![]() |
#141 (permalink) |
effin' ineffable
In the Paint
![]() Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 30,070
Representing:
![]() |
![]() I must be a frickin' saint to be able to understand you Toraps. It must have been all those years going to church.
But it's true that the intent of all religions is quite the opposite of how things often turn out. Ultimately they all direct people to become less egotistical, and consider their worst enemy to be equal to themselves, or actually to be the same as themselves. The problem is one of context for everyone approaching religion. There can be some good out of building a foundation upon any of it, but there has to be room to adapt and make room for difference. Being stuck in the past just for the sake of avoiding the here and now is not going to allow for much good to occur. Having a living and breathing relationship with the past that allows a big move forward is what is too often lost. But there are some notable examples where not war, not repression, not division occurs, but civil rights, an end to imperialism, and more healing than thought possible in places like South Africa. But I can understand looking past the intent of major religions and just pointing out all the evils that have sprung out of obeying specific elements. Instead of living and breathing, the institutions built around them have largely left us with little air to breathe for ourselves, and that seems to happen in connection with helping to prop up existing power structures. If I had superpowers I would require all religious texts to be seen on the same footing as any other books. I would point out the need for people to lose a good deal of their ego, and to see others as though they make up a part of themselves. And at the same time I would point out the failure of those in the past from being able to do so, and that various rituals have tended to make them blind to their failures and only allowed them to be controlled. The ways of the past have shown themselves to be broken, for the most part, so why not move on with some idea of what all the messages were meant to be and do everything we can to promote an ego-less freedom rather than self-serving control? By moving away from the sway of religions, we might actually find the means to adhere to the original intent. Or we could just be inevitably doomed regardless. I see a much greater factor than the fear of death in play. I see a fear of ourselves. And there is a whole lot of straying from the truth of ourselves as a result, just like so many generations have strayed from the true intent of religious thought and practices. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#142 (permalink) |
Truth
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 256
Representing:
![]() |
![]() I agree with Einstein when he said science without religion is lame. But it's important to keep in mind that Einstein, and most bright people are not "literal minded". What I mean is, bright people see the content of religion as symbolic and metaphorical. There was no garden of eden in a literal sense, but it certainly serves as a great metaphor. Adam and Eve weren't the first human beings, but again, they are a thought provoking symbol for man woman interactions and the source of strife. Cain and Abel, Job, heaven, hell - religion clearly offers a wealth of symbols and metaphors. Problem is, people are dumb. They take everything literally, and miss the deeper meaning.
Even the concept of God is perfectly logical from a pantheistic perspective. The totality of nature is our creator, why not refer to that as God? Who knows, Jesus could have been an atheist who defined God as nature itself. It's fine to refer to peaceful states of mind as heaven, and to create heaven on earth. Artful metaphors are OK. Literal mindedness (the inability to think flexibly, metaphorically, creatively and artfully) is the problem. Last edited by Cory; 12-15-2010 at 06:05 PM. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#143 (permalink) |
effin' ineffable
In the Paint
![]() Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 30,070
Representing:
![]() |
![]() I'm not sure about the inability to think in terms of metaphors or symbols being as big of a problem as not being able to recognize metaphors, symbols, or anything tending towards the poetic as being such. Thomas Jefferson took the gospels and extracted all the improbable events therein, leaving many level-headed lessons that could not be not hindered by literal-mindedness. Not a bad idea if there is any chance of misinterpreting allegory for reality.
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#144 (permalink) | ||||||||||
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the
liquor
The Mara sisters are hot!
![]() Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,375
Representing:
![]() |
![]() From the Wednesday edition of the Globe and Mail:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 12-17-2010 at 12:26 AM. |
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#146 (permalink) | |
tired of shitty Toronto teams
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 549
Representing:
![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() I totally agree with the assessment. Religion is dying and even in immigrant communities. My parents were both devout in their faiths until they met each other ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#147 (permalink) |
stank
member
![]() Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,401
Representing:
![]() ![]() |
![]() simple evolution, we needed to invent it in mankinds early stages to keep us in check with the fear of a omnipresent being watching over us, but we are in the 21st century and will be growing out of it and use logic and reason to benefit humanity.
theres probably a god, but not a microinterventionist one. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#149 (permalink) |
brainfarting keyboard eater
Dwane Casey kicks ass!
![]() Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,254
Representing:
![]() |
![]() Well, it has been a long time, but I've stumbled upon this thread and can't help my self to not get involved at least a little bit. So first of all, my kindest greetings to everyone.
A few of things I'd like to point out. There is a growing number of 'militant' atheists that I've been simply stumbling upon either around the web or in daily life. By militant I mean the following and nothing other then the following without any desire or intent to offend anyone: 1) Excessive rants about what they perceive to be 'religion' 2) Very emotional 3) Intelligent, Informed and respectable enough to be listened and responded to 4) Display some of the very same behavior they claim to oppose 5) In all cases they confuse religion with these institutions and their representatives, the doctrine and the deception that is present while totally forgetting to look for what it's really all about I'm happy to see that my dear friend LX, as usual, has a very interesting and well informed opinion on the topic though we are in different camps on this one. (Cheers! LX!) At the same time, I've seen a growing number of what I call "self indulging self proclaimed followers of the right path" who do very little of thinking on their own, simply repeat what they've been told, claim to know it all while making an enormous effort to look and show off better then anyone else, cleaner, more in tact with the spiritual world, innocent and disgusted by all the worldly 'sins'. Now, copy/paste the five points about 'militant atheists' and it pretty muches perfectly matches the "self indulging self proclaimed followers of the right path". Before I continue, I think it's only fair to clearly say that I am a Muslim, that I do believe in God and His Messengers, His Books and the Unseen(Hidden) world and that there is no God but Him and that Mohammed is His Messenger and His Servant. I say that openly only for everyone to be clear where I'm coming from and without any preaching or any of the "HOLIER THAN YOU" attitude that is often demonstrated by "self indulging self proclaimed followers of the right path" found in every religion including Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc.. etc.. and also Atheism. I also will not hide behind mind tricks or loaded questions to realize any potential hidden agenda of mine. I'm merely here to state my opinion and belief in a as kind way as I can manage at this moment. And yes, IMO, Atheism is a "religion" as any other "religion". Now, for the last time, I'm not here to in any way insult or upset anyone. I'd also like to emphasize that I will not engage in answering questions coming from the overly popular challenges based on misinformed propaganda and out of the context examples of the so called discrimination in Islam nor will I be defending my self nor my religion from any potential challenges/claims/attitudes/opinions that are coming from ill will and misinformation. I have been in these situations many times before it's just simply waste of time. So if anyone plans on doing any of this know that I simply will not be bothered to answer, go Google your stuff. Honest, polite, smart or informed questions and challenges on any topic are very welcome. Here is some stuff I think is very important to understand if we are to progress in our individual understanding of the individual experience we are all having. Religion and institutions as well as their representatives should never ever be confused in any way shape or form. There are as many religions as there are individuals, no matter how willing they might be to accept or admit that. Once more people understand that, their experience is unique to them and that their belief is like no other belief no matter how many people they might agree or disagree with, only then will we be able to really talk about religion in a comfortable way and attempt to understand it. To confuse the two is as idiotic, IMO, as to claim the earth is flat so the water wouldn't spill. Doubt is part of the process, it is the investigative mind that is part of the engine that drives our mental/material/biological/spiritual/intellectual/conscious/unconscious development trough out the experience we commonly refer to as life. It is there for to be accepted as mean of progress in self upbringing and development. It is present and sometimes hidden but it is there. Opinion without doubt is not an opinion for it has no chance to change nor even be challenged and as such it becomes a factor of mental and spiritual regression within the intimate domain while within the public domain it also manifests in more tangible, material ways of regression. As the doubt is part of every single human being it is inherently part of every human product including the institutions be those the Government, the University or the [symbol] Church/Mosque/Synagogue/Any Temple[/symbol]. In every single point in history, where any of these or other large and powerful institutions were not facing enough doubt and challenge there has been instant atrocity. It is a direct manifest of how an ignored resource can lead to a disaster. However, institutions that claim to represent a religion/faith become the easy targets simply because of their history, involvement in every part of our lives, directly or indirectly and mostly because in 99,99% of the cases they simply refuse challenge or doubt and more often than not with a "How dare you", "Holier then you" mentality. This, probably showing they deserve a lot of flack. Lately, these are using or the hoopla to their advantage in an attempt to portray themselves as victims. The fact is, governments are equally as bad and in fact worse trough out history especially since a lot of people actually think they can influence their government while not seeing how they have been taken on a well planned ride where the few improve and the many suffer. That is a totally different topic, on fringe of conspiracy (theory) that I have no intent to further get in to... for the time being. Also, schools and universities invest a lot in their own means of indoctrination and are becoming more immune to any kind of challenge than any government or "cleric conglomerate." The scientific progress of the global society has basically stopped for some time now and it has only to do with the exact same ignoring of a valuable resource, probably on purpose. There are many glorious scientific reports that promise a better new world but it has all remained in the drawers, on papers, journals etc.. etc.. yet nothing of significance or substance. It is astonishing fact that most of the progress in today science is driven strictly by and for profit. On that is hasn't always been a part of it but never, IMO, at this magnitude. Yet, all of the focus on the source of bad remains on religion, most of the time while all these corrupt individuals get to shield themselves with their mantels and suits and ties and offices and what not. Being as hardheaded Bosnian as they come, it was basically impossible for me to get behind any of this and follow it blindly like so many people are doing. And here's why. The experience called life is so amazing and so full of opportunities and dimensions that it's really stupid to not think about what it's all about. Most of the people fall in two traps that can be titled in a few ways or in as many ways as one may see fit. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Atheist, Scientist, Materialists, Westerners, Easterners, Liberals, Communists, Democrats, Thief, Policeman, Lawyers etc.. etc... Pick any two. And I'm not talking about mere labels stuck on people based on education/opinion/value system/career/belief. I'm talking about self inflected experience mutilations that are solely based on frustration with "the other camp". In this, a lot of religious folks deny and oppose science, evolution, progress and improvement in most surreal manner with such a strong and directed drive that it's almost impossible to comprehend. Almost. A lot of scientists will display the very same behavior exchanging science, evolution, progress and improvement with religion, belief, spirituality etc..etc.. All of it, simply based on frustration with the other camp. AND IT HAS PRODUCED NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE! NOTHING AT ALL! FROM ANY OF THESE! The reason is, people deny themselves the beauty of an immense amount of amazing experience. Radicals get to lose out on all the beauty of math and physics and chemistry and what not. Other Radicals get to lose on all the beauty of infinite rhythm and manifestation of spirituality. Third Radicals lose on both and fall in to passive walk through of their experience. etc etc. Idiotic that we think so high of ourselves to choose what is right and what is wrong in such short period of time in such a huge sweeps that we basically cut down our own wings. In all of this, I have come to a conclusion that there has been one way for me, personally to deal with this and that is, open the mind to the challenge and to the ever growing information overload. And filter what I enjoy and what I feel is feeding my desire for information, for discussion, for spiritual fulfillment. And my choice for some time now has simply been Islam and what I know of it as a filter of high quality information and feeds that are helping me improve to where I want to be. I've taken the trip back in my past and felt bad for all the opportunities I missed, all the things I never learned for no reason and those are the things I could have a use of right now. But, instead of dwelling on the past, my religion has become for me the path that I try to walk on and ask questions and be challenged and discover and enjoy and love and everything for if I had known only things that I have been told and nothing on my own and had it remained this way I would still be dwelling upon all the stuff I wish I had done differently. A religion is a way to move forward not an institution that will "tell you" where you need to go, what you need to do. This has been created by the clero-fascist all over the world who simply are corrupt and abuse the honest people out of their very own, individual religion. For people to massively bill the atrocities committed by these ego maniacs to religion is a sure fire way to disaster. Not because the sky will fall or earth will open but because so many people are denying themselves such an invaluable quality of experience that they are simply being mutilated by their own hand. I have experienced wonderful things trough both the east and west, the science and the religion, the material and the immaterial that I simply can't mentally or spiritually afford my self to be a blind follower of one camp while excluding the other. It is therefore stupid, IMO, to give up on anything based out of frustration and half informations. Be it science, religion, love for humanity, the world we live in the world we can't see the amazing music from around the globe be it Nick Cave or Omar Faruk Tekbilek or John Coltrane or Thelonius Monk or whomever all these wonderful dimensions that are simply there to be studied and challenged, loved and cherished, doubted and defended. Excluding things simple does the individual a disservice. Not because of the punishment of an unknown debts but because of not reaching the unknown highs, simply remaining this file in the drawer with little if any real progress. It's really simple in the end to understand that when fighing the evil, we should fight the individuals who are evil not whole nations or continents or groups or whomever. Only then can the evil be removed not from our country or planet but from within us because like it or not, each and everyone of us is so sinful and so desperate and stupid while at the same time being completely the opposite, this beautiful, amazing being. And since we are naturally like this, there's no need to further divide in the drawers and choose a side. There's only one side and everything is possible on that side. Until next time... Peace! |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#150 (permalink) | |
pensive
feat. Otto Neurath
![]() Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Obviously giving a causal explanation of religion is going to be difficult and will draw from many different disciplines, but I will give the least-reductive simple hypothesis I can propose. I will argue that it is the product of evolution, but not a necessary product of evolution. When you look at any organism, you're looking at a great deal of chance (filtered by non-random selection), so there is never a reason to assume that evolution will head towards a particular goal other than fitness (which is itself a very tricky concept). What I would suggest is that there are psychological mechanisms that produce a wide array of behaviour. As more mechanisms are added and amplified, the behaviour produced changes. I would speculate that the very beginnings of religious belief are grounded in something simple (relatively speaking) like patternicity. What begins as a clear fitness advantage (recognizing false patterns is less harmful than failing to recognize true patterns) ends up producing a number of what might be called emergent or epiphenomenalist behaviours. A simple way of putting this might be to say that religion is not the direct product of anything, but rather a by-product of a number of psychological mechanisms which were beneficial for other reasons. Also, I'm not sure that the question of god's existence is something you can say "probably" or "probably does not" exist, as I think that is implying some sort of probability calculation which I'd like to see the work on. Most Bayesian attempts, which I think have come closest, have utterly failed at being convincing. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#151 (permalink) | ||||
pensive
feat. Otto Neurath
![]() Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
![]() |
![]() I will leave with a brief critique of the most galling points in elT's response (some of which was ok, some of which wasn't):
Quote:
Most of your argument is actually against naturalism, which is quite distinct from atheism (though many atheists are also naturalists). Quote:
Quote:
Scientists are generally focused on what is empirically verifiable. Religion is the antithesis of empirically verifiable. Stop falsely equivocating the two so that you can produce your desired conclusion. Quote:
Last edited by Ligeia; 12-20-2010 at 05:18 PM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#152 (permalink) | |
pensive
feat. Otto Neurath
![]() Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
![]() |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#153 (permalink) |
pensive
feat. Otto Neurath
![]() Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
![]() |
![]() One last thing (how many times have I said that) that is tremendously important to consider:
Since the dawn of modernity, great thinkers have predicted the impending demise of religion. Popular in sociology more than 100 years ago was secularization theory. Much as is being argued here, the theory predicted that as people got smarter and smarter that religious belief would decline, particularly in the public sphere. Peter Berger is a very notable sociologist who has argued that instead of secularization in modernity, you see pluralism: people go a little post-modernist and lean towards the perspective that every religion is, in some sense, equally valid, and often these folk believe that a fundamental problem with any particular religion will be group X who "pervert" what religion is really about ("and aren't we all after the same thing?"). The polling on religious numbers can be very misleading. I tend to agree with those who argue that the number of real atheists isn't increasing significantly; rather, the way the questions are asked combined with the type of impression a person would like to give ends up lumping a lot of "disenfranchised believers" into the non-religious category (because that person might choose not to identify with a particular church). In the US, for example, the number of atheists has been stuck at 5-6% for a while. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#154 (permalink) |
Truth
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 256
Representing:
![]() |
![]() nature is creative. Nature is omnipotent. Nature is immortal. Nature/God is our origin and our destiny. To be enslaved to a particular facet is hell, to be be at one with all, is heaven. I know.
Last edited by Cory; 12-20-2010 at 07:28 PM. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#155 (permalink) | |||||
brainfarting keyboard eater
Dwane Casey kicks ass!
![]() Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,254
Representing:
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I wanted to make a point about sciences effect on our daily life. My intention was not to diminish everything scientists are doing but it seems I have done that in my previous post and I apologize for that, it just didn't come out right. I'd say mostly from around web and yes that in fact means the media. Quote:
Quote:
When I look at a Canadian, I don't look at him/his trough his/her government or the actions of his/her government. That's the institution part of his/her citizenship. I'm more interested in the human, the individual. At that point, I forget I'm looking at a Canadian, just another human. When I look at scientist, I'm not looking at his diploma or awards but again, the individual. etc.. etc.. etc..etc..etc So, one I look at a Catholic Christian, I'm not looking at him trough the Pope, the Inquisition or whatever the Pope said last Sunday or any of that. I'm looking at the individual, ESPECIALLY when we are talking about religion. So, just like with anything it comes down to that, the individual. That's why it is an individual matter IMO. The institutions are just parasites on a beautiful organism. I'd like them out of the picture. Etymology: Latin: religionem (nom. religio) "Respect for what is sacred, reverence for God" "Obligation, the bond between man and God" Well, the etymology kind of supports what I'm saying. We don't need the institutions. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#156 (permalink) | |||||||||
pensive
feat. Otto Neurath
![]() Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
![]() |
![]() Not at all. There are atheists that believe they were specially created 5000 years ago (deny evolution) and atheists that believe in the supernatural (deny naturalism). Naturalism does entail atheism (if we agree that supernaturalism is a necessary condition for god), but atheism does not entail naturalism.
Quote:
Quote:
Almost no atheist I have ever known has claimed that there is a bunch of proof that there is no god. Of the popular Western atheists right now, the only one that thinks there really is a case to be made against any gods existing is physicist Victor Stenger (so far as I know; biologist Richard Dawkins, for example, has gone so far as to say "There's probably no god"); the vast majority believe that there is insufficient merit to believe in a god or gods, not that they have any certainty that god does not exist. It's a question about the burden of proof, raised earlier in this thread in reference to Russell's Celestial Teapot. I'll quote it after a brief blurb of my own in your next part. Quote:
It's not a matter of faith for me at all, because I don't lack belief in god out of any faith whatsoever; I'm simply waiting for good arguments and evidence in support of it. Now here's Russell's Teapot: "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." - Bertrand Russell, Illustrated, unpublished 1952 Quote:
Quote:
Anyways, I think the question of whether science has made a significant contribution to our everyday lives is mostly empirical, and I don't see how it could be denied that it has a more meaningful impact on us now than it ever has. You said there was "nothing of significance or substance" and that could only be described as hyperbole, although you could help clarify that by elucidating on your criteria for "signifiance or substance." Remember that you said this without any valuable justification or explanation: "The scientific progress of the global society has basically stopped for some time now and it has only to do with the exact same ignoring of a valuable resource, probably on purpose." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The institution is not literally the religion, but it is not to be ignored out of hand, either, just so that you can wave your hand at all the bad things that religious figures of authority have done and said. A core part of many religions is the deference to precisely those authorities! Quote:
If you believe that part of the bond between god and man involves insitutitions (as many do), then the institutions should certainly not be excluded from consideration. |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#157 (permalink) |
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the
liquor
The Mara sisters are hot!
![]() Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,375
Representing:
![]() |
![]() @ elT
You warned people not to make ill informed statements about Islam, yet you proceeded to offer ill informed opinions regarding atheism. You wanted us to do research on Islam before speaking about it. Did you hold yourself to the same standard? For the record, this video was posted a couple of pages back and was available for your viewing before you ever posted. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#159 (permalink) | ||
brainfarting keyboard eater
Dwane Casey kicks ass!
![]() Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,254
Representing:
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Second, I didn't warn, I simply made it clear that I will not answer to ill willed questions. What I meant was taking something out of context(e.g. a verse or a part of a verse from Qur'an) and posing it as a question companioned by a violent act by a Muslim. I've seen that done to me way many times and it just ruins the discussion. My comments on atheism and atheists were not ill willed one bit, not even in the slightest. Might have been misinformed or uninformed and even that obviously wasn't intentional. re: the video Thank you, haven't seen it before. I formed my opinion "atheism being a religion of it's own" based on numerous discussions I have had with people proclaiming to be and making their argument for being atheist. I assumed, falsely it seems as the video now shows, that an atheists believes there is no God. But, as I didn't know what atheism really is it seems that a whole bunch of people who say they are atheists but are in fact not. Perhaps naturalists? Or whatever, I will have to look it up now. I disagree with one claim in the video though and that is the part of "God needs worship". I have no idea where that comes from but it's certainly not the case in Islam, the opposite is quite clearly emphasized numerous times. A lovely example of this comes from Rumi, please take time to read this: Moses and Shepard Quote:
Ligeia, I'm answering to you in a minute... edit: Sorry Ligeia, will answer a bit later, kind of busy now. I really want to contribute to the discussion and it's taking a lot of time to properly answer all of these. However, before I surf-off the forum I'd just like to point out that though my wording and perhaps tone might not have sounded like that, I'm really not trying to judge any of you, label any of you or simply blame any of you. I'll, hopefully, make my self a lot clearer in the future as it seems my lack of proper expressions has caused some misunderstanding here. (Foreign language doesn't help in that regard one bit though...) My bad, but it wouldn't be worthy if the discussion was easy. Peace Last edited by elT; 12-21-2010 at 11:26 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|