The Community
General Category => Matters of Life and The Universe => Topic started by: Zzzptm on February 13, 2018, 03:40:38 PM
-
Often, I see people that claim to have a belief in something, but then go on to undermine the ability of others to share in that belief because these people are too strident or over-the-top in trying to present their views. To them, things are so crystal clear: what could be wrong with someone that does not agree completely with their views? Are they ignorant? Or are they willful enemies?
By leaving out the ability of others to judge things differently, which I call spiritual immaturity, such people are prone to hardline views, are less able to forgive, are more likely to use contentious or confrontational language and, ultimately, commit acts of violence. They will do these things, all the while believing that they are in the right and are justified in their actions.
Spiritual maturity, on the other hand, allows one to accept that other people will walk other paths. Indeed, that each person walks a unique path, some in a similar direction, others not. A spiritually mature person would hope to influence the path of another, but will also recognize when such influence is either unwanted or won't be understood, or both - and then, in such cases, to refrain from attempting such influence.
Sadly, the spiritually immature can see this maturity as a threat to their own narrow views and lash out against it as heresy, putting it on the same level as their paranoid reactions towards supposed enemies outside their faith. To the immature, the mature can seem as traitors from within because they will not join in crusades or other acts of forcible conversion. Rather, they live and let live and somehow seem to allow evil to flourish.
In truth, it is the mature person that is not allowing evil to color his or her actions and pervert his or her beliefs.
I've been the immature person before, thinking that standing my ground in a heated argument lasting for hours was a sort of victory. In truth, it was all wasted words, as I did not convince the others of my views and served only to make them more ready to disagree with anything I proffered in the future. I've been that way about my religion, my politics, my views on music, my tastes in arts, and so many other subjective areas. It's taken me many years to develop the ability to let others have the last word, even when it contradicts what I've been trying to say. It's a sort of long game for me, because if I'm known to let others have a fair say, then I'm more likely to be listened to in the future by those I disagree with. And, maybe in that future day, my arguments might find their way into the hearts and minds of those others that disagree with me today.
Perhaps this is why I'm drawn to teachings of live and let live that are common among Daoist philosophers, Zhuangzi in particular. Perhaps this is why I see value in the Zen koans. While I myself am neither Daoist or Buddhist, I find a sympathetic maturity in their sentiments, in the way they serve to remove masks and illusions that so often bedevil our views, and then allow us to better penetrate the darkness between our souls and enlightenment.
-
The way i see it all religion and spirituality is the same, and hence have to come from the same source. I think everybody belive in something, something i would call devine, and i'd guess everybody have their own way of explaining it.. Not going to go into what that is to me, because that'll take several pages of posts. Short version is it's about our inner self, or soul, how we relate to nature and each others. The fact that we're even here and nature works as perfect as it does (over huge amounts of time).
But one good thing Bahá'í teach is that at different times and in different cultures, people will receive from the devine what they need.
Worship of ancestors are probably one of the oldest, because family and survival was hand in hand. Worship of the sun ofcourse came with the agricultural revolution, one of the biggest gifts of all time in some ways, and became the symbol of life. Living with nature, it was natural to give different aspects of nature their own part of the life, so we got nature spirits. Which would evolve into pantheons of personifications. This also coinsiding with living people becoming mythologised. With civilization growing into cities, esp in the Mesopitamian and Persian areas, some of these "gods" became patreons of the city or nation (wich was basically a loose connection between cities) and with time grew in importance until it became the most important god, which become the start of monotheism. First in Zoroastrianism and in early Egyptian mythology (for a short while), later what we know as the Abrahamic religions.
Every spiritual or religious person who's deemed as a prophet or otherwize holy person by a group of people mostly convey some of this knowledge.
The problem starts when this become organized around and after one such person. It was also a political way of controling society, and mixing the two is not a good thing. Put greed and agendas into the picture, and the whole original knowledge gets twisted, with one person is going to tell another one what the devine knowledge is, often illiterate people and not with much access to the sources, because they forget to listen to their inner relationship with the devine.
One of the biggest gifts or knowledges we've got is the art of printing, science and the enlightenment era.
Now everyone can learn about the devine themselves, figure out how they can connect with it, and see it's all trying to tell us the same about our relationship with our soul, nature and each others.
The reason some people who call themselves religious act the way you describe above is because they're still too hung up in those twisted interpretations that've been made since the beginning of conveying the knowledge. Miseducated and out of touch with their soul and their own relationship with the devine.
-
So true... Christianity inside the Roman Empire emphasized the need to support the Emperor and threatened hell to those who did not pay taxes on time. Outside the Roman Empire, Christianity focused on more joyous messages and hardly ever mentioned hell, and only as a warning, not as a threat. Similar things have befallen other religions when they are tied to symbols and institutions of state power.
-
So true... Christianity inside the Roman Empire emphasized the need to support the Emperor and threatened hell to those who did not pay taxes
Exactly. Early religion doesn't even have the concept of heaven and hell, just a realm of the dead, and when Jesus spoke about it it was about the way you live your life. In your life. Those two were only tied together by those who wrote the latest parts of the bible and edited the whole thing, leaving alot out. And those who kept on trying to interpit it, and twisting it. And, yes, that's not the only example. I really think most organized religion is anti-religious.
I don't believe in a "life after death", btw, and nothing could sound more Heavenly than "nothing".
Heaven is a place on earth... :P
-
Myself, I do see a life both before and after mortality, or, rather, I see mortality as a brief interruption in an otherwise immortal state. Why? It is so that we can learn and be tested to see what we will do when we are not in the presence of God. The learning and testing is not just for God to see, but for us to see for ourselves, that when we are restored to immortality, we judge ourselves with complete knowledge of how we helped or harmed others in our mortal existence; of how we faced or retreated from hardships; of how we loved or of how we hated.
-
Well, you know energy never disappears, it always transform into other forms. That also include our energy, which is connected with the collective energy that is part of the devine (that sounded alot more new-age than the huge idea i'm trying to say in just short terms).
So in those terms you might say there's some life after death, but that's nothing to do with our consciousness or soul.
And i don't think the devine is conscious. It just is. It is actually out of our reach to really understand what it is, like many religions say.
But you can feel it.
-
I hear ya, man.
This is one of those conversations I wish was happening around a fireplace, underneath a canopy of stars by a forest lake.
So I'll imagine that, and now it is.
[ /me stirs the coals in the fire for a little more warmth ]
-
No doubt. Up in the mountains. Mountan tops are also central in many religions, for a reason.
-
No doubt. Up in the mountains. Mountan tops are also central in many religions, for a reason.
You speak true, yes... on a mountain top...
-
Maturity in faith is often tied with maturity -in general-. Being so arrogant that one thinks they can (or even should try to) impose their belief system on others is, well, arrogant.
And to then sit back and pass judgement on others as being somehow "less than" is sure to alienate the very people one is proselytizing to.
A couple of sentences fails miserably to convey my thoughts on the subject, but I had to begin somewhere! I will add that I feel there is a difference between religion, faith, belief, and knowledge. I keep those differences in mind when I discuss such things, because communication is hard enough among people who have spent years together. Much less folks reading those communications on the internet who come from a multitude of cultures, languages, and perspectives.
Being as specific as I can while not stepping into pedantry is one part of how I try to bridge those things.
-
In Norwegian we've got the same word for faith and belief, so you're lucky having that division, since, yes, there is a difference. And they're both parts of this larger thing the greeks called religio, which also contain the political side of it. When i'm talking about this in Norwegian, it's faith i'm talking about, which i believe (:P) is the essence of all this. Knowledge is having your faith confirmed, amongst other things.
-
One of the biggest problems I have with this subject is that when a nutty concept is believed by a large number of people, then the nutty concept becomes legitimized.
For instance: If 1 guy believes that there is a spirit lurking in his breakfast cereal every morning, then he will be recognized as having mental problems. But when thousands believe that the body of Christ is a cracker, well now they're just Catholics.
Disclaimer: Nothing personal against Catholics. Just had to use someone to make my point. But, all religions participate in this type of mass lunacy in one form or another.
-
One of the biggest problems I have with this subject is that when a nutty concept is believed by a large number of people, then the nutty concept becomes legitimized.
For instance: If 1 guy believes that there is a spirit lurking in his breakfast cereal every morning, then he will be recognized as having mental problems. But when thousands believe that the body of Christ is a cracker, well now they're just Catholics.
Disclaimer: Nothing personal against Catholics. Just had to use someone to make my point. But, all religions participate in this type of mass lunacy in one form or another.
But then there's the case where a person has a profound experience that confirms his belief, but others refuse to believe that such an experience happened, or was even possible. Then the irrationality is not on the part of the person claiming the profound experience...
-
But then there's the case where a person has a profound experience that confirms his belief, but others refuse to believe that such an experience happened, or was even possible. Then the irrationality is not on the part of the person claiming the profound experience...
The person would have to prove he had the experience and not imagined it.
-
But then there's the case where a person has a profound experience that confirms his belief, but others refuse to believe that such an experience happened, or was even possible. Then the irrationality is not on the part of the person claiming the profound experience...
The person would have to prove he had the experience and not imagined it.
But a person could offer proof and the one who challenges it offers a plausible explanation for at least the superficial aspects of the proof, then dismisses the experience without further consideration.
Or, the person has no physical proof, but relies upon fellow witnesses of the experience. The challenger then says this is either a mass delusion or conspiracy, then dismisses without further consideration.
Perhaps the explanations are correct and the person claiming the experience is either misled or attempting to commit fraud. But also perhaps the person claiming the experience is sincere.
Worst case is the sincere person's experience that is seized upon by both delusional people and fraudsters, thereby perverting the experience to serve their own ends.
-
One of the biggest problems I have with this subject is that when a nutty concept is believed by a large number of people, then the nutty concept becomes legitimized.
For instance: If 1 guy believes that there is a spirit lurking in his breakfast cereal every morning, then he will be recognized as having mental problems. But when thousands believe that the body of Christ is a cracker, well now they're just Catholics.
Disclaimer: Nothing personal against Catholics. Just had to use someone to make my point. But, all religions participate in this type of mass lunacy in one form or another.
Somebody's been watching Sam Harris debates!
I agree. The overriding stigma of challenging beliefs is unfair, because religion is forced on people constantly as it is woven into the fabric of society. Ridiculous beliefs, especially ones that are controlling our lives and our society, have to be challenged.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Proof is an interesting concept. What constitutes proof often varies from person to person and even from time to time. Both socially and individually.
A friend of mine who is a sociologist did his PhD on whether you could predict if a person would alter their behavior depending on the circumstance. That wasn't the actual thesis but boiled down to that. Anyway, his conclusion was that you can't. It earned him his PhD, but is that proof of anything?
I can write a mathematical proof of the Pythagorean Theorem (and have, along with thousands of other people) in several different ways, all of them valid. But there are premises that have to be accepted as true before that proof can be considered valid. Euclid built that foundation, but once we move away from that things change. I can design a mathematical space where a squared plus b squared does not equal c squared.
Taking away the framework within which we, as human beings, make sense of the world around us, the Pythagorean Theorem falls apart. Does that make it less valid? Of course not. But it highlights the fact that it is valid with caveats .
It is a mathematical proof. When something is proven mathematically, it is PROVEN. But the process of proving something mathematically, along with theory testing via the scientific method, are human endeavors. They flow from human intelligence, a human perspective...human sensibilities.
Is there anything outside of that?
I think cats know...
-
Not on topic, but good to see you around Typhon! Fun fact, at home I have computer servers named Typhon and Echidna, and my firewall is named Cerberus.
-
There's also the case where a person experiences something so incontrovertible in his judgment that he really doesn't care if he can't prove it to anyone else. The experience is his own, it's enough for him, and that's that. He does not need peers to justify his beliefs.
That being said, there is a real sadness I have for people who grow up in state-imposed or societally-imposed belief systems. They tend to be run not by wise people with a thirst for truth, but by busybodies who love enforcing rules. In such cases, belief is not an inwardly-directed expression of faith, but a mandatory, outwardly-directed expression of conformity. There will be exceptions, but by and large the belief is imposed. I've seen this not only in places where it is a religion that constitutes the belief system, but in China, where the cult of personality around Mao is the belief system. It is atheistic, but nevertheless has many elements in common with historic state churches.
In such, the religion is not truly a belief system, but a control system. The Byzantine Empire went so far as to define its tax cycles as being divine mandates, as they came in combinations and numbers that lined up with Biblical events. Such things were pure inventions of the state, but to challenge them became not just an act of rebellion, but an act of blasphemy. The state put a person's soul at risk if a person challenged the status quo. Same thing in China, but with things lining up with Mao's writings, not what's in some other book.
For myself, I made a conscious decision about my faith and belief and continue to make that decision each day in my life. I've had experiences that confirm to me that there is a God. Most are quite personal, so I wouldn't even begin to use them to justify a proof of God's existence. I know, and that is good enough for me. Someone else may not know and while I can perhaps offer ideas on how to come to such a knowledge as I have, if the other person isn't interested in that knowledge, we're all better off if I don't provide unwanted advice. I believe that a person who truly seeks truth will find it. A person who does not truly seek truth wouldn't know truth if he found it.
-
Proof is an interesting concept. What constitutes proof often varies from person to person and even from time to time. Both socially and individually.
A friend of mine who is a sociologist did his PhD on whether you could predict if a person would alter their behavior depending on the circumstance. That wasn't the actual thesis but boiled down to that. Anyway, his conclusion was that you can't. It earned him his PhD, but is that proof of anything?
I can write a mathematical proof of the Pythagorean Theorem (and have, along with thousands of other people) in several different ways, all of them valid. But there are premises that have to be accepted as true before that proof can be considered valid. Euclid built that foundation, but once we move away from that things change. I can design a mathematical space where a squared plus b squared does not equal c squared.
Taking away the framework within which we, as human beings, make sense of the world around us, the Pythagorean Theorem falls apart. Does that make it less valid? Of course not. But it highlights the fact that it is valid with caveats .
It is a mathematical proof. When something is proven mathematically, it is PROVEN. But the process of proving something mathematically, along with theory testing via the scientific method, are human endeavors. They flow from human intelligence, a human perspective...human sensibilities.
Is there anything outside of that?
I think cats know...
Nice insights, Vyn. Some may take this to mean that therefore all beliefs are equal. To quote Douglas Adams:
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."
There are varying degrees of proof I say.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
To quote Douglas Adams:
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."
:opinion:
Sorry, couldn't resist. :) Back to the discussion, now...
-
In such, the religion is not truly a belief system, but a control system. The Byzantine Empire went so far as to define its tax cycles as being divine mandates, as they came in combinations and numbers that lined up with Biblical events. Such things were pure inventions of the state, but to challenge them became not just an act of rebellion, but an act of blasphemy. The state put a person's soul at risk if a person challenged the status quo. Same thing in China, but with things lining up with Mao's writings, not what's in some other book.
I'm Roman Catholic and believe much as "born again Christians" do. One of the first things I learned about them is that it is mandatory to donate 10% of your earnings to the church. Sure the Catholics pass the collection plate but are urged to give what they can.
In the Roman Catholic faith you are normally Baptized before your first birthday. In a discussion with a born again Christian I was told that if I was not re-baptized in Jesus Christ that I had no chance of going to heaven. I dismissed that as total rubbish. That's like telling someone in the LGBTQ community that they can't go to heaven because of they're sexual identity.
So am I being spiritually immature or is my born again friend? My spiritual beliefs have been instilled in me since childhood. So the way I was raised wholly contributed to my spiritual choice. Of course as I aged I could have made another choice but saw no need. Being born again is a choice that I have no problem with, but why do they try so hard to push their beliefs on others?
I mean no disrespect to any religion and await any criticisms or observations anyone may have.
-
We're all trapped in the quicksand of verbal expression
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
One of the biggest problems I have with this subject is that when a nutty concept is believed by a large number of people, then the nutty concept becomes legitimized.
For instance: If 1 guy believes that there is a spirit lurking in his breakfast cereal every morning, then he will be recognized as having mental problems. But when thousands believe that the body of Christ is a cracker, well now they're just Catholics.
Disclaimer: Nothing personal against Catholics. Just had to use someone to make my point. But, all religions participate in this type of mass lunacy in one form or another.
If you've come to the point when the body of christ is a cracker without understanding the original purpose to remember Jesus, you most likely have lost the way a long time ago. At this point i don't think we need to eat crackers to remember or "sanctify" him either.
And that a large number adhere to Scientology doesn't legitamize it.
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."
I agree in some way, but if not all opinions are not equal, that doesn't mean that "less than" opinions are invalid.
I call myself a Norse Christian, which ofcourse has to do with my culture and upbringing. Could just've easily called myself Muslim, Taoist or Shamanist, it's the sum of them all that matters anyway.
I'm Roman Catholic and believe much as "born again Christians" do. One of the first things I learned about them is that it is mandatory to donate 10% of your earnings to the church. Sure the Catholics pass the collection plate but are urged to give what they can.
In the Roman Catholic faith you are normally Baptized before your first birthday. In a discussion with a born again Christian I was told that if I was not re-baptized in Jesus Christ that I had no chance of going to heaven. I dismissed that as total rubbish. That's like telling someone in the LGBTQ community that they can't go to heaven because of they're sexual identity.
So am I being spiritually immature or is my born again friend? My spiritual beliefs have been instilled in me since childhood. So the way I was raised wholly contributed to my spiritual choice. Of course as I aged I could have made another choice but saw no need. Being born again is a choice that I have no problem with, but why do they try so hard to push their beliefs on others?
I mean no disrespect to any religion and await any criticisms or observations anyone may have.
Once again i don't really believe in an afterlife as such, but to play that ball, as long as you follow what the divine is telling YOU what's right, that's the right thing to do. Noone have the authority to step between you and your realationship with it and tell you othervize. Get the confirmation if it feels right to you, but not just because they tell you to. I'm baptized, not confirmed (using Protestand terms now)...
There's many ways to the devine, and i don't deny some can go through organized religion. As long as one keep in mind to listen to the inner voice more than people with their own ideas. In that respect it can be easy to be led astray when it's organized.
I think searching for "it" on your own is much more effective. That requires some studying, ofcourse, to rule out what of the sources are likely to come from (atleast pretty close to) the original source, and those who've been manipulated and added by others.
We're all trapped in the quicksand of verbal expression
Very true. We use the same words, but i think we put significantly different meanings into them. You all keep describing persons we've been involved with "relegious" and "christian". Sometimes i actually find that offencive. To me they're quite the opposite, and i would much rather you'd use such terms about someone like me (and others detatched from the clearly political side of religion), so those terms can get some of their true meanings back.
An Islamist conducting a terrorist attack, that has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
Doesn't matter if they say it is. I can call myself a black lesbian 60yr old girl from Rio De Janeiro all i want. Doesn't make it true...
There's this question of proof. A devine experience is, as Dozy says a highly personal experience, and it's really impossible to prove anything about it. As for the divinity, hey, we're here. Things work. That's the proof...
Should be an unnecessary disclaimer, but; this is all ofcourse IMO.
-
I'm Roman Catholic and believe much as "born again Christians" do. One of the first things I learned about them is that it is mandatory to donate 10% of your earnings to the church. Sure the Catholics pass the collection plate but are urged to give what they can.
In the Roman Catholic faith you are normally Baptized before your first birthday. In a discussion with a born again Christian I was told that if I was not re-baptized in Jesus Christ that I had no chance of going to heaven. I dismissed that as total rubbish. That's like telling someone in the LGBTQ community that they can't go to heaven because of they're sexual identity.
So am I being spiritually immature or is my born again friend? My spiritual beliefs have been instilled in me since childhood. So the way I was raised wholly contributed to my spiritual choice. Of course as I aged I could have made another choice but saw no need. Being born again is a choice that I have no problem with, but why do they try so hard to push their beliefs on others?
I mean no disrespect to any religion and await any criticisms or observations anyone may have.
Here's the test... do you believe what you believe because you just assumed it was the way to go, or do you believe because you went through an experience or process in which you sorted things out and emerged from that process with a deeper conviction in your beliefs. A Damascus Moment or a conversion process, as it were.
-
I don't think religious experiences need to be so profound. That's more an epiphany. You can have religious experiences in your everyday life. When you feel and know you're living the right way for yourself and those around you, and you can feel the presence of the devine, that's actually being in heaven. And the other way around, ofcourse.
It's so a part of daily life that when some people tend to make some experiences so much more fantastic than others, other people forget to pay attention to the "small things", to put it that way. The daily life, their inner voice.
-
I don't think religious experiences need to be so profound. That's more an epiphany. You can have religious experiences in your everyday life. When you feel and know you're living the right way for yourself and those around you, and you can feel the presence of the devine, that's actually being in heaven. And the other way around, ofcourse.
It's so a part of daily life that when some people tend to make some experiences so much more fantastic than others, other people forget to pay attention to the "small things", to put it that way. The daily life, their inner voice.
I see what you're saying, but for me to be able to get to that everyday peace, I had to pass through some stormy tests of my own faith. Having had that conversion experience, it defined my belief from that point forward.
But you are right - not everyone needs what I needed. Some can have the conversion experience not through a storm, but through noticing the gentle rains that fall almost every day.
-
I see what you're saying, but for me to be able to get to that everyday peace, I had to pass through some stormy tests of my own faith. Having had that conversion experience, it defined my belief from that point forward.
But you are right - not everyone needs what I needed. Some can have the conversion experience not through a storm, but through noticing the gentle rains that fall almost every day.
Well, absolutely. I've had several "greater" experiences myself, but i still haven't found that daily peace. Atleast i haven't had it in a while. I think both are needed, though.
-
As it goes in a koan, we can study all we want to make our preaching more persuasive, but if we do not meditate every day, our inner light goes out.
-
Meditate, listen to the inner self, feel the devine. Call it what one will... :)
-
Meditate, listen to the inner self, feel the devine. Call it what one will... :)
Most call it the Divine. Mike Devine was this jerk I used to know
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Not on topic, but good to see you around Typhon! Fun fact, at home I have computer servers named Typhon and Echidna, and my firewall is named Cerberus.
LOL! Glad to share my name with your server.
By the way, if you ever come across a right triangle whose hypotenuse squared is NOT the sum of the squares of the other 2 sides in that mathematical space of yours, I would like to see it. ;D
-
As for the divinity, hey, we're here. Things work. That's the proof...
Your joking, right?
-
By the way, if you ever come across a right triangle whose hypotenuse squared is NOT the sum of the squares of the other 2 sides in that mathematical space of yours, I would like to see it. ;D
Don't make me look for, potentially find, then read Rudin again! My undergrad degree was a long time ago lol.
-
Most call it the Divine. Mike Devine was this jerk I used to know
I kinda like him... :)
As for the divinity, hey, we're here. Things work. That's the proof...
Your joking, right?
No. The fact that chaos isn't chaotic at all, but in the end will make perfect sence says it all to me...
-
Not on topic, but good to see you around Typhon! Fun fact, at home I have computer servers named Typhon and Echidna, and my firewall is named Cerberus.
LOL! Glad to share my name with your server.
By the way, if you ever come across a right triangle whose hypotenuse squared is NOT the sum of the squares of the other 2 sides in that mathematical space of yours, I would like to see it. ;D
If you draw a triangle, the sum of the angles is always 180 degrees.
Unless you draw it on a sphere, then the curvature of the sphere makes triangles with a sum of all angles greater than 180 possible. Consider a triangle with three right angles, at the North Pole, and on the equator at 0 and 90 West.
-
As for the divinity, hey, we're here. Things work. That's the proof...
Your joking, right?
Actually, given just how "goldilocks" the earth is, it has led people to conclude that it was not entirely the result of chance, that there had to be something more in its formation.
There was an excellent essay by Stansilaw Lem about how, for example, for our world to have certain elements, the planet's passage through gas clouds from supernova explosions rich in that element would have to be timed almost perfectly to conicide with its rotation around the galactic center. In fairness, the essay was regarding the potential uniqueness of life on this world and this world alone, but I took the evidence he presented as supportive of my general opinion that if life on this planet is not the result of the most singular roll of the dice imaginable, then there was some exceptional planning in its development.
It's not proof, not at all. But I consider it to be a trail worth following.
-
Death is the verniculum that separates life and whatever comes after. We can make sense of that line, but reproducible, peer-review-able evidence of what's on the other side is not forthcoming. But one thing is certain: we will all know the answer to that question one day. Until then:
:abbath: :banana: :death: :metal1: :beerbang: :guitar:
-
Death is the verniculum that separates life and whatever comes after. We can make sense of that line, but reproducible, peer-review-able evidence of what's on the other side is not forthcoming. But one thing is certain: we will all know the answer to that question one day. Until then:
:abbath: :banana: :death: :metal1: :beerbang: :guitar:
The undiscovered country, from whose bourne no man returns, isn't that how Shakespeare described it?
-
It's not proof, not at all. But I consider it to be a trail worth following.
Death is the verniculum that separates life and whatever comes after. We can make sense of that line, but reproducible, peer-review-able evidence of what's on the other side is not forthcoming. But one thing is certain: we will all know the answer to that question one day. Until then:
Fuck yeah!
-
As for the divinity, hey, we're here. Things work. That's the proof...
Your joking, right?
Actually, given just how "goldilocks" the earth is, it has led people to conclude that it was not entirely the result of chance, that there had to be something more in its formation.
There was an excellent essay by Stansilaw Lem about how, for example, for our world to have certain elements, the planet's passage through gas clouds from supernova explosions rich in that element would have to be timed almost perfectly to conicide with its rotation around the galactic center. In fairness, the essay was regarding the potential uniqueness of life on this world and this world alone, but I took the evidence he presented as supportive of my general opinion that if life on this planet is not the result of the most singular roll of the dice imaginable, then there was some exceptional planning in its development.
It's not proof, not at all. But I consider it to be a trail worth following.
The Goldilocks, or anthropomorphic principle, has been addressed by several scientific hypotheses. None of these are proven, but I find them all much more convincing than the notion of a Divine intelligence. Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing" is one book that addresses this topic in depth.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
If you draw a triangle, the sum of the angles is always 180 degrees.
Unless you draw it on a sphere, then the curvature of the sphere makes triangles with a sum of all angles greater than 180 possible. Consider a triangle with three right angles, at the North Pole, and on the equator at 0 and 90 West.
You are referring to what is called a spherical triangle. An actual triangle is a plane figure, which means it exists in one plane.
-
Actually, given just how "goldilocks" the earth is, it has led people to conclude that it was not entirely the result of chance, that there had to be something more in its formation.
Although it may seem highly unlikely for the earth to end up the way it is by "chance", you must consider the enormous number of planets that exits in the universe. Each having a "chance" to end up as an earth. Then, one would realize that it's not all that highly unlikely.
-
The Goldilocks, or anthropomorphic principle, has been addressed by several scientific hypotheses. None of these are proven, but I find them all much more convincing than the notion of a Divine intelligence. Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing" is one book that addresses this topic in depth.
I have to stress that i don't think what i call dIvine is conscious in any way. Hence the idea of a divine intelligence become pointless in my way of seeing these things.
Actually, given just how "goldilocks" the earth is, it has led people to conclude that it was not entirely the result of chance, that there had to be something more in its formation.
Although it may seem highly unlikely for the earth to end up the way it is by "chance", you must consider the enormous number of planets that exits in the universe. Each having a "chance" to end up as an earth. Then, one would realize that it's not all that highly unlikely.
The fact that life on earth was down to dumb luck with 1:whatever endless sum chance, but still it's more likely that it must've happened on other planets too, if you consider the theory of inifinity into the equation, that to me is yet another proof of some kind of system in the chaos.
-
^^^^^^
This "system" you refer to is nothing more than probability.
-
^^^^^^
This "system" you refer to is nothing more than probability.
Depends from where your point of view is. When in the midst of it it might appear that way, but in hindsight things will always make sence.
-
^^^^^^
This "system" you refer to is nothing more than probability.
Depends from where your point of view is. When in the midst of it it might appear that way, but in hindsight things will always make sence.
Make sense in what sense? Since sense cannot be made, it must be sensed, I, for one, am incensed at all of this nonsense! That's just my two cents.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Make sense in what sense? Since sense cannot be made, it must be sensed, I, for one, am incensed at all of this nonsense! That's just my two cents.
That's a good explanation...
-
^^^^^^
This "system" you refer to is nothing more than probability.
Depends from where your point of view is. When in the midst of it it might appear that way, but in hindsight things will always make sence.
Make sense in what sense? Since sense cannot be made, it must be sensed, I, for one, am incensed at all of this nonsense! That's just my two cents.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
I sense that you're using this in a sense intended to try to make some sense by not making sense. Now to just find a way to work in scents and sents, and I'll be home free on the pun front.
But back to the random/planned thing... one of my beliefs is that one reason we are here is to be tested about what we will choose when not in the presence of God. Before we came here, we were tested what we will choose in the presence of God, so we are here for the next test, as it were. Anyway, the world has to be such that we're not able to have direct evidence of God until *after* our belief is such that we've essentially passed the test. To that end, the world, even the universe, *must* appear as so not to give anything away about the potential of a divine origin. We can have a hunch, a belief, a gut feeling, but nothing definite for most of us for most of our lives.
But once we are able to understand things in ways that open us up to communication with God, we can begin to receive those communications which then serve as an indication that if the small things we are able to experience are true, then the larger things we are promised are also true. Even then, it is a matter of faith, but it is a faith built upon a loving, friendly relationship.
God is not necessary to include in equations to explain how the universe operates. A scientist can do his job with or without a belief in God. Both can look at their work and the one can nod to himself, "Ah, another example of God's hand!" and his partner can look at the same work and shrug to himself, "Yet again, I see no god here."
-
Faith = the fancy way of saying, "I don't have any proof, so you're just going to have to believe me."
-
Faith = the fancy way of saying, "I don't have any proof, so you're just going to have to believe me."
This = when people misunderstand these concepts due to the miseducation of organized religion.
-
Faith = the fancy way of saying, "I don't have any proof, so you're just going to have to believe me."
Love works pretty much the same way. I had no way of proving to my wife 31 years ago that we'd still be married and in love 31 years later, but here we are. We have faith that we will continue on together, although we have zero proof of what the future holds for us.
-
Faith = the fancy way of saying, "I don't have any proof, so you're just going to have to believe me."
Love works pretty much the same way. I had no way of proving to my wife 31 years ago that we'd still be married and in love 31 years later, but here we are. We have faith that we will continue on together, although we have zero proof of what the future holds for us.
Glad to know you agree with my equation.
-
Faith = the fancy way of saying, "I don't have any proof, so you're just going to have to believe me."
Love works pretty much the same way. I had no way of proving to my wife 31 years ago that we'd still be married and in love 31 years later, but here we are. We have faith that we will continue on together, although we have zero proof of what the future holds for us.
Glad to know you agree with my equation.
I do think there's another kind of faith. For example, I can't cite every bit of evidence that supports evolution, but it's been explained to me before, and I trust in the scientific method and peer review and so on, so I have faith the the facts overwhelmingly support evolution, without actually "knowing" all the facts. Hence faith!
I do think love is different. Somebody's actions are evidence of love ( unless the person is just a manipulative psychopath).
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
^^^^^^
True, but how much faith do you really need when the conclusion is backed by evidence and facts which you can comprehend. The use of the word faith when talking about religion is more of a blind faith. That's the type I was referring to in my equation.
-
^^^^^^
True, but how much faith do you really need when the conclusion is backed by evidence and facts which you can comprehend. The use of the word faith when talking about religion is more of a blind faith. That's the type I was referring to in my equation.
Absolutely. I think that the argument from faith is kind of a "bad faith" argument though, generally. There is evidence that the majority of religious use: the Bible, personal revelation, synchronicity, irreducible complexity, anthropic principle, god of the gaps, etc. To me, those all seem like shoddy evidence, but evidence nonetheless. The faith argument only comes up when that evidence is brought into question, as a means of evading the discussion.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
^^^^^^
True, but how much faith do you really need when the conclusion is backed by evidence and facts which you can comprehend. The use of the word faith when talking about religion is more of a blind faith. That's the type I was referring to in my equation.
I don't think so about religion being a blind faith. And if there are evidences and facts at hand, then basing a view on those evidences and facts involves reason and logic. Something like, "I see lots of cars parked out front, saw that my wife used our credit card to make a purchase at a cake store, and today is my birthday. Pretty sure there's a party for me about to go down." That's not faith, that's a reasonable conclusion.
Whereas, faith is on on the lines of hearing someone say that God exists, would I like to believe in God? And maybe all I have to go with that statement is a feeling that what is said is correct, even though I have no evidence to go with that. Maybe evidences follow later on, but the initial decision is based on a feeling, not a fact. That would be faith.
-
^^^^^^
I've never seen any evidences or facts that indicate there exists a god.
-
One of the biggest problems I have with this subject is that when a nutty concept is believed by a large number of people, then the nutty concept becomes legitimized.
And that a large number adhere to Scientology doesn't legitamize it.
The major religions have been around for centuries while Scientology a few decades. Give it some time.
-
^^^^^^
I've never seen any evidences or facts that indicate there exists a god.
Which would explain your stance on the existence of said god. :smug:
The question for me, a believer, is whether or not that freaks me out, causes me to become angry, want to desperately try to make you see...
... or to live and let live. If I can do the latter and none of the former, I have a maturity about my faith that allows others the freedom to believe or not believe as they see fit, which is precisely the freedom I want for myself. "Do to others as you would have them do to you" seems to be a consistent refrain across cultures, faiths, humanitarian movements, and the like. When it is heeded, we all benefit and live in peace.
-
^^^^^^
And that's all fine. A person can believe what ever they want. It's when that said person starts to preach there stuff to others is when I say, "Hey! Let's see the proof or keep your mouth shut!" Which is basically what I told BTE in the other forum.
-
^^^^^^
I've never seen any evidences or facts that indicate there exists a god.
Which would explain your stance on the existence of said god. :smug:
The question for me, a believer, is whether or not that freaks me out, causes me to become angry, want to desperately try to make you see...
... or to live and let live. If I can do the latter and none of the former, I have a maturity about my faith that allows others the freedom to believe or not believe as they see fit, which is precisely the freedom I want for myself. "Do to others as you would have them do to you" seems to be a consistent refrain across cultures, faiths, humanitarian movements, and the like. When it is heeded, we all benefit and live in peace.
If I were blind, and somebody else had the capability to lift the scales from my eyes, I would have them do that please. So much for the Golden rule, haha.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Likewise, if I were a fundamentalist Christian and believed people who do not believe the same as I do would burn in hell for all eternity, the Golden rule would lead me to proselytize. Doesn't seem particularly immature.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Likewise, if I were a fundamentalist Christian and believed people who do not believe the same as I do would burn in hell for all eternity, the Golden rule would lead me to proselytize. Doesn't seem particularly immature.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
But the manner of the proselytization can be immature. There were, of course, the forced conversions of the Saxons by Charlemagne in which they were offered the choice of having either a little water on the head or a big axe on the neck. Sincere belief that he was doing the right thing and all, but even his own religious advisors argued against such a forced, mass conversion.
Forced conversions were also the order of the day in many of the campaigns that exploded out of Arabia after the birth of Islam. Islam in those regions tended to be harsh, unyielding, and uncompromising. Whereas, the elective conversions brought about through trade with Arabs in East Africa and Indonesia tended to be more flexible, even syncretic in its application.
When the Sufi movement emerged, it was often persecuted in the lands where conquest spread Islam and often embraced by the people where Islam spread through peaceful contact. Sufism itself has a very interesting philosophical approach to religion that itself can translate across sectarian divides. One sees this especially in India, where ghazal singers craft their performances to appeal to an audience of multiple faiths.
-
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . We need believing people." - Adolf Hitler
-
What prompted the Hitler quote? I'm curious.
-
What prompted the Hitler quote? I'm curious.
I ran across it whilst taking a quiz on the website Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF.org). I was considering becoming a member.
-
What prompted the Hitler quote? I'm curious.
I ran across it whilst taking a quiz on the website Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF.org). I was considering becoming a member.
That club might just suit you. :smug:
And while I'm still an observant, religious person, I also agree that church and state need to be kept apart. It's safer for everyone in a society when the government is secular and keeps religious influences at arm's length. When there was debate about freedom of religion at the writing of the Bill of Rights, Madison and his supporters were adamant that the freedom wasn't limited to Christians, or even believers, but for the freedom of conscience for all persons. I would even want to see the end to mandatory recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, which I see as a form of state religion.
-
I would even want to see the end to mandatory recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, which I see as a form of state religion.
You was making some sense until this. :doh:
-
I would even want to see the end to mandatory recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, which I see as a form of state religion.
You was making some sense until this. :doh:
Well, it's got the words "Under God" in it, for starters. Those were added in the 1950s to suss out all the godless Commies infiltrating our schools and Boy Scout troops...
The original salute looked like this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg)
THAT got changed in 1941, due to war with another nation that used a form of that salute...
And while a daily pledge of loyalty is fine with me for government employees, I don't think it should be mandatory in schools. If it's not voluntary, it's something that gets mocked easily, ignored, put up with, seen as a burden. When I work with scout troops, I make sure to say it carefully and seriously - I am doing it voluntarily there. When I was a teacher, I was required by law to stand and repeat it, and I did so without mocking or irony, but it was easy to see other students not taking it seriously precisely because it was mandated.
If my loyalty has to be coerced, I'm a slave, not a free citizen. If my loyalty doesn't have to be coerced, the repetition of a pledge of allegiance makes as no difference to my support of my nation and the peoples in it.
Another objection I have to the pledge is that it does not include the word "equality". That word was conscientiously left out so as not to antagonize school board members that were segregationists or who were against women's suffrage. We're beyond those things as a nation, so how about adding "equality" and taking out "under God"?
-
^^^^^^
". . . one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" seems fine to me.
To clarify, you can not be a "slave", if you have the option to leave. If anyone does not like the rules here, then they are free to go somewhere else.
-
I'm not a number, I'm a free man!
-
^^^^^^
I remember those opening lines from that show back in the 60's? I think it was called The Prisoner?
-
That would be it. Patrick McGoohan!
-
^^^^^^
". . . one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" seems fine to me.
To clarify, you can not be a "slave", if you have the option to leave. If anyone does not like the rules here, then they are free to go somewhere else.
"Free to go", provided the person has enough money for the move, employment waiting in the destination country, and is healthy enough to make the move.
Much easier to get rid of nationalistic mumbo-jumbo and consider patriotism to be more than reciting a state-sponsored rosary.
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
-
^^^^^^
". . . one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" seems fine to me.
To clarify, you can not be a "slave", if you have the option to leave. If anyone does not like the rules here, then they are free to go somewhere else.
"Free to go", provided the person has enough money for the move, employment waiting in the destination country, and is healthy enough to make the move.
:naughty: Seems to be no problem for tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to make the move to come here each year.
-
No problem? That's quite a callous comment. At any rate, the philosophy of "love it or leave it" completely disregards the capacity we have to make changes through common discourse and elective processes.
We can make changes for the better so we don't have to leave.
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
-
I've always been bit against putting god in everything. It's just another mind control tool.
-
No problem? That's quite a callous comment. At any rate, the philosophy of "love it or leave it" completely disregards the capacity we have to make changes through common discourse and elective processes.
I was never pushing "love it or leave it". You was claiming that following a rule, like saying the Pledge of Allegiance, had some aspect of slavery. To which I proved that to be wrong, because slaves cannot up and leave if they don't like the rules, but we can.
You have the tendency to put words in the mouths of others when it is shown to you that something you have said is inaccurate.
-
No problem? That's quite a callous comment. At any rate, the philosophy of "love it or leave it" completely disregards the capacity we have to make changes through common discourse and elective processes.
I was never pushing "love it or leave it". You was claiming that following a rule, like saying the Pledge of Allegiance, had some aspect of slavery. To which I proved that to be wrong, because slaves cannot up and leave if they don't like the rules, but we can.
You have the tendency to put words in the mouths of others when it is shown to you that something you have said is inaccurate.
Well if you're putting words in my mouth that following rules = slavery, we're even. :smug:
-
Interesting stuff:
-
^ Interesting philosophy there. He's right in saying that when need to expect discomfort when we make a change for the better. We have to make the decision in advance so that, even when we want to decide otherwise, we still make the decision to do the better thing. That's very important when dealing with addiction or negative cycles of behavior.