 90% of European men aren't circumcised and when you consider around 10% of Europeans are either Islamic, Jewish or African, it is fair to say that circumcision is not a European practice but something particularly alien to this continent. I'm struggling to think were science has anything to do with circumcision.

As for science not being able to disprove the devine, I can't prove there is a pink elephant standing in the middle of my garden. However, with the absence of objective evidence, those that insist there is the divine must experience it in their head only. Scientists do have plausible theories as to why people sense the divine and they can recreate the sense of well being that comes with the sense of there being the divine. Religious feeling can be created in subjects that never considered themselves to be religious, simply by stimulating the right area of the brain.

Galileo was indeed Christian and a product of Christian culture but I dispute your assertion that modern science can be divorced from its lineage with the Arabs and Greeks as though it was suddenly rediscovered. Science never really went away. It is a particularly Eurocentric, even an Italiancentric view to consider the Renaisance a rebirth of knowledge. Dispite common belief, the middleages weren't static but quite dynamic and a lot of learning, discoveries and transfers of knowledge were taking place. That is why there was a renaissance in the north of Europe as much as the south and the renaisasance in north Europe was considerably more humanist than the renaissance in the south, which was generally religious based, even if the funding of it was from venal merchants. 



luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 12:45:51 AM)

Thats all great Alumbrado, except you said,

"None of the above fit into the definition of alchemy (which by the way, was a product of the time of Christian dominion over scholarship). )."

When in fact Alchemy originated in Egypt thousands of years before Christ.(or possibly before but that is a different thread).

Do you deny Pythagoreous was a fortune teller?  Anyone who wants can go look it up.  He did tune instruments also, and figured out some relationships withing that context.  He did not know he was measuring nodes and anti nodes, he just noticed if you half way six times on a string you get a sweet scale, and that it coresponded to the magic numbers. 

Yes, controlled conditions should be in there, but also more than one type of condition is best (as it could be something in the conditions causing the result, not the theorised actors), which means varying.

The quote you gave me about Archimedes, said he used the Method of Exuastion, not the Scientific Method.  He did his work within the context of Alchemy (which is more than the character from the Europeon middle ages who wants to make gold out of lead).  I gave you information from a university math dept on it.



meatcleaver -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 3:00:10 AM)

Luckydog. The Greeks were searching in the dark somewhat but without them, modern science wouldn't have happened, they set the whole thing in motion. It was Greek culture that laid the foundations of most western thought, ideas don't suddenly appear out of a vacuum, they usually start by someone who is curious who starts scratching around in the dark and then someone else curious enough  to takes things further. It is Socrates that taught the west critical thought which allowed the western thinkers to question the existence of god and has many westerners dismissing god as superstition because there is no objective evidence that he exists.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 3:51:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Do you have the intellectual honor to admit, you have tried to switch your premise?  Generally that is considered evidence that you can't defend the original one.


You are suggesting that two completely different statements is an attempt on my part to move the goalposts, which it isn't.

Hey - the thread evolves, issues arise, discussion ensues. This is my fault? I don't think so.

And sadly, you also seem to have a reading comprehension problem: even the first post moves smoothly from the general to the specific and back again. I stand by the first post as it is, a challenge to faith more generally with a specific example in mind. I didn't think anyone was going to strongly defend a belief in Santa Claus or the Wild Hunt so I thought I was in the clear there and no one has seemed to mind. Some seem to have enjoyed making comments at my expense however.

I stand by the other statement as it is also, an exhortation to focus on the ideas under discussion without resorting to personal attacks or intolerance of certain groups of people. Challenge the idea, task someone's rhetoric, but respect the person(s) behind the words and ideas.

It's tough. If someone wraps their whole life around their faith, how do you question their faith without by implication mocking them as individuals and the choices they have made?

It's a slender beam to traverse.

And yet some faith views have been very dangerous historically. I'll concede that the Crusades were basically a land grab using religion as an excuse. But what can we say of the Inquisition or of witch hunting? Murdering people as satanists and witches just reeks of religious intolerance - so what are we to make of the people that put others to their deaths because of their supposed religious views? Many of the people persecuted had so little to call their own that it's hard to imagine other reasons but the thing itself - religious intolerance maintained on the back of egregiously myopic faith views. Social control without boundries, and all because of some idea of faith.




Rule -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 5:09:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro
I didn't think anyone was going to strongly defend a belief in Santa Claus or the Wild Hunt
 
Santa Claus - especially in his Dutch variation Sint Nicolaas - has (been attributed with) the characteristics of and thus symbolizes - or has absorbed the identity of - the Creator.
As to the reality of the Wild Hunt there are many testimonies in folklore.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro
And yet some faith views have been very dangerous historically. I'll concede that the Crusades were basically a land grab using religion as an excuse. But what can we say of the Inquisition or of witch hunting? Murdering people as satanists and witches just reeks of religious intolerance - so what are we to make of the people that put others to their deaths because of their supposed religious views? Many of the people persecuted had so little to call their own that it's hard to imagine other reasons but the thing itself - religious intolerance maintained on the back of egregiously myopic faith views. Social control without boundries, and all because of some idea of faith.
Those who rule - royalty, dictators, politicians, judges, leaders of businesses and men - usually are psychopaths. Such people often have the innate urge to murder or have others murder other humans, especially the common folks and will justify themselves by any excuse. Religions usually try to respond to this danger to the common folks by various means. Invariably, though, religions are infiltrated and taken over by the psychopaths and used for their own purposes.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 5:40:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Those who rule - royalty, dictators, politicians, judges, leaders of businesses and men - usually are psychopaths. Such people often have the innate urge to murder or have others murder other humans, especially the common folks and will justify themselves by any excuse. Religions usually try to respond to this danger to the common folks by various means. Invariably, though, religions are infiltrated and taken over by the psychopaths and used for their own purposes.


Not exactly a ringing endorsement for faith, in my view. And I think this has broader implications which many would prefer to ignore.

[8|]

I'd like to say something about dangerous memes here, but I think it's another thread.



Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 5:53:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Thats all great Alumbrado, except you said,

"None of the above fit into the definition of alchemy (which by the way, was a product of the time of Christian dominion over scholarship). )."

When in fact Alchemy originated in Egypt thousands of years before Christ.(or possibly before but that is a different thread).

Do you deny Pythagoreous was a fortune teller?  Anyone who wants can go look it up.  He did tune instruments also, and figured out some relationships withing that context.  He did not know he was measuring nodes and anti nodes, he just noticed if you half way six times on a string you get a sweet scale, and that it coresponded to the magic numbers. 

Yes, controlled conditions should be in there, but also more than one type of condition is best (as it could be something in the conditions causing the result, not the theorised actors), which means varying.

The quote you gave me about Archimedes, said he used the Method of Exuastion, not the Scientific Method.  He did his work within the context of Alchemy (which is more than the character from the Europeon middle ages who wants to make gold out of lead).  I gave you information from a university math dept on it.


Congratulations, you have almost waffled to the point of reversing your original contention, thus making my observation of your past behavior, my hypothesis about its origins, and my predictions about you being repeating it, test higher than mere chance. 

Lie all you want, the Greeks were in fact using the scientific method, as well as earlier explanatory methods (just like your so called 'Christian inventors of science' used superstitions), which is why the history of science always makes sure to point Archimedes et al. out as early scientists.









mnottertail -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 5:55:31 AM)

and of the cynics for apparently valid reasons.

LOL.




Rule -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 5:59:14 AM)

So I read your paragraph again and am now quoting it in its entirety:
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro
When I am not making abstract philosophical points about the absurdity of faith (again, from an empirical viewpoint), I'm actually a very religiously tolerant individual. As others have pointed out, it is actually we empiricists that have been continually targeted our whole lives long for being faithless. There is an enormous pressure to conform to one of the many religious views that many follow without question. What I always find striking is how little most of the faithful really understand about the religions they supposedly follow. Press them even a little on some minor points and they often readily reveal that they simply had no idea that were large chinks in the armor of their chosen faith system. But I am very familiar with the disappointed shaking of the head I get from people even after I have shown them that they haven't a clue about what they themselves really believe or why.
I note that you use these phrases indiscriminately. Only once, in the last I made bold, do you use or allude to it in the sense of a religion.
 
Having no innate sense of semantics, not being able to discriminate between faith, having faith, a faith, having no faith, being without a faith, and religion, any attempt at philosophy is bound to fail.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 6:32:23 AM)

That's not really that interesting in my view. Those are slippages in the language and my attempts to not reuse the same word again and again, ad nauseum...

So what?

I can see a distinction between the words faith and religion, but it's not as large a divide as you would have it be. Not in my view and not as used by me in this thread. Those words and ideas can be used as synonyms. And my first post makes quite clear that I am discussing faith as it relates to ideas about religion, or something like a religion (a personal spiritual notion without other social support).



Rule -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 6:54:53 AM)

The meaning or definition of words - concepts - can be a little fuzzy, but they always have a core definition, which is the subject of the study of semantics. Your disability to recognize and use these core definitions results in philosophical confusion.
 
In your first post you are discussing Santa Claus and the trauma you experienced. In that post you do not use the word religion even once.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 8:03:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Your disability to recognize and use these core definitions results in philosophical confusion.


No, really, it doesn't...not to me, perhaps to you.

Faith, belief, religion - these words are very closely linked in our language (consult your a dictionary and see). Yes, there is some slippage. Not my fault. Deal with it.

If you have something to express, you express it in your own terms. Don't bother trying to nitpick over my use of certain words. Say something interesting yourself. Or can't you? I keep giving you the forum, and yet you say nothing...

What of that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
In your first post you are discussing Santa Claus and the trauma you experienced. In that post you do not use the word religion even once.


It was an imaginary scenario. I was raised an atheist. I knew Santa Claus was bullshit pretty much from day one. Did you fail to notice the use of the second person and not the first person? WTF?

And I do refer to specific religious practices even if I didn't use the word religion. Read it again. Your point is another dead-end.

FWIW, the first use of the word religion occurs in post #6, by celticlord2112. The thread was growing in new ways, although I will admit to leading the way for such a discussion in the first post.

-----

You and LuckyDog1 really do have trouble coming up with anything to actually say yourselves, don't you? What I see is an evasion to discuss specifics.

I get tasked because I can't talk about faith more generally. I have two problems in doing so, I would have to assume for the purposes of discussion something I don't believe myself, and there are also an infinite number of things I could hypothetically assume at that. If I discuss and show the internal conflicts of any specific faith system, I get told that not all such faiths have the same failings. Okay, fine - that could be true. But where is the alternative example for examination? LuckyDog1 says he has no desire to testify. I have asked you to repeatedly do so, and you won't either.

What am I supposed to do, undertake an examination of all possible faith systems one at a time? That might take some doing and I am disinclined to take up the project. Sorry.

But we could talk specifics if you would give us any you would care to discuss. I can't disprove or challenge what you refuse to even articulate for us. Or hadn't you noticed that simple fact?



Rule -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 8:21:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro
I keep giving you the forum, and yet you say nothing...
I have said plenty; it eluded you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro
What I see is an evasion to discuss specifics.

We occasionally have our reasons.
 
Neither have you responded in any way to my request to define the characteristics of any of the gods or the Divine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro
LuckyDog1 says he has no desire to testify. I have asked you to repeatedly do so, and you won't either.

Spirituality needs to be experienced. As you are not spiritually aware, there is no sense in talking to you about it. Might as well discuss the sound the wind makes in the trees with a deaf man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro
What am I supposed to do, undertake an examination of all possible faith systems one at a time?

Simply desire a revelation.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 8:27:58 AM)

That's no explanation as usual. No articulation of any new ideas. Nothing.

[8|]

And no, I am not going to provide endless hypotheticals just so you can exclude yourself from the hypos after I bother to articulate them.

You're holding an empty hand and I have called your bluff.

Ta...



Rule -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 8:38:52 AM)

I have shown you the road to Damascus.



SubbieOnWheels -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 9:12:38 AM)

SMC - are you trying to "convert" those who have faith into people with no faith? 'Cause if you are, it'll never work. It's like certain religions believing that they have to convert the whole world to their way of seeing things, "for the good of their immortal souls."

Or are you condemning everyone who has faith as being as corrupt and ugly as some who profess faith? Is it a wise, intelligent tactic to paint all with the same brush?

There are Christians who abuse their positions; there are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos, Hindus, and even agnostics and atheists who abuse their positions. And each uses their faith (or lack thereof) as the excuse. That does not negate the importance and relevance of the particular faith to those who find comfort, solace, and healing (emotional, psychological, and even physical) within that faith.

And, as in political arguments, you are not going to change anyone's beliefs or ideas. Only they can do that. And for that to happen, you mut present facts that negate what they have been believing to be true.



LadyEllen -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 9:38:56 AM)

I'm trying to keep out of this, because as I indicated in my first contribution, its ultimately pointless and acrimonious.

But what I cant get over is that the degree of acrimony seems related to both the antipathy of some towards the idea of the divine, and the sympathy of others towards an incomplete idea of the divine, both positions being derived from the same source in religion.

Does this acrimony produce happiness for some? I would suggest not. Does either side have the right to impinge on the contentment of the other? I would suggest not.

Seek, and you will find. There are lots of things to find, and when you find the thing you need, the thing which will make you happy and content, seek no further.

That there are so many contributions here which show that happiness and contentment have eluded so many, can only indicate that there is more seeking to be done.
E



luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/7/2008 10:40:18 AM)

Wow Sugar, I have made dozens of posts and introduced ideas that have been heavily discussed.
And I gave you as close as I can to a label of my personal faith.  And you say I have said nothing?  OK.  So give me the contradictions., that you claim you can see.  You haven't. 

Why do you presume that I have to proove my experiences to you?   I have no need to. 

Sorry if you think that faith and a specific Religion is the same thing, They are not.  If you were arguing with a Literal Baptist, you would be kicking thier ass all over the table, but you are actually refusing to even consider the ideas put before you.  Why?  Who knows. 

"I get tasked because I can't talk about faith more generally. I have two problems in doing so, I would have to assume for the purposes of discussion something I don't believe myself, and there are also an infinite number of things I could hypothetically assume at that."

Well those are your problems.  You should be able to consider the position of the other side, even be able to make arguments in its favor, if you are seriously considering anything.  That you are not is evidence that your not really conisidering.  For instance disease, death, the need to eat, ect have all been thrown out as proof that God is an angry psychopath and evil.  But actually consider what those things mean if you are a soul, can you not actually think about it?  Just trying to get someone to adopt a literal Christian position so you can (easyily) refute its not honest discussion.   IF thats what your looking for, your out of luck.  You ask for opinions, then don't even attempt to understand them.  That's not debating with respect, you could also leave out loaded phrases like absurd, delusional, ect, if you want to pretend you are interested in serious disscussion.  I could easily make a better argument for Athiesism that you have, I used to be one.  But my experienes have shown me there is an energy component to the world, and there is more than we can see.  If you don't believe me, I don't care.  Here you go, I have had several out of body experiences, and I have felt the connectness that comes from praising the most High.  Make fun of me all you want.  I am seldom in agreement with Rule, but he is right.  Its like trying to tell a deaf man what a the wind in the trees sounds like.

Sorry, that some of you have been traumatized by people misusing religion, but don't react to it by becoming like them. 

I already gave some of my ideas about the nature of dimensions and time, and why the idea of a complete understanding of God is impossible, and not needed.  You ignored it entirerly. 

You really don't understand the deep distinction between Faith and Religion, they are not the same thing at all.  IF you want to Convert people like me and the other posters on here, you had better get a real solid grasp on it, and work on some arguments that attack Faith. 

Religion has been a neccessary evil (in my opinion).  It has and continues to do great things for many many people.  But it also does bad, horrible attrocities.  Its a human thing.  Can you show me a pure human institution?   IF not it seems you are holding Religion to higher standard than any other institution, and I see no basis for that.  That argument doesn't work for me.  We can get specific, and I will agree that there are churches I would like to see eliminated, Phelps and his GODHATESFAGS church comes right to mind.  But persecuttion is a slippery slope.  IF its human its going to be flawed.  It is terrible that Priests attack kids, but so do Public School Teachers.  I do think that Religion has played a vital role in the origination and continued evolution of our (and all ) cultures for both good and bad.  I think if it were destroyed it would be replaced by something that would pass the "Duck Test" as Religion with a different name, and be just as bad. 

It seems to me that the Doctrine Christian Church/Judeo Christian Muslim  Concept is dying, and there is a spiritual reawakening  over much of the world.  We are really living through the birth of a new age.  The fundamentalism we see so often and virulently in  is a last stand type thing.  They feel cornered.  I think it would be better for you to try to help them stand down, than feel they have to fight, as cornered people tend to fight to the death.  But thats just me, you don't have to agree.  But if you try to see it that way, actually consider it, you might learn something, even more effective arguments for your current view.





Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875