RE: Religion and D/s

RE: Religion and D/s (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

TracyTaken -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:02:40 PM)
quote: Atheism is a religion based around the definitive absolute that there is no God, Goddess, GSM, or any other form of the sentient divine. That is what atheism is. Sort of like how physiology is a religion based around the definitive absolutes about how the body works or how botany is a religion based around definitive absolutes about how plants work.

TracyTaken -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:04:11 PM)
quote: Fascinating, and when you close the door at night, does the world beyond cease to exist because you can't see it? The pleasure of being one of the world's truly enlightened one and being privy to the true secrets of the universe must be absolutely amazing. Your religion disgusts me. No worries, you'll get over it. Of course the world continues to exist, because the world does exist and will continue to exist after I do not. There's no "being privy to the true secrets" involved.

TotalState -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:04:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster Fascinating, and when you close the door at night, does the world beyond cease to exist because you can't see it? The pleasure of being one of the world's truly enlightened one and being privy to the true secrets of the universe must be absolutely amazing. Your religion disgusts me. Reduced to absurdity. Edited to add: Actually, according to recent quantum revelations, it may very well be that any part of the universe not currently observed (not in the sense of sight) ceases to exist. I never saw it that way. You should totally go out and tell all those nonbelievers this, and I'm sure they'll see the light of JESUS immediately. Hell, you have solid gold proof in those words. You should debate Dawkins. We are not the ones trying to push faith onto other people. You are.

SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:06:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TracyTaken quote: Atheism is a religion based around the definitive absolute that there is no God, Goddess, GSM, or any other form of the sentient divine. That is what atheism is. Sort of like how physiology is a religion based around the definitive absolutes about how the body works or how botany is a religion based around definitive absolutes about how plants work. Pretty much. Although they have much more going for them since their universe of discourse is tighter. Consider the rejection by western medicine of the eastern concepts of the flow of Chi/Energy along meridians in the body, Irridology, Acupuncture, chakra and other forms of energy gates, and so on. Since these are "unscientific" they are rejected forthright even though the practitioners and adherents "know" from their own experience that such things are "fact". Six. Six.

xoxi -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:07:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TracyTaken quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi What I posted was my interpretation of the words in the Bible. If anyone claims to follow the Bible as a spiritual and moral guide, I would presume they would follow what is written IN the Bible. Such as "no man will lie with another man" or however it is worded. The elaboration on that phrase is my own but the rule is still in the book. You really need to find it then. quote: Edited to add: as far as 'gaining ground' I'm not trying to convert anyone. I was giving my interpretation of one of the Mosaic Laws in the Bible that would explain why 'homosexuals' exist even if they aren't supposed to stick it in another guy's butt. There are many different ways I could counter that argument, and I'm confident that in this forum, other people will. What I really want to ask: Do you really believe that God, who controls everything and watches 40,000 children die a day from starvation, and watches mass slaughter around the world, and watches harm after harm that people do to do people - do you really think that same Deity gives a rat's ass where some guy chooses to stick his dick? quote: Our free will gives us both sinful thoughts as well as Godly thoughts (innate charitable drive, etc.) and it is our responsibility to choose the path that aligns with our own moral code. What is God's moral code if he's so very concerned about where every man's dick is at any given moment? Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." As for your question about my own opinion, I believe that God created the world, gave man both free will and guidelines of what to do with it, and sort of sits back as a benevolent observer. I don't think he intervenes with every little peccadillo, but rather that he gave us this world as a gift, and gave us the Bible as a sort of users' manual, and so long as we follow the manual we won't wreck the nice gift he gave us. However I also believe that the God YHWH who is in the Torah is an avatar of what I consider to be God Almighty...a nameless, faceless, sexless entity. YHWH is not God to me - YHWH is a representation of God the same way Christ was. I realise that's not in the Bible. But then again I'm not a Christian in the sense that I'm baptised and go to church - I just think Christianity is the closest representation to the truth that is available for me to follow. I believe in YHWH and I believe in Christ, and I believe that if everyone followed the rules in the Bible the world would be a lot better off than it is now. And that goes for churches who write their own rules as well...plenty of popes have been corrupted just like any other man. The world is in a sad state of affairs and I think it has a lot to do with not following that moral code that was given to us.

TracyTaken -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:07:56 PM)
quote: For the record, many great scientists are also Christians. Very few as scientists go. As biologists go, a Christian (or one with any supernatural belief) is a rare bird indeed. The majority of intellect (MENSA, Academy of Sciences) in the US proscribes no belief in God. So where does your "great many" come from? There is grant money to be had if you are a scientist and also praise religion.

SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:08:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TotalState quote: ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster Fascinating, and when you close the door at night, does the world beyond cease to exist because you can't see it? The pleasure of being one of the world's truly enlightened one and being privy to the true secrets of the universe must be absolutely amazing. Your religion disgusts me. Reduced to absurdity. Edited to add: Actually, according to recent quantum revelations, it may very well be that any part of the universe not currently observed (not in the sense of sight) ceases to exist. I never saw it that way. You should totally go out and tell all those nonbelievers this, and I'm sure they'll see the light of JESUS immediately. Hell, you have solid gold proof in those words. You should debate Dawkins. We are not the ones trying to push faith onto other people. You are. Don't be so sensitive. I don't give two shits if you believe. Funnily enough, no one is attacking or pushing anything except you two. If however, you want to argue how bad religions and blind adherence to unproven doctrine is, I will hold up the mirror for you. Six.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster quote: ORIGINAL: TotalState quote: ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster It's not backed up by fact, merely pseudo-intellectualism disguised as fact. Science cannot prove a negative hypothesis (that there is no God) - all that can be proven is that by observable evidence, God does not exist. This is not a conclusive fact, since there is always the possibility that science simply lacks the ability to detect, observe, measure, and quantify an existent God. You can say "everything I know, and everything I have observed and experienced tells me God doesn't exist", but this isn't an immuatable fact, it's simply your opinion. Just as I can say "everything I know, have observed, and experienced, tells me definitively that God does exist". Six. It's the scientific method. Laypeople can call it pseudo-intellectualism as much as they like, and it won't change a thing. Observable evidence is all that we have to prove anything with. Otherwise, you'll just get lost in pointless scepticism of your own senses. Therefore, observable evidence is fact. And yes, facts change, just as science progresses. And so science cannot conclusively disprove the existence of a divine sentient, and by extension, disbelief in a divine sentient is a matter of faith, not fact, no matter how much window dressing you apply. For the record, many great scientists are also Christians. Science and scientific endeavor are not mutually exclusive to belief in a Christian God, or any other divine sentient. Six. Give me some examples of great scientists who are Xtians. Not "were", "are". It is not up to science to prove that no god exists. It is up to those who assert that there is a god to prove their assertion. Sigh. I hate linking to my own threads, but there is a link that goes straight to the heart of this argument. Part of my unappreciated effort in assisting people in the art of thinking rationally. [8D] http://www.collarchat.com/m_1691586/tm.htm

BitaTruble -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:10:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi I already made a post apologising for the use of the words 'natural order' - it was quite presumptuous of me as I am not God and therefore am unable to fully understand the natural order. A more appropriate line would be "the Bible says that wives should submit to their husbands" and leave it at that. Yes, that would be more appropriate. It is not your belief which I attack. It is the statement you set as a 'fact' of the bible which I refute. Nothing more, nothing less and as such is now resolved, I won't highjack your thread further. Any other statements I make will only have to do with the question which you asked in your OP. I do find it rather interesting, but I'm making dinner right now and don't have the time to address it. Celeste

xoxi -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:12:22 PM)
"Did Albert Einstein believe in God? In 1992 when astronomer George Smoot announced the discovery of ripples in the heat radiation still arriving from the Big Bang, he said it was "like seeing the face of God." A somewhat more modest astrophysicist, whose theory had correctly predicted the discovery, was quoted as calling the ripples, "the handwriting of God." Are these references to the Creator sacrilegious or legitimate interpretations? Either way, they are part of a search that Einstein began — the search for language to communicate the sacred dimension of doing science. When Neils Bohr and others were developing the quantum theory, it was spiritually unacceptable to Einstein that the ultimate nature of reality was randomness. "The [quantum] theory yields much," he wrote to quantum physicist Max Born in 1926, "but it hardly brings us close to the secrets of the Ancient One. In any case, I am convinced that He does not play dice." Generations of physicists have been profoundly influenced by the faith of the man who wrote, "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever….This is a somewhat new kind of religion." Recently an article in the magazine Nature reported the results of a poll that was first taken more than 80 years ago and repeated in 1998. Originally 40% of scientists had said they believed in God. People who assume God is incompatible with science were surprised that the percentage of scientists who answered yes in 1998 was the same. They expected far fewer. But if the question had been worded differently, there might have been even more. Einstein and the many scientists who are his spiritual companions were excluded, since the poll asked scientists if they believed in a personal God who answered prayers. To Einstein the concept of a personal God was naïve, and it was the main source of conflict between science and religion. God was not a father, king, or confidant. Nor was God the source of morality to Einstein. "The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority," he warned, "lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action." Ethical behavior, he wrote, "should be based on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary." Continued here http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/htmlformat/Einstein4.html

SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:13:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TracyTaken quote: For the record, many great scientists are also Christians. Very few as scientists go. As biologists go, a Christian (or one with any supernatural belief) is a rare bird indeed. The majority of intellect (MENSA, Academy of Sciences) in the US proscribes no belief in God. So where does your "great many" come from? There is grant money to be had if you are a scientist and also praise religion. I'm at work, so I don't have time to search for the links I want, however scanned this one: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html Should do the job. Six.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:14:34 PM)
So, what are these "quantum" revelations? My bullshit detector maxes out anytime a layman uses the term "quantum".

TotalState -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:14:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster Don't be so sensitive. I don't give two shits if you believe. Funnily enough, no one is attacking or pushing anything except you two. If however, you want to argue how bad religions and blind adherence to unproven doctrine is, I will hold up the mirror for you. Six. You, as in you Christians. The kind that waves the bible as a moral code in order to condemn how other people live their private lives. Look carefully at this thread, and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. You don't see anyone going to war to promote atheism. And again, the burden of proof is on those who make the claims. Just like with everything else. You have a theory, and we called bollocks on it, due to lack of evidence. You point out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Repeat. Try that shit in a scientific forum, and you'll be rightly shot down. It puts you with the Phelps' and the Hubbards of this world, with regards to the belief in an invisible man/invisible men in the sky, just because somebody told you so. And you know what I think really bothers you about atheists? You kinda figure that we are right, and it really galls you. It really gets to you that the evidence is firmly on our side, and if you would stop fighting doubt for a moment, you'd have to give in. But no, it's ok. You don't give two shits.

mzbehavin -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:17:19 PM)
"What I'm curious about is for the religious people out there, how does your religion view the idea of power exchange in relationships, and how does that affect your own view on it if at all? " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In my religion/spirituality, i tend to be more Goddess focused ritualistically, as i am feminine and feel an expression of that on Earth. However, for me the Male/fem/D/s in religion is more of a yin/yang concept. Balance. So no, it does not influence my views on power exchange. Male female, Dom/me or submissive... its about yin/yang. To complement one another, not that one is better than another. Beliefs... are shaped everyday and should often be re-examined... Thank you so much for posting this thread. While some may not agree, i think its a topic worthy of discussion. xoxo

xoxi -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:18:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TotalState You, as in you Christians. The kind that waves the bible as a moral code in order to condemn how other people live their private lives. Look carefully at this thread, and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. You don't see anyone going to war to promote atheism. Yeah. I can't believe the nerve of religious bigots like Stalin and Mao interfering in people's private lives to the extent that their profession was dictated to them, their personal relationships were watched over, and they were forced to attend gatherings several times a week to profess their devotion to that awful religion known as "atheistic communism". Oh. Wait a second. Shit.

TotalState -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster I'm at work, so I don't have time to search for the links I want, however scanned this one: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html Should do the job. Six. Ugh, consider the source. http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=111 LiveScience is a Creationist front. Oh, sorry. "Intelligent Design". Hah!

SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:18:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster Give me some examples of great scientists who are Xtians. Not "were", "are". It is not up to science to prove that no god exists. It is up to those who assert that there is a god to prove their assertion. Sigh. I hate linking to my own threads, but there is a link that goes straight to the heart of this argument. Part of my unappreciated effort in assisting people in the art of thinking rationally. [8D] http://www.collarchat.com/m_1691586/tm.htm Not really, unless they are trying to enforce that assertion. Contemporary Christians are much more "live and let live", it's the vocal minority and some really disgusting people (such as those that protest at the funerals and use them as publicity stages - blech). It would really help if reactionary Atheists would stay OFF the attack just because we mention our religion. That kind of intolerance leads to wars. For the record though, the existence of a divine sentient cannot be disproved, but it can be proven - however the evidence for the latter does not exist to a convincing and conclusive level. However "The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" - Sherlock Holmes ;) Six.

xoxi -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:20:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TotalState Ugh, consider the source. http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=111 LiveScience is a Creationist front. Oh, sorry. "Intelligent Design". Hah! Try this one that says that in 1998, 40% of scientists professed belief in a personal deity that answers prayers. http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/htmlformat/Einstein4.html (that ".edu" means it can't have a religious slant to it or the ACLU will be up in arms)

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:23:09 PM)
Herrn Einstein: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." In response the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in (24 April 1929): "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words. Spinoza's ideas of God are often characterized as being pantheistic. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:23:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TotalState quote: ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster I'm at work, so I don't have time to search for the links I want, however scanned this one: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html Should do the job. Six. Ugh, consider the source. http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=111 LiveScience is a Creationist front. Oh, sorry. "Intelligent Design". Hah! First, no it's not. Second, from the article itself: "n the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices. "Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said." (emphasis mine, for people who need things highlighted to read them) Six.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125