RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it....

RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (Full Version)

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

Message

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 8:50:35 AM)
Kirata: quote: All living things are comprised of insentient chemicals. Everyone whose philosophy limits reality to the physical world is constrained to believe that given the right conditions insentient matter can become conscious, because there is nothing else Okay, I'm good with that, if you take into account that there are known self-organizing mechanisms. On the other hand, if one believes, as you appear to imply in your op, that all matter is imbued with spirit then one needs to explain why some natural structures seem to lack consciousness, or are we to assume that rocks have consciousness?

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 9:00:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Look, the reason to keep religion 'out of it' is because no debate is served and nothing is gained by...putting 'religion into it.' Civil discourse including on religion serves the participants in sharing and exposure to beliefs and information. The goal does not have to be win/lose. A good discourse can be a mutual exploration without persuasion as a necessary goal.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 10:04:36 AM)
quote: The goal does not have to be win/lose. A good discourse can be a mutual exploration without persuasion as a necessary goal. Indeed, a fact that seems to have escaped many in today's world.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 10:08:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Look, the reason to keep religion 'out of it' is because no debate is served and nothing is gained by...putting 'religion into it.' Civil discourse including on religion serves the participants in sharing and exposure to beliefs and information. The goal does not have to be win/lose. A good discourse can be a mutual exploration without persuasion as a necessary goal. But that's just it. Discourse all too often no longer remains 'civil' once someone invokes religion. Invoking religion seeks to unintentionally or not, render the debate...mystical. Invoking religion only serves the particular participant that does it. Any objective debate needs none and is no longer objective being exposed to such mystical beliefs and for information to contribute...must be fact based.

WhoreMods -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 10:14:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers But that's just it. Discourse all too often no longer remains 'civil' once someone invokes religion. Invoking religion seeks to unintentionally or not, render the debate...mystical. Isn't that the point for some posters on here? If they can drag something into the mystic, then the rational arguments that they can't rebut, or the fact that they're talking nonsense ceases to matter, because their superstitions are beyond criticism. (not equating certain rightards in here with Van Morrison)

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 10:21:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: The goal does not have to be win/lose. A good discourse can be a mutual exploration without persuasion as a necessary goal. Indeed, a fact that seems to have escaped many in today's world. That is also the problem. Good discourse is defined as what...one not persuading you that their religious beliefs are a determining factor in their discourse ? If that's the case, why bring it up at all ? The 'fact' is, once religion enters discourse then the discussion is rendered meaningless or then...mystical. Yes, I do want to 'escape' any contribution of religious debate that is in fact almost always at least tainted with the...goal of persuasion.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 10:25:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers But that's just it. Discourse all too often no longer remains 'civil' once someone invokes religion. Invoking religion seeks to unintentionally or not, render the debate...mystical. Isn't that the point for some posters on here? If they can drag something into the mystic, then the rational arguments that they can't rebut, or the fact that they're talking nonsense ceases to matter, because their superstitions are beyond criticism. (not equating certain rightards in here with Van Morrison) All too often, that is the point and to bring religion into any discussion tends to...end the discourse or any debate with or without any goal of persuasion.

Termyn8or -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 10:39:06 AM)
FR Leaving religion out of this thread was destined to fail. T^T

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 10:51:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or FR Leaving religion out of this thread was destined to fail. T^T But religion in general terms rather than as proselytizing is different than bringing a particular dogma. Furthermore, leaving that dogma out is the point.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 11:19:07 AM)
quote: Invoking religion only serves the particular participant that does it. Any objective debate needs none and is no longer objective being exposed to such mystical beliefs and for information to contribute...must be fact based. The problem here is that there are no facts on which to base a discussion, well other than the fact that life and sentience did happen. Nobody actually knows how it did or if it could again, or really anything about it. We have no idea how it is that we are able to think or how it is we came to be alive, so the topic itself is one that is simply not possible to discuss on a solely factual basis, it is one that is, of necessity, a discussion based on opinions. Did life spontaneously arise out of a random combination of inanimate compounds? Maybe. And maybe there was some other force or factor directing it, we simply do not know, and will never know in this life. And therefore one's philosophical/mystical/ religious outlook will colour one's thinking on this subject, it cannot be otherwise since, in the absence of any actual facts, those ideas/opinions are all we have to go on.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 1:45:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Invoking religion only serves the particular participant that does it. Any objective debate needs none and is no longer objective being exposed to such mystical beliefs and for information to contribute...must be fact based. The problem here is that there are no facts on which to base a discussion, well other than the fact that life and sentience did happen. Nobody actually knows how it did or if it could again, or really anything about it. We have no idea how it is that we are able to think or how it is we came to be alive, so the topic itself is one that is simply not possible to discuss on a solely factual basis, it is one that is, of necessity, a discussion based on opinions. Did life spontaneously arise out of a random combination of inanimate compounds? Maybe. And maybe there was some other force or factor directing it, we simply do not know, and will never know in this life. And therefore one's philosophical/mystical/ religious outlook will colour one's thinking on this subject, it cannot be otherwise since, in the absence of any actual facts, those ideas/opinions are all we have to go on. Well on this one particular subject as in many, one must defer to only what we do know. But on most subjects, religion serves us nothing. So as far this OP is concerned, yes. We should leave religion out of it.

PeonForHer -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 2:06:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Invoking religion only serves the particular participant that does it. Any objective debate needs none and is no longer objective being exposed to such mystical beliefs and for information to contribute...must be fact based. The problem here is that there are no facts on which to base a discussion, well other than the fact that life and sentience did happen. Nobody actually knows how it did or if it could again, or really anything about it. We have no idea how it is that we are able to think or how it is we came to be alive, so the topic itself is one that is simply not possible to discuss on a solely factual basis, it is one that is, of necessity, a discussion based on opinions. Did life spontaneously arise out of a random combination of inanimate compounds? Maybe. And maybe there was some other force or factor directing it, we simply do not know, and will never know in this life. And therefore one's philosophical/mystical/ religious outlook will colour one's thinking on this subject, it cannot be otherwise since, in the absence of any actual facts, those ideas/opinions are all we have to go on. You're a woman who, it's seemed to me, and in other contexts, doesn't 'buy into' a given belief without there being solid facts to support it. If I've read you right - what's the difference here? How come you're taken with animism, for instance?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 2:47:34 PM)
quote: Well on this one particular subject as in many, one must defer to only what we do know. But on most subjects, religion serves us nothing. So as far this OP is concerned, yes. We should leave religion out of it. Sorry, but that can't be done, as we don't actually know anything, and thus "religion" is all we have to go on.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/28/2016 2:50:34 PM)
quote: How come you're taken with animism, for instance? Because it makes the most sense to me. To my mind it fits all the observable facts and answers the big questions, the why and how type questions. I also find that it has no conflicts with scientific knowledge or even current scientific theory (to the extent that I understand it - which is admittedly pretty skimpy with some of the more esoteric theories).

joether -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/29/2016 6:41:22 AM)
Kirata, that was a nice OP you placed here. A neat thread. An that is being as honest and sincere as I can. I think you are trying to raise some interesting concepts that never really get mentioned in modern day philosophy/religious discussions. Yet, I'm a man of science. When I hear people talk about 'this belief or that belief' as being true and factual from someone I just ask them to show the evidence. If it is true and factual, it should be easy to prove. Does God, the Christian God, exist? Maybe, but the evidence does not really support all the bullshit Christians spew forth on the entity. Where the leaders of the Aztec People Gods? Maybe, but no evidence supports the many spiritual beliefs. Heck, 92 guys from Cortes's band wiped out over 200,000 Aztec people; if there really were a god he was quite puny and ineffective. Yes, mankind in it's development tried to understand the environment around it. They did not understand disease as being the effects of tiny organisms they could not see, but rather an infliction by something divine/hellish. I'm sure you read about the Salem Witch Trials at some point in your life. Or that children were born deformed was then considered a bad omen or threat of devastation by 'the gods'. Today, we accept it as a possibility in biological science. There was a child born just recently that had 8-10 fingers with 12-14 toes per hand/foot. What would people of ancient mankind say of this? Today, we just look at it with wonder; THEN the surgeons get together and held the child using Medicine. Mankind did not understand the night sky full of stars. That those starts were balls of 'fire' in far away galaxies. Instead, they were spirits/gods looking down and judging mankind's progress. They thought the waters had spirits, as did the rocks. That sacrifices of all kinds would please better farming seasons. Today, we know that is entirely full of bullshit. They once though the planet was flat; That if one sailed far enough they would fall off the planet and die. That too has been disproved thanks to Science. They and you are welcome to your beliefs. And they are neat to discuss in a mature context. But in the end, I'll stick with science as it seems to be helping mankind's problems.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/29/2016 11:25:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Does God, the Christian God, exist? Maybe, but the evidence does not really support all the bullshit Christians spew forth on the entity. Let's try leaving religion out of it. K.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/29/2016 1:19:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Does God, the Christian God, exist? Maybe, but the evidence does not really support all the bullshit Christians spew forth on the entity. Let's try leaving religion out of it. K. Fine. Then let's talk about the physical and spirit. Is spirit essential for consciousness? Do all things physical contain spirit or are all an aspect of spirit? If not, how do you distinguish which does and does not? My own thought is that the spiritual is a flawed explanation for material existence and for consciousness. We know of no spiritual agent that provides an explanation for animation other than an imaginary one. What are your thoughts?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/29/2016 2:59:21 PM)
quote: We know of no spiritual agent that provides an explanation for animation other than an imaginary one. Actually we know of no agent of any type that provides an explanation for animation, which is why we have the imagined spiritual ones.

dcnovice -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/29/2016 3:09:40 PM)
quote: Actually we know of no agent of any type that provides an explanation for animation Isn't it done by folks at Disney? [;)]

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (5/29/2016 3:42:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Do all things physical contain spirit or are all an aspect of spirit? If not, how do you distinguish which does and does not? You asked, are we to assume that rocks have consciousness? I think that sets up consciousness as a straw man. I do not think that rocks are conscious. But who is to say that matter at all levels does not possess a degree of interior subjective experience, however dim. And what line can be drawn that isn't purely arbitrary? Some material organizations are animate and some are not, but that distinction speaks only to a capacity for responsiveness. It does not address the presence or absence of interior subjective experience. We are made from the same earthly materials as rocks. To say that awareness "emerges" in certain conditions is simply to state that it becomes evident, without explaining how something that wasn't there before can become "evident" in the first place. I can't claim to hold any firm beliefs on the question, but I don't find it unreasonable to view the situation as a matter of degrees and capacities. K.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.800293E-02