| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/03/2008 05:37:58 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
People can't help their homosexuality, nor can they reason their way out of it. The end of homosexuality doesn't usually come at the dawn of an enlightenment. Epiphanies of intellectualism are not attained by pursuing the opposite sex.
While I understand your personal feelings, my opinion is that the analogy is not apt, and that religion and faith are kinds of poison that harm individuals and societies. |
I've often heard on the threads that religion is merely a product of your upbringing. I'd counter that the individual can no more help what faith they are than being born homosexual. ;) |
But we're not genetically hard-wired to be Christian or Muslim or Buddhist,any more than to be Republican or Democrat, are we?
Message edited by author 2008-11-03 17:38:32. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 05:40:26 PM · #102 |
As much as we all believe homosexuality is genetic, the evidence is still lacking. I think one can confidently conclude that it is both genetic AND environmental.
But we have other threads for that argument. Replace "homosexuality" with whatever. The point is, I'm sick and tired of being rolled over simply because I am a person of faith. I will not stand for words like "poison" and "crap" without calling the individual out. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 06:30:03 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I am sorry that you chose to reject God. I do not think you were an open hearted believer however. It seems to me that you judged God and continue to. You did not want to be a pastor for God. You wanted to be a pastor for a god you created in your head... when God did not seemingly agree with the definition you had conjured up in your head, you then chose to reject him. Not very open hearted. Arrogant. Foolish.
|
Of course you don't believe I was an open hearted believer. If I was truly open hearted, if I truly knocked and the door was not opened unto me, then that would undermine the validity of the major spiritual claims of the New Testament. So, I can understand why you would avoid such incredible cognitive dissonance by crassly ascribing false motives, beliefs and states of mind that you think I must have had when I was a fundamentalist Christian. Thanks, but no thanks for the crappy spiritual diagnosis.
BTW, you might have noticed that while I have doubts about what type of atheist you were, it really doesn't matter much to me. As I said before, all that matters is the reason you believe your version of God exists. Your reasoning resorts to saying you have some kind of revelations that can not be independently tested of verified, and anyone who believes you're wrong is just not trying to believe your claim hard enough or is not "open" enough.
Well, there's no possible way for anyone to argue against such impervious logic, so I'll just let you go along your merry way. Really, if you're going to make fantastic claims about a magic man who is all powerful and wants to have an intimate personal relationship with everyone all at the same time, then you're really need to bring more than just 'it's true because I say it's true' arguments. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 06:34:37 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And while I know this is Rant, I'm constantly amazed that people feel perfectly justified in using words like "crap" and "poison" to describe a system of belief held dear by so many people. Can we try to keep the personal words of denigration to a minimum? |
I reserve the right to use 'poison' by way of analogy, particularly when stating my own beliefs, and particularly after experiencing decades of the faithful using that word themselves, like "music poisons the mind" and "homosexuals are poisoning our schools". Poison itself is not inherently bad. After all, poisons are regularly used to further noble goals... like, say... treating cancer or keeping your yard bright green. My analogy is meant to draw a comparison between how an external agent can negatively effect a living thing and the influence of religion on it's adherents. I feel it's quite apt. Small doses? Might actually do you some good if it's the right stuff! Large doses? Somebody could (and oh how they do!) very well die.
The word 'poison' itself is no more 'evil' than 'gun' is. It's how you use it, and the interpretation you bring to it, that should be at issue... if you feel that my post containing the dread word is insulting or derogatory, I don't know what to tell you. I thought it was quite restrained and reasonable, myself. Do you?
Alcohol is a poison held dear by many... should I refrain from calling it as I see it? Well, I won't be shamed into walking on eggshells, not when my convictions back up my statements, and certainly not when the 'other side' shows no such restraint themselves. Even calling me a 'sinner' is an affront to my dearly held worldview, and they aren't using analogies when they employ that little gem, they really believe it. I am not a sinner, since I don't operate under the same rules and regulations religious folk do... it simply does not apply. Try telling that to the faithful and see how far it gets you!
I do agree with you that a world with god or gods would be just about the same as a world without. My first post today tried to point this out, and wasn't even directed at someone of faith! I'm surprised you'd actually suggest this yourself, since it seems to presuppose that it is in fact man, and not god, that shapes this world. If god has no influence, what's the point of having one, really? Succor?
|
|
|
|
11/03/2008 07:08:19 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As much as we all believe homosexuality is genetic, the evidence is still lacking. I think one can confidently conclude that it is both genetic AND environmental.
But we have other threads for that argument. Replace "homosexuality" with whatever. The point is, I'm sick and tired of being rolled over simply because I am a person of faith. I will not stand for words like "poison" and "crap" without calling the individual out. |
Part of the issue is that you are identifying too strongly with the person's position. Nobody has said "Jason poisons everything." They've said "Religion poisons everything." We must be allowed to say that, if we truly believe it and if it is subject to falsification, and even ridicule. Then we can abandon that position if it turns out to be false and ridiculous.
Allow an analogy. If Bernard Gui, the thirteenth century Inquisitor and author of the rulebook for dealing with heretics, were told that the Inquisition was a poison in the church, and his book a defilement and an insult to humanity (he was a prolific writer), how would he have reacted? Pretty strongly, I'd say. He'd be pretty insulted. The person insinuating such a thing would be the star of the next auto-de-fé, certainly. But they'd be right on the money.
How strongly did Hitler react when his generals pointed out some shortcoming or other in his war-making? Hysterically, as though the world were coming to ruin. But they were exactly right.
Before you misunderstand and take me for comparing religion (or even you) with Gui and Hitler, just keep in mind the point I'm trying to make: a position that is contrary to a majority view but is seated in observation is not to be immediately dismissed simply because it makes people uncomfortable.
Harris et al describe all of this much better than I could. Read The End of Faith. It's highly readable and he's an intellectual; it isn't a diatribe. He even believes in the spirituality of humankind, and some kind of consciousness that may survive death (though he awaits scientific study and theories before committing himself), much of which is so much hooey to me, and his ideas of torture are fairly shocking, though well thought-out. I've had to endure C. S. Lewis, John Powell and others. Everyone should seek out books diametrically opposed to their views, if for nothing else than to see what they're up against. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 07:08:23 PM · #106 |
Thanks for the clarification Mousie. I think it was well said and I accept your use of the word. I am not naive enough to deny that wrong has ever been done in the name of religion. Even though I singled out one of your own words, I likely had previous more strongly worded posts in mind.
I will point out that I said a world without gods would be at best the same. This would assume the gods were not real and we'd simply go about beating each other over the head like we are apt to do with different justifications (skin color or what you like to eat for dinner). However, if the gods are real, then I'd reserve the possibility that the world would actually be a much worse place to not talk about them. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 08:07:20 PM · #107 |
Well, Louis, I got 25 pages in before I just had to quit. There were already too many issues I had to continue (that and I think Google books only gave a 45 page preview). While I could concede it is not diatribe, I could also easily argue he is merely preaching to the choir (to turn a metaphor on its spiritual head). There is no way his first 25 pages is an attempt at coaxing a religious person to see the error of his ways. But that's less important, I'll mention some of his points below and my responses:
"A glance at history reveals ideas which divide one group of human beings from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion."
I think this is an outmoded and false idea. I can easily point out that some of the worst conflicts of the 20th century are devoid of religious overtone. World War I, World War II (including the holocaust), the purge of Stalin, Cambodia, Rwanda, the Asian holocaust by Japan account for, according to wikipedia, over 60 million deaths. (Article here) I don't think I need to go much further to show Harris' assertion is simply untrue.
Harris assumes religion cannot advance.
Harris quotes Deuteronomy about killing the heretic. He denies that religion has the ability to progress in knowledge and understanding the same way science does. Religion cannot advance in either understanding of symbolism nor in actual quantum changes (Judaism to Christianity for example). I disagree.
Science can answer all our questions if we simply apply it.
I think this is one of the worst errors by authors like Harris. On page 20 he lists a number of questions (I don't want to type them all) like "What makes one person happier than another? Why is love more conductive to happiness than hate? Is ego an illusion? Is there life after death?" "These are ultimately questions for a mature science of the mind. If we ever develop such a science, most of our religious texts will be no more useful to mystics than they are now to astronomers." I would counter he offers a false hope. Science can NEVER answer such questions. The basis of Science, the scientific method, is not equipped to answer such things, especially such questions as "Is there life after death?"
I may try to swallow down the last 20 pages that Google offers, but I think I'm unlikely to learn anything earth-shattering other than more evidence Harris has little respect for anything other than his own beliefs (something he accuses religion of doing).
Message edited by author 2008-11-03 20:08:19. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 08:28:43 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by crayon:
just like how you always fill up the "religion" section of your application form eventho you dont have anything to write there - conformance! ;) |
Applications for what? They're not allowed to ask it on job applications. |
school... they have religious classes for specific ones :/ |
Not in the public schools, do they? I assume you mean private schools? (Remember, I'm a Canuck, I don't know how things are done "down there") |
well we have high tolerance (without even knowing it) on the vastly different types of religions. guess we just got used to it. its come to a point where we don't really care what you're practicing as long as it's not asking you to cause hurt to others. the only real problem i got myself into with religion is when i forgot what i wrote in my "Religion" on my entry form last year, and written a different one the next year - it made the religious teacher roll his eyes. |
|
|
|
11/03/2008 08:40:10 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by crayon:
well we have high tolerance (without even knowing it) on the vastly different types of religions. guess we just got used to it. its come to a point where we don't really care what you're practicing as long as it's not asking you to cause hurt to others. the only real problem i got myself into with religion is when i forgot what i wrote in my "Religion" on my entry form last year, and written a different one the next year - it made the religious teacher roll his eyes. |
Then why even ask? Sorry, I'm just trying to clarify for myself. Am I right in my understanding that you're saying that regular, government-run public schools have separate classes for various religions? Our highschools have comparative civilisation, which covers religions, but nothing specifically for followers of specific faiths.
Oops, I guess this is a hijack, sorry...
Message edited by author 2008-11-03 20:40:27. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:03:12 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
What exactly are the wrong reasons to be an atheist? I personally like the one that is the truth. I was wrong. I was arrogant. I was foolish. The reasons I would have stated in my atheist days would have included: If I couldn't prove it with science I rejected it. If the church was representative of God then there was no God because the church has done so much wrong. Religion is used to control people and that is its true intended purpose. If God existed then why would a good and just God allow so much suffering in the world? If there were one true God then why so many different religions both past and present with multiple gods and gods that differ so greatly from each other... and on and on and on. In short... all of the same arguments that I get from those who are currently atheist. There is nothing new under the sun here.
|
Nothing new under the sun?
God is good
God watches you
God will let you in his club if you suck up to him
God will reject you and you will go to hell for all eternity
God has a plan
God is my saviour
God is my light
God is right and you are all wrong
God is bla bla bla
Nothing new under the sun?
I don't know why I entered another religious discussion with you dp. You're a lost living soul as far as i'm concerned. Seeing you waste your life for a man made god that you hold so close to your existence makes me angry because I know that you're wasting the only life you will ever get and that once you're dead, you will rot in a box and that will be it. You won't go to heaven, you won't be judged, you won't live for all eternity with your family members. You'll be a memory to your relatives and friends, a tombstone will probably tell everyone who sees it that you were a religious man with some verse from your holy book scribbled on there for good measure.
You will rot 6 feet underground while your god continues to not exist. Your carcass will smell and be eaten by vermin and other insects. You will be one with the dirt you were buried in. In a thousand years from now some developer will acquire the right to dig up your corpse and move it to somewhere else so he can build some housing. By then they may just dump you in a landfill for the belief of gods has long been forgotten and the world has suddenly become a better place for all to live their lives, without the fear of a god. People all over will rejoice and love each other and the earth will be saved from environmental disaster because all the money that religion was sucking in will be used to clean it up instead. Churches will be burnt down as they will be viewed as prisons for the disenfranchised and uneducated.
Depression will be eradicated.
Greed will be a thing of the past.
Racial pressure will cease to exist.
People will help each other the world over.
Poverty eradicated.
Famine eradicated.
A perfect world without any mention of a god. Utopia.
This snippet of the future was brought to you by JR Storytelling inc. I can dream, or is that sacrilegious? ;]
Dp, tell me something different in your reply, if indeed you do reply. Try not using the word faith. ;] |
My goodness, you seem a bit upset and if I may say so... bitter. I think that I might agree with you about things being better if everyone would embrace what would be necessary to eradicate depression, racism, poverty, and famine as well as to encourage helping one another without ulterior motives and greed for money or power at the heart of it. Unfortunately it is that which you rail against that would provide it. Being truly Christian would provide it. Think of Jesus... he was not greedy... he helped those in need... advocated loving your neighbor as yourself... he was not depressed... advocated giving each according to his need... If we all would only embrace his teachings we might have the world you describe. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:18:53 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
My goodness, you seem a bit upset and if I may say so... bitter. I think that I might agree with you about things being better if everyone would embrace what would be necessary to eradicate depression, racism, poverty, and famine as well as to encourage helping one another without ulterior motives and greed for money or power at the heart of it. Unfortunately it is that which you rail against that would provide it. Being truly Christian would provide it. Think of Jesus... he was not greedy... he helped those in need... advocated loving your neighbor as yourself... he was not depressed... advocated giving each according to his need... If we all would only embrace his teachings we might have the world you describe. |
I'm somewhat intruigued by this. Are you saying that it's not embracing Jesus himself that is important, but it is following his teachings that would bring about a utopia? Not what I expected from the mouth of a Christian! Which is it, the words or the man that leads to salvation? If we walk the walk but don't talk the talk, can we still bring about paradise?
With so many Christians around, an overwhelming majority as it were, I'd think that we'd all be well on the way to said utopia... that we haven't gotten very far makes me wonder if Christians themselves must not be very 'true' in general, and that no matter what percentage of the population accepts Christ, we'll have the same old problems. However, if I take you at face value and assume we can end hunger, war, and the rest if everyone embraces his teachings, it sounds like you're suggesting that through Christ we become infallable on Earth, before the end of days! Another surprising implication well outside the bounds of what I know about Christianity!
And giving to each according to his needs? Are you a conservative or a socialist? I don't get it!
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 02:30:55. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:21:42 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I realized that just because some people worshiped God this way didn't mean that God didn't exist but just that they (the people) had it wrong what God wanted from them. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
This bugs me....
I very much believe in God, and the relationship I have with Him/Her/Whatever, has NOTHING whatsoever with what you, or anyone else has as far as their relationship with God.
I don't buy it for one second that God needs, or wants, any of the strange creatures that we are as his emissaries.
Why would he need or want that? By nature, humans are not going to take well the idea that another human being has the right to tell them what to do.
And someone's going to tell ME how I am going to have a relationship with the God of my understanding?????
I don't think so!!!
I answer to God. Period.
Well.....and my wife, but that's a whole 'nother rant.
So how can anyone be wrong in their personal relationship with their guiding spiritual being, or whatever? |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I agree with you. My point is that just because you may see people doing what you consider to be wrong in the name of God that it does not nullify God or his existence. God is personal and has a personal relationship with each person in my view. |
Yeah, but I REALLY try hard not to project what I feel God wants onto anyone.....because I don't know what God wants for anyone else.
I am such an insignificant part of this infinite picture.....how do I know that someone who's doing something I might consider wrong isn't part of some other plan to make someone else shine?
Like when my sister's six month old died of SIDS at a day care.
What's up with that? Why should my nephew just up and die for no apparent reason?
Especially after my sister's first kid had to fighht to live his first six months because he was four months premature.
But she started a SIDS support network that encompassed most of the state where she lives that people who suffered as she did don't have to do it alone. Is that God's plan?
I don't know, and I don't really spend much time contemplating things that are of little importance relative to what I'm trying to figure out as my part in life.
So pretty much across the board, I really wonder why people think they can preach to me.
And I damn sure don't feel that I can, or should, preach to anyone. |
Point taken. I am not trying to preach but I figure that the whole point of even discussing this topic is to show that their are different experiences for different folks that have led to different beliefs. I am just trying to put mine out there for others to consider. If they have questions I try to answer. When they attack I try to defend. I, as others have noted, do not feel I will convert anyone to a life of faith but will at least give a window into the life of someone with faith and the reasons for that faith... why every argument for atheism based on scientifically provable facts is not valid for a subject matter involving spirituality. Plus I do find it interesting to know what people think... a window into their world as it were. I will say that you are one of the most interesting people to post on here. I never quite know what you will say. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:35:40 AM · #113 |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 02:54:02 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
My goodness, you seem a bit upset and if I may say so... bitter. I think that I might agree with you about things being better if everyone would embrace what would be necessary to eradicate depression, racism, poverty, and famine as well as to encourage helping one another without ulterior motives and greed for money or power at the heart of it. Unfortunately it is that which you rail against that would provide it. Being truly Christian would provide it. Think of Jesus... he was not greedy... he helped those in need... advocated loving your neighbor as yourself... he was not depressed... advocated giving each according to his need... If we all would only embrace his teachings we might have the world you describe. |
I'm somewhat intruigued by this. Are you saying that it's not embracing Jesus himself that is important, but it is following his teachings that would bring about a utopia? Not what I expected from the mouth of a Christian! Which is it, the words or the man that leads to salvation?
With so many Christians around, an overwhelming majority as it were, I'd think that we'd all be well on the way to this utopia you refer to... that we haven't gotten very far makes me think that Chrisitians themselves must not be very 'true' and no matter what percentage of the population embraces Christ, we'll have the same old problems.
And giving to each according to his needs? Are you a conservative or are you a socialist? I don't get it! |
I think that the only possible way you could embrace his teachings would be to embrace everything that he taught and not just pick and choose. Love God with all of your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself are the two biggies he taught though and the sad truth is that not everyone is going to be willing to do these two things to their own detriment (from a humanistic viewpoint). Not everyone will choose God therefore we do not have a utopia or a 'garden of Eden' if you will. We are living in the age of the apostate church. Hypocrisy reigns in today's churches. Lip service is given to God by and large on Sunday only to be ignored during the week. Many of the criticisms of religious people given in this thread and others is true in my opinion. If we could be sin free we would have 'Utopia'. If we had a relatively sin-free society then socialism would work because it would not be corrupted by greed. No one would seek for his own good but instead the good of others. Socialism is the way it should be but the problem is that people being greedy and self seeking and generally self centered to a greater or lesser degree preclude it from being a successful form of governance. Capitalism is more successful simply because it embraces greed to a large degree and operates relatively well due to it's harmony with self seeking and generally self centered humans that we are.
In regards to salvation: Jesus is the sacrifice for the sins of those who believe him to be the only begotten son of God. It is Jesus who is your salvation but if you truly believe this and not just pay lip service to it then you will try your best to follow his teachings. All fall short but if you really believe and have a relationship with God through his Holy spirit then your shortcomings will become quite clear to you so that you can try and work on these things. After a while it becomes easier to control your actions and then it becomes a matter of working on the inner person: attitudes, motivations, thoughts. Correcting these things is quite a bit more difficult I have found. Most people who are chained to their sins do not even know that they are much like a drug addict who proclaims he doesn't have a problem. When you open yourself up to God (not a church filled with fallible and sinful humans) his Holy spirit will convict you of your sins so that you can see them, acknowledge them, repent and ask for forgiveness. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 03:06:28 AM · #115 |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 03:15:26 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Religion is past its usefulness, it's time humans started thinking for themselves and lived their lives as they see fit. |
You're right people should live their lives as they see fit, which for some means believing in a higher being even if no such being actually exists.
I know you said this was your last post but I can't help but ask have you ever believed in something without being able to prove it? For example, do you believe in love? Could you prove it exists, that you experienced it? Would simply listing out physical behaviors associated with love be enough? |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 06:53:44 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I can't help but ask have you ever believed in something without being able to prove it? For example, do you believe in love? Could you prove it exists, that you experienced it? |
Probably, but you'd have to clearly define it first. Since its effects can be readily observed and have a measurable effect on brains, it's quite likely that love could be proven to exist. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:02:11 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I know you said this was your last post but I can't help but ask have you ever believed in something without being able to prove it? For example, do you believe in love? Could you prove it exists, that you experienced it? Would simply listing out physical behaviors associated with love be enough? |
There is an excellent discussion of this very topic in Julian Baggini's "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction". |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 11:04:03 AM · #119 |
Going to wade in here carefully and put my two cents worth in, protecting myself with a suit of armor as I do. :)
Has anyone delved into anything to do with Quantum Physics? It's a real brain warper field and becoming more popular as people tend to turn away from traditional religions because of what they are considering "outdated" practises.
I think a lot of us in today's world have become disenchanted with the "magical/dark ages" teachings of traditional religious teachings and as we face tougher times, we are struggling to find something, anything that makes sense to us and can help us. When we don't find that help necessarily or consistently in a traditionally taught form of religion (any formal religion), we tend to go searching for "proof" that there is something else out there that can help us in some way.
Is there a "God" or, whatever other traditional religious would name that entity? Who knows with any form of certainty other than what our own beliefs or faith allows us to believe?
Belief itself can create miracles. When we want something badly enough and put that energy (call it wish, thought, prayer...whatever) out there, anything can happen. In short, it doesn't really matter what any of us believe is the source of our "help", the very fact that we are putting out there, our needs, our wishes, our fears and are asking for help in some way or another, means that we are in fact, setting up a chance of having it happen. It may come in the form of other humanbeing help, or from some unexplainable and seeming "miraculous source" that we can't quite peg on anything natural or explainable. However, if we believe that we can find a way to deal with whatever we have to deal with, an answer will come in some form or another by some method or another. Sometimes, that answer comes through our own decisions/actions or lack of them too.
And, to comment on a point here about believing in something without being able to prove it? I think we've all had that happen, whether we've been willing to admit it or not. I look at my daughter every day and believe that I was blessed in having her in my life and feeling that she came from not only natural creation but, also from something Higher. I just don't know how to define that Higher Source. I likely never will.
Perhaps, belief itself, is "God"?
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 11:06:15. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 11:35:07 AM · #120 |
Got your armor on Jamie? ;) OK, buckle up....
I appreciate your feeling, but I would disagree with it as much as I disagree with the atheist. I'm going to quote a bit of CS Lewis. I'll add the note that he is usually pretty straightforward, but I seem to detect a hint of sarcasm in this passage. I don't really want to emphasize that, but rather the point of what he's saying. (See, I'm being as nice as I can. ;))
Note -In order to keep this section short enough when it was given on
the air, I mentioned only the Materialist view and the Religious view. But
to be complete I ought to mention the In between view called Life-Force
philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution. The wittiest
expositions of it come in the works of Bernard Shaw, but the most profound
ones in those of Bergson. People who hold this view say that the small
variations by which life on this planet "evolved" from the lowest forms to
Man were not due to chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a
Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they
mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then "a mind bringing life
into existence and leading it to perfection" is really a God, and their view
is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense
in saying that something without a mind "strives" or has "purposes"? This
seems to me fatal to their view. One reason why many people find Creative
Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort
of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are
feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the
whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to
think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and
carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand, you want to do something
rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and
no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned
about when we were children. The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can
switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you. All the thrills of
religion and none of the cost. Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of
wishful thinking the world has yet seen?
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 11:43:05 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
...should I refrain from calling it as I see it? Well, I won't be shamed into walking on eggshells, not when my convictions back up my statements, and certainly not when the 'other side' shows no such restraint themselves. |
no comment needed.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 12:01:26 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Going to wade in here carefully and put my two cents worth in, protecting myself with a suit of armor as I do. :)
Has anyone delved into anything to do with Quantum Physics? It's a real brain warper field and becoming more popular as people tend to turn away from traditional religions because of what they are considering "outdated" practises.
|
I loved studying Quantum Physics in college, but the math quickly got beyond me. It does lead to some interesting thought experiments though.
Are you familiar with Bell's Theorem? This is the theorem that underlies the many-worlds interpretation (among others). One of the basic ideas behind it is that all possible measurements of a system are contained in that system until an external force acts upon it and collapses those possibilities into a measurement.
Now, quantum theory really doesn't scale well to the macro world, but you could build some interesting belief systems on this if you wanted to.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 12:51:07 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm going to quote a bit of CS Lewis. |
I find it odd that a fiction writer is so often used as a source to defend Christianity in these threads, especially an Anglican generally arguing against the scientific knowledge of the 1930's. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 12:57:58 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm going to quote a bit of CS Lewis. |
I find it odd that a fiction writer is so often used as a source to defend Christianity in these threads, especially an Anglican generally arguing against the scientific knowledge of the 1930's. |
PBS has an interesting series called The Question of God, which explores these issues through a comparison of the lives, thoughts, and writings of Sigmund Freud and CS Lewis. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 01:00:03 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm going to quote a bit of CS Lewis. |
I find it odd that a fiction writer is so often used as a source to defend Christianity in these threads, especially an Anglican generally arguing against the scientific knowledge of the 1930's. |
Ad homimen. I'd expect better from you scalvert. If he writes fiction, he's not allowed to write non-fiction (of which he has plenty)? He also isn't a scientist but a philosopher which are two different realms, not to mention science was not even mentioned in the passage quoted.
What gives? |
|
