U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2019, 02:27 PM
 
38,022 posts, read 25,696,204 times
Reputation: 5895

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
1. You start off in this post wrong to begin with. For some people in certain situations, yes, Christianity can be a positive psychological phenomenon. I know good people who are Christians, and I see the good things that they do. So pack up lie number one that we don't realize that there are positive aspects to Christianity.

2. However, I do not respect living a lie. It DOES matter, from a moral sense, whether you live your life based on reality or fiction. I remember almost perfectly the Christmas morning I confided to my aunt that, "I don't really believe in Santa Claus anymore". And she sat me down and said, "Let me tell you what Santa Claus really is. You're right, Santa Claus is not a real man. But I'll tell what Santa Claus really is. Santa Claus is that feeling you had when you gave Mrs. Smith [my teacher] that Christmas gift. Santa Claus is how you will feel inside this morning when you give grandma those bedroom slippers. Santa Claus is how I will feel when you open the very special gift I am giving you this year, and I see how happy it's going to make you. So Santa Claus is real...he's just not a real man". That kind of thinking is fine to describe moral good-doing to a little boy, but it's time to grow up and realize that there are intrinsic (and extrinsic) reasons for doing good things, and they don't require that a person be a Christian.<snip>
You seem to be dealing with a good deal of angst about labels and beliefs about God, Phet. The labels are not all that important but it is understandable because most people seem to think God is all about what you claim to believe. In reality, God is all about your state of mind. Being a Christian is about having the state of mind of Christ so in a very real sense your aunt was absolutely correct. Unfortunately, we are so used to thinking that our state of mind is a fleeting and amorphous thing without any substance within our reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the most important "substance" within our specific individual reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-13-2019, 08:34 PM
 
9,282 posts, read 12,172,041 times
Reputation: 3348
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You seem to be dealing with a good deal of angst about labels and beliefs about God, Phet. The labels are not all that important but it is understandable because most people seem to think God is all about what you claim to believe. In reality, God is all about your state of mind. Being a Christian is about having the state of mind of Christ so in a very real sense your aunt was absolutely correct. Unfortunately, we are so used to thinking that our state of mind is a fleeting and amorphous thing without any substance within our reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the most important "substance" within our specific individual reality.
Yes. I think a person's view of God is affected by their state of mind, rather than the other way around. A healthy person has a healthy view of religion, in my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:24 AM
 
3,584 posts, read 2,586,578 times
Reputation: 4268
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
It's not "insane" to say that humans understood about DNA before it was defined by science.
The issue is that he does not just claim they knew about the basic workings and function of DNA. After all one might intuit from mere observation as some people indeed did do before DNA was finally "discovered" that there was _some_ unit of information at work at some level.

No what he claims is that they had full understanding not just of DNA but it's double helix structure specifically. And not from intuition or observation or evidence. But from experiences had while taking drugs. And his evidence for the claim they had this knowledge of DNA was that they drew a lot of pictures of snakes. Which is a complete non-seq really.

So the "insane" comment is a little more nuanced than you are painting it in this response here. Though it is interesting you focus on this rather than the majority of my post replying to the actual main content of yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
What atheists don't seem to want to acknowledge is that religion is a positive psychological phenomenon.
It is not that we do not want to acknowledge it. It is that you have offered nothing but pure assertion upon which to acknowledge it. A much different problem by far. You say "we can use scientific methods to prove that religion is a very positive thing" then my reply is - great - then let us know when you want to do that. You sure have not done so yet.

Saying we can use science - and actually using science - are two very massively different things. You do a lot of the former. None of the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You seem to be dealing with a good deal of angst about labels and beliefs about God, Phet. The labels are not all that important but it is understandable because most people seem to think God is all about what you claim to believe. In reality, God is all about your state of mind.
Then as usual - similar to your "god is just all of everything" rhetoric - you do nothing here but redefine "god" in terms of things we already have words for in order to make it as nebulous as possible and something you in no way have to commit to.

But while you moan about others having angst about specific beliefs about god - the reality is that once you pull the linguistic gymnastics in this way it is _you_ who then spring boards from that nonsense to very specific beliefs about god. Specifically about the after life - gods treatment and judgement of souls morally after death - and claims about the divinity of jesus as a god turned man.

So you can dodge committent to your own god beliefs by deriding others for concern over god beliefs. But a dodge is all it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:34 AM
 
3,484 posts, read 2,374,127 times
Reputation: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
The issue is that he does not just claim they knew about the basic workings and function of DNA. After all one might intuit from mere observation as some people indeed did do before DNA was finally "discovered" that there was _some_ unit of information at work at some level.

No what he claims is that they had full understanding not just of DNA but it's double helix structure specifically. And not from intuition or observation or evidence. But from experiences had while taking drugs. And his evidence for the claim they had this knowledge of DNA was that they drew a lot of pictures of snakes. Which is a complete non-seq really.

So the "insane" comment is a little more nuanced than you are painting it in this response here. Though it is interesting you focus on this rather than the majority of my post replying to the actual main content of yours.



It is not that we do not want to acknowledge it. It is that you have offered nothing but pure assertion upon which to acknowledge it. A much different problem by far. You say "we can use scientific methods to prove that religion is a very positive thing" then my reply is - great - then let us know when you want to do that. You sure have not done so yet.

Saying we can use science - and actually using science - are two very massively different things. You do a lot of the former. None of the latter.



Then as usual - similar to your "god is just all of everything" rhetoric - you do nothing here but redefine "god" in terms of things we already have words for in order to make it as nebulous as possible and something you in no way have to commit to.

But while you moan about others having angst about specific beliefs about god - the reality is that once you pull the linguistic gymnastics in this way it is _you_ who then spring boards from that nonsense to very specific beliefs about god. Specifically about the after life - gods treatment and judgement of souls morally after death - and claims about the divinity of jesus as a god turned man.

So you can dodge committent to your own god beliefs by deriding others for concern over god beliefs. But a dodge is all it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:22 AM
 
9,282 posts, read 12,172,041 times
Reputation: 3348
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
The issue is that he does not just claim they knew about the basic workings and function of DNA. After all one might intuit from mere observation as some people indeed did do before DNA was finally "discovered" that there was _some_ unit of information at work at some level.

No what he claims is that they had full understanding not just of DNA but it's double helix structure specifically. And not from intuition or observation or evidence. But from experiences had while taking drugs. And his evidence for the claim they had this knowledge of DNA was that they drew a lot of pictures of snakes. Which is a complete non-seq really.

So the "insane" comment is a little more nuanced than you are painting it in this response here. Though it is interesting you focus on this rather than the majority of my post replying to the actual main content of yours.



It is not that we do not want to acknowledge it. It is that you have offered nothing but pure assertion upon which to acknowledge it. A much different problem by far. You say "we can use scientific methods to prove that religion is a very positive thing" then my reply is - great - then let us know when you want to do that. You sure have not done so yet.

Saying we can use science - and actually using science - are two very massively different things. You do a lot of the former. None of the latter.



Then as usual - similar to your "god is just all of everything" rhetoric - you do nothing here but redefine "god" in terms of things we already have words for in order to make it as nebulous as possible and something you in no way have to commit to.

But while you moan about others having angst about specific beliefs about god - the reality is that once you pull the linguistic gymnastics in this way it is _you_ who then spring boards from that nonsense to very specific beliefs about god. Specifically about the after life - gods treatment and judgement of souls morally after death - and claims about the divinity of jesus as a god turned man.

So you can dodge committent to your own god beliefs by deriding others for concern over god beliefs. But a dodge is all it is.
You have made a lot of assertions here, but given no real support. I disagree with everything you said.

We will just have to agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:01 AM
 
Location: Germany
3,175 posts, read 565,442 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
You have made a lot of assertions here, but given no real support.
Irony overload would also be a good name for a band, no?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top