Mickiel;1475542 wrote: Well there are still scientific extremist who deny the biblical archaeological evidence unearthed; so extremism goes both ways.
That depends on what 'evidence'. There are relics of 'the original cross' to be found all around the world which, if all put together would provide more than enough wood to build the Arc. Are these to be taken as being the genuine Biblical Archeological Evidence they claim to be? There is Archeological Evidence of Biblical Cities having existed. No big deal. Apart from this sort of thing, what Archeological Biblical Evidence is there that Scientists have denied?
When religious discussion is no longer General.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1475544 wrote: That depends on what 'evidence'. There are relics of 'the original cross' to be found all around the world which, if all put together would provide more than enough wood to build the Arc. Are these to be taken as being the genuine Biblical Archeological Evidence they claim to be? There is Archeological Evidence of Biblical Cities having existed. No big deal. Apart from this sort of thing, what Archeological Biblical Evidence is there that Scientists have denied?
Oh plenty. Archaeology has confirmed more than cities, its confirmed biblical people, places and events.
Does archaeology confirm or deny the claims of the Bible?
I know scientist in Detroit that deny we have the bones of the man who carried Jesus cross, Simon the cyrenian. I have read of scientist who deny that we have the bones of the High Priest Ciaphas , who slapped Christ in the face. But we have both bone boxes. That's not a city, its BONES; evidence! We have the houses of Jesus friends, two possible graves he was buried in, actual stone fragments from the very spot he stood on before Pilate. We got the actual gate they marched Christ through on his way to be crucified, and the actual spot they crucified him on. It is a big deal, and I got a list far longer than this.
But see too many scientist think like you, and take a blind eye, no big deal attitude to real history. I am not trying to prove God in this thread, I am going after religion; I really don't want to take the time to deal with any chip on anyone's shoulder about the reality of God and Jesus.
Oh plenty. Archaeology has confirmed more than cities, its confirmed biblical people, places and events.
Does archaeology confirm or deny the claims of the Bible?
I know scientist in Detroit that deny we have the bones of the man who carried Jesus cross, Simon the cyrenian. I have read of scientist who deny that we have the bones of the High Priest Ciaphas , who slapped Christ in the face. But we have both bone boxes. That's not a city, its BONES; evidence! We have the houses of Jesus friends, two possible graves he was buried in, actual stone fragments from the very spot he stood on before Pilate. We got the actual gate they marched Christ through on his way to be crucified, and the actual spot they crucified him on. It is a big deal, and I got a list far longer than this.
But see too many scientist think like you, and take a blind eye, no big deal attitude to real history. I am not trying to prove God in this thread, I am going after religion; I really don't want to take the time to deal with any chip on anyone's shoulder about the reality of God and Jesus.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
It means you have bones. What evidence is there as to who the bones are of?. Even with modern forensic science when bodily remains are discovered in suspicious circunstances it is often impossible to identify them.
This is not denial of evidence. It is non-acceptance of the foundless claims of the interpretastion of the evidence. Are there dental records to go with these bones? Are there DNA samples of close relatives? I doubt it. As for the High Priest, quite possible, as there may be docmentation as to the location of the burial to suuport the claim. However, the Bible cannot be used as documentation in this sense as it has far less than a credible track record on other matters.
Greek mythology makes claims of the Gods congressing in the Acropolis. By your logic, because we have Archeological Evidence of the existence of the Acropolis that is Archeological Evidence of the existence of the Greek Gods. It is nothing of the sort. It means the buildings existed. That much was never in question.
The nature of Science is to take physical facts & to put them together like a Jigsaw so as to learn the original picture. Religion thinks of a picture first & then selects various pieces & models them to fit their planned picture so as to create a mosaic of whatever picture they choose.
This is not denial of evidence. It is non-acceptance of the foundless claims of the interpretastion of the evidence. Are there dental records to go with these bones? Are there DNA samples of close relatives? I doubt it. As for the High Priest, quite possible, as there may be docmentation as to the location of the burial to suuport the claim. However, the Bible cannot be used as documentation in this sense as it has far less than a credible track record on other matters.
Greek mythology makes claims of the Gods congressing in the Acropolis. By your logic, because we have Archeological Evidence of the existence of the Acropolis that is Archeological Evidence of the existence of the Greek Gods. It is nothing of the sort. It means the buildings existed. That much was never in question.
The nature of Science is to take physical facts & to put them together like a Jigsaw so as to learn the original picture. Religion thinks of a picture first & then selects various pieces & models them to fit their planned picture so as to create a mosaic of whatever picture they choose.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1475546 wrote: It means you have bones. What evidence is there as to who the bones are of?. Even with modern forensic science when bodily remains are discovered in suspicious circunstances it is often impossible to identify them.
This is not denial of evidence. It is non-acceptance of the foundless claims of the interpretastion of the evidence. Are there dental records to go with these bones? Are there DNA samples of close relatives? I doubt it. As for the High Priest, quite possible, as there may be docmentation as to the location of the burial to suuport the claim. However, the Bible cannot be used as documentation in this sense as it has far less than a credible track record on other matters.
Greek mythology makes claims of the Gods congressing in the Acropolis. By your logic, because we have Archeological Evidence of the existence of the Acropolis that is Archeological Evidence of the existence of the Greek Gods. It is nothing of the sort. It means the buildings existed. That much was never in question.
The nature of Science is to take physical facts & to put them together like a Jigsaw so as to learn the original picture. Religion thinks of a picture first & then selects various pieces & models them to fit their planned picture so as to create a mosaic of whatever picture they choose.
Well I have a thread in the archives on biblical archaeology, resurrect it and we can discuss this there, if you like; but I want to focus on religion in this thread, if you don't mind.
This is not denial of evidence. It is non-acceptance of the foundless claims of the interpretastion of the evidence. Are there dental records to go with these bones? Are there DNA samples of close relatives? I doubt it. As for the High Priest, quite possible, as there may be docmentation as to the location of the burial to suuport the claim. However, the Bible cannot be used as documentation in this sense as it has far less than a credible track record on other matters.
Greek mythology makes claims of the Gods congressing in the Acropolis. By your logic, because we have Archeological Evidence of the existence of the Acropolis that is Archeological Evidence of the existence of the Greek Gods. It is nothing of the sort. It means the buildings existed. That much was never in question.
The nature of Science is to take physical facts & to put them together like a Jigsaw so as to learn the original picture. Religion thinks of a picture first & then selects various pieces & models them to fit their planned picture so as to create a mosaic of whatever picture they choose.
Well I have a thread in the archives on biblical archaeology, resurrect it and we can discuss this there, if you like; but I want to focus on religion in this thread, if you don't mind.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
What were some of the historical major influences on religion that really changed it in manners that it has never reversed from?
I think these are certainly some;
The Protestant order of worship; where the Pastor rules like a king.
The Roman Catholic mass; still to this day, the most influential religious service in the world.
Gregory the Great; the first monk to be made Pope, but was highly influenced by superstitious men, influenced by magical paganistic concepts.
Martin Luther , who railed against the Roman Catholic leadership and set his own revisions on religion.
The Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli, who made some incredible reforms of his own.
The Puritans, they embraced a rigorous Biblicism that many still adhere to today.
The Methodist, D.L. Moody, Billy Graham, and the Pentecostal contribution; all these shaped religion and highly influenced it. You can include Islam, Atheism, and the Media, and the picture of religion , we see now, was drawn by many different brushes.
I think these are certainly some;
The Protestant order of worship; where the Pastor rules like a king.
The Roman Catholic mass; still to this day, the most influential religious service in the world.
Gregory the Great; the first monk to be made Pope, but was highly influenced by superstitious men, influenced by magical paganistic concepts.
Martin Luther , who railed against the Roman Catholic leadership and set his own revisions on religion.
The Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli, who made some incredible reforms of his own.
The Puritans, they embraced a rigorous Biblicism that many still adhere to today.
The Methodist, D.L. Moody, Billy Graham, and the Pentecostal contribution; all these shaped religion and highly influenced it. You can include Islam, Atheism, and the Media, and the picture of religion , we see now, was drawn by many different brushes.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
The history of religion has not been general, it has been extraordinary and redefining. Its been peaceful, its been violent; its been intelligent and its been ignorant. Its been sane and insane;
things like this cannot be approached in a general sweep.
things like this cannot be approached in a general sweep.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
It is always interesting how few of these discussions ever seem to touch upon Buddhism, probably the third largest religion in the world.
To study the evolution of Buddhism can be rather enlightening.
To study the evolution of Buddhism can be rather enlightening.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
When religious discussion is no longer General.
LarsMac;1476317 wrote: It is always interesting how few of these discussions ever seem to touch upon Buddhism, probably the third largest religion in the world.
To study the evolution of Buddhism can be rather enlightening.
Well yes, that's true; me myself, I know nothing about it. But there are thousands of religions I know nothing about. And Buddhism may be one of those religions that have steered clear of interfering with the world as much as others have.
To study the evolution of Buddhism can be rather enlightening.
Well yes, that's true; me myself, I know nothing about it. But there are thousands of religions I know nothing about. And Buddhism may be one of those religions that have steered clear of interfering with the world as much as others have.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
When religious discussion is no longer General.
I tend to see Buddhism as a philosophy, although I'm aware ritualistically it can be called a religion.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
AnneBoleyn;1476327 wrote: I tend to see Buddhism as a philosophy, although I'm aware ritualistically it can be called a religion.
Most Buddhist I have ever met call it their religion.
I suppose an exploration into the distinction between "Religion" and "Philosophy" might be interesting.
Most Buddhist I have ever met call it their religion.
I suppose an exploration into the distinction between "Religion" and "Philosophy" might be interesting.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
When religious discussion is no longer General.
LarsMac;1476329 wrote: Most Buddhist I have ever met call it their religion.
I suppose an exploration into the distinction between "Religion" and "Philosophy" might be interesting.
It's hard for me to adhere to a religion, & it was introduced to me, 45 years ago, as a philosophic view of "handling" life, so it is hard for me to switch over. Whatever floats my boat I guess.
I suppose an exploration into the distinction between "Religion" and "Philosophy" might be interesting.
It's hard for me to adhere to a religion, & it was introduced to me, 45 years ago, as a philosophic view of "handling" life, so it is hard for me to switch over. Whatever floats my boat I guess.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
I left religion some 15 years ago, and have not went back. The more I distance myself from it, the more I see the bondage of it. But I will never distance myself from the experience of being in it; or understanding it; seeing it for what it really is. Religion is a prisoner falling in love with its captor, that has to be understood, IF you would want to understand the allure of religion. A relationship has been formed.
A Romance, if you will.
I understand romance, because I have always been interested in it and attracted to it. Have had many personal experiences with it. Romance is a very real way of thinking; its a concept; its a happening; its a joy and a pain and a heartbreak!
Religion can be exactly like that. The very same dynamic ; along these very lines!
THAT'S one reason WHY its so alluring! And another reason why it can be so hated.
The horrible things romance has done to people; the wonderful things it has done to people
The horrible things religion has done to people; the wonderful things it has done to people
Its like the same coin with different sides; completely different faces, but yet a part of the same body.
A Romance, if you will.
I understand romance, because I have always been interested in it and attracted to it. Have had many personal experiences with it. Romance is a very real way of thinking; its a concept; its a happening; its a joy and a pain and a heartbreak!
Religion can be exactly like that. The very same dynamic ; along these very lines!
THAT'S one reason WHY its so alluring! And another reason why it can be so hated.
The horrible things romance has done to people; the wonderful things it has done to people
The horrible things religion has done to people; the wonderful things it has done to people
Its like the same coin with different sides; completely different faces, but yet a part of the same body.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
I think most religions are rooted in the ancient hero stories people used to tell. The stories began as tribes attempted to distinguish themselves from other tribes, and the stories became lessons for life, told by the elders to teach the young what it meant to be "Us".
They began to build Hero-Worship to revere the long ago exploits of the ancestors, and probably the tribal knowledge supported the instinct for tribal bonding and defining the "Us and Them" of life.
And as society evolved, the defining behavior evolved as well.
As we continue to evolve, many adhere to some religion or another to help maintain their identity. Nationality and Religion tend to be the primal identifiers of the recent century. We now see the evolution to such things as political party and regional/State/City and even regional Sports franchises, or Colleges.
Eventually, we will outgrow this need to have an external identity. At least I hope we do.
They began to build Hero-Worship to revere the long ago exploits of the ancestors, and probably the tribal knowledge supported the instinct for tribal bonding and defining the "Us and Them" of life.
And as society evolved, the defining behavior evolved as well.
As we continue to evolve, many adhere to some religion or another to help maintain their identity. Nationality and Religion tend to be the primal identifiers of the recent century. We now see the evolution to such things as political party and regional/State/City and even regional Sports franchises, or Colleges.
Eventually, we will outgrow this need to have an external identity. At least I hope we do.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
When religious discussion is no longer General.
LarsMac;1476348 wrote: I think most religions are rooted in the ancient hero stories people used to tell. The stories began as tribes attempted to distinguish themselves from other tribes, and the stories became lessons for life, told by the elders to teach the young what it meant to be "Us".
They began to build Hero-Worship to revere the long ago exploits of the ancestors, and probably the tribal knowledge supported the instinct for tribal bonding and defining the "Us and Them" of life.
And as society evolved, the defining behavior evolved as well.
As we continue to evolve, many adhere to some religion or another to help maintain their identity. Nationality and Religion tend to be the primal identifiers of the recent century. We now see the evolution to such things as political party and regional/State/City and even regional Sports franchises, or Colleges.
Eventually, we will outgrow this need to have an external identity. At least I hope we do.
I think some religions, not most, are rooted in hero stories people told; and I hope we never outgrow our need to identify.
They began to build Hero-Worship to revere the long ago exploits of the ancestors, and probably the tribal knowledge supported the instinct for tribal bonding and defining the "Us and Them" of life.
And as society evolved, the defining behavior evolved as well.
As we continue to evolve, many adhere to some religion or another to help maintain their identity. Nationality and Religion tend to be the primal identifiers of the recent century. We now see the evolution to such things as political party and regional/State/City and even regional Sports franchises, or Colleges.
Eventually, we will outgrow this need to have an external identity. At least I hope we do.
I think some religions, not most, are rooted in hero stories people told; and I hope we never outgrow our need to identify.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Romance has a natural purpose - Procreation.
Religion is invented by Man as a conduit for Power & Control.
Religion is invented by Man as a conduit for Power & Control.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1476353 wrote: Romance has a natural purpose - Procreation.
Religion is invented by Man as a conduit for Power & Control.
Is romance limited to procreation?
Is Atheism an invention by man?
Religion is invented by Man as a conduit for Power & Control.
Is romance limited to procreation?
Is Atheism an invention by man?
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1476354 wrote: Is romance limited to procreation?
The instinctive one is
Is Atheism an invention by man?
Technically, yes, because there is a big difference between not believing in a man-made concept of a God, and the natural state of not even knowing anything about the supposed existence of a God figure.
The instinctive one is
Is Atheism an invention by man?
Technically, yes, because there is a big difference between not believing in a man-made concept of a God, and the natural state of not even knowing anything about the supposed existence of a God figure.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1476357 wrote: The instinctive one is
Technically, yes, because there is a big difference between not believing in a man-made concept of a God, and the natural state of not even knowing anything about the supposed existence of a God figure.
Well good answers; because for every Atheist who claims religion is invented by man, the other side of that coin is that man invented Atheism as well.
And not all romance is for procreation.
Technically, yes, because there is a big difference between not believing in a man-made concept of a God, and the natural state of not even knowing anything about the supposed existence of a God figure.
Well good answers; because for every Atheist who claims religion is invented by man, the other side of that coin is that man invented Atheism as well.
And not all romance is for procreation.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1476350 wrote: I think some religions, not most, are rooted in hero stories people told; and I hope we never outgrow our need to identify.
It is the the externalization of the identity that I think is the problem.
I must be a Bronco Fan, and a Coloradoan, and an American, and a Republican, and a son of Donald, and a Cajun, and a Scot, and a Veteran, and a Photographer, and an engineer, and a Christian, and a Buddhist, etc..
That sort of stuff, where we have externalized our self, and when someone asks, "Who are you" you must use one or more of those identities to describe yourself to them. Or you wear the badges of your chosen identities, for all to see, so those of like mind can instantly recognize you as a "One of Us."
As Baba Ram Dass said, once:
“In most of our human relationships, we spend much of our time reassuring one another that our costumes of identity are on straight.â€
It is the the externalization of the identity that I think is the problem.
I must be a Bronco Fan, and a Coloradoan, and an American, and a Republican, and a son of Donald, and a Cajun, and a Scot, and a Veteran, and a Photographer, and an engineer, and a Christian, and a Buddhist, etc..
That sort of stuff, where we have externalized our self, and when someone asks, "Who are you" you must use one or more of those identities to describe yourself to them. Or you wear the badges of your chosen identities, for all to see, so those of like mind can instantly recognize you as a "One of Us."
As Baba Ram Dass said, once:
“In most of our human relationships, we spend much of our time reassuring one another that our costumes of identity are on straight.â€
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
When religious discussion is no longer General.
In history, when religion and Philosophy met, within a century and a half after they came into closest contact , Religion had absorbed the ideas and methods of Philosophy so much, that religion became a philosophy itself.
When Philosophy got into the bloodstream of religion, it has never recovered from it. This changed religion and put it on an historical path that it will never alter from. So much of this influence has formed and shaped religion; all religions.
When Philosophy got into the bloodstream of religion, it has never recovered from it. This changed religion and put it on an historical path that it will never alter from. So much of this influence has formed and shaped religion; all religions.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
LarsMac;1476383 wrote: It is the the externalization of the identity that I think is the problem.
I must be a Bronco Fan, and a Coloradoan, and an American, and a Republican, and a son of Donald, and a Cajun, and a Scot, and a Veteran, and a Photographer, and an engineer, and a Christian, and a Buddhist, etc..
That sort of stuff, where we have externalized our self, and when someone asks, "Who are you" you must use one or more of those identities to describe yourself to them. Or you wear the badges of your chosen identities, for all to see, so those of like mind can instantly recognize you as a "One of Us."
As Baba Ram Dass said, once:
“In most of our human relationships, we spend much of our time reassuring one another that our costumes of identity are on straight.â€
Well I can relate to that; I understand that. I agree with it. I think Identity is very important, and the ability to identify our history, ourselves, origins, ect.. We don't need plastic popular badges in order to identify ourselves, but I think a Cajun should know their history, their origins, their realities in society; an American should know the true history of America, not the surface history or the dominant expression of one of America's races opinions of history; and I think a Vet should identify with the country they defend, but should see the whole picture of other countries that their country goes to war with. Know the identity of your enemy.
I must be a Bronco Fan, and a Coloradoan, and an American, and a Republican, and a son of Donald, and a Cajun, and a Scot, and a Veteran, and a Photographer, and an engineer, and a Christian, and a Buddhist, etc..
That sort of stuff, where we have externalized our self, and when someone asks, "Who are you" you must use one or more of those identities to describe yourself to them. Or you wear the badges of your chosen identities, for all to see, so those of like mind can instantly recognize you as a "One of Us."
As Baba Ram Dass said, once:
“In most of our human relationships, we spend much of our time reassuring one another that our costumes of identity are on straight.â€
Well I can relate to that; I understand that. I agree with it. I think Identity is very important, and the ability to identify our history, ourselves, origins, ect.. We don't need plastic popular badges in order to identify ourselves, but I think a Cajun should know their history, their origins, their realities in society; an American should know the true history of America, not the surface history or the dominant expression of one of America's races opinions of history; and I think a Vet should identify with the country they defend, but should see the whole picture of other countries that their country goes to war with. Know the identity of your enemy.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Religion became a fabric of human life, and you cannot remove fabrics of human society, you can only try to control them. Or leave them alone. Or understand them.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
What is religion really?
I mean text books and dictionary's aside , just what is this thing?
Religion is a result, not " The" result, but " A" result of humans trying to go outside of themselves , to explain what self is, and if human self is alone in the universe. Its humans " reaching out", expanding and extending their consciousness into unknown areas that they either think may be there, hope is there, or have convinced themselves that they are there. And them speculating that something far superior to them exist in that unknown space of speculated reality.
Atheism is an approach that feels this approach is a waste of time; that its nothing there.
Theism cannot accept that all this originated from that nothing that's there.
Religion is also faith in the hope that somethingelse is there.
Science is a factual examination of what is there.
Religion has survived the test of time, and the test's of science.
Religion is here to stay. Because human imagination has close ties to human hope.
I mean text books and dictionary's aside , just what is this thing?
Religion is a result, not " The" result, but " A" result of humans trying to go outside of themselves , to explain what self is, and if human self is alone in the universe. Its humans " reaching out", expanding and extending their consciousness into unknown areas that they either think may be there, hope is there, or have convinced themselves that they are there. And them speculating that something far superior to them exist in that unknown space of speculated reality.
Atheism is an approach that feels this approach is a waste of time; that its nothing there.
Theism cannot accept that all this originated from that nothing that's there.
Religion is also faith in the hope that somethingelse is there.
Science is a factual examination of what is there.
Religion has survived the test of time, and the test's of science.
Religion is here to stay. Because human imagination has close ties to human hope.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1476497 wrote: Religion has survived the test of time, and the test's of science.
As have relics & mascots, such as Lucky Rabbit's Feet. But that's just superstition. A belief in heathen god figures - a sin under Catholic Dogma.
There is no difference between superstition & religion. They are just different words for the same thing.
As have relics & mascots, such as Lucky Rabbit's Feet. But that's just superstition. A belief in heathen god figures - a sin under Catholic Dogma.
There is no difference between superstition & religion. They are just different words for the same thing.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Leave my rabbit's foot outa this.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1476502 wrote: As have relics & mascots, such as Lucky Rabbit's Feet. But that's just superstition. A belief in heathen god figures - a sin under Catholic Dogma.
There is no difference between superstition & religion. They are just different words for the same thing.
Atheism would not exist without superstition and religion; which means you're frustration toward them would not exist, you're irritation with them would not exist, you're argument against them would not exist; much of what you think about and how you think about it would not exist;
goodness, now I am wondering what you would be like if religion did not exist?
There is no difference between superstition & religion. They are just different words for the same thing.
Atheism would not exist without superstition and religion; which means you're frustration toward them would not exist, you're irritation with them would not exist, you're argument against them would not exist; much of what you think about and how you think about it would not exist;
goodness, now I am wondering what you would be like if religion did not exist?
When religious discussion is no longer General.
We used to think the oldest known religion was around 40,000 years ago, now they think it's more like 70,000 years ago;
afrol News - World's oldest religion discovered in Botswana
You can't remove something from society that has been in it for 70,000 years. For 70,000 years religion has grown in the consciousness of man. 10,000 years of Atheist teachings is not going to remove that. 7 or 8 Atheist governments on the earth is not going to put a dent in that.
You can't think in terms of " Removing" something like this.
Wrong approach altogether.
You can't bargain with it, you can't change it, you cannot dismiss it, you cannot control it;
so what do we do with religion, especially since it has evolved to the point of being more and more deceptive?
afrol News - World's oldest religion discovered in Botswana
You can't remove something from society that has been in it for 70,000 years. For 70,000 years religion has grown in the consciousness of man. 10,000 years of Atheist teachings is not going to remove that. 7 or 8 Atheist governments on the earth is not going to put a dent in that.
You can't think in terms of " Removing" something like this.
Wrong approach altogether.
You can't bargain with it, you can't change it, you cannot dismiss it, you cannot control it;
so what do we do with religion, especially since it has evolved to the point of being more and more deceptive?
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1476505 wrote: Atheism would not exist without superstition and religion; which means you're frustration toward them would not exist, you're irritation with them would not exist, you're argument against them would not exist; much of what you think about and how you think about it would not exist;
goodness, now I am wondering what you would be like if religion did not exist?
That's a ridiculous argument. It's like saying their would be no disbelief in Green Elephants if there weren't those that believed in them. Atheism is the state of seeing reality for what it is despite the claims of the Theist fantasies. Of course if there were no Theists there would be no Atheists - the two cancel each other out. The difference is that those who would be Atheists would continue to see reality.
goodness, now I am wondering what you would be like if religion did not exist?
That's a ridiculous argument. It's like saying their would be no disbelief in Green Elephants if there weren't those that believed in them. Atheism is the state of seeing reality for what it is despite the claims of the Theist fantasies. Of course if there were no Theists there would be no Atheists - the two cancel each other out. The difference is that those who would be Atheists would continue to see reality.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1476532 wrote: That's a ridiculous argument. It's like saying their would be no disbelief in Green Elephants if there weren't those that believed in them. Atheism is the state of seeing reality for what it is despite the claims of the Theist fantasies. Of course if there were no Theists there would be no Atheists - the two cancel each other out. The difference is that those who would be Atheists would continue to see reality.
I am curious, you seem to suggest that Theism and Atheism cancel each other out. I understand how there could be no Atheism without there being Theism First!
But explain to me how there could be no Theism, without Atheism? Because I would disagree with that. Atheism was created by Theism, it is impossible to twist that around and suggest that Theism could not exist without Atheism.
Explain please.
I am curious, you seem to suggest that Theism and Atheism cancel each other out. I understand how there could be no Atheism without there being Theism First!
But explain to me how there could be no Theism, without Atheism? Because I would disagree with that. Atheism was created by Theism, it is impossible to twist that around and suggest that Theism could not exist without Atheism.
Explain please.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1476532 wrote: That's a ridiculous argument. It's like saying their would be no disbelief in Green Elephants if there weren't those that believed in them. Atheism is the state of seeing reality for what it is despite the claims of the Theist fantasies. Of course if there were no Theists there would be no Atheists - the two cancel each other out. The difference is that those who would be Atheists would continue to see reality.
Actually, that is true, If no one had ever brought up Green Elephants, no one would have ever decided that there were none to be seen.
Atheism is not so pure as you might suggest. The very work would not exist without Theism.
And just because you are Atheist, does not mean you are without delusion.
Actually, that is true, If no one had ever brought up Green Elephants, no one would have ever decided that there were none to be seen.
Atheism is not so pure as you might suggest. The very work would not exist without Theism.
And just because you are Atheist, does not mean you are without delusion.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1476538 wrote:
But explain to me how there could be no Theism, without Atheism? Because I would disagree with that. Atheism was created by Theism, it is impossible to twist that around and suggest that Theism could not exist without Atheism.
I never said that Theism couldn't exist without Atheism. Quite the opposite. By definition Atheism could not exist without Theism, as it simply means Anti-Theism. However, the Theist lives by fantasy. The Atheist lives by reality. Without the fantasies of Theism those that would otherwise be Atheists (although, as already stated, could no exist by the definition, as the Yin could not exist for the Yang), but the concept of reality would still remain & see things for what they really are. In this sense, the real term for an Atheist is a Realist. Reality continues to exist regardless of the created fantasies of Religion. Atheism is reliant on Reality. Theism is reliant only on itself & the fantasies it creates for itself. They do not change Reality, nor do they have anything to do with Reality. It is the denial of Reality. Atheism searches for the answers. Theism makes them up.
But explain to me how there could be no Theism, without Atheism? Because I would disagree with that. Atheism was created by Theism, it is impossible to twist that around and suggest that Theism could not exist without Atheism.
I never said that Theism couldn't exist without Atheism. Quite the opposite. By definition Atheism could not exist without Theism, as it simply means Anti-Theism. However, the Theist lives by fantasy. The Atheist lives by reality. Without the fantasies of Theism those that would otherwise be Atheists (although, as already stated, could no exist by the definition, as the Yin could not exist for the Yang), but the concept of reality would still remain & see things for what they really are. In this sense, the real term for an Atheist is a Realist. Reality continues to exist regardless of the created fantasies of Religion. Atheism is reliant on Reality. Theism is reliant only on itself & the fantasies it creates for itself. They do not change Reality, nor do they have anything to do with Reality. It is the denial of Reality. Atheism searches for the answers. Theism makes them up.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1476550 wrote: I never said that Theism couldn't exist without Atheism. Quite the opposite. By definition Atheism could not exist without Theism, as it simply means Anti-Theism. However, the Theist lives by fantasy. The Atheist lives by reality. Without the fantasies of Theism those that would otherwise be Atheists (although, as already stated, could no exist by the definition, as the Yin could not exist for the Yang), but the concept of reality would still remain & see things for what they really are. In this sense, the real term for an Atheist is a Realist. Reality continues to exist regardless of the created fantasies of Religion. Atheism is reliant on Reality. Theism is reliant only on itself & the fantasies it creates for itself. They do not change Reality, nor do they have anything to do with Reality. It is the denial of Reality. Atheism searches for the answers. Theism makes them up.
Again I am curious, so you are suggesting that Atheist have no fantasy's , no dreams, they have no imagination's that goes beyond reality? So Atheist don't like movies, right? Because movies are fantasy. So an Atheist only hopes for things they can have, right? So Atheist read only non fiction, right? Atheist don't go to plays or theater, is that right? I mean because they don't have anything to do with reality; right?
Its not fair for me to sweep Atheism with that kind of broad brush, but its what you are doing to religion, as if religion contains no reality at all, which is simply wrong. Loving your neighbor is a reality, a very real principle in religion, as is feeding the poor, taking care of the widows, treating others like you want to be treated, all these and more are religious principles that your broadband mind wants to sweep into your fantasy view of religion. And that is so wrong, but your head so convinced its right, you miss it. Because you are mixing the things you are right in about religion, with the things you are wrong about religion, because you're righteousness is covering up those things that are real in religion.
I can see the utter foolishness in religion, while still seeing the reality in it. Religion is one of the most real unifying forces that exist in humanity; in fact I see nothing as powerful as religion when it comes to gathering humans together in a cause; and if you call that fact a fantasy, then YOU live in a fantasy world. Just as blinded by your Atheism, as many theist are blinded by their Theism; no difference!
Something is going on in humanity that even surpasses religion, religion is just one of the major pieces being moved by a power that can sweep the minds of men; in and outside of religion.
And I am going to get into that.
Again I am curious, so you are suggesting that Atheist have no fantasy's , no dreams, they have no imagination's that goes beyond reality? So Atheist don't like movies, right? Because movies are fantasy. So an Atheist only hopes for things they can have, right? So Atheist read only non fiction, right? Atheist don't go to plays or theater, is that right? I mean because they don't have anything to do with reality; right?
Its not fair for me to sweep Atheism with that kind of broad brush, but its what you are doing to religion, as if religion contains no reality at all, which is simply wrong. Loving your neighbor is a reality, a very real principle in religion, as is feeding the poor, taking care of the widows, treating others like you want to be treated, all these and more are religious principles that your broadband mind wants to sweep into your fantasy view of religion. And that is so wrong, but your head so convinced its right, you miss it. Because you are mixing the things you are right in about religion, with the things you are wrong about religion, because you're righteousness is covering up those things that are real in religion.
I can see the utter foolishness in religion, while still seeing the reality in it. Religion is one of the most real unifying forces that exist in humanity; in fact I see nothing as powerful as religion when it comes to gathering humans together in a cause; and if you call that fact a fantasy, then YOU live in a fantasy world. Just as blinded by your Atheism, as many theist are blinded by their Theism; no difference!
Something is going on in humanity that even surpasses religion, religion is just one of the major pieces being moved by a power that can sweep the minds of men; in and outside of religion.
And I am going to get into that.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1476552 wrote: Again I am curious, so you are suggesting that Atheist have no fantasy's , no dreams, they have no imagination's that goes beyond reality? So Atheist don't like movies, right? Because movies are fantasy. So an Atheist only hopes for things they can have, right? So Atheist read only non fiction, right? Atheist don't go to plays or theater, is that right? I mean because they don't have anything to do with reality; right?Context matters, Mickiel, he's saying that atheists have no illusions concerning God and religion.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Ahso!;1476553 wrote: Context matters, Mickiel, he's saying that atheists have no illusions concerning God and religion.
I know what he is saying, he also says Theism has nothing to do with reality, which is over the line hard core broadband condemnation; throwing out the dishes with the dish water; instead of separating one way of a group from another, you paint the whole group as useless. And that is the same kind of foolishness that many Theist try to do toward Atheist; same kind of blindness, exact spirit of prejudice.
Just because Atheist have no religious illusions, does not mean they have no illusions; and just because religion has illusions and dilusions, does not mean it has no substance.
I know what he is saying, he also says Theism has nothing to do with reality, which is over the line hard core broadband condemnation; throwing out the dishes with the dish water; instead of separating one way of a group from another, you paint the whole group as useless. And that is the same kind of foolishness that many Theist try to do toward Atheist; same kind of blindness, exact spirit of prejudice.
Just because Atheist have no religious illusions, does not mean they have no illusions; and just because religion has illusions and dilusions, does not mean it has no substance.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Atheists may have their fantasies, but they accept that they are only fantasies. Theists adopt their fantasies as fact.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1476582 wrote: Atheists may have their fantasies, but they accept that they are only fantasies. Theists adopt their fantasies as fact.
No its not " May" have, Atheist do have fantasies; because its human to have them. But you are treating Theist as if they are not human; as if they cannot tell the difference between what is real and what is not, because of their religious beliefs, as if they have no humanity outside of religion.
I am trying to go into religion and get beyond the general views of it; your Atheistic views of it are general, and never will be anything less. I don't want to ignore you, but I don't really want to waste the little time I am taking, dealing with Atheist cynicism; that is a wall I cannot penertrate .
I understand you're need to belittle Theist at every turn, I have seen that thinking before; is there anything I can do, to help you, help me continue on topic?
No its not " May" have, Atheist do have fantasies; because its human to have them. But you are treating Theist as if they are not human; as if they cannot tell the difference between what is real and what is not, because of their religious beliefs, as if they have no humanity outside of religion.
I am trying to go into religion and get beyond the general views of it; your Atheistic views of it are general, and never will be anything less. I don't want to ignore you, but I don't really want to waste the little time I am taking, dealing with Atheist cynicism; that is a wall I cannot penertrate .
I understand you're need to belittle Theist at every turn, I have seen that thinking before; is there anything I can do, to help you, help me continue on topic?
When religious discussion is no longer General.
You ever seen a film of a tidal wave? It starts out small and grows as it gains momentum ; and eventually it just engulfs everything in its path.
One could say that about religion historically.
It grabs everything as it sweeps forward, and when its done, the whole landscape is changed.
And in the comparison with religion and humanity, the whole consciousness is changed.
One could say that about religion historically.
It grabs everything as it sweeps forward, and when its done, the whole landscape is changed.
And in the comparison with religion and humanity, the whole consciousness is changed.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1476594 wrote: I understand you're need to belittle Theist at every turn, I have seen that thinking before; is there anything I can do, to help you, help me continue on topic?
It seems very much on topic to me.
It seems very much on topic to me.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1476745 wrote: It seems very much on topic to me.
Or could we say, " On Target for you."
Well we can swing it, if it gets you're goat; I can hit on religion from a historical point of view;
while you just hit on it for the sake of it.
Or could we say, " On Target for you."
Well we can swing it, if it gets you're goat; I can hit on religion from a historical point of view;
while you just hit on it for the sake of it.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1476813 wrote: Or could we say, " On Target for you."
Well we can swing it, if it gets you're goat; I can hit on religion from a historical point of view;
while you just hit on it for the sake of it.
First of all, I said on TOPIC, not on TARGET.
Secondly, may I remind you that the topic is "When religious discussion is no longer ' General.'" This is a General Discussion regarding Religion. Your approach is totally Pro Religion. Mine is totally Anti-Religion. This, I believe is the basis for discussion. To have both sides taking the Pro-Religion side (or Anti-Religion side, for that matter) is not a discussion, it's self effacing.
Well we can swing it, if it gets you're goat; I can hit on religion from a historical point of view;
while you just hit on it for the sake of it.
First of all, I said on TOPIC, not on TARGET.
Secondly, may I remind you that the topic is "When religious discussion is no longer ' General.'" This is a General Discussion regarding Religion. Your approach is totally Pro Religion. Mine is totally Anti-Religion. This, I believe is the basis for discussion. To have both sides taking the Pro-Religion side (or Anti-Religion side, for that matter) is not a discussion, it's self effacing.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1476819 wrote: First of all, I said on TOPIC, not on TARGET.
Secondly, may I remind you that the topic is "When religious discussion is no longer ' General.'" This is a General Discussion regarding Religion. Your approach is totally Pro Religion. Mine is totally Anti-Religion. This, I believe is the basis for discussion. To have both sides taking the Pro-Religion side (or Anti-Religion side, for that matter) is not a discussion, it's self effacing.
I know what you said; like I said, you view religion as a target; because you need to shoot it. To dismantle it; to try and make is smaller than it is; you're target is much larger than your Atheism; Theism is larger than Atheism. Atheism is a child of Theism; it was given birth by it.
I am not pro religion, I am more against religion than you are; but my anti religion is not blinded by rage and narrow views of reality; I see things as they are, and research why they are. If a pretty woman does not want me, do I then try and degrade how she looks, just because she does not desire me? Or do I stick to the facts? You degrade religion because of the facts, and the rage. I got rid of the rage, and can see religion for what it really has been and is.
And it looks real good to the bulk of humanity; fact!
It has led humanity for many, many years; fact!
It has endured the test of time; fact!
It carries more weight than Atheism; fact!
Its a human icon; fact!
General prejudice toward these kinds of facts is old school.
Secondly, may I remind you that the topic is "When religious discussion is no longer ' General.'" This is a General Discussion regarding Religion. Your approach is totally Pro Religion. Mine is totally Anti-Religion. This, I believe is the basis for discussion. To have both sides taking the Pro-Religion side (or Anti-Religion side, for that matter) is not a discussion, it's self effacing.
I know what you said; like I said, you view religion as a target; because you need to shoot it. To dismantle it; to try and make is smaller than it is; you're target is much larger than your Atheism; Theism is larger than Atheism. Atheism is a child of Theism; it was given birth by it.
I am not pro religion, I am more against religion than you are; but my anti religion is not blinded by rage and narrow views of reality; I see things as they are, and research why they are. If a pretty woman does not want me, do I then try and degrade how she looks, just because she does not desire me? Or do I stick to the facts? You degrade religion because of the facts, and the rage. I got rid of the rage, and can see religion for what it really has been and is.
And it looks real good to the bulk of humanity; fact!
It has led humanity for many, many years; fact!
It has endured the test of time; fact!
It carries more weight than Atheism; fact!
Its a human icon; fact!
General prejudice toward these kinds of facts is old school.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Mickiel;1476919 wrote: I know what you said; like I said, you view religion as a target; because you need to shoot it. To dismantle it; to try and make is smaller than it is; you're target is much larger than your Atheism; Theism is larger than Atheism. Atheism is a child of Theism; it was given birth by it.
I am not pro religion, I am more against religion than you are; but my anti religion is not blinded by rage and narrow views of reality; I see things as they are, and research why they are. If a pretty woman does not want me, do I then try and degrade how she looks, just because she does not desire me? Or do I stick to the facts? You degrade religion because of the facts, and the rage. I got rid of the rage, and can see religion for what it really has been and is.
And it looks real good to the bulk of humanity; fact!
It has led humanity for many, many years; fact!
It has endured the test of time; fact!
It carries more weight than Atheism; fact!
Its a human icon; fact!
General prejudice toward these kinds of facts is old school.
Points 1 & 2. Change humanity to INhumanity & I would agree.
Point 3. Ignorance has kept it going, and it's dogma against learning. It is now rapidly losing its hold. Each & every church used to be packed on Sundays, with barely anyone to be seen on the streets. These days a lot of people in the neighbourhood wouldn't even know the name of their local church, its denomination, or even where it was.
Point 4. Utter rubbish. At best it is considered as equal. Most cilvilised Governments have separated Religion from Reality, whereas they ull used to be ruled by the Church. If it carried more weight, then everyone would still be compelled by law to follows the Religious brainwashing & the teaching of science in schools would be illegal. There are still some crazies trying to ban the teaching of Darwinism.
Point 5. As all the previous erroneous points have shown, that is certainly NOT a fact.
It is obviously true that Atheism, as a word, came about from Theism. In the same way as as the concept of Conservationism came about from Urban Development & Pollution destroying everything. Before Urban Development things were as they were, and all was well with the world. Before Religion began to destroy everything all was well with the world & there was no need for a concept of Atheism as there wasn't anything to not believe in. You cannot be opposed to an idea before the idea even exists, so using that as a defence is clutching at straws.
I am not pro religion, I am more against religion than you are; but my anti religion is not blinded by rage and narrow views of reality; I see things as they are, and research why they are. If a pretty woman does not want me, do I then try and degrade how she looks, just because she does not desire me? Or do I stick to the facts? You degrade religion because of the facts, and the rage. I got rid of the rage, and can see religion for what it really has been and is.
And it looks real good to the bulk of humanity; fact!
It has led humanity for many, many years; fact!
It has endured the test of time; fact!
It carries more weight than Atheism; fact!
Its a human icon; fact!
General prejudice toward these kinds of facts is old school.
Points 1 & 2. Change humanity to INhumanity & I would agree.
Point 3. Ignorance has kept it going, and it's dogma against learning. It is now rapidly losing its hold. Each & every church used to be packed on Sundays, with barely anyone to be seen on the streets. These days a lot of people in the neighbourhood wouldn't even know the name of their local church, its denomination, or even where it was.
Point 4. Utter rubbish. At best it is considered as equal. Most cilvilised Governments have separated Religion from Reality, whereas they ull used to be ruled by the Church. If it carried more weight, then everyone would still be compelled by law to follows the Religious brainwashing & the teaching of science in schools would be illegal. There are still some crazies trying to ban the teaching of Darwinism.
Point 5. As all the previous erroneous points have shown, that is certainly NOT a fact.
It is obviously true that Atheism, as a word, came about from Theism. In the same way as as the concept of Conservationism came about from Urban Development & Pollution destroying everything. Before Urban Development things were as they were, and all was well with the world. Before Religion began to destroy everything all was well with the world & there was no need for a concept of Atheism as there wasn't anything to not believe in. You cannot be opposed to an idea before the idea even exists, so using that as a defence is clutching at straws.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Here is an interesting article, " Will Religion ever disappear?"
BBC - Future - Will religion ever disappear?
BBC - Future - Will religion ever disappear?
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Is religion one of the founding fathers of humanity?
When religious discussion is no longer General.
FourPart;1476928 wrote: Points 1 & 2. Change humanity to INhumanity & I would agree.
Point 3. Ignorance has kept it going, and it's dogma against learning. It is now rapidly losing its hold. Each & every church used to be packed on Sundays, with barely anyone to be seen on the streets. These days a lot of people in the neighbourhood wouldn't even know the name of their local church, its denomination, or even where it was.
Point 4. Utter rubbish. At best it is considered as equal. Most cilvilised Governments have separated Religion from Reality, whereas they ull used to be ruled by the Church. If it carried more weight, then everyone would still be compelled by law to follows the Religious brainwashing & the teaching of science in schools would be illegal. There are still some crazies trying to ban the teaching of Darwinism.
Point 5. As all the previous erroneous points have shown, that is certainly NOT a fact.
It is obviously true that Atheism, as a word, came about from Theism. In the same way as as the concept of Conservationism came about from Urban Development & Pollution destroying everything. Before Urban Development things were as they were, and all was well with the world. Before Religion began to destroy everything all was well with the world & there was no need for a concept of Atheism as there wasn't anything to not believe in. You cannot be opposed to an idea before the idea even exists, so using that as a defence is clutching at straws.
Its not a straw man argument, its reality;
observe reality:Importance of religion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Point 3. Ignorance has kept it going, and it's dogma against learning. It is now rapidly losing its hold. Each & every church used to be packed on Sundays, with barely anyone to be seen on the streets. These days a lot of people in the neighbourhood wouldn't even know the name of their local church, its denomination, or even where it was.
Point 4. Utter rubbish. At best it is considered as equal. Most cilvilised Governments have separated Religion from Reality, whereas they ull used to be ruled by the Church. If it carried more weight, then everyone would still be compelled by law to follows the Religious brainwashing & the teaching of science in schools would be illegal. There are still some crazies trying to ban the teaching of Darwinism.
Point 5. As all the previous erroneous points have shown, that is certainly NOT a fact.
It is obviously true that Atheism, as a word, came about from Theism. In the same way as as the concept of Conservationism came about from Urban Development & Pollution destroying everything. Before Urban Development things were as they were, and all was well with the world. Before Religion began to destroy everything all was well with the world & there was no need for a concept of Atheism as there wasn't anything to not believe in. You cannot be opposed to an idea before the idea even exists, so using that as a defence is clutching at straws.
Its not a straw man argument, its reality;
observe reality:Importance of religion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When religious discussion is no longer General.
This writer feels religion should be restored;
Russell Kirk -- Civilization Without Religion?
Russell Kirk -- Civilization Without Religion?
When religious discussion is no longer General.
This author thinks art can replace religion;
What Can Replace Religion? | Red River Freethinkers
What Can Replace Religion? | Red River Freethinkers
When religious discussion is no longer General.
Look at this on why this author thinks religion is natural and science is not;
Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not — Robert McCauley
Why Is Religion Natural? - CSI
Make sure you read, " Religion as the sleep of reason" in this article, its very good.
Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not — Robert McCauley
Why Is Religion Natural? - CSI
Make sure you read, " Religion as the sleep of reason" in this article, its very good.
When religious discussion is no longer General.
There is a certain logic to that.
Most people want answers, rather than more questions.
Religion has lots of answers, and most people don't even really care of they are the right answers. They just grow weary of all the questions.
It is, and has always been an uphill battle for science.
Most people want answers, rather than more questions.
Religion has lots of answers, and most people don't even really care of they are the right answers. They just grow weary of all the questions.
It is, and has always been an uphill battle for science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
When religious discussion is no longer General.
It will take a power greater than religion to replace it or dismantle it. And religion has evolved to a point that is beyond " General", or even normal; so that kind of same thinking will not see the whole picture behind religion.
This discussion has to go beyond general.
This discussion has to go beyond general.