| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/20/2007 12:07:01 AM · #426 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That's precisely what I said at the end of my last post!.....8>)
The thing is, there are no concrete answers, life changes and grows just like we do, and today's rules etched in stone are tomorrow's amusing anecdotes. |
Well this is what you have said all along this thread. :-D |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 12:32:38 AM · #427 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I just don't see either side as being in anything but a constant state of change, and to me that's a good thing, 'cause what worked 20, 10, or 5000 years ago is not relevant today. |
I agree, which is why most religious doctrine holds little weight with me, same goes for science back then. FWIW, I do believe in an architect, a god if you will, but I would have to have a super massive ego to believe I know him/her/it in anything other than the unproven theoretical.
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 00:36:09. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:39:15 AM · #428 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just out of curiosity, what is it you guys are trying to accomplish at this point? I mean, Ron's pretty well set with where he's at...[etc] |
There's nothing wrong with sparring. Like the boxing equivalent, it keeps one fit. I don't think anyone expects to "convert" anyone else. I suspect those continuing to participate simply enjoy it. As long as there aren't copious amounts of blood, what's the problem? |
I'm with you 100% on that; in real life, you can't hardly HAVE these discussions. For one thing, most of us tend to hang out with people who agree with us on issues like this, and for another if we have friends that DON'T agree we tend to steer clear of the topic to avoid friction.
I enjoy the no-holds-barred sparring that takes place in these threads. The last thing I expect is to see actual conversions happening; the day somebody pops up in here and says "Holy smokes! The scales have fallen from my eyes and I see the light at last!" is the day I expire from shock and you've seen the last of me :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 08:19:33 AM · #429 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The last thing I expect is to see actual conversions happening; the day somebody pops up in here and says "Holy smokes! The scales have fallen from my eyes and I see the light at last!" is the day I expire from shock and you've seen the last of me :-)
R. |
Methinks we safe! LOL!!!......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 08:23:14 AM · #430 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just out of curiosity, what is it you guys are trying to accomplish at this point? I mean, Ron's pretty well set with where he's at...[etc] |
Originally posted by Louis:
There's nothing wrong with sparring. Like the boxing equivalent, it keeps one fit. I don't think anyone expects to "convert" anyone else. I suspect those continuing to participate simply enjoy it. As long as there aren't copious amounts of blood, what's the problem? |
I didn't mean to convey it as one......I am genuinely curious as to where the direction of this thread ois going.
There really hasn't been too much blood, a bruise or two, but by and large I have found this to be an interesting, exciting, and informative thread.
I am still curious at this point as to where some of you stand on the God/Allah/Muhammed/supremem being/humanism/chaos/nothing-zip-nada scale.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 08:30:23 AM · #431 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
by and large I have found this to be an interesting, exciting, and informative thread. |
Agreed, once the gonad bashing got out the way. No names mentioned... ;)
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I am still curious at this point as to where some of you stand on the God/Allah/Muhammed/supremem being/humanism/chaos/nothing-zip-nada scale. |
Interestingly, someone asked the same question to the Archbishop of Canterbury when I saw him speak. He answered:
"Rather than there being one road to God, God has many roads to us"
eh? that̢۪s a politicians answer if even I heard one!
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 09:38:00 AM · #432 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Interestingly, someone asked the same question to the Archbishop of Canterbury when I saw him speak. He answered:
"Rather than there being one road to God, God has many roads to us"
eh? that̢۪s a politicians answer if even I heard one! |
I may be politically correct, but it's exactly the point I've been trying to make, repeatedly. If I believe there is One God, don't I *have* to believe that the differences are in how people perceive Him, not in Who He is?
For me, all these interminable religious battles are not about "my God" vs "your God" but, rather, "my ritual" vs "your ritual". It seems pointless to me.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 09:51:21 AM · #433 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
...I am genuinely curious as to where the direction of this thread is going. |
Think about how each process works. Scientists don't know the outcome, but plod away methodically to see what happens. The faithful assume an inevitable outcome before they start, and only seek to confirm that belief. Given that premise, it's fascinating to see which people claim that no minds can possibly be changed by this discussion. ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 09:52:20. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:14:03 AM · #434 |
| If everyone thought like you Bear, the world would be a much nicer place! Shame it isnt the case. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:15:42 AM · #435 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Given that premise, it's fascinating to see which people claim that no minds can possibly be changed by this discussion. ;-) |
If you understood true faith then it wouldn't be so fascinating or unbelievable that these types refuse to change their minds and stay steadfast in their beliefs.
Call faith what you want - misguided, stupid, blind - doesn't matter. If you've never had the feelings and can't understand it then..... you just can't understand it. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:25:26 AM · #436 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Call faith what you want - misguided, stupid, blind - doesn't matter. |
Hm, he never said any of that. Not even once. I don't think anyone has. It may have been suggested that faith leads to unusual choices, like refusing to believe the world's best evidence in favour of four thousand year old stories, and it may have been couched in the spirited discourse of the moment, but stupid? No, nobody got called stupid. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:26:41 AM · #437 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Given that premise, it's fascinating to see which people claim that no minds can possibly be changed by this discussion. ;-) |
If you understood true faith then it wouldn't be so fascinating or unbelievable that these types refuse to change their minds and stay steadfast in their beliefs.
Call faith what you want - misguided, stupid, blind - doesn't matter. If you've never had the feelings and can't understand it then..... you just can't understand it. |
I don't think "you can't understand" is a valid argument.  Scalvert could have easily said a thousand times "you clearly just don't understand the science." I know I certainly don't understand it.
Instead, why don't you try to help us understand. Tell everybody why you have such strong faith and maybe we can begin to understand part of what you feel. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:38:36 AM · #438 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Given that premise, it's fascinating to see which people claim that no minds can possibly be changed by this discussion. ;-) |
If you understood true faith then it wouldn't be so fascinating or unbelievable that these types refuse to change their minds and stay steadfast in their beliefs. |
Been there, done that, so I do understand. The difference in approaches appears to be little more than whether a person is willing to listen with an open mind and not assume the outcome. Free will at its finest.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:45:15 AM · #439 |
Its not a nice word, but I feel 'indoctrination' has a huge part to play. Religious children don't have a choice, and kids being kids are like information sponges. They are being told to accept without question, or their questions are deflected. Once this is 'hardwired' into the brain, its very hard to undo later in life. I read an interesting Neurological study about this recently - I'll try and dig it out.
I count myself SO lucky my parents let me make my own choices. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:53:19 AM · #440 |
Originally posted by Louis:
No, nobody got called stupid. |
Never said they did. Just said that anyone can call it what they like. I am not offended.
Originally posted by JBHale:
I don't think "you can't understand" is a valid argument. Scalvert could have easily said a thousand times "you clearly just don't understand the science." I know I certainly don't understand it.
Instead, why don't you try to help us understand. Tell everybody why you have such strong faith and maybe we can begin to understand part of what you feel. |
I think it's an extremely valid argument. Unless you have faith that coincides with my beliefs how could you possibly understand? Wouldn't it just seem silly and crazy? You might understand the premise of it but that's about it.
And if I told you the reasons that I have such a strong faith you'd probably go along with the "he's crazy" crowd - especially since I have only recently recieved it.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Been there, done that, so I do understand. The difference in approaches appears to be little more than whether a person is willing to listen with an open mind and not assume the outcome. Free will at its finest. |
But isn't faith assuming the outcome based on your beliefs? If you have "been there, done that" with TRUE faith then I don't see how you could make that statement. You may think you've been there, done that but I wouldn't be so sure. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:57:46 AM · #441 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Think about how each process works. Scientists don't know the outcome, but plod away methodically to see what happens. The faithful assume an inevitable outcome before they start, and only seek to confirm that belief. Given that premise, it's fascinating to see which people claim that no minds can possibly be changed by this discussion. ;-) |
Not so much disparity as all that when you consider that the faithful pretty much acknowledge there can be no proof of God's existence; that's what faith is about. So basically what's happening is the scientist seeks a proof that cannot be found to justify faith, and the faithful require no such proof.
Ergo, the only possible conversions would come from the odd scientist who comes to faith independent of proof, and this thread isn't working like that. But there's NO way you can sway the beliefs of those who have true faith, because faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:58:38 AM · #442 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Its not a nice word, but I feel 'indoctrination' has a huge part to play. Religious children don't have a choice, and kids being kids are like information sponges. They are being told to accept without question, or their questions are deflected. Once this is 'hardwired' into the brain, its very hard to undo later in life. I read an interesting Neurological study about this recently - I'll try and dig it out.
I count myself SO lucky my parents let me make my own choices. |
That's odd because I see a lot of the opposite. Many people here who were forced into church as children are hardly religious and/or churchgoers now..... and I'm in the "Bible Belt". Sure, there are plenty of kids who stay on the proverbial straight and narrow but there are many more that don't. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 11:00:11 AM · #443 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But there's NO way you can sway the beliefs of those who have true faith, because faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate. |
I think that's clear, and I think that's a problem for a lot of people. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 11:01:58 AM · #444 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Its not a nice word, but I feel 'indoctrination' has a huge part to play. Religious children don't have a choice, and kids being kids are like information sponges. They are being told to accept without question, or their questions are deflected. Once this is 'hardwired' into the brain, its very hard to undo later in life. I read an interesting Neurological study about this recently - I'll try and dig it out.
I count myself SO lucky my parents let me make my own choices. |
That's odd because I see a lot of the opposite. Many people here who were forced into church as children are hardly religious and/or churchgoers now..... and I'm in the "Bible Belt". Sure, there are plenty of kids who stay on the proverbial straight and narrow but there are many more that don't. |
And many of those that DO stay on the "straight and narrow" are not true believers; the church is a part of their social structure, it provides them with learned values and hierarchies by which they organize their individual lives, but they are not truly faithful.
This is true, incidentally, of most large group structures.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 11:09:47 AM · #445 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But there's NO way you can sway the beliefs of those who have true faith, because faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate. |
I think that's clear, and I think that's a problem for a lot of people. |
Why should this be a problem for people who don't have faith? Not having faith is easy to do. Getting to a point where you have it unconditionally is the hard part. Believe it or not, many people with such unconditional faith aren't idiots who were easily persuaded. It has taken most of them lots of time battling with their own "demons" to get to the point where they can let it all go. Not an easy road by any means - but the destination is certainly worth it. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 11:10:35 AM · #446 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And many of those that DO stay on the "straight and narrow" are not true believers; the church is a part of their social structure, it provides them with learned values and hierarchies by which they organize their individual lives, but they are not truly faithful.
|
I would agree with that. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 11:26:25 AM · #447 |
It's important not to confuse this idea of "faith" with "blind acceptance of religious doctrines". Faith comes from within, or at least the kind of faith I am talking about; it's a matter of complete acceptance that there *is* a Creator, and that our presence here and now is not without meaning.
It's useful to compare this concept of religious faith with the teachings of the Buddha, the "Enlightened One", because Buddhism is not, properly speaking, a "religion". That is to say, a Buddhist does not, by definition, believe in a Supreme Being. But those who follow the Buddha's teachings and achieve the highest plane of them are leading truly "enlightened" lives that are very much akin to existing at a level of pure faith.
I'd suppose that not many in here would find Zen masters "threatening", and I don't understand why Faith itself is somehow seen as an affront to reason, and a dangerous thing. Many, many perfectly logical, reasonable people have Faith; I count myself as one of them.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 11:30:59 AM · #448 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Louis:
[quote=Bear_Music] But there's NO way you can sway the beliefs of those who have true faith, because faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate. |
I think that's clear, and I think that's a problem for a lot of people. |
Originally posted by Phil:
Why should this be a problem for people who don't have faith? |
Because. To quote Carl Sagan:
"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grand children's time... when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstitions and darkness."
If you would suggest this is not relevant to the way faith is exercised, I would disagree.
Originally posted by Phil:
Not having faith is easy to do. |
I don't know where you've been living, but here in North America, it is exceedingly difficult not being a god believer. For example, how many atheists have been elected Prime Minister or president, or how many party leaders have expressed their atheism? None. Not particularly popular a position.
Additionally, this remark seems to indicate that not being a god believer is an easy road out of something, a kind of sedentary intellectual laziness. That certainly hasn't been my experience. Quite the opposite.
Originally posted by Phil:
Believe it or not, many people with such unconditional faith aren't idiots who were easily persuaded. |
I don't know why you take such an adversarial position from the get-go with every post you make about this. Did anyone suggest believers were idiots? Ok, you didn't out-and-out say it, but you really seem to have something stuck in your craw about potentially being called an idiot. What gives? Nobody's on the offensive, so cut some slack. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 12:11:44 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But there's NO way you can sway the beliefs of those who have true faith, because faith exists on a plane where reason does not operate. |
I think that's clear, and I think that's a problem for a lot of people. |
Why should this be a problem for people who don't have faith? |
Knowledge should not be a threat to truth, but a willingness to operate without reason endangers all.
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Been there, done that, so I do understand. The difference in approaches appears to be little more than whether a person is willing to listen with an open mind and not assume the outcome. Free will at its finest. |
But isn't faith assuming the outcome based on your beliefs? If you have "been there, done that" with TRUE faith then I don't see how you could make that statement. You may think you've been there, done that but I wouldn't be so sure. |
Yes, faith is EXACTLY "assuming the outcome based on your beliefs," even in the face of common sense. A good analogy would be a child's belief in Santa Claus, and I'm sure many of us had complete, unwavering faith in his existence when we were 4 years old. Was it not true faith? Just imagine how much longer we'd believe in Santa if we were actively taught to not question that belief every day, under threat of eternal damnation, social stigma, and/or physical force, by all those we know and trust, at the direction of people whose income and power depended upon your continuing belief, and who actively attacked anything that could threaten that position. Any physics that might demonstrate the inherent impossibility of levitating reindeer MUST be faulty!
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...the only possible conversions would come from the odd scientist who comes to faith independent of proof... |
It's entirely possible for someone who grew up in the Bible Belt in a deeply religious family, one who prayed every day and carried a cross through college, to be open minded enough to at least consider opposing points of view- eventually concluding that science makes all kinds of sense while today's religion will always be tomorrow's mythology. I'll bet it's happened before. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 12:37:13 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't know where you've been living, but here in North America, it is exceedingly difficult not being a god believer. For example, how many atheists have been elected Prime Minister or president, or how many party leaders have expressed their atheism? None. Not particularly popular a position. |
I've been living in the land of unicorns and dragons I guess. You seriously think the road of faith is an easier one than being a non believer? Just because many people take that road doesn't make it the easiest. Never said it wasn't politically popular to not be a believer either - just the fact that it is much easier to not have faith - speaking from personal experience of course.
Originally posted by Louis:
Additionally, this remark seems to indicate that not being a god believer is an easy road out of something, a kind of sedentary intellectual laziness. |
Looks like we're both making assumptions because that's the exact indication that I get coming from you towards believers. Your comments seem to say that blindly accepting an "imaginary figure in the sky" is an easy road out of reality, kind of a sedentary laziness.
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't know why you take such an adversarial position from the get-go with every post you make about this. Did anyone suggest believers were idiots? Ok, you didn't out-and-out say it, but you really seem to have something stuck in your craw about potentially being called an idiot. What gives? Nobody's on the offensive, so cut some slack. |
Umm, see the Carl Sagan comments above. Did you really put that up there to say that even though believers are not idiots they all have "lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstitions and darkness."?
Just curious as to why you are allowed to assume what I'm trying to say in my posts but when I do the same I must've misread you?
Not all believers are like, or even agree with, the ones that people choose to represent us when comments like these are made. Just because I have faith in God certainly doesn't mean that I have it in George Bush.
|
|
