RE: Religion and Religiosity

RE: Religion and Religiosity (Full Version)

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

Message

colouredin -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:16:14 PM)
The beauty of arguing beliefs is that, guess what no one can be sure they are right, they just havae to do what is right for them. I dont ascribe myself to any structured system of belief but i know that belief in things help people and therefore i dont question it, if someone believes in God thats fine, it helps them as long as they dont lecture me on why I am going to hell or whatever and vice versa I would never go up to a christian and lecture them as to why they are wrong due to all these clever little 'facts', whys it bog all to do with me what they think, i wouldnt want to take away anyone source of comfort its seems like a pretty sad prize simply for wanting to be right.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:16:23 PM)
Scooting back to the OP (or at least part of it); "I was reading a thread the other day - there was a contribution there along the lines of "how come ordinary Muslims dont do anything to denounce the extremists?" with the conclusion that their (apparent) silence and inactivity constitutes tacit support for the extremists' actions." Whomever made that statement made the erroneous conclusion that, because s/he hasn't heard of such protests, they have not occured. One can drive a truck through that hole in "logic".

Stephann -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:16:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I want to be more practical ... [;)] If you believe God exists and choose to abide him, and you end up being wrong ... you aren't out very much. If you choose not to believe in God, and you are wrong ... you are pretty much fucked. And if there's a different God.. one who is offended in your blind belief in your current God (such as the Christian God), then you're still fucked. So how is Pascal's Wager valid when there's a multitude of possible God's? I take the approach that God doesn't care what manner we acknowledge him, so long as we do so. Not that it's a huge issue. I don't believe in Hell. For the record, put one male bunny with one female, and you should expect a lot more than three [;)] It's all about context. Stephan

kittinSol -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:17:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord You aren't certain that 1+1 != 3? If you invented a new way to express (x2) by writing down "!", then I'm certain that: 1+1 ! = 3. This is actually getting a little ridiculous...

colouredin -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:20:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord You aren't certain that 1+1 != 3? If you invented a new way to express (x2) by writing down "!", then I'm certain that: 1+1 ! = 3. This is actually getting a little ridiculous... just a little, come now my dear lets be honest.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:21:10 PM)
!= means "does not equal". (It's from Boolean Algebra.) Not my own invention. My point is that human constructs can be true or false. This includes religion. It's a point I feel I'm going to have to introduce slowly.

kittinSol -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:22:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord This includes religion. It's a point I feel I'm going to have to introduce slowly. [sm=biggrin.gif]There's one good thing about religion: it usually introduces the concept of humility.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:23:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann I take the approach that God doesn't care what manner we acknowledge him, so long as we do so. Again, this is another assumption about a God one assumes exists. At this point in the assumptions, it pretty much falls apart. =/

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:24:35 PM)
..you're participating here to get your fix on humility..?

Stephann -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:25:22 PM)
Your assertion is insulting at best. Because you believe your logic superior, doesn't make it so, nor my own logic invalid. We may have divergent philosophical views here; that doesn't empower yours or mine to any greater degree. Failing to recognize this point, will only lead us to an impasse. Stephan

kittinSol -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:26:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord ..you're participating here to get your fix on humility..? In part. And because I feel you need a fix yourself.

colouredin -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:26:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord != means "does not equal". (It's from Boolean Algebra.) Not my own invention. My point is that human constructs can be true or false. This includes religion. It's a point I feel I'm going to have to introduce slowly. they can also be true, wow look at that we have officially discovered that its a pointless argument, you arent going to convince everyone that God doesnt exsist just as much as no one will convince you he doesnt.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:30:55 PM)
My friend, I've no intent of insulting you. Quite to the contrary, you're one of the very few I respect here (outside of the rather patronizing senses of respect). I have no view of "your" philosophy or "mine". There are true things, false things, and things that are skew. I find that religion is a false thing in contradiction. I'm arguing points here I believe to be true, and I hope to hold them up to all logical criticism to refine (or disband) them. It's my means of seeking the truth, and I hope to promote the truth by doing the same for others.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:33:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin they can also be true, wow look at that we have officially discovered that its a pointless argument, you arent going to convince everyone that God doesnt exsist just as much as no one will convince you he doesnt. Arguing with closed minds is pretty futile. Personally, I'm going by logical bits. If you can make a good argument for God existing, and that he's obsessed with anal midget sex.. by Karana, I'll be looking for a gay midget within the hour. The trick's not to be attached to your world view, but to submit beliefs to reason.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:35:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord ..you're participating here to get your fix on humility..? In part. And because I feel you need a fix yourself. If any man could ever make an argument showing that there might be a higher power- that I might live forever- that the world might ultimately be a good place governed by a benevolent being... ..well, I think I might somehow survive. :P

Stephann -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord My friend, I've no intent of insulting you. Quite to the contrary, you're one of the very few I respect here (outside of the rather patronizing senses of respect). I have no view of "your" philosophy or "mine". There are true things, false things, and things that are skew. I find that religion is a false thing in contradiction. I'm arguing points here I believe to be true, and I hope to hold them up to all logical criticism to refine (or disband) them. It's my means of seeking the truth, and I hope to promote the truth by doing the same for others. See, I get that. I'm only illustrating that when you discuss religion, there are only 'assertions.' There are very few facts, and no clear facts of what is right and wrong. In order to exchange thoughts or beliefs, you must do so understanding that perhaps your own position is also flawed. I assume God exists. You assume God does not exist. Neither can be proven, thus we are only left with the value of... assertions. Assumptions. Your belief is no more or less valid than my belief, regardless of what our guts tell us. There's no war to win here, nobody will live or die based on what we determine in this conversation. Yet understanding can pass, once you accept that there may be a perspective you hadn't viewed before. Religious texts aren't valuable strictly from a spiritual perspective. They offer historical context into times and places our ancestors came from. Can you imagine an age when you couldn't just type the text of an idea into a search box, and find hundreds of answers? Where knowledge didn't flow from books, but word of mouth? The information age is aptly named, because for the first time in human history, we have access to the entire body of knowledge that is and ever was in human reckoning. Simply because we now know the earth isn't flat, doesn't mean we don't have anything to learn from men who once thought it was. People will be happy to examine and poke holes in your logic. To encourage that, I urge you, as a friend, to choose how you present your ideas and logic so that it doesn't anger the very people who's perspectives you are inviting. Stephan

Rule -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:48:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord to believe that there's an omnipotent, omniscent creator? Now that's just silly. omnipotent - like how? Let's suppose that the Creator as one of the incarnate gods has just been born. A babe in arms. How is a babe omnipotent? omniscient - the Creator as one of the incarnate gods knows a lot - it is his distinctive characteristic - but he does not know what you had for breakfast and he may not know the first thing about the USA baseball competition. creator - does exist as one of the incarnate gods. The multiple testimony in world mythology is quite clear about that. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord how is Pascal's Wager valid when there's a multitude of possible God's? The Creator as one of the incarnate gods most certainly does not mind which god is worshipped, as he created all of them. Nor does he require that anyone worship him - that is a privilege one may choose to exert. I quote from the Aegyptische Sonnenlieder as translated into German by Alexander Scharff: "Heil dir, Re, bei deinem Untergang, Atum-Harachtes, göttlicher Gott, der aus sich selbst entstand, Urgott, der am Anfang wurde. Jubel dir, der die Götter schuf, (Praise him who created the gods) der den Himmel in die Höhe hob zur Laufbahn seiner Augen, der die Erde schuf, soweit sein Lichtglanz reicht, auf dass ein jeder seinen Nächsten erkennen könne".

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:52:39 PM)
My friend, I'm not assuming God doesn't exist. Just like, in my example a while back, I'm not assuming that there's no cow in my basement. (I haven't been down there lately.. I mean, there could be, but I don't know there's not.) What I'm saying is that I haven't made the assumption. There could be one or there could be not one. Still, there's no reason to assume that there is one. I perfer not to make that assumption, and I think it's silly to make that assumption. And, trust me- people are trying to poke holes in it right now. Still, it's the poking of holes in others' logic that's angering them. They're attached to their beliefs. They want there to be an all-knowing, loving God, or at least some level of meaning to this world.

colouredin -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:53:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Quite I assume God exists. You assume God does not exist. Neither can be proven, thus we are only left with the value of... assertions. Assumptions. Your belief is no more or less valid than my belief, regardless of what our guts tell us. Quite

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and Religiosity (3/12/2008 4:55:26 PM)
I was pointing out how the specific Christian God was silly in that part. I'm afraid there are far too many mythologies to point out a common flaw in all of them besides in the arguments I've made about being silly to make assumptions in the first place.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125