RE: The Covert Messiah (Full Version)

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



Message

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 7:40:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

Of course Jesus is real-he just left Chicago

Bound for New Orleans?

Unh... no. The White House. [:D]

("Chicago Jesus" is a nickname for Obama)

K.




PeonForHer -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 8:13:41 PM)


quote:

Very level-headed approach, unlike many of those of the atheistic bent. You would almost think atheism is a religion unto itself. But that's a whole other phenomenon.


I must admit, I've often seen what I suspect to be the flip-side of that amongst a certain religious type: it's as though they just must believe that it takes atheists and agnostics an awful lot of mental effort and energy *not* to be religious. I've had religious people ask me, 'But *why* aren't you a Christian?' - and I've blinked and answered, 'Eh? Who knows? I'm not an astronaut, either'.



NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 10:21:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed
Just because something doesn't exist on your street in your city in the experience of your culture does not mean it does not exist elsewhere.

Faith in the current science always being 'right' is just as much of a blind faith as any religist's. Case in point, the duhrwads who had the Iguanodon walking on all fours for what, over a century? BRILLIANT.


I somewhat agree, as scientists are human beings who are prone to error and lying just like any other human being. But I can also see that science is self-correcting through peer review. Religion doesn't really have that, and therein lies the difference.

I also happen to think that there's a difference between saying "X does not exist" versus "There is insufficient evidence to prove that X exists." I'm an agnostic, so I believe that the statement "God does not exist" is just as scientifically invalid as saying that "God exists."

As an agnostic, I'm content to live with a mystery. I don't have a problem with the answer "I don't know." But a lot of people seem unable to accept that, that there HAS to be a conclusive answer to every question or riddle that faces us in life.


a very good point, but it proves MY point. There are groups in Jewish faith and conclaves in old Catholic faith where all members had the responisbility to argue, debate, revise, refine and attempt to whittle down things that needed 'to go' and this was done completely and utterly by dint of DEDICATED self-correction and even sending people on great treks at great risk to find evidence of tracts of belief, or to disprove tracts of belief.

Again, just because selections of variants of faiths and creeds in the continental USA are limited does NOT mean that this discussion can be limited to what Mormons, Baptists and Unitarians might say or the Puritans or offshoots thereof. They are not the only folks on the block. If anyone is speaking from their experience of USA based religion alone, no That's like discussing groceries and only including opinions formed from shopping at Safeway and CostCo.



NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/15/2013 10:29:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed

That was an exaggeration no different to reports of bears over 13 feet tall in the Californian Rockies by pioneers and gold panners.

The point remains. BLACK SWANS, Dom. Black Swans. ESTABLISHED doctrine stating they dod not exist, based on the limitations of experience of people on the other side of the planet from the antipodes, and those people were STILL full of shit.

so arguing the finer points while avoiding the - pun intended - SPIRIT of the argument, Dom, is like ignoring the human weal in favour of...

debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

How...... CATHOLIC of you Dom Ken. I am impressed. *WEG*

This is a truly dumb complaint. No one had ever seen a black swan before outsiders got to Australia. This was not some big scientific principle. It is just an old Latin saying, translated "a rare bird in the lands, very much like a black swan."


Uh, no, and I doubt you've actually BEEN here, instead of just taking what you've read/heard about the Black Swan thing secondhand (kind of like people complain that Christian stuff is second-hand and third-hand). Which would allow you the empirical data you'd need to make that statement, like when I speak of things in the USA, I can speak from empirical evidence and sensory experience from HAVING BEEN THERE AND LIVED THERE.

Have YOU, Dom Ken, ever set foot in Australia outside of Sydney or Melbourne for more than a week, yes or no?

because if you HAVE NOT, you lack all the empirical data you ... 'preach' about. You are acting on FAITH of something you heard or read from someone else and other sources.

JUST LIKE A FERVENT CHRISTIAN.

have you lived in Oz, outside of Melbourne or Sydney, for more than 2 weeks, YES OR NO, Dom Ken?



TigressLily -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 2:07:24 AM)


For those who would question the peer review process, I raise two issues. First, another poster noted Atwill sidestepped this requirement before booking his upcoming symposium. Shades of The Da Vinci Code. It would appear there is a Dan Brown wannabe shopping around for a book and/or movie deal. I was once involved with an anthropologist (2 Ph.D.s) who had lived among the Yanomamo Indians in the Darien Jungle around Panama. He would have never dreamed of presenting his findings on shamanism and shamanistic healing practices without submitting his work beforehand for academic peer review.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed

There are groups in Jewish faith and conclaves in old Catholic faith where all members had the responisbility to argue, debate, revise, refine and attempt to whittle down things that needed 'to go' and this was done completely and utterly by dint of DEDICATED self-correction and even sending people on great treks at great risk to find evidence of tracts of belief, or to disprove tracts of belief.
<snip>

Sound argument, NBA. Not to bring BDSM into this discussion (although I will), does not the BDSM community self-regulate? To what BDSM Oversight Committee are Dominants held accountable to? Oh, that's right. Some of you claim to have never submitted to anyone or anything in your life. Because it didn't involve consent. Those who live in glass houses . . . shouldn't throw stones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I've had religious people ask me, 'But *why* aren't you a Christian?' - and I've blinked and answered, 'Eh? Who knows? I'm not an astronaut, either'.


Peon, people have actually asked you this in the UK? They must do things differently over there. Or maybe not. On the other hand, there are those who say they are Christians because their family of origin is Christian, drag themselves to a church service twice a year - on Easter and during Christmas - if that much, but can't follow the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) the rest of the year long.



tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 2:44:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

We can argue forever about the detail of various religious belief systems.

Religion is a matter of faith ie. belief in the absence of confirming evidence. If a person has 'faith' then all the logical arguments and all the evidence to the contrary matter not an iota. In the minds of believers, faith trumps empirical evidence and logic every time.

Given this, I find it odd that believers choose to justify their beliefs using empirical evidence and logic. If empirical evidence and logic are considered insufficient to invalidate or disprove faith-based beliefs, how can they be said to validate or 'prove' them?

I don't find it odd that someone who believes in something greater would welcome evidence suggestive of there possibly being something to that belief, but I do have a quibble with claims that a book (take your pick) constitutes empirical evidence.

K.

If believers are going to claim that certain types of evidence and/or argument validate or confirm their beliefs (which they are perfectly entitled to do if they so choose) then it seems to me that they are obliged to accept the corollary - that the same types of evidence and argument may invalidate or contradict their beliefs.

They aren't entitled to cherry pick. If believers decline to accept this obligation, (which they are perfectly entitled to do if they so choose), then it follows that they must also decline any evidence- or logic-based arguments to validate or confirm their beliefs.

The choice is theirs, but they have to accept that, having made their choice, they face the same consequences as the rest of us do.



DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 3:01:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed

Uh, no, and I doubt you've actually BEEN here, instead of just taking what you've read/heard about the Black Swan thing secondhand (kind of like people complain that Christian stuff is second-hand and third-hand). Which would allow you the empirical data you'd need to make that statement, like when I speak of things in the USA, I can speak from empirical evidence and sensory experience from HAVING BEEN THERE AND LIVED THERE.

Have YOU, Dom Ken, ever set foot in Australia outside of Sydney or Melbourne for more than a week, yes or no?

because if you HAVE NOT, you lack all the empirical data you ... 'preach' about. You are acting on FAITH of something you heard or read from someone else and other sources.

JUST LIKE A FERVENT CHRISTIAN.

have you lived in Oz, outside of Melbourne or Sydney, for more than 2 weeks, YES OR NO, Dom Ken?

How is this discussion about Oz? You've been attacking science over the supposed big deal that black swans exist.

Actually I've been in Oz twice, both times in the Navy. Once for a weekend in Perth and once for a week at the VLF communications station near Exmouth so only 9 days.



DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 3:04:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TigressLily


For those who would question the peer review process, I raise two issues. First, another poster noted Atwill sidestepped this requirement before booking his upcoming symposium. Shades of The Da Vinci Code. It would appear there is a Dan Brown wannabe shopping around for a book and/or movie deal. I was once involved with an anthropologist (2 Ph.D.s) who had lived among the Yanomamo Indians in the Darien Jungle around Panama. He would have never dreamed of presenting his findings on shamanism and shamanistic healing practices without submitting his work beforehand for academic peer review.


I think the guys arguments are complete nonsense and his claims of proof are never going to survive peer review. The idea that Roman nobles would set up a sect that refused to get along with the state religion, the reason the early Christians were persecuted, is absurd.



tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 3:13:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TigressLily


Good question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Given this, I find it odd that believers choose to justify their beliefs using empirical evidence and logic. If empirical evidence and logic are considered insufficient to invalidate or disprove faith-based beliefs, how can they be said to validate or 'prove' them?



Insofar as believers go, the objective is not to 'win' an argument or feed an atmosphere of contention. This defeats the whole purpose of reaching the other person on a more spiritual, less egocentric level. Many believers lose sight of this themselves and resort to proselytizing rather than providing information for rumination.


Too true.

It seems to me that in doing so, believers can create the impression that they are trying to persuade themselves as much as anybody else. Perhaps it is a method some people adopt to deal with and/or overcoming their own insecurities and doubts around their particular belief system. Personally I'm far more impressed by people such as dcnovice who openly admits to struggling with these questions.

People who chose to believe in faith based religions do so because of their faith, not because this bit of evidence or that particular argument adds weight to their beliefs. Why rationalise that faith as anything else?

Surely that runs the risk of devaluing that faith, which seems like the opposite of what they say they set out to do.



TigressLily -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 3:15:48 AM)


You must associate with a dogmatic crowd. To a certain extent, one must be unwavering in their beliefs. This is what a belief system is for. Jesus encountered this himself when he healed the sick on the Sabbath. He was accused of doing work. Breaking the Sabbath Law was not a trivial offense in those days. He famously retorted that the Sabbath [as a day of rest] was made for [the benefit of] Man, not Man for the Sabbath.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If believers are going to claim that certain types of evidence and/or argument validate or confirm their beliefs (which they are perfectly entitled to do if they so choose) then it seems to me that they are obliged to accept the corollary - that the same types of evidence and argument may invalidate or contradict their beliefs.

They aren't entitled to cherry pick. If believers decline to accept this obligation, (which they are perfectly entitled to do if they so choose), then it follows that they must also decline any evidence- or logic-based arguments to validate or confirm their beliefs.

The choice is theirs, but they have to accept that, having made their choice, they face the same consequences as the rest of us do.


I encountered this myself when I was studying the Hebrew Bible Codes. One day I sat there and had a series of revelation moments. There was no way any human being could have done this. It had to have been God-designed and God-devised, and not just the God of the New Testament. For a Protestant, this was no small leap of faith. I had always been indoctrinated to believe that Protestants were to disregard the Old Testament (other than Genesis, a few prophetic writings, and Psalms) and only accept the New as valid. My epiphany told me otherwise. That was the day that I fully embraced the Old along with the New, and that's the day when Biblical scriptures finally made sense to me. Up until that time, I could never make sense of the Holy Bible in its entirety, except for bits & pieces that had spoken to my heart (such as the book of Isaiah, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon in terms of the Old).



tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 3:36:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TigressLily



quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The choice is theirs, but they have to accept that, having made their choice, they face the same consequences as the rest of us do.



You must associate with a dogmatic crowd. To a certain extent, one must be unwavering in their beliefs.

It is unclear to me whether this remark was directed at me personally or whether it was part of the general point you were making.

If you meant the former, I'm afraid that only time I discuss these matters is here on CM. Sorry to say it but, in rl, I find that in the rare encounters I have with believers, either the believers themselves or their message is so uninspiring I'm left distinctly unimpressed.

Re; the argument I was advancing. If you think it through, when evidence- and/or logic-based arguments are used in the cherry picking manner I described, the end result is that the evidence/argument itself is devalued to the point of uselessness.




TigressLily -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 4:08:26 AM)


Left out my smiley. Rather than edit, I'll repost. (Whoops, this angel has demonic ears. Disregard those.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: TigressLily
You must associate with a dogmatic crowd. :) [sm=angel.gif]


It is unclear to me whether this remark was directed at me personally or whether it was part of the general point you were making.

If you meant the former, I'm afraid that only time I discuss these matters is here on CM. Sorry to say it but, in rl, I find that in the rare encounters I have with believers, either the believers themselves or their message is so uninspiring I'm left distinctly unimpressed.

Re; the argument I was advancing. If you think it through, if evidence- and/or logic-based arguments are used in the cherry picking manner I described, the end result is that the evidence/argument itself is devalued to the point of uselessness.


That is why, in my parallel comparison, I could not selectively 'cherry pick' which Hebrew Bible Codes I found palatable and which ones to overlook to fit some arbitrary personal agenda (other than the technical aspects of methodologies employed, etc.). It was a part and parcel deal.



vincentML -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 8:11:08 AM)

quote:

NBA: Faith in the current science always being 'right' is just as much of a blind faith as any religist's.

Apples and oranges really. Faith in the correctness of science is a characteristic of the general public (absent biblical literalists) and the communications media perhaps. And this faith is shamelessly exploited by medical quacks and woo woo quantum mystics. But the doing of science by scientists requires falsifiable hypothesis, replication, and peer review. It is unfortunate that science is taken on authority, but then members of the general public do not have the opportunity for personal experience as the religious claim. Nor do scientists preach claims of unsupported revelation without being exposed as pseudoscientists.

quote:

The point is that it's like all the "professional" scientists stating for over 200 years that there is/was no such thing as a black swan.

I read Taleb's book. He made it seem like the black swan was a relatively recent phenomenon if memory serves me. In fact the black swan was described by an Englishman John Latham in 1790, the same century in which Newton died. So, the claim that 200 professional scientists believed in white swans only is problematic.

quote:

Just because something doesn't exist on your street in your city in the experience of your culture does not mean it does not exist elsewhere.

Very true. But the faith of the religious requires belief that there exists an "elsewhere." So, it is faith built upon faith all the way down like the column of turtles that support the earth. We could ignore them as a quaint and isolated group if they did not have such an awful hand in the history of western civilization and if they would stop pushing their beliefs into our political and social endeavors. Not the case, alas.



GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 8:12:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It seems to me that in doing so, believers can create the impression that they are trying to persuade themselves as much as anybody else. Perhaps it is a method some people adopt to deal with and/or overcoming their own insecurities and doubts around their particular belief system. Personally I'm far more impressed by people such as dcnovice who openly admits to struggling with these questions.


I expect that's exactly what's going on. I think for a lot of people in a modern first world society the intuitive mind may be successfully utterly brain washed but the rational mind can't help but notice that things just don't add up. This comes with a pile of cognitive dissonance that can result in the whole lifelong doubt cycle that chatter was talking about in the last thread.

So there are of course a number of coping strategies people use.



vincentML -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 8:18:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It seems to me that in doing so, believers can create the impression that they are trying to persuade themselves as much as anybody else. Perhaps it is a method some people adopt to deal with and/or overcoming their own insecurities and doubts around their particular belief system. Personally I'm far more impressed by people such as dcnovice who openly admits to struggling with these questions.


I expect that's exactly what's going on. I think for a lot of people in a modern first world society the intuitive mind may be successfully utterly brain washed but the rational mind can't help but notice that things just don't add up. This comes with a pile of cognitive dissonance that can result in the whole lifelong doubt cycle that chatter was talking about in the last thread.

So there are of course a number of coping strategies people use.

And of course it could be just the easier default position. Sort of an "I can't be arsed, so I'll deal with it when I need to."



PeonForHer -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 8:27:25 AM)


quote:
quote:


ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I've had religious people ask me, 'But *why* aren't you a Christian?' - and I've blinked and answered, 'Eh? Who knows? I'm not an astronaut, either'.



quote:

Peon, people have actually asked you this in the UK? They must do things differently over there. Or maybe not. On the other hand, there are those who say they are Christians because their family of origin is Christian, drag themselves to a church service twice a year - on Easter and during Christmas - if that much, but can't follow the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) the rest of the year long.


Not strangers - perish the thought that an unfamiliar Brit would ever broach something so personal with another! - but members of my extended family, shall we say. My sister's in-laws, specifically, who are Catholic.

What I wanted to convey was that certain people's agnosticism, and even atheism, isn't important to them. That's the case with my own. Zonie said that he's content for questions about the existence or non-existence of God to remain a mystery. I'm likewise but I'd say that for all but an infinitesimal part of the time such matters don't even exist as mysteries for me.



Zonie63 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 9:45:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
("Chicago Jesus" is a nickname for Obama)

K.




I never heard that one before, although I must admit that I don't keep up on nicknames too much. [;)]




Zonie63 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 10:26:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
What I wanted to convey was that certain people's agnosticism, and even atheism, isn't important to them. That's the case with my own. Zonie said that he's content for questions about the existence or non-existence of God to remain a mystery. I'm likewise but I'd say that for all but an infinitesimal part of the time such matters don't even exist as mysteries for me.


I also tend to separate questions about the existence or non-existence of God from questions about which God or which religion to believe in. It's one thing for people to believe in a Creator or Higher Power, without much regard for what form such an entity would take.

But when people ask "Why don't you believe in MY God?" then that's a different matter. Not only does it take a leap of faith to believe in an invisible deity, but it goes even beyond that when such a leap of faith involves all the other falderal associated with religion. I won't necessarily ask religious people to prove the existence of God, since that question has gotten a bit cliche and old hat. But I might ask them to prove that eating meat on Friday during Lent is a "sin." Or I might ask questions about the alleged spiritual properties of communion wafers or "holy water" - that sort of thing.

Someone also needs to prove that God actually cares about whether people do the Signs of the Cross with two or three fingers. The Orthodox do their Signs of the Cross opposite from the Catholics. Does that mean one or the other is going to Hell for doing it the wrong way?

It's all the extraneous stuff that comes with religion - beyond just the simple question of "existence" - that's why I'm a skeptic.

People often say things like "Jesus loves you" or "God has a plan for you," but can they prove it? No. Can they even prove that "God is love"? Based on what His followers have done, one might well assume that God is pure evil and hates us all. This can be derived even assuming that God exists and assuming that everything written in Scripture is absolutely true, if one reads between the lines.

I sometimes wonder, if there is a God, then perhaps the real "test" for us humans is in evaluating our ability to see through manipulative lies and other such bullshit coming from the religious. If one vehemently rejects religion and opposes it, then they pass the test, whereas those who follow a religion will fail and go directly to Hell. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony, if atheists and agnostics were regarded by God as the "true believers" and ended up with a free ticket to Heaven?





PeonForHer -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 12:27:01 PM)

quote:

I sometimes wonder, if there is a God, then perhaps the real "test" for us humans is in evaluating our ability to see through manipulative lies and other such bullshit coming from the religious. If one vehemently rejects religion and opposes it, then they pass the test, whereas those who follow a religion will fail and go directly to Hell. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony, if atheists and agnostics were regarded by God as the "true believers" and ended up with a free ticket to Heaven?


In some ways, I think this is one of those things in which the more you fight it, the stronger it gets. The point is to realise it's irrelevant to one's life, then move the hell on with one's journey, leaving it behind. Well, that feels true for me, anyway.

One could take it that religions are like the warehousemen that put themselves between the supplier and the consumer. There's god, there are humans - and then there are all the world's priests who have plonked themselves in the middle.

For me, mo doubt like for many, those warehousemen have never really gone away, despite the agnostic conclusion I came to in my my early teens and which hasn't yet been shaken. It's almost impossible to consider the idea of 'God' without the big bearded bloke and the Bible popping unbidden into my head and making loud enough noises for me not to want to bother thinking about the subject at all. That, of course, is in large part because I, like most people i know, was pumped with too much sustained religious propaganda when I was too young to be able to filter it.



vincentML -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/16/2013 1:11:02 PM)

quote:

But when people ask "Why don't you believe in MY God?" then that's a different matter. Not only does it take a leap of faith to believe in an invisible deity, but it goes even beyond that when such a leap of faith involves all the other falderal associated with religion. I won't necessarily ask religious people to prove the existence of God, since that question has gotten a bit cliche and old hat. But I might ask them to prove that eating meat on Friday during Lent is a "sin." Or I might ask questions about the alleged spiritual properties of communion wafers or "holy water" - that sort of thing.

Zonie . . .

These sorts of questions seem peripheral and uninteresting to me. I would propose that even the question of the existence of a divine creator is secondary to the most important primary question that we all wrestle with in one form or another: Does my personal consciousness and personality survive the death of my brain? How we answer that question informs the structure of our religious belief or nonbelief. Some neuroscientist said the HARD question was how does our brain account for consciousness. I would counter that the REALLY HARD question is the question of survival. Well, not so hard for the faithful I guess although even Augustine and Aquinas struggled with their faith.



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625