I believe in god.
Offline Haha, can you save me guys? No, but seriously though - I appreciate your motives - evangelistic Christianity is certainly a terror to our world and especially our nation. However - the same condemnatory dogma and faith in high truths they express, you express as well. You must know, science is not a reality - its a pursuit to understand reality - it is not objective, truth, it is hypothetical theory. Please stop referencing it as a corner stone for all things to be measured - there are some very fundamentally limiting abilities of empirical observation, namely being the sentient control of the observation, the sentient design and conclusion and comprehension of the observations.
Furthermore - youre so adament to disprove god, but what you blindly failed to realize is that the very word God; has carried some very intensely varying meanings across the world. Why, the grandfather to modern science and empirical observation had no shred of doubt of the existence of god. Including all of your high priests. See, the thing is - you see redneck, hillbillies making god out to be some sort of absurd willed judgmental condemning white man in the sky then, well, of course thats absurd. But, why are you so myoptic that you fail to see that the rest of the theological schools of the world actually have a more reasonable foundation to their concepts of god. So, as you destroy the word, you destroy your own integrity, for not understanding the whole of the people, and beliefs you condemn.
I actually was initially motivated to your cause, until I found out that you too have the same dogma and blind conviction and certitude that you condemn the Christians for. Science is great, but its still just theory - there is no such thing as scientific fact, its scientific hypothesis, and your religions founder (mr Newton) knew this - he spent most of his life determined to find objective knowledge, until he was guided to the calm realization that objective knowledge is unattainable through any conscious being. Until we can transcend the dimensions of the space time continuum, and develop instruments that can measure infinity (oh yeah, not going to happen), then science can not reach near the lengths to find truth.
Now, before responding to me as a radical, irrational idiot - please know the very tension of the word "truth". What is truth, must exist absolutely, what is absolute, is incapable of being objectively observed within the confines of the space-time continuum. So, this is not to say I do not embrace the theories of science, this is to say I am not limited to them, which is simply called open-minded. Why, indeed I actually quite enjoy science.
However, science does point to something a bit profound for you to even perceive the reality of the word "god". All matter goes through constant decomposition, for every of the tiniest of nanoseconds all matter is going through a decompository conditioning. So, combined this with your first law of thermodynamics, being that all matter and energy cannot simply cease to be, they can only transform - how is it that all this matter and energy can exist constantly, whilst in constant decompository states? I would like to contend that it is through consciousness, as consciousness is the life that can make all matter remain whilst in decompository states, indeed it transforms through this consciousness. The grandest scientific hypothesis stands as a pea does next to a freight train in the concept of consciousness. The infinite of consciousness and the continuum of consciousness is what most of the eastern worlds refer to as god, which is hardly irrational or unscientific, in fact, your first law of thermodynamics was discovered by Buddha in 450 BCE, 2200 years before your science could express that.
If you look deeper then the words, youll find the truth to the words, and see past and into the experience of those words. You do realize that you are all being manipulated tools at the whim of folk like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Also Jesus Christ was a wonderful man who tought great things, even if his followers of today are idiots, he was most certainly not. Your cause would be greatly benefitted if you actually learned about and understood his teachings (this requires an open mind). HIS teachings dont infringe on your own beliefs, so long as you stick with the synoptic and gnostic gospels, read his message and enjoy it - and you will see it is in sharp contradiction to modern christianity, all the way from how its run and pyramided to the actual belief in hell (jesus never believed in hell). Seeing this sharp contradiction between the fanatic Christians and the message of Christ is your greatest empowerment against the evangelical movement.
- Login to post comments
I see you are your own undoing, because I see you resist the collective consciousness of the rest of society - you have made atheism an exclusive club for your own deemed elite members of society and selfishly proclaim the labels of "rational thinkers" above all other thoughts of life, all in the vain attempts to try to destroy what you yourself are creating, only you are doing it in yourself. In order to win the movement against evangelism, one must not take position of counter-evangelist, but rather, of neutral medium, so one can differentiate the truths and the lies, and the contradictions from the reasons of all walks of life. I know you are your own undoing, because you are a joke in many evangelistic movements, and you have made your self into one. Though what I see here is a young movement, that is gaining footing, and has some very intelligent and determined people in it - the issue, however, is you must be the change that you want in others. If you dont want others to hold high truth above you, you must stop holding high truth above others. I have not expressed anything of personal condemnation, I have only expressed the incongruencies of your own actions. There are evangelists like Hank Hanegraaf who is actually incredibly smart, and he makes you kids turn out to be jokes. But, he is just deeper into his own self-serving illusions, and intelligence doesnt always coincide with reality. I see deeper understanding in your behaviors then I do the fundamentalists like hank, and I see a more pure-heart in your intentions and efforts.
I understand your beliefs contradict theirs, it is within resolving those differences that you will resolve the strength of their movement. Without intending to sound sappy, you must kill them with your kindness. So if they are rude and condemning to you, you must be sympathetic to them, because they are only truly hurting themselves.
I found truth when I faced death in the eyes - when I fought for my life and existence to continue breathing, I had no more room for my own lies that I contained in myself. Death will kill all of your illusions, before it kills you. Before you die, there will be a death of the ego - the sharpness of it will depend on the culmination of your own illusions. Some people very gradually come to the killing of their ego, some of them are faced with the task in a most brutal manner. This is the methods of self-actualization, and these are the methods of the middle path, the line of symmetry, that can be seen in all beings of life. We all arise out of nothing, and we all return to nothing.
Also - I have no doubt that many people on this board know the bible, but its one thing to memorize scripture, its another thing to see the experience that is contained within the scriptures. All words are expressions of a very specific experience - and if you assess all expression through only a semantic approach, then of course it will look absurd and silly - but if you see the experience beyond the words, you can see people, things, and all of your world as it really is. Words are illusions, just as is all perceived and comprehended experience, once we admit this to our selves is the first step to becoming what we want to be.
But, maybe thats all just hocus pocus nonsense.
"I appreciate your concern and your wanting to help. I really do. I'm sure we all do. But, whether you realize it or not, our beliefs contradict theirs. They believe they can never be wrong, they believe they have God behind them. They will always see us as wrong, they will always try to find a way to refute us, and they will always rely on blind faith or faith in general. "
but you cant combat their faith with your faith. Your substantiations may feel like the weight of millenia on your shoulder, but they are not of high substantiation like you think they are. Any conviction to a label, a group of people, or an outside authority IS blind faith. You give blind faith to science, and dawkins, and rather hten assess the individuals you condemn for their reasons to believing in god, you assume a whole host of reasons based on your societal conditionings of preconceptions towards what those people really are.
Since when does the collective consciousness of society matter? If the collective consciousness of society stated it was ok to rape, does that make it ok to rape? No. The collective consciousness of society means nothing
If I remember correctly, anyone can call themself rational thinkers or atheists. We are not the ones stopping them from doing so. You come in here with assumptions that we think we are above all. When infact we are not, nothing is above critique and scrutiny. You merely assume we are becoming what we are fighting against simply because of how we acted against you. And to be honest, how could we not act the way we did? You came in here, with the implications and the intentions of turning us from our thinking with nothing more than "You guys should do this because I said so." and not providing substantial evidence as to why. If anything, you're the one acting all high and mighty since you seem to not like being disagreed with so much.
You do not seem to realize that you can be counter-evangelist and still look at both sides. Infact, a good counter-evangelist WILL look at both sides because you can only debate what you know and understand fully. You can differentiate truths and lies while remaining on one side rather than a happy medium. Many Atheists do that here.
How so and prove it?
Our "High truth" Is backed with empirical evidence, facts, observations, rational, logic, reason, ect. And like every single one of has has said and will continue to say. We are open to being proven wrong, just present evidence that can credibly and substantially refute ours.
That is your opinion.
I myself find this a more effective way to deal with fundy's. However, many others do not. We are after all human, we are bound to human emotion just like everyone else.
Interesting, but a lot of this is still just your personal experience that you're trying to equate to others as well as opinion.
As you may well know, or not know, many Atheists that are here were devoutly religious or just moderately religious or religious in general at one point in time. They tried what you are suggesting. It did not work. As have I. It did not work for me as well.
Ah. But you see, we are not combating faith with faith. We do not have blind faith in people like on people like Dawkins, or groups, or science, or other individuals. We support them, because they are supported by facts, theories, ect. The whole scientific method. Sometimes we assume things, but once again that is human emotion and EVERYONE is bound to it. What I think is commonly misperceived is the actual definition of faith. "Belief without proof or evidence." I can almost gurantee you that no true rational thinker has faith in anything. Anything and everything we support, in one way or another has been empirically tested, has evidence and facts backing it up in one way or another, and was brought about through the scientific method. We don't have faith in what we support. We don't simply just accept what we accept. We support what we support because it has the evidence to back it.
"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.
I reiterate:
Please do not come on these boards to complain about how things are done.
You are welcome to join the discussions and debates and offer your point of view on the topic at hand in that thread. You are welcome to share your opinions in an outspoken or gentle approach, whichever you prefer.
But do not come into these forums and complain about the group or how we do things.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Look, I came here because I see a community with a good cause, and I want to help. But, if you cant even be willing to assess your selves - I cannot be any help to you, I am not in disagreement with anything but your own dogma - which comes in many manifestations.
I dont even know if I'll bother trying any more - if you guys are that convicted by your own ideals then theres nothing I can say or do. I'm not complaining about what youre doing, I am commending what you guys are doing, I just know some things that you can refine to help benefit your cause. But up till now, you guys have just sharply opposed everything I said, not out of critical thinking, but in blind oppositional defiance. I told you I practice religion, and you have thus judged me to be so. Much like the christians who condemn all non-believers to hell. Though superficially they are different, the cultural and conscious application of it is the same.
Please - you guys will get slaughtered by the evangelists of this day, ray comfort and kirk cameron were novice kids - wait until you deal with a harvard divinity student, and have a real conjecture put up against you, in a public setting, where you'll be left just as dumbfounded as ray and kirk were. Though I am repulsed by Hank Hanegraaf, he is but one example of a man that would dominate you in discourse. If you learned how to ask the right questions about the bible, as opposed to your tragically desperate "Does god exist?" and "was jesus real", then you can give him conjecture that he cannot refute. But so long as you stick to the superficialities of the segregation, you will only perpetuate the problem.
This is my last efforts to help - if you guys choose to continue to refute everything I say out of pure defiance, then so be it, I made my efforts, I've spoken my word, not much more I can do. But please, for your own sake, assess me observations with an HONEST INQUIRY. Judge for your self....
By the way the rest of the religious world is disgusted by modern christianity as well, by dismissing them as people you are dismissing some of your greatest allies.
For a controversial discussion to be valid the claims have to be strongly supported by reliable and acceptable source. The conclusions drawn in this article are supported by quotes from the Bible. The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something and the Bible is the writers “proof” and has to be held as a credible source. In most of these discussions on this site the Bible has no more credibility than a Woody the Woodpecker comic book. Credibility of the Bible must be held as a constant if it is used to support any point of view. Credible or not credible can not be changed to prove an atheist point of view without adding credibility to a theist view elsewhere, or anyone else who wants to interpret the “true” meaning of the Bible
I wasn't aware I actually had. To be honest I didn't even click the link. 'Twas a general point that there is no need to pull minor inconsistencies from the bible because it's full of major ones anyway.
Mind you, having clicked the link it is - to a degree - the sort of thing I'm talking about; the fig tree being a classic example - Jesus does curse it because it has no fruit. The shock! The horror! The instant condemnation of his character!
I mean seriously, haven't you ever cursed something irrationally? Just last month I stubbed my toe on the kitchen door and was ready for converting the bloody thing into firewood until I remembered our heating system runs on gas.
It's a trivial answer. Jesus cursed a tree. Big. Freakin'. Deal.
Now on the other hand - and in fairness to ffrf (although the page looks to have been nicked from SAB) it mentions a number of them - there are far more substantial things to condemn the bible for. Such as the genocide, the murders, the rapes, the human sacrifice - all sanctioned by God incidentally - as well as Jesus' statement that "basically you're all going to burn when my dad lets me back, Dude!"
Minor points add nothing and detract from the serious stuff. It's easy to get bogged down in hyperbole but sometimes a simple point of the finger at Numbers 31 is all it should take.
Not my point as explained above.
The door is always open.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
The cursing of the tree was figurative, not literal. He cursed the tree for not producing any fruit, which can be equated to a man that does not labor.
"You women are just as dogmatic as the native americans in wanting a right to vote"!
Yep, how dare atheists point out that their fellow humans hold absurd beliefs. THE WORLD IS FLAT AND BECAUSE I LIKE BELIEVING IT, THE WORLD IS FLAT!
Ok. We are fanatics because we question and call a duck a duck? The truth is not always what humanity wants to hear and facing it may be painfull, but it does give way to reality wich is liberating.
If someone doesnt want to give up belief in Thor, sure, they dont have to by law, but they damn sure are not going to use our goverement to make laws that effect me.
Just ask any Arab Christian in an Islamic country how easy it is to express themselves under laws written by Muslims.
You are uncomfortable with being faced with conflict. Conflict is part of normal human behaivor. But CONFLICT RESOLUTION skills are how you deal with conflict.
"You hurt my feelings! SHUT UP!" Is not conflict resolution. It shows insecurity. Nor does it foster a free market of ideas.
Theocracies and dictatorships are run by religions and parties that lack any disire for open competition.
"Blaspemy laws are the first sign of tyrany" Hitler had his laws against blaspheming the Nazi party. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have laws against blaspheming Allah.
Now you come here accusing us of being fanatics because you lack the understanding of what is being done here. We are competing by using the challenge to THINK FOR YOURSELF!
I would hope in America independance means something. Or is this country supposed to be G rated Disneyland where no one is allowed to fart?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
ugh, I ended halfway through reading that egocentric crap. I never said you dont have rights, I never said you guys are bad for demanding equality. I only said that you guys are being narrow minded in equating fanatical christians to being the presentation of all world religion and terms of "god". I even gave you a great scientific conjecture as to explain god, and you still didnt listen. And you throw this high and mighty "world is flat" theory putting all others beneath your high plane of existence and you are only hurting your self by doing this. You sir need to grow up. all other world religions concept of 'god' is not in any sort of conflict with science, as ive said a hundred thousand times before and it seems you havent listened, science actually compliments those religions.
Sometimes I feel I've been provoked into acting fanatical because after I've answered their questions several times already, they keep asking the same questions and using the same arguements again and again and again.
So, when you have someone constantly doing this to you and you have to repeatedly reply and say again and again and again, "I've already answered your questions and addressed those concerns. Now please stop asking."... well, you start to kinda get crazy.
If I've ended with, "Now please stop asking," and then suddenly, out of the blue, I say, "Now, please fuck off," it's because you deserved it. It will get ugly after that.
Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?
god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!
Why should you care if I am "imature or not"?
You really dont get it do you. This is not about polliticall correctness and calling me "immature" is irrelevent.
You have a problem with me, or anyone here for that matter saying, "I hear you say that, but here is the problem with the logic you are using"
Why should it matter if I call Jesus fiction? If the Christian has a solid case then whatever I say can be blown out of the watter.
But isnt it funny that there is no peer reviewed study or any ability whatsover anywhere in any science lab or hospital or morgue in the world that can demonstrate how 3 old dead flesh can reconstitute itself as if nothing happened.
That is all this is about. If it were a Wiccan making claims about Isis I'd have the same criticisms of them.
You want respect of a claim by proxy of the mere right to claim it? BULLSHIT
"Women shouldnt vote because God said so"
"Allah wants women to wear burkas because the Quran demands it"
So, I am obligated to respect that claim merely because someone claimed it.
There are two issues you seem to be confusing here.
1. The right for someone under Constitutional law to believe in absurdities. Which I support.
2. Which is a seperate issue than the claim itself. Respect is earned not given. I am under no obligation to accept an absurdity. If someone can show me evidence for something, then I'd be wise to adapt it. But I am not going to simply and blindly go, "Thats nice"
Your insecurity is showing here.
Insted of focusing on me. Make a case for the claims you make. Anything else is whining and complaining. You can stay if you wish , but dont simply demand respect, demonstrate to me why I should adapt your position.
"You are immature" So, I've been called worse and still doesnt adress any semblance of evidence as to why I shouldnt blasphem or criticise religion.
"Mommy, that person is offending me.....gawhaaa gahwaaa"
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
BTW
Please skip the "I never said" about a particular label you may have.
My point is that people are secure in their positions dont complain, they present their case and are not worried about the words the other person uses.
I see just as many politically correct atheists as I do liberal or conservitive Christians as well as politically correct Muslims and Jews. All of them piss me off. Not because of the claims they make, but they fear the free market of ideas so much that they'd rather silence a detractor that consider the fact that they might be wrong.
If you want to spend time in the metaphorical "library" where people are quiet, I get that and there is nothing wrong with that. But I bang drums. I dont care that theists bang their drums, I have no fear of that untill they bang drums to demand my silence.
You want ot sing Kumbia and quote Rodney King failing to see that people can tell their friends that they are full of shit without hating them.
Within your own family or circle of friends I am quite sure on any given issue, maybe politics or sports, you looked at your friend and said, "Thats rediculous"
Because you say that, does that mean you hate your friend? Does that mean you are wise to point out a flaw to a friend that they might not see?
You are stuck on my use of words. If you were not insecure my words wouldnt matter and you'd demonstrate why I should adapt your position isted of complaining.
You are responsible for you, not me. If you want respect you have to earn it. The way people earn my respect is by understanding the difference between blaspheming or criticising a claim, and the person who makes such a claim.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Still making the assumption that your original assertion was sound eh? Still see no need to actually back up your idea with reasonable argument?
I dig.
If the center of my argument was that consciousness binds the matter of existance together I'd probably want to skirt the issue as well.
The other point you made was that you disagree with the approach we have to addressing the plague of religion. That's awesome, if you have any supporters for that idea you should run with it. If you don't well, perhaps you should use a little of that mystical wisdom to figure out why that might be
Good luck ... or did you actually have a point that we should address?
It was sound - If it wasnt sound, the burden is on you to express just what was unsound about it. But you cant, because it is best demonstrated by your own exact school of thought, being science.
Yes there is a very self-destructive method you are taking against religion, like you expressed right there as - "the plague of religion", when the only plague is the plague of self-centered egocentricity, such as is expressed in your own little superiority complex youve just demonstrated. "oh, millenia of research into a fantastic tale that my little mind has dismissed in selfish whims". Yeah man, you must be so much better then all of those people who practice religion, gosh, can you cure them? Can you save them? Who do you sound like, being so much better then everybody else. You sound like those stupid christians who want to force their own shit on you. You are what we in the biz call a hypocrite, and furthermore - I made a profound conjecture and you can use all the shallow refutations youd like - you have not provided me with any sort of reasonable evidence that it is an unsound hypothesis. Dont you get it? Youre being their pawns, you are becoming the condemned they want you to be, by reverse condemnation.
now, while youre over there condescending to me, read all that is said without the filter of your ego, and you'll see that I have expressed sound conjecture the entire time. There are many points I have made and nobody properly addressed them, simply pounced on them with ad hominem and equated them as being pixie dust in the sky.
Put up or shut up. If you think you can do a better job then do so by leading by example, complaining solves nothing.
Offer a solution and demonstate it through practice, but bitching and expecting others to be a clone of you is stupid .
"They wont follow me"
DUH! Lip service is common in humanity, far too common. Action buddy, show me, dont tell me.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I showed you through my own expression, how else do you expect me to show you? If you have not seen the demonstration you so look for, then I submit to you that its because you didnt look for it. I gave you personal conjecture, and demonstrated examples of its applications. I have done this innumerably already, in everything i have expressed I have demonstrated cause and effect. Why do you keep asking me to repeat myself?
Perhaps you are looking at some things I am saying, instead of all that I am saying.
You tell me to put up or shutup? well, then I wont shutup, until you acknowledge what I put up. Actually, I probably will just give up on you if you are so adamently rebuking me on the grounds of not coinciding withy our own personally established agenda.
for example, a conjecture consists of a response something like this - You say - "expecting people to be a clone of you", when I actually said no such thing. I offered a response to their actions based on my own means of observation, and did not demand anything, if they had reasons deeper then my observations, I can certainly entertain that thought, express where it was that I was unable to see the deeper truths of your actions. Perhaps I have taken a bit too sharp of a word at times, those tend to get in the way of expressing a point. I think that a sharp word can often times be a kind word, though its a fine line. So if my sense of observation failed me, you give me your conjecture to my observation. I submit to you, that its you who should put up or shut up.
What? What the hell are you even talking about?
I have already pointed out that your entire argument was built around the assumption that consiousness binds all matter together. This claim, thus far, has absolutely NO support from you. You just keep repeating over and over that we just can't see it because of our egos.
Dude, you seriously need to apply your own logic to yourself.
We all heard you the first time boyo. You are doing nothing BUT repeating yourself. Have you considered that if you bring a point to a person / persons and if they refute the very nature of your claim that perhaps you need to rethink your attack? You just keep repeating the same assumption and are terribly surprised when no one is going on your magical mystery tour with you.
You keep saying this. This seems to be what you are holding as evidence to support your initial claim. That being the case I hereby label you "Troll" and will let you to your business.
okay, look, all theories in science are still just that, theories - however, my theory had a very sound scientific application, and if you were to ask a reason-minded scientist, he would agree, and the evidence is all around us, in the animal kingdom, in the plant kingdom, in astronomy as well. The problem we have is thinking that consciousness exists indepentendly, but its a universal binding... Call me insane, but you will find that your consciousness has not been anything but a product of reactions to your environmental conditionings, not independent of anything else, dependent on everything else, the culmination of such things are purely illusive, as they are sensuously perceived, and collected as images and noises and thoughts and feelings in our own heads - memories, and memories are tangible and impermanent.
I am sorry you label me as a troll, i really dont much care for labels.. but do as you please.
To be honest though, i think I gave you a very sound hypothesis, and I think that you are simply refusing to see into it.
Tell me, who are you? were you born at a certain time, bound to die at a certain time? if you define your self by your human self, then you are limited to ego - this isnt just a childish thing that exists in the weak of minds, people practice very hard in other religions to transform themselves away from the action and perceptions of ego. It is in many ways sort of the ultimate goal of religion, destroy all perceptions of "I", the Buddha calls himself a part of the stream, not an "I" in the stream, when you become the transformed self that sees the self as a part of the stream, this is enlightenment. However, I do take the more zen approach at this in observing that the destruction of the ego is an immediate transmission, and not a pursued attainment. It is not something someone can "attain", it is something only someone can realize.
When I say ego, you have ideas about what "ego" means in my mind and pretended that i implied them towards you, but I did not, I just wished youd remove all sense of beliefs and self when you assess my observation, and look at it with an honest inquiry.
Marcus, I am not very up to date on quantum physics, but one thing I do know is that consiousness, and perception are an indispensible element. I believe this is where Anbesol is coming from and not simply making some sort of Gaps argument.
Also, I think you are completely misunderstanding where Anbesol is coming from on the issue of your war with religion. I believe (and he can correct me if I am wrong) that he was simply arguing that not all religions are theistic, or require some sort of fundamentalist approach, rather many simply emphasize a good way of living, and perfectly consistent with both rationalism and atheism. I sense he is fearing that the direction that the RRS is taking is not simply against what many would call the evil of religion, but the good as well, and as such being used as a puppet by the likes of Dawkins et al. Perhaps his contention is larger than this, but that is one of the things I have pulled out of it.
The matter of "how do we approach this issue" is a complicated one indeed. This is something that everyone who wants to get a point across should consider, and we (not speaking for RRS) should consider this the same as any other person trying to make their standpoint clear.
To say that "you guys are too agressive" is reasonable enough. My wife makes the same assertion to me all the time
I am sure there are people that are more clever with their approach and that are more willing to play games with people than I am. I don't play games with people, it is simply not who I am.
The matter of approach, however, is PURELY a matter of personal opinion.
As far as lumping all religions together, it is true. Any belief system that requires belief in the supernatural on any level is not worthy of my time. I am against all forms of self-delusion. Granted, this is a lofty goal which I myself am certainly unable to attain (even in my personal life) but it is a standoint that I think is sound. The fact that there are good things in religion is undeniable. Even the most corrupt and vile persons and ideas have good things going for them as well. This is not really a ground breaking statement.
When you lump religion into being hte pursuit of the "supernatural", you do not actually make it so, rather, you only make yourself look completely ignorant of what they are, because indeed anybody who can make such a bold claim is doing so out of the ignorance of his own heart. You have not gave honest inquiry into any religion, if you truly think that they are "hocus pocus nonsense", even Christianity has some very deep truths in it. To say that they focus on only the supernatural is again absurd, in reality - most religion can be considered "science of mind". You will even notice that a majority of the most profound psychotherapists in history have practiced religion deeply, now to you - it is because they are ignorant idiots looking for the after-death comfort of super natural, clinging to false identity, but if you had actually taken the time to read some of their work, and the work of other religions, WITH AN OPEN mind and critical thinking, you would see the reality of them. However, as you are, condemning all other religions as hocus pocus nonsense, you are not doing this out of knowledge, but in the selfish guise of your own ignorance. I really dont mean any offense to you, but I am merely taking your own condemnation and reversing it. Some of the wisest people in the history of the world have been deeply religious, but you wish to believe that you are better then them? Wiser then them? More enlightened then them? You look at religion as a pursuit into an after life, but it is not, it is the pursuit to understand LIFE, and the cyclical means of existence that exists not only in human beings and animals but in all things in the entire universe, not even a solar system remains forever, all solar systems are created, and all solar systems collapse.
What is it about other religions that you think is so absurd? is it just the reincarnation bit?
when you say shit like "not worthy of my time", that is not your honest inquiry speaking, that is your ignorance and selfishness speaking.
My own personal criticism of the idea of writing off the possibility of religions dealing with the supernatural is that the definition of supernatural seems to me to be inconsistent. For instance, if someone saw technology from a civilization a a thousand years more advanced than ours to them it would be like magic, or a miracle. Now obviously technology is based on natural laws, but perhaps much of what we consider to be miracles is based on natural laws as well but perhaps no less a demonstration of what they intend. Do you see where I am going with this? It seems relatively irrational to me to write off something that we do not understand simply upon our ignorance. Let me clarify my intentions for saying this is not to present evidence, as yet, but open the door for the engagement of evidence to be presented. Keep in mind, if I had evidence of a 'supernatural' event yet someone starts with the base assumption that supernatural events do not occur, then the discussion will go nowhere. The only way we can discuss is for someone to for the sake of argument not a priori rule out the other positions possibilities. Simply ruling out real possibilities a priori in IMO unscientific, and clearly makes discussion impossible.
The only supernatural that other religions pursue is not the supernatural of superman type, but the supernatural that can be observed by your very self. Religion does not ask you to believe in something out of blind faith, but if you practice seeing, then you can believe out of observed faith. Religion is about bestowing upon its pupils their own sense of authority, not to bring an outside authority in, but to teach how to maintain authority. When Marcusfish says that "all religion believ in supernatural, and all those who believe in god are absurd" then he insults me, he insults a lot of people that I have a lot of respect for, and he assumes he holds dominion or greater understanding then these teachers, Such as Osho, Lao Tzu, Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus Christ, Mohommed, Nanak, the Boddhisatvas of the Dalai Lamai, and he insults some of my most inspiring lessons by insulting the dharmas of the east, and equating them as being the same dogmatic scriptures of the fundamentalist west. I could easily take offense to his statements, because he has very openly condescended to me and to many people I respect, however, I can see that his adament refusal is not based on his authority over me, his authority over truth, but rather that he acts out of his ego, that he has made another authority over him, and his belief that he is in somehow some higher knowledge then all my teachers is not out of sound observation and understanding to them, he does not truly exist on some high plane of knowledge above men who inspired billions, he actually only shows his own ignorance by dismissing the relevance and importance of what these men taught. I do not like calling anyone ignorant, I do not like attacking a persons ego, but when it is so prevelently there and infringing on others by imposing authority, then I think something needs to be said to help him become aware of his self.
One of the most false acts a man can commit is the act of asserting something as a reality, for as they have asserted it, they have stopped inquiry into it. this, for example, is the wisdom bestowed upon the puils of Jesus Christ with his "eyes of a children" parable. To assert or negate is not an infringement or an observation of reality, its the dismissal of further pursuit and understanding into reality. I gave a sound conjecture to you all, and marcusfish immediately dismissed it without even observing the hypothesis set forth. I keep repeating myself in innumerable ways and it seems he still does not see that. I really dont know how to have a discussion with someone, if they refuse to have a discussion with me, discussion is a door that swings two ways, when it swings one way, it goes in one ear, out the other, and is refused the topology of the continuum of conscious thought.
I agree. Who said that?
As you keep pointing out. Over and over. You need some new material boyo.
You are a pretty egocentric guy. You seem to somehow believe that your opinion isn't an opinion ... and that anyone that disagrees with you is just ignorant.
Did you have a point cupcake? Or are you just content to show your superior intellect by insulting people? You really seem to like insulting people. Is that what your philosophy teaches you? Must be a great philosophy.
Now that I've seen the true meaning of your teachings, sign me up. I also want to insult people left and right, all the while claiming moral superiority. Let's do this shit!
Certainly. My disagreement with this idea is that you are using examples of things that exist (or that would exist, in your future tech example). My lack of belief in things that I label as "supernatural" have no such backing. It's not like I'm looking at something supernatural and denying its existance because I'm simple minded. The supernatural has never been proven to even exist.
Do you see the distinction I'm making?
If there were such things as miracles I would be hard pressed to write it off as hocus pocus. If the miracle ACTUALLY HAPPENED. To my knowledge these things are figmant of deranged imagination.
And, abnesol, I'm responding to this guys actual point, so why don't you skip one of your rounds of calling me ignorant. I can just scroll up and read it again if my ego needs a refresher.
I actually quite hate insulting people, but you do not realize, I have only taken your own insult and threw it right back at you. You called all who believed in god to be "worshipping pixie dust" and the pink unicorn, you put your self on a high plane of narcissism by insisting that you have superior perceptions against all others, just by quantifying a person as a believer or a non believer in god, when I have made no such distinctions. You have called religions of the world hocus pocus nonsense, and I hold all world religions very dearly to me, the Dharmas and Sutras and Mantras of the east are some of my most cherished writings of inspiration. Some of my greatest teachers have been all deeply religious. You, however, put yourself above all of them, and insisted that you have better knowledge adn better wisdom then they, with your blind rhetoric. I have not insulted you, I have only reversed your outward insult and planted it back in you, where it sprouted. I do not like insulting anybody and I like to speak gently as possible, but as you keep insulting others, you only insult your self, and I only wished to make that clear to you. You are no better then I, and I, you, you only put yourself on this high plane of better knowing and reality then me, and I gave you sound conjecture and reality bites to bring you back down where you belong. I have not put you beneath me, my friend, you put me beneath you and my rebuttal was not of your particular liking.
Though my writings may appear to be something that they are not - I have practiced hard to overcome the toils of the ego, I assure you that my actions had not been made in efforts to appease any identity or human superficial ego, they have only been made by my honest conscious inquiry.
Okay - now, exactly what supernatural have you been looking for to exist, and what has been proven to not exist? What does the word "supernatural" mean to you? without looking in a dictionary, tell me what you think of it.
I called all who believe in god to be worshiping pixie dust and the pink unicorn? That's pretty neat. Quote where I said that would you?
I did? The fact that there is no reasonable evidence to back up the claims of religion I am claiming superiority over all others? Neat, so by backing up claims that have no logical support (that does not depend on blind belief in unprovable assertions) what does that mean?
Neato! I did?!!?! Gosh, what I meant to say was belief in the religions of the world was contingient upon the belief in hocus pocus nonsense. I didn't mean to say the other thing. You mind quoting where I said that? I should be more careful.
And?
It's true. My blind rhetoric based on common sense. It's pretty blind.
Sure you have cupcake. You just don't feel bad about it, there's a difference
My liking? Wait, which rebuttal? The thing about consciousness being the thing that holds matter together? That one?
Keep telling yourself that cupcake.
None, why?
Not sure how one would work to discredit an idea with no definable perameters of any kind. An idea that exists SOLELY in the minds of those that wish to believe in them.
Supernatural? Dunno, things that exist only in the minds of those that insist that they must? Maybe ... things that can only exist if the laws of physics and logic are suspended?
*shrug* That sounds about right.
You're doing quite a bit of dancing there hon.