Question My Beliefs, But Be Prepared To Answer For Yours :)
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
like what? You both use the sun for energy, consume water, grow in the dark and wilt during the cold... we function through cells within our bodies that are quite similar, react to stimuli... i really dont see much difference... I would think that your view on all this is skewed by that statement...
then it is not so different from religion... this tis the hypocrisy i am talking about... you give credit to whatever this pantheism or whatever it is which to me its philosophy is quite similar to that of religion... i find it hilarious that you talk down about people who are not "religious nut jobs" and accuse them as such, while you can support that pantheism as a way to reach the "truth within yourself.""
i hope people will see your hypocrisy.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Heis, do you really grow in the dark, and wilt during the cold?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Only parts of me
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
So it seems the distinction boils down to ambiguous nuance and empirical induction.
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
Check it out. It's heis's shortest post. Ha no offense heis.
Brazko
Well-Known Member
No, it is as I said before.. the distinction is that it permits the translation of vocabulary and concepts that involves spirituality, intuition, and metaphysics. These terms are unfalsifiable to the scientific method which is the sole basis of naturalism, which is a scientific term.
That's the distinction.
So yes and no. It does allow translation of ambiguous nuance terminology. But it is based on empirical induction by evidence observable to the senses.
karri0n
Well-Known Member
Best.reply.ever. Epic.Only parts of me
Luger187
Well-Known Member
^^winOnly parts of me
actually the post right above that one is his shortest
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
karri0n
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I also like the point by point reply.
I find that religion works best with as little "organization" as possible. The larger it becomes, the less and less meaning it has. Once you reach a point above 30 or so active members, things start to become more of a social club than anything resembling worship. I've watched this happen before my eyes in small communities more than once, as true worship of the gods gave way to stupid high school games and cliques.
My opinion on the idea of organized religion would be difficult to quantify because "organized religion" is such a broad term. I know of small churches that have nothing to do with the large, profit-minded organizations, and I've been quite close with pastors and reverends who truly want nothing more than to help the people who come to them for advice and worship. I've known yet others who do it because they like the power, and others who are in it for social status. There are still others who do it for a combination of these reasons. Everyone is human, and I wouldn't expect anyone to be perfect.
On the other hand, I can look at the large organizations such as the Catholic Church, mainstream Judaism, Evangelicalism, and I'm disgusted. These are organizations with very obvious political agendas, that seek to control people, seize power, and gain profits. The leaders don't believe or follow a word of what they preach. They control people by spreading hatred and fear.They commit atrocities in the name of their lord, and depending on the organization we're talking about, act in he exact opposite of what is taught by this lord.
I think most people aren't very spiritual or religious. The vast majority of people use religion just to answer the question of what happens when we die. Very few have the time, intelligence, interest, or energy to look deeper than their every day lives, or to understand the patterns that make up their existence. I don't find this surprising, considering the fast paced world we live in, and just how many different directions our attention needs to be in at any given moment. Modern Organized religion gives these "normal" people something to hold onto, a break from their busy lives, and a way they can be spoon-fed the answers to the deeper qestions without actually having to go to the effort of finding it for themselves. I feel that the very few people who are deeply spiritual and interested in these things tend to become priests or nuns, or seek out meaning in one of the other many spiritual systems that allow for deeper exploration, such as shamanism or buddhism.
I think it's just human nature that people kinda suck. We're selfish, petty, prejudiced, warlike, controlling, spiteful creatures. A religion is a type of "tribe" and people naturally distrust outsiders. A lot of this comes from the fact that up until quite recently, these were very necessary survival skills. I don't know how long these types of qualities will take to be bred out, but I'm also not sure if it would necessarily be a good thing for the species if they were. If for whatever reason no longer had the prosperity and modern conveniences that we enjoy currently(a scenario e are heading for if something isn't done about energy, food and water), these qualities would once again become quite useful for the survival of the species
I don't particularly think so. I think if "religion" didn't exist, people would have some other type of groups to form into, make up rules about how to conduct themselves, and figure out ways or reasons to hate the other groups.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Missed it the first time around, thanks for bumping it K, I'll respond this afternoon after work.
Thought this thread died!
karri0n
Well-Known Member
Nice! I had suspected that you missed it, Oly managed to do a number on this thread and it sorta dropped off.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I agree with everything you said
Where is the line drawn from 'harmless belief' to 'dangerous belief'?
That's an interesting take on things, an evolutionary advantage to the negative social aspects of human society.
What else can you think of that can influence people to wage war against another group of people they've never met on such a scale?
Sorry it's brief, I just agree with most of what you said..
grizlbr
Active Member
I was born into a large group 12 aunts and uncles. It was my family, still mess with me you might get away mess with my family you got a big problem. So you come in my church that is my family now. Come on in, while razing a friend/relative I lifted her off the ground just playing on the way to the car. So yes we are drawn to groups with like beliefs. All things decently and in order, and moderation. I think my choir sister might still be around if she had drank the glass of wine in the after noon, her funeral is Sunday after service. I already gave up both soaks and wife took my underwear baby due in month. Pregnant is fun: 61 deg and AC going
karri0n
Well-Known Member
Personally, I draw it at fundamentalism. Of course there are different levels, and obviously most Christians or followers of other mainstream religions would not say fundamentalism is inherently dangerous.
There's something called the "Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame"(ABCDEF) Which can be used to quantify and identify the various "dangerous" levels any particular following can fall into. It's pretty interesting to see just how far along the "dangerous cult" side of things the mainstream religions fall:
The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame
(version 2.6)
Factors: (version 2.6)
1 Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members. 1-9: ___
2 External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior. 1-9: ___
3 Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified or unverifiable credentials claimed. 1-9 ___
4 Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts. 1-9: ___
5 Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or“fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism. 1-9: ___
6 Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones. 1-9: ___
7 Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden. 1-9: ____
8 Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members. 1-9: ___
9 Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners. 1-9: ___
10 Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups. 1-9: ___
11 Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s). 1-9: ____
12 Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers. 1-9: ____
13 Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts. 1-9: ____
14 Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s). 1-9: ____
15 Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories. 1-9: ___
16 Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 1-9: ___
17 Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 1-9: ___
18 Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain. 1-9: ___
I'm surprised if you haven't come across that before - it's been postulated by many social scientists that racism, nationalism, etc.(general distrust of outsiders) are remnants of "tribal" or "clan" type social structures.
Nationalism, sports, family rivalries, political ideologies, money, land, food, oil
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Luger187
Well-Known Member
i never seem to understand your posts
karri0n
Well-Known Member
I have to admit, I was also scratching my head at that.