Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well you need to understand that the US is not full of clones who all think exactly alike.
I don't relate to any of the religious folks I come across here in the US as they all tend to be fundamentalist hypocrites.
I never said all Americans think exactly that way. The ones I encountered when I lived in the US, did think that way. Hell, I used to think that way too and used to believe there was something in the Bible about the sacredness of private property. I read the Bible all through several times and never found it, but if wise theologians like John McArthur said there is, then there must be something.
Now, I do not think there is something wrong with having property or possessions at all, as long as you do not allow the lust for more to control your life. But as to whether it can coexist with Christ's preaching of "sell all you have, give the money to the poor and follow me" - that is problematic.
I never said all Americans think exactly that way. The ones I encountered when I lived in the US, did think that way. Hell, I used to think that way too and used to believe there was something in the Bible about the sacredness of private property. I read the Bible all through several times and never found it, but if wise theologians like John McArthur said there is, then there must be something.
I personally don't care what the bible says about property as it's really is up to the people of any society to figure it out for themselves. It's not the bibles place to tell us about property rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norne
Now, I do not think there is something wrong with having property or possessions at all, as long as you do not allow the lust for more to control your life. But as to whether it can coexist with Christ's preaching of "sell all you have, give the money to the poor and follow me" - that is problematic.
I see many things in that are taught in the bible as problematic for a 21 Century society.
The problem I have with all religions is that they think they own the conversation for how people are to go about their path in life with respect to spiritual growth and development. It's all exclusive meaning it's closed to other paths that people chose to walk. There is not only one very narrow and constrained way to go about spiritual development.
I find it sad that people get lost in religion vs. figuring out how to find the answers within them. Without figuring out how to walk their own path of discovery.
Personally, I rather regret not knowing anything about classical music theory and thus about how my favorite music comes into existence. I intend to learn at least the basics some day. I think this is one field of knowledge where one's enjoyment increases together with one's expertise. Simply listening to beautiful melodies can be very nice, but actually understanding how the beauty is created is much, much better.
Forgot to mention: I consider learning something, whether it is music, a foreign language or anything that improves one's intellect to be an intensely spiritual endeavor as well. Especially if it is done for the pure joy of discovery.
Or we dismiss possibilities because they don't make sense. Before I'm a theist, I'm an artist, writer, and game programmer. None of the stuff I make even exists unless I make it. By this analogy something must have made all of this, and existed without something else making it. An Original Creator.
Now, does this necessarily lead to any particular assumption about this Original Creator? No. Not even that this would be human and not some force or law or something. Or that we humans collectively are the only thing here, and this is why a God isn't easy to see. Or it could be any number of things. But since if I do nothing, nothing happens, on a fundamental level, atheism cannot work.
I'm glad I blocked Nozz. Even someone talking about what he said secondhand, I'm not impressed. The only thing in fact I did agree with was the statement you just said was balls. I also believe in the Socratic Cave/Brain In Vat theory, having taken philosophy. But I seem to remember this theory too.
If the universe is an illusion, it still requires (1) me to receive it and be fooled, (2) someone else, (2b) or me again, to send it. In the case 2, this would mean there is a God out there, even if he is evil and deceiving me. In case 2b, it would mean that I am God. In either case, because there is anything at all, even an illusion, pffft no, atheism still doesn't work.
We don't rationally dismiss possibilities because they don't make sense. That is to fall into Einstein's error on Quantum. We keep it in the pending tray until it resolves - if it ever does. We don't put in stopgap explanations or if we do (like abiogenesis) we keep looking. And the same elates to the First cause argument (and we already did that so can we do without it again?).
Atheist wouldn't work on the level you put it, but that is not actually where it is. Where it is is saying 'we don't know, and we can't rule out an intelligent creator even if the universe doesn't actually look like there was one'.
I don't buy the brain in a vat theory, if that is the solipsism theory, because of unexpectedness. If it is 'alien computer game - it doesn't matter. Even though the universe is an illusion of nothing pretending to be something, it is predictable in many ways, and the reliability is what matters, not what we can bang on a desk.
This is a 'natural' illusion and doesn't require anyone to send it, so even if someone did, it makes no difference. So atheism works and works rationally either way. It is theism that fails ass there is no good reason to make it anything other than a possibility that makes no real difference, and to believe it as a probability, let alone fact, is irrational.
By "spirituality" I understand mostly two things. First, the opposite of materialism, that is being less attached to the purely material things and putting a greater value on non-material ones: relationships, beauty, nature etc, having a sense of awe towards the world, a recognition of something greater than one's self. Second, a desire to attain greater knowledge and understanding, to grapple with the "big" questions. Do you think religious people are more likely to exhibit these two traits than atheists or agnostics?
The reason I am asking this question is one of the arguments in favor of religion I have come across lately: namely that without religion, without a sense of something greater than himself, man becomes entangled in purely materialistic life, in chasing after the next nice car, or house, or promotion. What are your thoughts on this argument?
people are people.
any large group has a mixture of personality types that represent what it means to be human. personality type express a belief, not the other way around. You can have spiritual people regardless of belief. theists say theirs are better and atheist claim they have the best. Both sides are half right.
all to often I see "spiritual people" being pointed out to me as the quite and reserved type. But when we talk to them its the same ol' same ol'. True spiritual people reach an understanding in seconds after meeting. What is funny is that it is totally independent of religion or lack of belief in a deity. Understanding and connections work just fine together.
Or we dismiss possibilities because they don't make sense.
I wonder who is advocating doing any such thing though? Are you? I have not seen anyone else doing so. Rather I, and many other people, have pointed out that "making sense" is never a good measure of what is true or not. Because multiple things "make sense" that are entirely false. And many things make no sense at all, but turn out to be entirely true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Before I'm a theist, I'm an artist, writer, and game programmer. None of the stuff I make even exists unless I make it. By this analogy something must have made all of this, and existed without something else making it. An Original Creator.
Except the analogy is entirely poor and commits the fallacy of begging the question. It also assumes attribute transference. Just because X was created by a mind that does not automatically mean Y was too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
I'm glad I blocked Nozz. Even someone talking about what he said secondhand, I'm not impressed.
Except you haven't blocked me. You claim you have, but then replied to me twice since, including referring to the specific wording in the posts you were replying too. Further what has you being "impressed" got to do with the quality of anything I write? The sheer fact you are unable to rebut or reply to ANY of it so you have to pretend to be ignoring me to dodge it..... speaks all anyone needs to know about the strength and quality of my posts. Especially relative to your own.
I have even heard a few say that if their god objects to what they do, that god would "stop" them from doing it or if they do something and their god does not "punish" them it is all good..
Is this some branch of Jewish school of thought? I am only curious.
Is this some branch of Jewish school of thought? I am only curious.
Is there a particular reason you are going from thread to thread being up Jewish non-sequiturs?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
