Re: " better sex, better food, better clothes, better tools, better community, better survival rate, deeper friendships, a sense of safety, more children, more industrious and innovative (and all because we more or less agreed on the same mythic "other" God-father figure for this inherited exclusive family-ness). Without a few thousand years of this, “the brotherhood,” we would have never moved into our more rational era."
I couldn't disagree more. I don't think religion had a DAMNED thing to do with any of that. In fact, it seems to me that if anything, religion retarded any such developments.
It was SCIENCE, the innate curious nature, the questioning of how things worked, that brought about technological advancement. The reason the Dark Ages were dark wasn't because of a lack of religion. It was the curtailment of independant thinking and scientific inguiry. So we stayed huddled in filthy, disease-ridden shacks and prayed the rosary everyday and shambled off to mass every week and never questioned what the pope said, and there we stayed. Until finally we were able to shake off the blinders, and men like Newton, Da Vinci , Descartes, and a few others started thinking again. That's what brought about the Renaisance, thinking, inquiry, experimentation, SCIENCE, that led us out of the superstitious, hopelessly backward, darkness towards a quality of life that the authors of the Bible couldn't dream of.
I've got more along these lines, but I've actually got a job to go to, so I'll spare you...
George, i was referring to what religion got us out of, which took place at least a millenia or two before the dark ages. You picked such a specific historic context to disagree in. Not moi.
(although, i will agree that religion can retard the development of greater reasoning)
Also, all i said was that "better" things came of the move from egocentric to ethnocentric...not the "best things." Because yet again, the move from mythic to rational thought provided exponentially better inventions and discoveries and cultural arrangements, eventually leading to even better things.
Also, just because a society may have a center of gravity at such and such a level, there are individuals that operate at higher levels (like how scientific thought emerges in the mythic world...and the popes and kings could get better gizmos to pope around with, ya know?).
Also, before either of the words "religion" or "science" came along and picked up such narrow conventional definitions, many of the greatest thinkers dabbled deeply in and beyond both (and still do). There exists deeper relationships with the spirit of the texts that endure beyond mere mythic translation. There exists deep spiritual experience intertwined with great scientific advancement.
And I think that if you continue to unscientifically reduce "religion" to such a narrow bandwidth of experience and expression to suit a bitter argument, you might remain quite mystified by it.
Not all "religious" practice is on the same level. Within even Christianity, you have selfish seeking christians of the base kind, tribal christians, group-think christians, cultural christians, rational christians, political christians, selflessly giving christians, monastic and contemplative christians, christianity-challenging christians, etc...
Likewise with Islam, Psychology, Feminism, Yoga, Neuroscience, Buddhism, Atheism, etc... The truth of the level of behaviour always transcends the label. Even scientists can operate at a fundamentalist level, and there is a point, it seems, when science stops being as scientific as it claims.
i dunno, i guess that along with the limits of dogmatic religion, i have also outgrown the limits of reductionism in conventional science. There is almost always more to the story. And there are scientific methods of inquiry that can re-illuminate the truths of the texts of the wisdom traditions in a rational and post-mythic way (though this is off-limits to the purely objective.)
Good lord! It would stand to reason it was a combination of things that has brought us to this point today. As for me I'll retain my leaning toward God over science and things that go bump in the night.
Has religion hurt mankind as you pointed out in you own way Geo? Well heck yes it has but note I didn't say God I said religion! And science with it's straining out all spiritual matters has hurt it just as much!
I think my lack of knowledge and quick humor hurts my ability to respond back here but I'll not back down on this point. It makes not one bit of difference how horrible God is in someone's mind, it lessons Him none! When you disprove science it's a done deal, nada that's all she wrote. But you can't disprove God. How do I know? Because I know Him! How can I prove it? I can't but then that proving doesn't earn or lose me anything in His care so I imagine once I get over my irritation I'll be just fine.
And Geo I still think you're swell and realize you could have also included me in your reply to sirguessalot.
Dear man, it's not clarity at all that you lack. It's my ability to take it in. But folks here are wonderful to suffer me in that way. Sometimes I realize I gender laughs due to my "blondness" but heck I'm use to being the one that gets the joke last at times. ;)
chatty- your too funny..you go woman..holding to what you know!!!!!!!!i would be going against everything i have superglued myself too,such as my learning..its not all by experience that brings forth good i fact the bad is very huge......its my choice to hold to what i do know, and would be rather lazy of my mind to reliquish to the other and not to filter...gettin heavy here..
Thank you and I admire your stand. Since I've known you these few years I've found you to be careful in approaching things in life yet bold to take risks. I suspect it's that filtering that lends itself to a sense of stability for us doesn't it? Where some may find our filter to be hindering or perhaps entrapping we have found it to be a source of strength and comfort.
I do love how we vary even though we may not agree in critical issues with one another.
" I didn't say God I said religion! And science with it's straining out all spiritual matters has hurt it just as much!"
Well, as they say in California "Luv YA!", but I just don't agree.
We still haven't proved that there even IS a God yet. I know, I know, if you have that belief from childhood you pretty much take it as a given, but...
And science has hurt? Could you give me some specifics?
What has raised man out of caves and mud and put him in airliners, listening to Wagner on stereophonic headphones, while sipping a carefully crafted Pinot Noir, while heading for a weekend in Bali? All the while being protected from disease with a regimen of vaccines? What made it possible for 2 or 3 percent of the population to feed everyone? What reduced infant mortality from double digits to a fraction of a per cent in less than a century? What raised the life expectancy from 28 to 78 since the middle ages? What gave us air conditioning, central heating, waterproofing, insulation, and Cheez Whiz?
Well, it wasn't religious folks hell-bent on spending their time locked in intercessory prayer, or pseudo scientists trying to contact your dead relatives, or spiritual "guides", or shaman, or alternative medicine practitioners. It was people doing good science, or their best effort at it.
Yeah, science has also given us the two-edged sword of nuclear power :blink: and numerous other dubious "advancements", but the overall effect has been one of tremendously improving the quality of life for the entire world. Outside of the Sistene Chapel and Handel's "Messiah", what has religion really
done for mankind? Well, other than make us feel guilty...
Yes George, we all should know that religion can be cruel and sometimes illogical. However, if one has faith in a supreme being that results in godly fruit practiced by that individual such as love, joy, peace, etc. What is wrong with that? And George, perhaps you could tell us all why you are so convinced that there is no God. Or if you do believe in a supreme being of some kind, what are your beliefs?
In the realm of logic, Mark, the onus isn't on George to prove that God isn't. One cannot prove a "not". The onus is on you and me to prove God is. That is, if anybody wants to be proving something, a thing to which I'm disinclined.
" I didn't say God I said religion! And science with it's straining out all spiritual matters has hurt it just as much!"
Well, as they say in California "Luv YA!", but I just don't agree.
On this I agree Geo, luv ya but can't agree with you!
We still haven't proved that there even IS a God yet. I know, I know, if you have that belief from childhood you pretty much take it as a given, but...
Gosh Geo how incredibly limiting. I knew there was a God because he was real to me as a child when the real world I lived in felt impossible for it to be real.
And science has hurt? Could you give me some specifics?
Of course not in those things you listed below. But it's also worked at disproving anything that can't be seen or felt and straining that out takes out the dadgum reason we are even here to have this discussion. But then you don't believe that so I'm rather lame to use my same premise against your words again am I not. Except to say let's take it the elementary level and ask who would be around to come up with Cheeze whiz in the first place were it not for God. See what I mean, how can I discuss this without falling back to the truth as I know it.
What has raised man out of caves and mud and put him in airliners, listening to Wagner on stereophonic headphones, while sipping a carefully crafted Pinot Noir, while heading for a weekend in Bali? All the while being protected from disease with a regimen of vaccines? What made it possible for 2 or 3 percent of the population to feed everyone? What reduced infant mortality from double digits to a fraction of a per cent in less than a century? What raised the life expectancy from 28 to 78 since the middle ages? What gave us air conditioning, central heating, waterproofing, insulation, and Cheez Whiz?
Well, it wasn't religious folks hell-bent on spending their time locked in intercessory prayer, or pseudo scientists trying to contact your dead relatives, or spiritual "guides", or shaman, or alternative medicine practitioners. It was people doing good science, or their best effort at it.
Science brought these things about because man was alive in the first place. And not because he crawled out of some freaking ameba (I do hope that's how you spell the word) or whatever the heck is taught and I beg of you not to tell me because in truth I don't care about that wacko explanation. On that I have gotten down right close to smacking the snot out of someone for because it just insulted me so badly I couldn't bear to listen. What can I say dear?!
Yeah, science has also given us the two-edged sword of nuclear power :blink: and numerous other dubious "advancements", but the overall effect has been one of tremendously improving the quality of life for the entire world. Outside of the Sistene Chapel and Handel's "Messiah", what has religion really
done for mankind? Well, other than make us feel guilty...
Apparently making one feel guilty has been mastered quite well by mankind. And that is religion of which I detest but see God didn't start all that crap. Man did!
While I know you're probably sleeping in your neck of the woods I'd like to talk a bit more. And you'll have to bear up here because it could be a hard read I know. And for those who don't have the pleasure of knowing this man he's very pragmatic even in person (well on the phone that is). And some of this stretches that a tad to read.
From a different perspective perhaps a little story now. I a bit over a year past that picture you see of my avatar I had reason to question all that was real about me. And for a period of which I don't know I was so young yet it felt like forever I wasn't sure how to even live from day to day. And so I got on my knees and begged if there was anything that could help me please would it. And of this day I can still recall enough it warms me even this chilly morning with the patio door open for fresh air. It was like a big ole sun with arms and as I told my childish story of despair towards it I sensed tears streaming from it and then arms that embraced me and from that day forward I have had this yellow figure (yeah :blink: I know) holding my hand. But there have been further reasons to go on knee and beg of an explanation and I did it once to quite the extreme of which I'll tell you that the taste of metal is bitter. And it was then that once again I knew that yellow figure was there. Now you may ask where he was earlier that day. You see I move from him. I make mistakes in choices even if innocent and then become quite contraire and at times have asked how could this God I held be real if I had been so abused yet again and again. But Geo I was the one that moved not him. Does that make him conditional? Does that make him evil? Well wild as this may sound in him I do believe there is no shadow of darkness yet he made the potential for darkness so how to explain that I can't begin. Know what I mean, it kind of goes in circles like the chicken/egg gig. And there is nothing that isn't conditional. I breathe because my brain begins the process, nothing is void of conditions.
But something that aided me was I knew that just because it didn't work for me right then and there wasn't the fault of the solution. It was the fault of the action taker. That somehow and it's always been fairly clear for me when I just looked at it that I had been the one to miss it. And for me to blame God has never been a part of my life Geo. My pain at times never brought me to believe it was his fault. It just wasn't built in me is all I can gather of it. You see I believe that same yellow thing knew as a child I would have to face horror and he built in me some things that enabled me to find him. And Geo nothing can disprove this of which I speak.
I could have made a decision three distinct times in my life to become a victim and bring upon myself even more hurting. But somehow God built in me not to remain there in my heart and thinking. And for that I shall forever be in his debt. Plain as I can tell you.
Hi again George. Y'know I don't subscribe to a lot of the things you mention either. But where I'm at (California term, = "what I like mean to uh say dude, and all" ) is in like, more of a unifying view of life and uh stuff.
Sorry. "Beavis and Butthead Do America" was on last night and I'm jonesing for an Ozzie video now. That part where they meet their Dads in the desert is classic stuff, and the Nuns on the bus - comedic genius. Those two guys - I bet the French appreciate their "less is more" style. I know they really didn't get their due in America.
My primary proof for a master plan and a God ® is that we're alive. Everything isn't alive, certainly not like we are and definitely not with the acute self-awareness and advanced intelligence to develop preferences in breakfast foods.
Life like ours, human life, isn't all that common. We keep looking for it, expecting to find it. Maybe there are other life forms like us, or like anything, on other planets. It would be cool. So far - nada. If there is we seem separated by distance. We don't know for sure. Odds may be there is. That's cool.
I know that gets into a lot of other things like evolution, etc. and whether or not we're really the long term top of the food chain specimens we think we are on earth. But life as I know life seems very limited and fragile. I've had tropical fish, you look at them sideways they start swimming funny. Breathe on the tank they go belly up. On the other hand my cat's hitting 70 + years and still cares about how his fur looks when he goes out. So I definitely don't have all the answers.
But I'm in search of a unifying view of life, one that doesn't separate science and human effort from God ® and what I believe is a multi-faceted universe. I don't see human thought as separate from prayer or what we're loosely calling "religious" pursuits. The fact I think, have self awareness, critical thinking ability, a sense of time in relation to myself and the world around me. Rocks don't do that. Corn doesn't, far as I know. Frogs seems perfectly happy to swim and sit, eat, sit some more. Granted I don't know what they're thinking but it doesn't seem to be how to develop anything beyond the natural desire to eat and swim and sit. When they have sexual activity it seems driven by nothing more than natural compulsion. That's not very romantic.
I choose and act accordingly. I have the ability to wonder if there is a God. What makes things happen the way they do. What happens after I die. My cat isn't doing that or if he is he won't tell me about it and believe me I've tried to get straight answers from him and you'd think with all the stuff we do for him - but that's another story. Anyway, I think our ability to try and sort life out to our own satisfaction if nothing else is indicative of something more to our lives. That's sort of my ground zero. I suppose there are other explanations, like why does there have to be an explanation but that's the way I view it.
And I agree with you, this is a tough subject to discuss but it looks like your thread is doing an admirable job of it though with no name calling or anything. Cool eh!
I haven't really commented on this thread other than to deride the quality of the work done in the article you cited because its the unprovable thesis. I, for one, won't bother to try to convince you of something that you don't want to believe and that I, in all honesty, cannot prove empirically.
As St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."
A person who is terminally skeptical, in my past experience, just cannot be convinced. A true skeptic could have a phenomenal miracle happen before his very eyes and it would do little or no good. He would seek a scientific or psychological explanation for what was seen or what was done and discount it. My insignificant writing skills and logical abilities are not hardly up to the task of convincing a skeptic. So I generally don't waste my words on the subject. There are other areas that can be pursued.
And, George, honestly, your core beliefs are yours alone and should be respected as such. As long as you don't try to evangelize (and, yes, agnostics can evangelize just as surely as true believers), its really not my business what you believe. I respect your belief system (its, frankly, the same belief system held dear by both my parents); in turn, all I ask is the same courtesy. From what I can recall, you've always granted me that courtesy. So I really have no argument with you. I always say that we'll find out who's right soon enough anyway, so there's no sense in arguing about it one way or the other.
I can't justify my belief in God. I just do. And let me add that I have a rather analytical mind, so discussions of intellectual ineptitude or mental laziness don't apply, at least in this case. Why religion? Because it provides me a structure that I can use to learn about God and through which I can worship God. That is first and foremost. Secondly, it can provide me an infrastructure I can leverage to perform the service to my fellow man called for as an integral part of my belief system. Not that a person must have a belief in God to serve his fellow man, but, at least in my belief system, it is a mandate.
Science brought these things about because man was alive in the first place. And not because he crawled out of some freaking ameba
Hmmm....I think both "sides" in this discussion stipulate that man exists. George was illustrating the relative tangible values of science and religion (or, if you prefer, a realtionship with God). Of course science couldn't have proceeded if man didn't exist, and would have proceeded whether man was literally created on the sixth day, or "crawled out of an amoeba".
(I do hope that's how you spell the word) or whatever the heck is taught and I beg of you not to tell me because in truth I don't care about that wacko explanation.
Now that's the way to conduct a proper discussion!
On that I have gotten down right close to smacking the snot out of someone for because it just insulted me so badly I couldn't bear to listen. What can I say dear?!
I don't know, that you're kidding? :wacko:
Edited by Oakspear
And then there's the "But it's also worked at disproving anything that can't be seen or felt"
aspect of science. To which I say "Hurrah!" How else can we find anything out FOR SURE?
If it can't be demonstrated, documented, and REPEATED, how can we know anything?
We can "know" plenty, without being able to quantify it, we just can't prove, or demonstrate it to others.
For example, I love my wife, I know that I love my wife, there is nothing that can talk me out of it. However, I cannot prove that to anyone else, although they can choose to take my word for it.
On the other hand, although many believers will say that God (or whatever they call the "higher power") is known to them, loves them, listens to their prayers, has "a relationship with them", none of them can, with any reliability, predict what their god will do in any situation. Granted, none of us can reliably predict what our friends, neighbors, co-workers or children will do in a given situation either. Sure, there are formulas, and "holy scripture", and other so-called guarantees, but does your god do what you expect him to do, or even what he supposedly said he would do?
Which raises the question (at least in my mind ), is God someone who can be counted on? It says that he can in the bible, but can he really?
Science brought these things about because man was alive in the first place. And not because he crawled out of some freaking ameba
(Oakspear) Hmmm....I think both "sides" in this discussion stipulate that man exists. George was illustrating the relative tangible values of science and religion (or, if you prefer, a realtionship with God). Of course science couldn't have proceeded if man didn't exist, and would have proceeded whether man was literally created on the sixth day, or "crawled out of an amoeba".
I would agree with your logic, sure.
QUOTE (ChattyKathy)
(I do hope that's how you spell the word) or whatever the heck is taught and I beg of you not to tell me because in truth I don't care about that wacko explanation.
(Oakspear) Now that's the way to conduct a proper discussion!
Nah! It ain't I'd agree.
QUOTE (ChattyKathy)
On that I have gotten down right close to smacking the snot out of someone for because it just insulted me so badly I couldn't bear to listen. What can I say dear?!
(Oakspear) I don't know, that you're kidding?
Well I can't say I was kidding because in truth I've wanted to smack someone before but then perhaps they sucked at describing it and I've grown quite a bit since then so I reckon if I was honest I'd listen without the preconception of a stinging palm. Because to listen doesn't have to mean agree does it?
Now of course at this point I'll not ask you does that help! :blink:
Let's assume for the sake of argument, that the "spiritual" experiences that people claim to have are real. That they really feel some kind of divine connection. It's been my observation that these experiences are interpreted in whatever way the person's mind is inclined to believe.
The Christian might say it's God communicating to him.
The Atheist might identify a natural phenomenon to explain it.
A believer in reincarnation might see it as a memory from a past life.
An ESP enthusiast could interpret it as telepathy.
The UFO researcher would see an alien abduction as a possibility.
The pagan might decide that the goddess was involved.
But most of these folks would KNOW that the experience was what they were predisposed to believe it was.
Unexplained phenomena have always been with us, and probably always will. Religion is our way to try to make sense of them.
Well I can't say I was kidding because in truth I've wanted to smack someone before but then perhaps they sucked at describing it and I've grown quite a bit since then so I reckon if I was honest I'd listen without the preconception of a stinging palm. Because to listen doesn't have to mean agree does it?
Now of course at this point I'll not ask you does that help! :blink:
I have no desire to explain my understanding of the theory of evolution, even to someone who didn't smack evolutionists around B)
Seriously though, I didn't think you were the type to get that frustrated with someone else's beliefs, the "smacking" reference seemed out of character.
Thanks for the explanation, and as usual, i don't need help
Let's assume for the sake of argument, that the "spiritual" experiences that people claim to have are real. That they really feel some kind of divine connection. It's been my observation that these experiences are interpreted in whatever way the person's mind is inclined to believe.
The Christian might say it's God communicating to him.
The Atheist might identify a natural phenomenon to explain it.
A believer in reincarnation might see it as a memory from a past life.
An ESP enthusiast could interpret it as telepathy.
The UFO researcher would see an alien abduction as a possibility.
The pagan might decide that the goddess was involved.
But most of these folks would KNOW that the experience was what they were predisposed to believe it was.
Unexplained phenomena have always been with us, and probably always will. Religion is our way to try to make sense of them.
How old do you think someone would have to be to be able to qualify as being predisposed due to understanding of what was to be?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
14
31
16
Popular Days
Nov 5
28
Nov 2
14
Nov 12
10
Nov 3
9
Top Posters In This Topic
sirguessalot 9 posts
George Aar 14 posts
ChattyKathy 31 posts
Oakspear 16 posts
Popular Days
Nov 5 2005
28 posts
Nov 2 2005
14 posts
Nov 12 2005
10 posts
Nov 3 2005
9 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
I found this study (recently published in the L.A. Times) to be rather enlightening: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf (Don't be intimidated by the apparent length of it, the last half
George Aar
Sirguess,
Re: " better sex, better food, better clothes, better tools, better community, better survival rate, deeper friendships, a sense of safety, more children, more industrious and innovative (and all because we more or less agreed on the same mythic "other" God-father figure for this inherited exclusive family-ness). Without a few thousand years of this, “the brotherhood,” we would have never moved into our more rational era."
I couldn't disagree more. I don't think religion had a DAMNED thing to do with any of that. In fact, it seems to me that if anything, religion retarded any such developments.
It was SCIENCE, the innate curious nature, the questioning of how things worked, that brought about technological advancement. The reason the Dark Ages were dark wasn't because of a lack of religion. It was the curtailment of independant thinking and scientific inguiry. So we stayed huddled in filthy, disease-ridden shacks and prayed the rosary everyday and shambled off to mass every week and never questioned what the pope said, and there we stayed. Until finally we were able to shake off the blinders, and men like Newton, Da Vinci , Descartes, and a few others started thinking again. That's what brought about the Renaisance, thinking, inquiry, experimentation, SCIENCE, that led us out of the superstitious, hopelessly backward, darkness towards a quality of life that the authors of the Bible couldn't dream of.
I've got more along these lines, but I've actually got a job to go to, so I'll spare you...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
George, i was referring to what religion got us out of, which took place at least a millenia or two before the dark ages. You picked such a specific historic context to disagree in. Not moi.
(although, i will agree that religion can retard the development of greater reasoning)
Also, all i said was that "better" things came of the move from egocentric to ethnocentric...not the "best things." Because yet again, the move from mythic to rational thought provided exponentially better inventions and discoveries and cultural arrangements, eventually leading to even better things.
Also, just because a society may have a center of gravity at such and such a level, there are individuals that operate at higher levels (like how scientific thought emerges in the mythic world...and the popes and kings could get better gizmos to pope around with, ya know?).
Also, before either of the words "religion" or "science" came along and picked up such narrow conventional definitions, many of the greatest thinkers dabbled deeply in and beyond both (and still do). There exists deeper relationships with the spirit of the texts that endure beyond mere mythic translation. There exists deep spiritual experience intertwined with great scientific advancement.
And I think that if you continue to unscientifically reduce "religion" to such a narrow bandwidth of experience and expression to suit a bitter argument, you might remain quite mystified by it.
Not all "religious" practice is on the same level. Within even Christianity, you have selfish seeking christians of the base kind, tribal christians, group-think christians, cultural christians, rational christians, political christians, selflessly giving christians, monastic and contemplative christians, christianity-challenging christians, etc...
Likewise with Islam, Psychology, Feminism, Yoga, Neuroscience, Buddhism, Atheism, etc... The truth of the level of behaviour always transcends the label. Even scientists can operate at a fundamentalist level, and there is a point, it seems, when science stops being as scientific as it claims.
i dunno, i guess that along with the limits of dogmatic religion, i have also outgrown the limits of reductionism in conventional science. There is almost always more to the story. And there are scientific methods of inquiry that can re-illuminate the truths of the texts of the wisdom traditions in a rational and post-mythic way (though this is off-limits to the purely objective.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Good lord! It would stand to reason it was a combination of things that has brought us to this point today. As for me I'll retain my leaning toward God over science and things that go bump in the night.
Has religion hurt mankind as you pointed out in you own way Geo? Well heck yes it has but note I didn't say God I said religion! And science with it's straining out all spiritual matters has hurt it just as much!
I think my lack of knowledge and quick humor hurts my ability to respond back here but I'll not back down on this point. It makes not one bit of difference how horrible God is in someone's mind, it lessons Him none! When you disprove science it's a done deal, nada that's all she wrote. But you can't disprove God. How do I know? Because I know Him! How can I prove it? I can't but then that proving doesn't earn or lose me anything in His care so I imagine once I get over my irritation I'll be just fine.
And Geo I still think you're swell and realize you could have also included me in your reply to sirguessalot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thank you, Chatty Kathy
and i am sorry if my writing lacks clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Dear man, it's not clarity at all that you lack. It's my ability to take it in. But folks here are wonderful to suffer me in that way. Sometimes I realize I gender laughs due to my "blondness" but heck I'm use to being the one that gets the joke last at times. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
chatty- your too funny..you go woman..holding to what you know!!!!!!!!i would be going against everything i have superglued myself too,such as my learning..its not all by experience that brings forth good i fact the bad is very huge......its my choice to hold to what i do know, and would be rather lazy of my mind to reliquish to the other and not to filter...gettin heavy here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Thank you and I admire your stand. Since I've known you these few years I've found you to be careful in approaching things in life yet bold to take risks. I suspect it's that filtering that lends itself to a sense of stability for us doesn't it? Where some may find our filter to be hindering or perhaps entrapping we have found it to be a source of strength and comfort.
I do love how we vary even though we may not agree in critical issues with one another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
" I didn't say God I said religion! And science with it's straining out all spiritual matters has hurt it just as much!"
Well, as they say in California "Luv YA!", but I just don't agree.
We still haven't proved that there even IS a God yet. I know, I know, if you have that belief from childhood you pretty much take it as a given, but...
And science has hurt? Could you give me some specifics?
What has raised man out of caves and mud and put him in airliners, listening to Wagner on stereophonic headphones, while sipping a carefully crafted Pinot Noir, while heading for a weekend in Bali? All the while being protected from disease with a regimen of vaccines? What made it possible for 2 or 3 percent of the population to feed everyone? What reduced infant mortality from double digits to a fraction of a per cent in less than a century? What raised the life expectancy from 28 to 78 since the middle ages? What gave us air conditioning, central heating, waterproofing, insulation, and Cheez Whiz?
Well, it wasn't religious folks hell-bent on spending their time locked in intercessory prayer, or pseudo scientists trying to contact your dead relatives, or spiritual "guides", or shaman, or alternative medicine practitioners. It was people doing good science, or their best effort at it.
Yeah, science has also given us the two-edged sword of nuclear power :blink: and numerous other dubious "advancements", but the overall effect has been one of tremendously improving the quality of life for the entire world. Outside of the Sistene Chapel and Handel's "Messiah", what has religion really
done for mankind? Well, other than make us feel guilty...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Yes George, we all should know that religion can be cruel and sometimes illogical. However, if one has faith in a supreme being that results in godly fruit practiced by that individual such as love, joy, peace, etc. What is wrong with that? And George, perhaps you could tell us all why you are so convinced that there is no God. Or if you do believe in a supreme being of some kind, what are your beliefs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
In the realm of logic, Mark, the onus isn't on George to prove that God isn't. One cannot prove a "not". The onus is on you and me to prove God is. That is, if anybody wants to be proving something, a thing to which I'm disinclined.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Geo,
While I know you're probably sleeping in your neck of the woods I'd like to talk a bit more. And you'll have to bear up here because it could be a hard read I know. And for those who don't have the pleasure of knowing this man he's very pragmatic even in person (well on the phone that is). And some of this stretches that a tad to read.
From a different perspective perhaps a little story now. I a bit over a year past that picture you see of my avatar I had reason to question all that was real about me. And for a period of which I don't know I was so young yet it felt like forever I wasn't sure how to even live from day to day. And so I got on my knees and begged if there was anything that could help me please would it. And of this day I can still recall enough it warms me even this chilly morning with the patio door open for fresh air. It was like a big ole sun with arms and as I told my childish story of despair towards it I sensed tears streaming from it and then arms that embraced me and from that day forward I have had this yellow figure (yeah :blink: I know) holding my hand. But there have been further reasons to go on knee and beg of an explanation and I did it once to quite the extreme of which I'll tell you that the taste of metal is bitter. And it was then that once again I knew that yellow figure was there. Now you may ask where he was earlier that day. You see I move from him. I make mistakes in choices even if innocent and then become quite contraire and at times have asked how could this God I held be real if I had been so abused yet again and again. But Geo I was the one that moved not him. Does that make him conditional? Does that make him evil? Well wild as this may sound in him I do believe there is no shadow of darkness yet he made the potential for darkness so how to explain that I can't begin. Know what I mean, it kind of goes in circles like the chicken/egg gig. And there is nothing that isn't conditional. I breathe because my brain begins the process, nothing is void of conditions.
But something that aided me was I knew that just because it didn't work for me right then and there wasn't the fault of the solution. It was the fault of the action taker. That somehow and it's always been fairly clear for me when I just looked at it that I had been the one to miss it. And for me to blame God has never been a part of my life Geo. My pain at times never brought me to believe it was his fault. It just wasn't built in me is all I can gather of it. You see I believe that same yellow thing knew as a child I would have to face horror and he built in me some things that enabled me to find him. And Geo nothing can disprove this of which I speak.
I could have made a decision three distinct times in my life to become a victim and bring upon myself even more hurting. But somehow God built in me not to remain there in my heart and thinking. And for that I shall forever be in his debt. Plain as I can tell you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hi again George. Y'know I don't subscribe to a lot of the things you mention either. But where I'm at (California term, = "what I like mean to uh say dude, and all" ) is in like, more of a unifying view of life and uh stuff.
Sorry. "Beavis and Butthead Do America" was on last night and I'm jonesing for an Ozzie video now. That part where they meet their Dads in the desert is classic stuff, and the Nuns on the bus - comedic genius. Those two guys - I bet the French appreciate their "less is more" style. I know they really didn't get their due in America.
My primary proof for a master plan and a God ® is that we're alive. Everything isn't alive, certainly not like we are and definitely not with the acute self-awareness and advanced intelligence to develop preferences in breakfast foods.
Life like ours, human life, isn't all that common. We keep looking for it, expecting to find it. Maybe there are other life forms like us, or like anything, on other planets. It would be cool. So far - nada. If there is we seem separated by distance. We don't know for sure. Odds may be there is. That's cool.
I know that gets into a lot of other things like evolution, etc. and whether or not we're really the long term top of the food chain specimens we think we are on earth. But life as I know life seems very limited and fragile. I've had tropical fish, you look at them sideways they start swimming funny. Breathe on the tank they go belly up. On the other hand my cat's hitting 70 + years and still cares about how his fur looks when he goes out. So I definitely don't have all the answers.
But I'm in search of a unifying view of life, one that doesn't separate science and human effort from God ® and what I believe is a multi-faceted universe. I don't see human thought as separate from prayer or what we're loosely calling "religious" pursuits. The fact I think, have self awareness, critical thinking ability, a sense of time in relation to myself and the world around me. Rocks don't do that. Corn doesn't, far as I know. Frogs seems perfectly happy to swim and sit, eat, sit some more. Granted I don't know what they're thinking but it doesn't seem to be how to develop anything beyond the natural desire to eat and swim and sit. When they have sexual activity it seems driven by nothing more than natural compulsion. That's not very romantic.
I choose and act accordingly. I have the ability to wonder if there is a God. What makes things happen the way they do. What happens after I die. My cat isn't doing that or if he is he won't tell me about it and believe me I've tried to get straight answers from him and you'd think with all the stuff we do for him - but that's another story. Anyway, I think our ability to try and sort life out to our own satisfaction if nothing else is indicative of something more to our lives. That's sort of my ground zero. I suppose there are other explanations, like why does there have to be an explanation but that's the way I view it.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Socks,
I don't know which is funnier you or your cat.
Kathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Kathy,
I follow your reasoning, though I can't relate to your particular experience.
This is why such discussions always get so difficult. People have tremendously
strong emotions connected with it. Some more than others.
Personally, I've tried to "get right" with the Lord on a few occasions in my life, but never
with any notable results whatever. I've had a couple of times where I pleaded
with God to show me something, help me, thow me a lifeline, whatever, but all
I ever got were crickets chirping. Maybe I'm his redhaired stepchild?
And then there's the "But it's also worked at disproving anything that can't be seen or felt"
aspect of science. To which I say "Hurrah!" How else can we find anything out FOR SURE?
If it can't be demonstrated, documented, and REPEATED, how can we know anything?
And Socks, re:" my cat's hitting 70 + years and still cares about how his fur looks when he goes out"
How can I argue anyone whose mind works like that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Geo,
We were posting at the same time. ;)
And I agree with you, this is a tough subject to discuss but it looks like your thread is doing an admirable job of it though with no name calling or anything. Cool eh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
George,
I haven't really commented on this thread other than to deride the quality of the work done in the article you cited because its the unprovable thesis. I, for one, won't bother to try to convince you of something that you don't want to believe and that I, in all honesty, cannot prove empirically.
As St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."
A person who is terminally skeptical, in my past experience, just cannot be convinced. A true skeptic could have a phenomenal miracle happen before his very eyes and it would do little or no good. He would seek a scientific or psychological explanation for what was seen or what was done and discount it. My insignificant writing skills and logical abilities are not hardly up to the task of convincing a skeptic. So I generally don't waste my words on the subject. There are other areas that can be pursued.
And, George, honestly, your core beliefs are yours alone and should be respected as such. As long as you don't try to evangelize (and, yes, agnostics can evangelize just as surely as true believers), its really not my business what you believe. I respect your belief system (its, frankly, the same belief system held dear by both my parents); in turn, all I ask is the same courtesy. From what I can recall, you've always granted me that courtesy. So I really have no argument with you. I always say that we'll find out who's right soon enough anyway, so there's no sense in arguing about it one way or the other.
I can't justify my belief in God. I just do. And let me add that I have a rather analytical mind, so discussions of intellectual ineptitude or mental laziness don't apply, at least in this case. Why religion? Because it provides me a structure that I can use to learn about God and through which I can worship God. That is first and foremost. Secondly, it can provide me an infrastructure I can leverage to perform the service to my fellow man called for as an integral part of my belief system. Not that a person must have a belief in God to serve his fellow man, but, at least in my belief system, it is a mandate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
For example, I love my wife, I know that I love my wife, there is nothing that can talk me out of it. However, I cannot prove that to anyone else, although they can choose to take my word for it.
On the other hand, although many believers will say that God (or whatever they call the "higher power") is known to them, loves them, listens to their prayers, has "a relationship with them", none of them can, with any reliability, predict what their god will do in any situation. Granted, none of us can reliably predict what our friends, neighbors, co-workers or children will do in a given situation either. Sure, there are formulas, and "holy scripture", and other so-called guarantees, but does your god do what you expect him to do, or even what he supposedly said he would do?
Which raises the question (at least in my mind
), is God someone who can be counted on? It says that he can in the bible, but can he really?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
QUOTE (ChattyKathy)
Science brought these things about because man was alive in the first place. And not because he crawled out of some freaking ameba
I would agree with your logic, sure.
QUOTE (ChattyKathy)
(I do hope that's how you spell the word) or whatever the heck is taught and I beg of you not to tell me because in truth I don't care about that wacko explanation.
Nah! It ain't I'd agree.
QUOTE (ChattyKathy)
On that I have gotten down right close to smacking the snot out of someone for because it just insulted me so badly I couldn't bear to listen. What can I say dear?!
Well I can't say I was kidding because in truth I've wanted to smack someone before but then perhaps they sucked at describing it and I've grown quite a bit since then so I reckon if I was honest I'd listen without the preconception of a stinging palm. Because to listen doesn't have to mean agree does it?
Now of course at this point I'll not ask you does that help! :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Warning!
- maybe a little.
Let's assume for the sake of argument, that the "spiritual" experiences that people claim to have are real. That they really feel some kind of divine connection. It's been my observation that these experiences are interpreted in whatever way the person's mind is inclined to believe.
The Christian might say it's God communicating to him.
The Atheist might identify a natural phenomenon to explain it.
A believer in reincarnation might see it as a memory from a past life.
An ESP enthusiast could interpret it as telepathy.
The UFO researcher would see an alien abduction as a possibility.
The pagan might decide that the goddess was involved.
But most of these folks would KNOW that the experience was what they were predisposed to believe it was.
Unexplained phenomena have always been with us, and probably always will. Religion is our way to try to make sense of them.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Well the short answer is yes. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Seriously though, I didn't think you were the type to get that frustrated with someone else's beliefs, the "smacking" reference seemed out of character.
Thanks for the explanation, and as usual, i don't need help
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
How old do you think someone would have to be to be able to qualify as being predisposed due to understanding of what was to be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.