RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

mnottertail -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 7:29:26 AM)

The catholic arm of the freemasons (US) for all intents and purposes is the Knights of Columbus.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 1:07:54 PM)

Are Buddhists atheists? I do not feel Buddhists are atheists by intent. Buddhists that are not tied to the old world on the other hand are often people who have expressly rejected the Creator.



Fellow -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 1:24:09 PM)

I have thought, there could be a possibility atheism is genetically determined aberration of a certain part of human population. Today's brain research may be capable to test this theory. 



Hillwilliam -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 1:25:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

I have thought, there could be a possibility atheism is genetically determined aberration of a certain part of human population. Today's brain research may be capable to test this theory. 

Do you have a shred of evidence for that opinion or is this just more strangeness?



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 1:47:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Claimed, not "showed". You've yet to produce anything even slightly resembling proof for any assertion I've seen you make in P&R.


You are jealous. Atheism has been overdone. There is room for something new and exciting.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 2:03:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

No, he's stuck in in a binary mytheme, a common failing of amateur Christian metaphysicians.


quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Lévi-Strauss

What Lévi-Strauss believed he had discovered when he examined the relations between mythemes was that a myth consists of nothing but binary oppositions. Oedipus, for example, consists of the overrating of blood relations and the underrating of blood relations, the autochthonous origin of humans and the denial of their autochthonous origin. Influenced by Hegel, Lévi-Strauss believed that the human mind thinks fundamentally in these binary oppositions and their unification (the thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad), and that these are what make meaning possible. Furthermore, he considered the job of myth to be a sleight of hand, an association of an irreconcilable binary opposition with a reconcilable binary opposition, creating the illusion, or belief, that the former had been resolved.



Moonhead -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 2:18:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Claimed, not "showed". You've yet to produce anything even slightly resembling proof for any assertion I've seen you make in P&R.


You are jealous. Atheism has been overdone. There is room for something new and exciting.

Another assertion made out of the blue with no attempt at substantiation.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 2:40:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

You are jealous. Atheism has been overdone. There is room for something new and exciting.

Another assertion made out of the blue with no attempt at substantiation.


I have license to make unsubstantiated assertions on occasion for the sake of conversation. I smell a red herring. You are jealous.



DomKen -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 3:08:02 PM)

I think any rational and honest response to the op would violate this board's TOS.




Fellow -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 3:11:33 PM)

quote:

Do you have a shred of evidence for that opinion or is this just more strangeness?


With some Google help I recognize my ignorance; there is whole branch of science called "spiritual neuroscience".


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 3:28:53 PM)

quote:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101141.htm

When training priests and educating students in philosophy, the Catholic Church must combat a widespread sensation that there really is no such thing as permanent, objective truths, a new Vatican document said. ...

... the reform is needed primarily because of a shift in the cultural understanding of "the concept of truth. In fact, there is often mistrust in the capacity of human intelligence to arrive at objective and universal truth -- a truth by which people can give direction to their lives."

The document said people must realize that unless there is such a thing as truth, there is no such thing as real charity or love.



MrBukani -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 3:30:38 PM)

Thanks for the link fella, imo people just fear eternal death too much.
I wouldnt mind an afterlife. But if there is only humans there, it is not heaven. That would be HELL.[:D]



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 3:40:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

... But if there is only humans there, it is not heaven. That would be HELL.[:D]


God as Divine Physician solves this problem. The bitterness shall be removed and only the sweetness shall remain. The promise is we will be cured of our disease which is sin.



MrBukani -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 3:46:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

... But if there is only humans there, it is not heaven. That would be HELL.[:D]


God as Divine Physician solves this problem. The bitterness shall be removed and only the sweetness shall remain. The promise is we will be cured of our disease which is sin.

But imagine a vast emptiness filled with humans only. No dog or cats. Nobody makin mistakes or fallin on their face. So nothing to laugh at.
No sin so no whippin her ass.
Naw I rather be dead forever in that case.[:D]



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 3:47:28 PM)

If sin were a disease, how might a physician treat it in the absence of any known cure? Can sin spread like a pathogen much like the plague? The recent Global Financial Crisis is a case in point. Might a physician warn you about engaging in risky behaviors and advise you to wear a condom?



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 4:01:53 PM)

As you can see the case that sin is a pathogenic disease is exceedingly strong. The only thing that stands in its way from being fully accepted as a disease is its metaphysical character. Today, the physics community has evidence for the existence of objects that are either metaphysical or behave in a manner similar to metaphysical objects such as dark matter and energy, hidden dimensions, etc. Physics maybe on the verge of becoming metaphysics. As such what is the case, then against sin as a disease? It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Should we conclude that it is not a duck?



MrBukani -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 4:24:20 PM)

Ive always objected to the term of mental diseases, I prefer the term mental condition. The enemy uses this kind of terms to call homosexuality a disease.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 4:24:49 PM)

Ok, let's play devil's advocate. If it is not a duck, then what is it? Is it a fiction? If it is fictitious, then how could it be that the evidence for its existence is as great as it is?



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 4:29:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

Ive always objected to the term of mental diseases, I prefer the term mental condition. The enemy uses this kind of terms to call homosexuality a disease.


If fornication is a sin and sin is a disease, fornication is a disease regardless of whether or not it is heterosexual or homosexual.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/13/2012 4:45:30 PM)

I believe what the Church regards sin as a pathogenic disease and much like a physician warns us of risky behaviors and encourages us to wear a moral equivalent of a condom, marriage. We are not supposed to wear condoms because we aren't supposed to be engaging in risky behaviors. I feel the Church is attempting not to contradict itself and thereby preserve the integrity of the teachings of the Church. Its place is not to show us how to sin well.

The problem comes when you engage in risky behaviors. In my opinion, if you are engaging in risky behaviors, you may want to wear a condom.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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