Exploring other religions and faiths (worship, Jewish, ceremony, belief)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Your response to my views here belies the bold big time, LearnMe. You seem to have taken the position of Phet that it is only "ONE person's far-out view" and it does NOT merit any serious or rigorous intellectual investigation because it refutes your atheism and does not adequately comport with the religious views you want to demean and denigrate.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

I wasn't addressing you, and you are forever going off the rails one way or another, so mostly I just prefer to ignore you. This too, again, by you and yours about "demeaning and denigrating." In this comment of mine you quote I'm doing what I always do far as expressing my views and my reasons for them. Does this most recent comment of mine seem demeaning or denigrating to you? I don't think it is, yet...

There you go again. Please. In the name of agape love. Just please. I think some of you are always just itching for a fight. Have mercy.

I should have phrased it differently. I was not referring to any specific post of yours, but your general responses to my views in the forum. I have no interest in fighting. But your continued belief that your default view of atheism is somehow "de rigueur" as far as truth claims go is just annoying.

Your atheism is symptomatic of a simplistic ignorance of the existing science about the status of Reality, IMO. It is understandable pragmatically speaking but is incompatible with your claims about a sincere and rigorous effort to get to the truth of the matter about Reality.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

When I began to seriously consider Buddhism, one of the first decisions I had to make was how wide to cast my net (so to speak) in the Buddhist world. It seems that I had two alternatives:

1. Stick with the Buddhism I had some actual experience with (Theravada), or
2. Study all the different forms of Buddhism

Since my travels focused on Thailand, I decided to focus my attention on Theravada Buddhism. That's where I had my conversations. That's where I did my reading. And I found that in order to remain focused at a manageable level in a maze of Buddhist traditions that it was best to focus on just Thai Theravada Buddhism (unless or until it didn't satisfy my needs). Little did I realize what a good decision that was since I discovered rather quickly how many different forms of Buddhism there are...and even how many different forms of Theravada Buddhism there are (over 30 forms of just Theravada Buddhism, alone, and then there's all the other cultural forms of Buddhism, with the most known versions Zen, Mahayanan, and Tibetan). And so the plan was to focus on Thai Theravada Buddhism until I find the need to branch out. I haven't felt that need. I am pretty much satisfied with Thai Theravadan Buddhism, particularly since -- in Buddhism -- one's journey is somewhat individualistic to begin with.

If I wanted to explore dozens of other forms of Buddhism, I could. If I wanted to go beyond Buddhism, I could. There are, literally, hundreds of religious sects out there. And then there are individuals -- like you -- who have their own homegrown religious beliefs based on their own personal experiences.

But having been a methodist as a child, having been a catholic as a young and middle-aged adult, I'm not going to keep branching out to look for more when I am already satisfied with what I have discovered. I can't verify all those individualistic spiritual beliefs, like yours. You're happy with yours, but I am not satisfied with a religious belief based on an individual confirmation basis. It's just like my belief in past-lives. You probably don't accept that because you cannot 'repeat my experiences'. That's fine with me.

This is a very considered position, Phet, and entirely consistent with your unwillingness to seek the truth of my views. It would take considerable intellectual effort and study. I just get triggered by LearnMe's pretense at such an intellectual effort to understand Reality using science because of his truth claims about his Ten Assertions.

Originally Posted by phetaroi

To be honest with you, I have never found Mystic to be "itching for a fight". He is just very persistent in his own beliefs.

Thank you, Phet.

[Bungalove]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

To be honest with you, I have never found Mystic to be "itching for a fight". He is just very persistent in his own beliefs.

IMHO, "persistent" is something of an understatement. "Dogmatic" might be more descriptive. Interestingly, he seems to share that characteristic with JBF as well. They just differ in their views.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I should have phrased it differently. I was not referring to any specific post of yours, but your general responses to my views in the forum. I have no interest in fighting. But your continued belief that your default view of atheism is somehow "de rigueur" as far as truth claims go is just annoying.

Your atheism is symptomatic of a simplistic ignorance of the existing science about the status of Reality, IMO. It is understandable pragmatically speaking but is incompatible with your claims about a sincere and rigorous effort to get to the truth of the matter about Reality.

mystic, their "atheism" is based on social change.

Not on just plain belief reliability being evaluated on how well it matches what we experience. At least a large enough part.

They have to be very careful what they say. They are not strong atheist to me. They answer to atheism creeds and atheist assertions. They can't think on their own.

Just look at one of the personal axioms in the atheist's creed. "I will not be controlled by religion". That reeks of fear. How does a person with that much fear address anything that "religion" may use?

How about the cement theory. It can't evaluate the reliability of a claim, yet the person uses that to determine why people hold views he disagrees with instead looking at what claims may explain why people think they are part of something bigger? what traits does the system seem to have that offers an explanation, mechanism, and makes predictions.

They know enough to avoid that because people can understand it. Even a system analyst knows we are just a subroutine in a larger program. Its so stupid simple and they run from it.

everything they fits like a glove under the condition of "we are here for social change." Remember the discussions when they brought up "It doesn't get us anywhere" and we asked "where is that exactly ..." poof ... crickets, avoidance, personal attacks, and shunning. They call it "quicksand" ... lmao quick sand, if that don't reek of "I am convincing myself so I don't all the way down." nothing does.

Under the flag of "Social change is practical: we can't give theist anything at all, no matter how little." Their answers make perfect sense. Using their/that dogma looking belief.

If the belief are being evaluated on "how well does it match observation", then some thing more clearly is the best we have. We can even tag it with dark god for now. Of course we do not limit the word god to specifically one thing like they do. So that's another issue.

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

mystic, their "atheism" is based on social change.

Not on just plain belief reliability being evaluated on how well it matches what we experience. At least a large enough part.

They have to be very careful what they say. They are not strong atheist to me. They answer to atheism creeds and atheist assertions. They can't think on their own.

Just look at one of the personal axioms in the atheist's creed. "I will not be controlled by religion". That reeks of fear. How does a person with that much fear address anything that "religion" may use?

How about the cement theory. It can't evaluate the reliability of a claim, yet the person uses that to determine why people hold views he disagrees with instead looking at what claims may explain why people think they are part of something bigger? what traits does the system seem to have that offers an explanation, mechanism, and makes predictions.

They know enough to avoid that because people can understand it. Even a system analyst knows we are just a subroutine in a larger program. Its so stupid simple and they run from it.

everything they fits like a glove under the condition of "we are here for social change." Remember the discussions when they brought up "It doesn't get us anywhere" and we asked "where is that exactly ..." poof ... crickets, avoidance, personal attacks, and shunning. They call it "quicksand" ... lmao quick sand, if that don't reek of "I am convincing myself so I don't all the way down." nothing does.

Under the flag of "Social change is practical: we can't give theist anything at all, no matter how little." Their answers make perfect sense. Using their/that dogma looking belief.

If the belief are being evaluated on "how well does it match observation", then some thing more clearly is the best we have. We can even tag it with dark god for now. Of course we do not limit the word god to specifically one thing like they do. So that's another issue.

Atheism is Illogical

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by cb2008

Atheism is Illogical

I would say sects of it have of groups of illogical people in them. Like all statements of belief about god centered people do.

IMO, reliable atheism uses a mechanism, explanation, and predictions to form beliefs. "rejection of a deity only to stop religion" does not have any part of that.

disclaimer:
atheism doesn't have any formal sects.
Just people that dress up in sect costumes.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by cb2008

Atheism is Illogical

Refuted in THAT very thread.

For example:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/63568247-post35.html

Nothing to do with social change, actual logic.

And you need to deal with these logical arguments, not just dismiss them with pejoratives such as empty tin cans or intellectual desert.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Refuted in THAT very thread.

For example:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/63568247-post35.html

Nothing to do with social change, actual logic.

And you need to deal with these logical arguments, not just dismiss them with pejoratives such as empty tin cans or intellectual desert.

You are wrong...again...as usual. New things (about God) being figured out all the time...your "credible evidence" is just around the corner.
https://youtu.be/h0FZx85A9LQ
REALITY (God) is not just conscious...it IS consciousness.
REALITY (God) is not just intelligent...it IS intellect.

As per "Religion". Almost 9 out of 10 in this world believe in some religion. This perception is "intrinsic" to most humans (like sight)...with very few not possessing these intuitive abilities to provide them with knowledge.
Just as some people "lack sight" and are blind (unable to perceive things in that way)...some "lack belief" (do not have that intrinsic intuition) and cannot perceive God as most can.
I'm sorry that you fall into that group of the few that are "lacking".
Best wishes resolving that problem. I will pray for you.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

You are wrong...again...as usual.

Epic fail, ...again...as usual. Using an ad hominem is NOT refuting the logic.

Originally Posted by GldnRule

New things (about God) being figured out all the time...your "credible evidence" is just around the corner.
https://youtu.be/h0FZx85A9LQ
REALITY (God) is not just conscious...it IS consciousness.
REALITY (God) is not just intelligent...it IS intellect.

Just around the corner means you do not have that evidence, you just hope it will come. Let me repeat that, it logically means you do not have that evidence.

And once he talks about the double slit experiment (as they usually woo, sorry, do), that means his philosophical idea is based on him not understanding the physics. GIGO.

Can you spell Quantum woo?

Originally Posted by GldnRule

As per "Religion". Almost 9 out of 10 in this world believe in some religion. This perception is "intrinsic" to most humans (like sight)...with very few not possessing these intuitive abilities to provide them with knowledge.
Just as some people "lack sight" and are blind (unable to perceive things in that way)...some "lack belief" (do not have that intrinsic intuition) and cannot perceive God as most can.
I'm sorry that you fall into that group of the few that are "lacking".
Best wishes resolving that problem. I will pray for you.

Must we explain your failure AGAIN? All you have done is ONCE AGAIN admitted most people must logically have false beliefs, there is no need to once again repeat the lame excuse that different beliefs must mean there is one god (that just happens to be yours ).

But thank you for mumbling for me, I will once again explain to the world where your arguments fail, just for you.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Epic fail, ...again...as usual. Using an ad hominem is NOT refuting the logic.
Just around the corner means you do not have that evidence, you just hope it will come. Let me repeat that, it logically means you do not have that evidence.

And once he talks about the double slit experiment (as they usually woo, sorry, do), that means his philosophical idea is based on him not understanding the physics. GIGO.

Can you spell Quantum woo?

Must we explain your failure AGAIN? All you have done is ONCE AGAIN admitted most people must logically have false beliefs, there is no need to once again repeat the lame excuse that different beliefs must mean there is one god (that just happens to be yours ).

But thank you for mumbling for me, I will once again explain to the world where your arguments fail, just for you.

This ^^^ is the BEST entertainment and amusement this board had to offer!
When some here come up against those they cannot compete with...they try to claim they know more than them!
This is the guy you claim, "doesn't know":
https://www.robertlanza.com/

Thanks for the laugh Harry. It's like watching a poor Little League hitter, trying at bat against Justin Verlander.

It's okay Harry...we understand. That burst bubble and all.
I will pray for you.