Most humanists reckon that if you quote the Bible that you are devoted to it but then most humanists are idiots.
Printable View
Most humanists reckon that if you quote the Bible that you are devoted to it but then most humanists are idiots.
:biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
There are a few notable exceptions:
I just can't think who at the moment. No doubt someone will let us know.
Christopher Hitchens is a free thinker if ever there was one. I'm one. You're one by the sounds of it, jocky. Young cl is a rather promising thinker. There are quite a number of free thinkers in the world; but no matter how many there are, there will always be a pile of idiots piled on top of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jocky
I'm one, I think.
Clearly, Varenne, you are. But most people could have their heads punched in by a hammer and they would still go on talking the same as always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I think that religions attempt to develop a meaning to life that goes beyond the everyday. In the past, most lives were shorter and death was much more apparent. People were brought up close to death sooner, and in all probability experienced death to a much greater extent than we do - in the West certainly.
How many dead people do we see? For most of us we may only see an open coffin, or view a relative in a chapel if that. Death these days is very sanitary. it is swept away by a very efficient undertaker/ morgue/ hospital system that really takes away the up close horror of what death might hold for us. I'm not saying this is a bad thing by the way, though it may weaken our appreciation of what death is.
In the face of no alternative, religions have developed in different parts of the world to address this issue. What is our nature? Do we end when our body dies? Is what I do therefore meaningful?
These are valid and important questions,and ones that may be dismissed, but they are ones which we will all face on a very personal level. Whatever your take on teligion, it is an attempt to come to terms with and explain this. This is the core of religions, and while science may provide us with the answers to lots of questions and discredits - for the good in my opinion - attempts by religious people to deny scientific truth - it does not answer these questions.
Religion is often seen only as a power play, and this is a superficial, political take on what a religion is about. Regarding it only in this way does not admit that it has been an effort to root out the meaning and truth of our existence.
Of course, some religions do not help themselves by their complacency, and disregard for other explanations. Bastions of supposed truth are built, and orthodoxy developed around this, and, as with all inflexibility, cracks in the theology, or inadequacy in ethics appear.
This does not mean that religions started off with these faults. They began as attempts to answer ultimate truths.
Some people have an agenda against religions in general, but following their orthodoxy may well be just as inhibiting as adopting a unquestioning religious orthodoxy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
There once was a moron named Moe
Who questioned the free thinker, Joe,
"So, you think that you're bright?"
And Joe said, "Yeah, that's right,"
As they wait for their nurses to show.
Once a person named YesNoQuote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
near Chicago
was asked, "What do you know?",
and she said, "I don't know,
I'm a little slow."
Glad you liked it, GL!Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
"If you want to be one of the nonconformists all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to the same music we do" - Goth kids from South Park. :biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
To be absurd all one needs to do is to get on a thread called British Literature vs. American Literature and then throw foodstuffs at each other.
How is Religion supposed to give meaning to life? It's not. Christianity, for one, is not a religion, it's a relationship. Relationship gives meaning to life. Having a relationship with God, our creator, gives meaning to life. Praying, reading his words, using the talents he's given us toward our purpose he's given us (Our Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren). Helping others. Obeying his words. Taking care of our planet, our flora and fauna and air, and brothers etc. And so much more.
God does whatever he pleases. He makes us worship him, do what he says. Simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
If a President can rule our life, what's more GOD.
GOD rules over everything and everyone in the world.
The reward of worshipping him? A place you call Heaven. If not you end up in Hell.
Just like living in a country. You follow rules you are safe. You break rules, you go to prison.
Simple.
Are you sure you know what the rules are exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantaghiro12
God indeed does whatever he pleases.
Chrsitianity isnt a religion. Atheism isnt a religion. I'm now convinced that religion doesnt actually exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
which god are you referring to? Why must life be a reward-based endeavor, as opposed to just being for its own sake? which heaven? which hell? whats so great about heaven and so bad about hell? have you ever read Siddhartha?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantaghiro12
Seems strange to me that atheists attend church to socialise when there are numerous non-religious venues to meet people.
All religions are about a relationship with a deity/deities. They are all characterised by the deity inisisting upon wanting to be worshipped. The rest (following all the directives set out in this very lop-sided realtionship) are not enough to buy a ticket to heaven. The God worship is essential. BTW atheist also concerned about looking after other people and the planet.
The Nastika religions of India all lack deities. Not all religions concern deities. Many people consider "atheism" itself to be a religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Munshie
There is nothing wrong with religion. There is something wrong with saying your world view is right and that all others you disagree with are wrong.
Atheism is no more inherently correct than any other world view.
Drkshadow03
At the very least what you say about those holy texts being meaningful without God is contentious. They may make good stories like Wind In The Willows (or any other piece of fiction) but the killing and maiming and the strict rules of how to behave (including diet ect.) is imo is 'rationalised' or made acceptable only by a believe in God.
re atheism. Absolutely agree. I cannot make my head around when kids are taught to be good, kind and helpful as "they are Christians"(on example of my son's school). I think it is wrong. Kids (who are growing into adults) should be kind and caring as they are Humans. Homo Sapiens. All the rest - if they are Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists Etr. - irrelevant. Atheists are nice people as well. If they are not - it has nothing to do with the religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Munshie
HCabret
So tell us about these Nastika religions and exactly what they believe because frankly I'm not prepared to take your word for it. Even buddhism in some of its forms despite not originally accepting the notion of a deity to be worshipped (because one ultimately becomes God through belief and good works) has changed to where there is a notion of a deity with which a person becomes one. You reiterate a common misunderstanding of atheism. It is not a religion. There is no organised belief system and no commonality among atheists other than they are not convinced there is evidence to support the notion of a deity. This idea of atheism as a religion is only a blacklack by theist who want to argue that fundamentally atheist are the same as theists.
"There is nothing wrong with religion."
That is debateable but too long to go into at this moment in time. (May be at a later date.)
Now tell me where I said that everybody else is wrong and I'm right? I simply put forward a different view.
All Buddhists reject the concept of deities. Jains are even more orthodox concerning this position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Munshie
Regardless of your position as to whether it not atheism is or is not a religion, there is a large group of people which do classify it as being a religion.
My beef is with dogma. I don't like when atheists claim that their world view is correct and all other opposing view points are automatically wrong, just because their run counter to atheism. I never said that you said anything, I was simply pointing out my dislike for dogmatic approaches.
HCabret
"Regardless of your position as to whether it not atheism is or is not a religion, there is a large group of people which do classify it as being a religion."
Interestingly no atheist sees it that way! The argument about atheism being a religion is used by some theists to make out that basically atheist are the same as theist, but just with a diffferent set of beliefs. It could be characterised as a retaliotory reaction by religious types to the criticism the receive from atheists. Fundamentally theists work on the notion of 'faith' while atheist do not operate on faith, but 'evidence' (for want of a better word). Many atheists can and do argue that if there was clear and unequivocal evidence for God, there would be no need for faith. In that situation God would be considered a fact.
I did briefly notice yesterday that one of the comments on this forum was along the the line that science/scientists also operate on faith too. I have heard similar arguments essentially saying that when when someone steps on a plane they have faith/belief that they will arrive safely at their destination. IMO that shows a profound misunderstanding of science and its methodology. I do not need to step on board a plane with faith. I can check the the reliability of jet engines, analyse the statistics about the safety of air travel generally or a specific carrier etc. In the light of that I can choose whether or not to board the flight. If there is a life-threatening error in the technology, or mental stability of the pilot, no amount of faith is going to stop the ensuing accident.
Fine you have a beef with dogma - so do I. That said we need to remember that dogma is very common in religions - some would go as far as arguing that it is characteristic of all religions. Science is a methodology and while it has some weaknesses it has given us not only all the technology at our disposal, but also a good understanding of the physical world.
HCabret
"Astika and Nastika do not mean "theism" and "atheism" respectively in ancient or medieval era Sanskrit literature.[4] In current Indian languages like Hindi, āstika usually means "theist", while nāstika means "atheist".[10] However, the terms are used differently in Hindu philosophy.[11] For example, Sāṃkhya is both an atheist and āstika (Vedic) philosophy.[12]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80...d_n%C4%81stika
It would appear matters are not as straightforward as you suggest!
One of the "beliefs" that atheists have is that they have no beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Munshie
Most of the stuff we believe we are not even aware of until we are challenged in some way to examine it. Our common sense goes unnoticed.
For example, what does your common sense tell you about the reality of psi phenomena?
Another example, what is your interpretation of quantum physics? Do you believe in many worlds, superdeterminism, an ability to cause events to happen in the past, or do you believe that consciousness causes collapse? If you believe that consciousness causes collapse I think you are inevitably led to some "cosmic consciousness" which for all practical purposes is a God.
What do you believe is true about consciousness itself? Is it an epiphenomenon of the body, or is the body an ephiphenomenon of some mind, or do you believe in a form of dualism where both body and mind interact in some way?
It's one of the most frustrating things about conversing with them. They often think that atheism isn't a belief, isn't a system of connected beliefs, isn't a movement, and that they've arrived at whatever assumptions they do hold independently through reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Mostly it's bunk, but I leave the possibility open, 'cause there's a lot of weirdness in the world and a lot of other people are convinced. Maybe, someone knows something I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Free will makes sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Time travel? I don't think we're there yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I think the world is the world whatever we think about it or even if we don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I think there is a bit of dualism going on. Whatever we are when separated from our bodies, the soul, might not even be called consciousness as we understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Some atheists also believe that religion is a social construction. That is, they believe that children are born atheists and are later culturally indoctrinated by their parents into theism. That belief has been falsified by child psychologists. (See Justin L. Barrett's, "Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Beliefs")Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I don't mind atheists having faith in such stuff, just don't say such faith represents science.
My justifications for accepting psi phenomena come from the research done by Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake. I think the evidence has been available and clear in a scientific context for the last hundred years since the time of William James.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
However, I agree that it goes against my own common sense view of what is humanly possible, but then I wonder why do I think I know what is humanly possible? Mostly my common sense is limited by a bias toward Newtonian determinism where we are each of us individuals bumping against each other like balls on a social billiards table. Intellectually, I know that is outdated, but I find it is not easy to think differently.
Yes. The world is really out there. That's crucial to Berkeley's argument for the existence of God. Although everything is an "idea" for him, the world can't be simply my idea since it is so consistent from day to day and agrees with what others are describing even when I'm not thinking about it. That implies there is a Mind manifesting it, "sustaining" it so to speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Quantum physics, assuming the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation, provides a scientific justification for Berkeley's philosophical argument. There is no underlying unconscious matter behind the phenomena we experience through our human interface to that reality. And yet our interface is consistent from day to day and we can agree on what we see. That leads to "cosmic consciousness" which sustains the phenomena.
The alternative quantum interpretations try to counter this because it does lead to theism. They are various forms of many worlds, superdeterminism or backward-in-time causality. If one is willing to accept any of these speculations one might as well accept the existence of a God since they all seem, at least to me, more far-fetched than a generic theism.
Christians don't think that Christianity is a religion either. I don't understand the phobia of the word "religion". Are people afraid that if the word "religion" is used to describe their beliefs that will therefore be considered equally valid as all other religions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Munshie
PostScript. Atheism has literally nothing to do with science whatsoever.
Religion is a social construct. Atheism is a religion. Newborns barely have the ability to eat without choking, let alone being capable of determining whether deities may or may not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Atheism has nothing to do with science. There is no scientific evidence concerning whether any deity exists or not. The question of whether deities exist or not is a philosophical and literary question, not a scientific one.
Actually, yesno is correct. Religious thinking is innate in our biology the same as language. The particular forms it takes are socially constructed. You can read about it in the book yesno mentioned or other scientific sources such as the psychologist Paul Bloom who's done extensive research on how babies develop.Quote:
Originally Posted by HCabret
Right on the money there.Quote:
Originally Posted by HCabret
It's a shame that so many people have substituted science as an absolute authority in place of God without having a particularly profound grasp of either. The most fanatical proponents of scientism are often at odds with the actual science of what they talk about, let alone philosophy or history; but then, some religious people don't understand their religion particularly well either.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I don't know that Dean Radin fellow, but Sheldrake doesn't strike me as a very good scientist. I saw him on the Joe Rogan Podcast a couple of times and his claims were less than credible. He talked about doing that sender receiver card test they were doing at the beginning of Ghostbusters, and he mentioned that the best subject he ever had was his son. What was obviously happening was the same thing that happened in the case of Clever Hans, the horse who did arithmetic. The horse didn't have special mental capacities except for maybe being observant and receptive of it's owner's involuntary cues and body language. The trainer wasn't even aware that he was giving the answers away. A person's child is especially receptive to it's parent's body language as a matter of necessity, which explains that.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Then he had a story about how dogs sense when their owners are coming home. This is a really galling one, when people attribute supernatural qualities to their pets. It's sort of like a displaced hubris. "Well no I'm not psychic but my dog is." Sheldrake leaps past simpler more plausible explanations like the dogs recognizing patterns, routines, or perhaps having a well developed sense of hearing, or smell which would give it advance notice that it's owner was coming home.
He also shared a weird story about trying to project an image to a person in a far off place. The person who was the supposed receiver claimed to get an image of a burned down house or something, which wasn't what the sender was trying to send him, but when they did some digging they found out that a house had once burned down on that spot. So Sheldrake concludes what any rational person would, that his subjects could see backwards in time telepathically over great distances.
I think he might also be the guy who believes that we always know when someone is staring at us. This runs counter to plain sense. I had a friend of mine silently follow me for miles as a joke. He walked a couple of paces behind me the whole way but I was too absorbed in my own thoughts to notice him. Then there are stalkers who hide in people's bushes, peeping toms, snipers, cops who tail people, etc. A quick consideration of anyone's life will probably yield at least one example of a time they were observed and didn't know it.
The one thing he mentioned for psychic phenomena which I can't really poke holes in is the case of a group of people focusing on a number and effecting a random number generator to be less random. I've got no idea what's going on there.
But like I said before, I don't put psychic ability out of the realm of possibility, I just don't think Sheldrake is the man to prove it.
That is the challenge isn't it, trying to perceive the world objectively when our minds aren't built for objectivity? Try to straighten them as we might, our thoughts run down the old easy curving paths. Sometimes I wonder what's possible in a universe with quantum physics, or if I'm like a square trying to make sense of a sphere, understanding less than half of what I see. We just don't have the sensory equipment or the processing power to comprehend it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Here's a video about that dog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA5wAm2c01wQuote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I don't see this as a supernatural quality, but I don't have an explanation. Of course I am looking for an explanation within models that might be faulty.
The remote viewing experiments have the problem of being too vague in my view. There is too much subjectivity in what constitutes a successful event. So I agree with you on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
That doesn't mean that some people talented in this way can't do such things. And that's my main interest. What can unusually talented people actually do? Can they really levitate, for example? What does that say about gravitation? I don't think any of it is supernatural. It is just the way nature is, if it is possible.
Yes, I recall something similar from him. However, these experiences don't have to happen consistently. They just have to happen enough to reject chance. Some people may be more sensitive to this than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
What I find interesting is what this implies about the world. If there were such an influence, then the viewer is projecting something out or disturbing a field that the one being watched can potentially detect if the person is sensitive enough to it.
It occurs to me that even the concept of "disturbing a field" is just a conceptual model of what reality might be. The models seem to work and so they have use-value until something better comes along.
These are the kind of experiments that I recall Radin having performed. I don't know if he or someone else did those where a random number generator was made less random. I'm off-and-on going through Radin's "Supernormal" where he examines Patanjali's "Yoga Sutras" and attempts to show what science can validate about the unusual powers discussed in the third part of that ancient text.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I was impressed by Sheldrake's "The Science Delusion". One of his ten points was to question whether physical constants are as constant as a number such as pi, that is to all decimal places. If they weren't constant, just like pi, then the mathematical models of universe would not have the predictive power that we assumed they had. They would be only approximations. We can still use them to a certain number of decimal places. People, including myself, confuse the model with reality, so questioning this aspect of the model is worthwhile. Most people don't even think to consider it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I suspect "skeptics" are trying to tarnish Sheldrake's reputation in sometimes inappropriate ways. Here is Sheldrake complaining about James Randi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB3SAD-gHTc
Nothing can give meaning to existence. Talking about meaning is logically futile.
I agree that no "thing" can give meaning to existence. One needs subjectivity to assign meaning and to be able to recognize the meaning. Things, by assumption, do not have subjectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by zslsal
Consider the meaning of a word. Does a computer know what a word means that has been encoded as some text on its hard drive? I don't think so, no matter how well it is able to manipulate the projection of that meaning onto a text. Just because a computer can't recognize or assign meaning says nothing about our abilities. Because of our subjectivity, we aren't reducible to computers.
When someone says something is "logically" this or that, I assume there is an underlying logical fallacy going on if human experience shows the opposite to be true. For example, do we have free will? We experience enough free will for a legal system to assign responsibility to us as intentional agents, but some people who take mathematical determinism too literally try to logically claim we do not have free will. Which should I believe, the empirical evidence or questionable metaphysics? I go with the empirical evidence and assume there is a fallacy in the metaphysics that I may or may not choose to try to uncover.
Peace be on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
According to my understating through Ahmadiyya-Islam, The purpose of life is to worship God, and this worship should be such that one should be good to creature of God too. Then expect good place in Hereafter.
If you notice, Salaat, the Islamic Prayers [5 daily, and some extra], all begin with declaration of greatness of God, and end with words "assalamo aliakum wa rahmatullah" while the person turns face to right and then left uttering these words. Their meaning: assalamo (peace) aliakum (be on you) wa (and) rahmatullah (mercy of Allah). The lesson is come back from the Presence / Court / Threshold of Lord with gift of peace for humanity whether rightest or leftist to your creed.
Unfortunately, many pray but create unrest after offering Salaat. This is promised weakness. The reforms are underway. But it is different subject.
That's a nice prayer, YALASH. I also liked how your religion views hell as a temporary hospital stay. Apparently change can occur in the afterlife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
For me, it wasn't so much as "Man's Search for Meaning" (Frankl), but my search for the *purpose* of living. What was the Point of life? Why was I born in the first place? Into a world where the only time I could be 'happy' was if I blocked out the utter misery of so many - and wait to see if the unspeakable miseries would someday show up in my life.
I became an agnostic at 16, which lasted until I was 45 when 'misery peaked'. Whenever I got close to suicide, a particular thought would always show up, "If you commit suicide, you are guaranteed to *never* discover the Point to being here." That thought kept me trudging along, more than once. Where to look for the Answer? I had rejected the Rolodex of beliefs that one could adopt. I wanted to Know, for myself.
Turned out that St. Paul holds the keys to the Point (1 Cor. 15:12-19). So many religious people speak of that passage as referring to the physical death and resurrection of Jesus. What the passage actually speaks of is the Resurrection *within each of us*. The Experience of Truth Itself.
There is nothing "narrow" about a path that only requires 'believing'.
P.S. One of the great insights into agnosticism, for me, was coming to see that the definition was: "I could no longer believe in the Goodness of God."