The vicious circle of religion.

It shows the progress of secularism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good point. I had forgotten that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jan,

"He was wondering about your meaning of words. He notices that you refer to Jesus and the Vedas, ritual sacrifice and casual dining, and the seemingly esoteric idea of liberating animals of their souls."

When you see Him, maybe you could ask Him to respond to the post I made in response to His request.

Right then, jolly good, here we go: aha...(hmmm...what could she mean?) OK

Aqueous Id, But you did know my perspective, because I gave it.

Hmmm...searching......Jesus and the Vedas Jesus and the Vedas:

I'm not accusing you of anything, just merely pointing out your state of mind regarding religion, and how you asociated to what I said.

OK no accusation taken, noting that my state of mind has been unwrapped and set on the butcher block beside the curried tofu & chutney burgers.
Hmmm...searching......Jesus and the Vedas Jesus and the Vedas:

I'm currently watching True...[''i lurve yoo Sooky Stackhouse'']...Blood, where everybody has this southern american accent (which happens to be my favorite one)

Well then by down south I didn't think ya meant all he way down and up again and around and back down to bloody London! Hmmm...searching......Jesus and the Vedas Jesus and the Vedas:

AI seems to understand that he/she was stereo-typing

MABEL! TURN THE STEREO DOWN WHILE I TYPE, PLEASE! I'M TRYING TO FIND A LITTLE ISLAND JUST OFF THE CHUNNEL! THANKS!!! AND BRING ME ANOTHER BEER - THIS ONE'S WARM!!!
Hmmm...searching......Jesus and the Vedas Jesus and the Vedas:

This, to me, is the problem when conversing with club atheists. They don't hear what is being said.

(Right then, volume at max..) Is it a club then? I wasn't notified. Billy down the street at least got a card. Will they let me in with no shirt and shoes, or is it all black tie and tails then? That's so....not even radical chic...just... elitist... not sure if I'd run with that gaggle.
Hmmm...searching......Jesus and the Vedas Jesus and the Vedas...aha...maybe this:

If I'm hungry, and I kill a bird to quell my hunger, that bird has been sacrificed for something.

Seems like the dictionary is on the bloody altar here - wait, let me switch to the Oxford version....hmmm...searching...sacrifice: "You need a current subscription to access The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" ...There's a freakin parkin meter in front of your flat, Jan!...hmmm....well it's a Latin root, so: sacre + ficere = to make sacred: no, nothing about hunger - did you mean satiate Jan instead of sacrifice then? It's really done to propitiate the deity not the devout belly of the prostrate servant! Or is that stereotyping? I could try to type in mono (are you left or right handed in denomination)...here then:
P R O P I T I A T E.
There ya go all set then with sacrifice? Jolly good let's move on then.

Similarly, the animals that are killed in the slaughter houses, are killed for something, therefore they are being sacrificed.

Good God are the butchers in England into the altar wine at work Jan? That's not going to cut the mustard. Where's the propitiation of the deity in a slaughterhouse? I mean, if it's a Kosher operation, but not the slaughterhouse! Good God Jan that would be sacrilege!

That there is no religious ritual, reflects the person or organisation, and their spiritual position. So animal sacrifice is rife throughout the world.

How do ya get from slaughterhouse to ritual then? I mean the Blessing of the Ludefisk maybe but that's all way over in the Lutheran world and hardly a slaughterhouse! OK so it's rife without ritual, granted, those who eat meat are always trying to get their teeth into something, but this is an exception to the meaning of the term Jan you might as well be speaking Greek then!

Think about it. If the animal didn't have a soul, much like a rock, or bottle, there would be no need of ritual.

Well how does bringing a cleaver down on its neck or draggin its bloody entrials across a buzz saw connect with this ritual of propitiation then? That's what's got jumped me off the tram track back at Oxford Station!

Not taking the life of others for selfish purposes, is sign of good intelligence, because it shows compassion, and empathy. The problem is, we generally don't have much choice. Even plants and trees are alive, so as a vegetarian, I am still responsible for taking life which goes against the instruction ''thou shalt not kill''.

Response: That's a distinctly King James turn of phrase Jan I can't see my way back to the Vedas from here. Could you take the wheel here for a minute, because I need to go get my star charts and plot a course from Canterbury to Ceylon. (Aside: *And to think we started in Alabama.*)

So God allows us to kill for the purpose of food and shelter, hence ''sacrifice'' or ''offering''. If we follow the rules and regs, the souls of the sacrificed become human in there next birth.

Turn the boat around! Are you in a bloody teleporter Jan? The King James club (or was it Douay?) never gave a flip about the Vedas, they were just looking for chutney, threw a couple of shillings at the turbaned deck boys and made off with the goods so your foremothers and fathers could have their chow chow braised lamp chops for Sunday dinner. With the appropriate blessings Jan and maybe a recitation or two from the vicar but never with a thought about the soul of the dearly departed Little Willy Wooley.

Besides Jan what God are we talkin about here -it's a long way to Bombay even at zero hours GMT. I'm not sure the locals there in paying their respects to Lord Krishna would necessarily have a clue about Moses on the Mount with his Rule V, sub part (a).

This is a boon for the soul of the animal, and there is no karmic reaction for the people who partake in the sacrifice, or fruits of the sacrifice. Vegetables and fruits are designated foodstuffs for most humans, and as such do not suffer any karmic reaction.

I'm going to need to book a flight to Nepal Jan this is really some wild goose chase. Couldn't we just settle on a new church I mean they're going up in Alabama every day. Could we just call it Janism. Janism! --or Jainism? Cancel that flight, we're staying in Ceylon! But how Jan does 'thou shalt not kill' evoke in your reader a reference to Sanskrit of any flavor? It's such a quaint Anglican turn of phrase. You see where the compass needle is spinning now?

By ''scripture'', I mean writings that are a from God, or spoken/written from a devotee of God.

It's not a compass Jan it's a freaking flywheel. Call British Airways and have them change it to LAX... oh, and get me a hotel by the Ralph Waldo Emerson Unitarian Universalist Church on Wilshire.

Every single animal that is purposefully killed is an act of sacrifice, and the worst acts of sacrifice occurrs in abundance, today, in the slaughterhouses. Worst, because these animals are sacrificed purely for the pleasure of the individual. This is (I don't give a shit about anything but me and mine) atheism.

Well you're entitled to your opinion of the Pope who of course abstains from meat on Fridays but you're lumping a lot of leavening into the loaf here Jan it's an aspersion against a lot of nice and pious people I mean Mother Theresa types working the orphanages so poor Oliver won't be mugging you when you step out of the veggie bistro down on the Strand. It's a far cry from even the Oxford dictionary definition of atheism I mean it's casting the net over seven full oceans (not to raise the dead or anything I mean about stereotyping) but this is mangling language and merging doctrine and slandering the innocent all in one fell swoop not to mention a globalized notion of a stereotype to boot. It's a tall order, tall order.

At least, in a religious sacrifice, there need not be damage to the environment, doing all kinds of nasty shit to make the animal grow fatter, faster, rampant obesity, disease, cruelty, not only to animals but people who may be regarded as animals or sub-human.

Are we back to stabbing Little Willy Wooley in the heart for the Sunday rack of mutton, or is it a clean slice across the jugular down at Moshe's Kosher Meats?

I'm not refering to the group of people who identify themselves as atheist. I refering to the actual meaning of ''atheist'', someone who does not believe in God, and what that actually means.

Means to who Jan? To you, or to the atheist? The actual meaning is "without god", nothing more (to an atheist). I can't get your actual meaning actually because I asked for an actual compass and you handed me an actual gyro.

One is atheistic when one engages the senses purely for ones own gratification, likewise one is ''theistic'' or (God/god) religious when one engages the senses according to the religious principle set out in the scripture.

That may be the perfected state of a believer, but you're talking about saints here Jan and most have them have already passed through the Pearly Gates or so it is said. As for the perfected state of an atheist well isn't that a fine slice of mincemeat: what does gratification have to do with atheism? You mean there's no holy order of slaughtered bobbies who ran civil drills during the London bombings, only to get smashed in the rubble with a copy of Sartre in their back pockets? I'm talking card carrying club affiliated public servants here. What of the atheist secular humanist then Jan? it's a tall order - a tall tall order. Besides Jan what about the atheist Jains and surely there's quite a few Unitarians in both camps. Tall order again I say tall order.

There is a difference between the actuality of atheist, the the club of atheists. Rituals that sacrifice animals according to the scripture are meant to benefit the inhabited soul of the body of the animal, not to mention restrict the culling of animals, preserving the environment, creating healthy humans because they eat more fruit and veg. There is so much benefit to mankind if they only kill animals according to scriptoral regulations, it's just not funny.

My lips are too parched to crack even a smile out here castaway in this sea of philosopical and lexicologial uncertainty. And I'm in no mood for rubbing elbows down at the club if I could even find it which of course is another lost coordinate. It's no use trying to figure out in which locale or document you refer to the soul of an animal other than your past reference to the Vedas or maybe you mean a later Sanskrit but clearly nowhere near Canterbury, nor which scriptural regulations you mean other than those maybe compiled in Tel Aviv.

But as that probably doesn't mean anything to you (being atheist an' all, there's no point in going there.

After all of that, I'm left adrift in a dinghy in the doldrums of SciForums without a paddle. and you're telling me I'm not going anywhere? If this is my atheism, I assure you, I got here only by your navigation.

Hence I said:

And elsewhere you said:

Isn't that a jumbly blob of crumbly plum pudding. Aqueous Id, But you did know my perspective, because I gave it.

Hah! Tennis anyone? :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

aaqucnaona,

I'm not sure of your point here.
Are you saying your religion was in favour of vegetarianism?

Could you rephrase?

What aspect of the ''history of religion'' lead you to this conclusion?

For you, is anything of supernatural or divine origin?

I think that when we show genuine compassion and empathy, for, and toward others, we exhibit religiousness, even if we don't regard ourselves as theists.

I don't really know what you mean by ''divine gift''.
I think morals go hand in hand with good intelligence, so I guess I do agree with your perspective, as you've written it.

jan.

 

Yes.

When I became an atheist, I was faced by the question, If there is no God, why do good things and not do bad ones? I answered it: Because its in accordance with our inherent morality and it has awesome utilitarian advantages.

Evolutionary explainations for the present of religion in human society lead me to this conclusion. Dawkins chaper on this topic, plus the book "Breaking the spell" are the basis for this inference.

I dont think so. I cant be sure, but I think that supernatural or divine things are extremely unprobable. However, if there is a conclusive rational evidence for their presence, something that cannot be explained by chance or natural explaination, I am willing to believe.

So, all that's good is religious and theistic and all thats bad is irreligious and atheistic. How bloody convinent, considering you are a theist. Tell me, do you always twist every definition to suit your needs? Like u did with religion and theism here and with slaughter being equated to sacrifice in your post to Aqueous Id? Btw, he has a post for you [#143].

I mean something that is given by god alone, often to a chosen few, like followers or a species. Divine gift is something that the reciever could absolutely not have achieved on his own.

So, u agree that an intelligent person does not require the fear of God? If no, why? If yes, why follow a religion at all [other than for social purposes]?

Ps. I realise that my previous post was quite convoluted [linguistically]. I was quite sleepy when I wrote it.

 

Hehe. This was the funniest and best written post I have read so far on sciforums. Well done AI.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Watch out Fraggle, you have got some fine competition here.

 

aaqucnaona,

Why?

Couldn't you have come to the same conclusion if faced with the question
''if there IS God''?


As for it ''usefulness'', how do you explain the existence of people who don't
give a shit, or who only give a shit when it suit them?

Why do you accept ''evolutionary explanations'' of religion?

Why do you?

Just because everything may have a natural explanation for them, doesn't
mean nature is it's origin. IOW, unless you know everything, you cannot come to a real conclusion, so your position is one of belief.

It's not a competition, and I'm not talking about how we describe ourselves.
I see theism and atheism more as solid states of being/living/acting (including mind). At one end of the spectrum we have theism (light), and at the other end we have atheism (dark), and in between are innumerable shades.

It's not about the definitions, it is more about gaining more insight on what they actually are in relation to my life. I came into this world on my own, and I will leave it on my own. So I alone must make sense of it.
For me, pure religion is not a man made thing, and there is certainly no evidence that enforces that notion. So what is it, if NOT man made?
Have you thought of that?

Why do we believe in God? For explanations of why the natural world?
Nah, not me anyways.

If religion were trendy clubs to join, at one time, then the trend would have died out long ago, and new trends would have taken it's place. There IS more to pure religion, God, sprituality, and scriptures, than the current social engineers are telling us.

I think I'll pass on that one.

Like what?

Requirement isn't the issue. Fear is a reaction to something. It's more about us than the thing we fear. With understanding on our part, that fear disintigrates.

The reasons for following a religion, are many as there are people who follow
a religion.

Did I hear you mention you were fifteen in another post?


jan.

 

Jan,

It was a part of my religion. I dont know why they [makers] put it there.

Yes, but in that case it is pointless because even if you have come to another conclusion, you wouldn't do it.

Its called being eclectic. U do what's the best and most useful thing to do as long as you don't wrong anyone. I dont see any problem with such utilitarianism.

For the same reason I think prophets are hallucinating when they have a revelation. Its a simpler, less assuming, more rational and more parsimonious model than to think of a supernatural, conscious, natural law breaking "something" who actually cares at all about a bunch of hairless primates on a tiny rock in a corner of one of billions of galaxies.

For the same reason given to previous quote.

Partially true. Does pie exist? No. But its a naturalistically explained part of geometry. Its source is the human mind. And whats the source of that? We are not sure. But I would rather not follow the romans in that the lack of knowledge of the sun as a nuclear engine would lead them to conclude it to be a god riding in a chariot.

Yes it is. It is a simple faith baised belief. Fraggle put it well:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2865945&postcount=3

Then call them light and dark or good and evil. Its like calling roses and tulips by the names 'sun' and 'moon'. Or as chopra does it, calling bullshit 'quantum phenomenon'.

Almost all we know and think about is man made. Its passed through culture and are but models of the world, selected based on how well they describe it and how long and how well they stand the test of rational scepticism.

Yes, probably. But it is much more likely to be a placebo kinda thing than be the kind of supernatural explainations religions give us.

U think there is a conspiracy to materialise/naturalise the world? And that the opposite would be better?

That's a shame. Its very well written. But its your choice, so moving on.

I can't think of anything. I am curious though, since you represent theists in this conversation, how would you describe a divine gift and what example would you give?

Well said. I would agree and also add that for many people even in today's society, it is absolutely indispensable.

Not that was shogun. I am 17.

 

aaqucnaona,

Obedience?
Compassion?
Or obedience that lead to compassion?

You're claiming that people of religious persuation are incapable of making decisions for themself. Why?

You don't see anything wrong with people who don't give a shit about right and wrong?

What if an ''eclectic'' decides that it is right to wrong someone?
How does that sit with your ideals?

Why do you think this?

And that is the extent of your reasoning?

I take it you mean pi?
Otherwise, pies do exist.

IOW, you don't agree with Roman method of acquiring knowledge.
Have you really researched ''religion'', or just your understand of religion?

If I'm not mistaken Fraggle is what is termed as a ''strong atheist''.
You really think his explanation of religion, faith, and God, are objective, despite your belief?

I thought I did.
The terms have specific meanings, and it is those ''meanings'' I focus on, not the labels.

These models are understood through experience and intelligence which we have access to. The depth of this understanding stays with the individual while only a small part is expressed in such a way as we can understand without the actual experience.

By rational explanation with regard to God, I take it you mean ''I can't see God with my eyes, therefore God does not exist''?

What is your reason for thinking like this?

I didn't say ''conspiracy''.
Read it again, but this time accept as I've written it.

Well written?
Not from my perspective. But if he/she has raised points which you would like
me to elaborate on, I will be more than happy.

I didn't think you could.

A ''Divine Gift'' is anything that is given from the divine, I would imagine. But I don't see things in that way so you're probably asking the wrong person.

That goes without saying.

[/QUOTE]


Well so far, I like your outlook on religion, but the opening post doesn't seem to do you justice.

Maybe time will tell, eh!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

@Jan

Both. I didnt try to reason about it back then.

No, I mean people of fundamentalist religious convictions do not make decisions for themselves in a rational, eclectic, non biased way.

Those are the people for whom I think religion to be indispensible.

Thats a fanatic. An eclectic [IMO] is someone who knows of and chooses from all available opitions without any bias and with rational critical thinking chooses the one with the best utilitarian function. Deciding to wrong someone is against human morality [indeed, against ape alturism] and I despise such people.

Your next quote has the answer.

I dont understand the question. Please elaborate.

Yes, I mean Pi. My bad.

This is what I know right now. One thing you should know is that I was a pantheist till this very month. I became an [tentative] atheist [about a personal god] just about 2nd -3rd this month and I am having a massive defragging of my brain since. I am reading books on philosophy, theology and atheism and watching documentaries and debates to make sense of my frame of mind. I must say though, I am willing to believe, if only some rational evidence, something inexplicable in any other way, be found, it can shift the probability of god towards yes. Then I am ready to accept that proposition.

I dont think his post on faith was 'coloured' by his athiesm. I havent read enough of his posts to see how objective he is on other matters.

Ok. The reason I objected was that it tends to look like conservatipedia's page on atheism, showing marx, hitler [a christian] and stalin but missing out Einstein or Sagan.

Yes, individual experiences are hard to relate to by other people. But thats why we have models. Its something many people can test and try and see if it represents reality. If it represents all past and current observations and it stands the [sceptical] test of time,then until a better one comes along, the [earlier] model is a good way to look at the world. Which is why I would not have objected to the idea of god 2000 years ago.

No, I mean, if this event can be explained in a simple, parsimonious, rational way without having to assume to much, by just natural explainations, then this event does not support belief in the supernatural.

Let me put it this way. What is more likely? That bobby had a revelation and realised god was made from spagetti or that bobby is making a false claim?
Same argument applies there. Why put a god where none is required? Just because one may want him to be there?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As Carl Sagan said:

And to reflect that the creator cares for one species on this little piece of matter.

Who are these social engieneers?

It was funny and was a good read. An imaginative journey with you around the globe, looking at world religions and navigating with a gyroscope. Nevermind.

.

Your view is interesting. You are a theist, I think; but U don't indentify with any one religion. What exactly are your views on god, religion and theism?

I had just become an atheist back then and my first reaction was hatred and repulsion against religious fundamentalism, absolutism, dogmatism, authoritarianism and its general trend to demand blind unquestioning irrational faith and suspension of reason and those feelings got through in my first few posts. As I read and watched more and conversed with people here, I became much more balanced and unprejudiced.

 

Glad you liked it. “I was just messing around,” cued by an earlier post. It is hard to have a frank discussion when the language itself becomes a quagmire. We started with what I thought was a pretty clear idea, your formulation of a prototypical culture that habituates to the ritual sacrifice offered to the gods in propitiation for some reward, such as the daily sunrise. You reasoned that this irrational belief was probably intertwined with a number of rational beliefs, making it likely that the young upstarts would not necessarily discern truth from fable, and therefore they would be inclined to accept whatever the teaching prescribed. As a result, a vicious cycle appears to have been created, in which false beliefs continue to propagate from generation to generation.

When I said you were clear, one thing I meant is that you used words in the common usage which any English speaker could readily construe properly. Even the non-English speakers would likely understand precisely what you meant because words like “gods”, “religion”, and “sacrifice” are universals for which there are (in most languages) one-to-one correspondences between the English term and the non-English term. Obviously there are exceptions.

The next link is the chain is the capacity of the person posting. It’s done through a user interface, so the user has a demonstrated capacity to use common English. Yet here we see the the common usage has been substituted with a non-standard specific meaning. which insinuates fallacy and confusion into the dialogue.

Normally this would just get written off as bad argument, or if it starts to flame, it gets flagged. Here we have an interesting permutation on that, with the Fallacy of Definition holding hands and walking down the isle with Sanctity. It reminds me a little of the terrorist using human shields in a tactical setting.

No one wants to attack sanctity, but gross disingenuousness is fair game. So, like the hostage negotiator, you don’t want to concede (to fallacy) and yet you want to uphold what is sacred. It converts every question into a loaded question, giving the arguer an opportunity to build castle walls out of unlikely materials, such as the carcasses of slaughterhouse victims.
The same principle that finds animal cruelty evil should also recognize deception as a gateway drug. So I am left to wonder: why not advocate for sanctity using honest argument?

I was just messing around, to illustrate the semantic game that unfolded with the use of personal definitions. I have set the stage for an honest admission that the fallacies were also just a game – or, maybe even something valid, such an outcry of sentiment. For example, does is express a sense of hopelessness that common speech can not convey the personal religious experience, so, perhaps fallacy is a mechanism or last resort?

Oh, and as far as the track event picture – I think the cheetahs are going to get a run for their money. I got a good starting position in the 1m event, check out that defensive shield:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Btw, I have a thread I would like you to read:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2878614#post2878614

Ps. Will reply to your post [here] soon.

 

aaqucnaona,

Example?

These people don't give a shit about right and wrong?
Example?

How do work that one out?

At some point, an eclectic, stops being an eclectic. If one doesn't, then one becomes indecisive, unreliable, and untrustworthy.

How do you know religious fundamentalists weren't eclectic before deciding their path?

And, an ''eclectic'' never, ever, decides to wrong people?

How did you reason that the Prophets i.e Muhammad, were hallucinating?

Please explain this.

No probs, I make those kind of errors all the time.

So why make such big claims?

IOW, you are an atheist, and as such you have decided NOT to believe in God.

Why not?

I think we're alot more complex than the labels which give ourselves.

What do you mean by ''...look at the world''?

So for you God doesn't exist, and you think this way because you've looked at models of the world, and you conclude that God is an outdated concept?

So, a convincing argument triumphs over what is actually true, because the truth is too complicated?

So you're convinced that there is no such thing as ''supernatural'', and , there has never been a supernatural event in the history of this universe?

Why do think the creator cares only for one species?
And why do you think the creator wouldn't care for tiny insignigicant selves?

I don't know.

Well, whatever floats your boat, but one things for sure, religion wasn't being looked at.

My view on God is simple, just look in any scripture, the vedas in particular (as it is very in depth)

My view on religion, is that there is ''pure religion'', in the east it known as ''Sanatan Dharma'' (the eternal occupation of the soul). That is the highest form. I look for that connection whenever a person claims to be religious.

Good for you.
I hope it lasts.

jan.

 

@Jan

Creationists.

No. I mean people who don't give a shit about right and wrong should not be atheists. A fear of god is the one thing that can keep them in line.

Fanatic - noun. A person motivated by irrational enthusiasm.

A person who doesn't care about right or wrong fits this category, at least informally.

I agree. Knowing this limit is the most important thing for an eclectic.

They may have been. But a true fundamenatlist can only be one indoctrinated since childhood [as in OP]. An eclectic would realise that evolution is the right thing to believe, not creationism. He may totally believe the central dogmas of his religion, but then he as not an eclectic anymore, since he has a dogma. Thus, an eclectic would never become a dogmatic fundamentalist - like extreme right wing conservatives and islamic jihadists.

No. Well, not quite. An eclectic may wrong someone for the greater good. But he will know the limits, unlike fundamentalists who would do anything, including killing someone, if their dogma states so, and will do it against their better judgement. Which is why moderates are the only type of religious people we would want in today's world.

Ok. Lets examine the claim.
First, there exists a supernatural part to our universe, transcendent but omnipresent, from which forces and things interfere with our world. This predicts inexplicable and forever unknowable things happen that cannot be explained by the counterclaim.
A man in a cave is visited by one such 'thing' - an angel. The angel tells him a few things and he remembers it.
He later somehow gets it on paper and we have the word of god.

Lets examine the counterclaim.
There is no supernatural component to the universe. All that is directly observable is all that is. So the prediction is that nothing should occur that cannot be explained with this claim in mind.

Now lets test the event.
If the claim is true, well that's that.
But if the counterclaim is true, based on many thousands of years of observation of natural laws, we have a database of scientifc information, which covers, describes and explains all known observations. Accordingly,
A man is in a cave. He is hungry, tired and deprived of normal sensations. In such states his biochemistry and neurobiology is very vulnerable to mistakes and problems in their functioning. We know the human mind to be very apt at making convincing illusions.

Looking at the claims and the current knowledge as it applies to the event, it is more rational to believe he was hallucinating. It requires much less assumptions and has no external [to this event] data that is not in agreement with the current knowledge of the natural world.

Since model 2, with the claim of naturalism, makes a better model in the given circumstances, I choose it to be the correct model to apply to this event and further conclude that this event does not give credence to claim no 1, of a supernature element to the universe.

Hence, I think think prophets are likely to be hallucinating.

I was extending the above analogy to the anthropocentric idea that a single species on a single planet should be important at a universal scale.

I dont understand the question.

Yes. That would be a weak, explict atheist. Weak - no counter claim for existence of god. Explict - claims for god considered and consciously rejected.

His posts seem to be highly objective, well informed and rational.

Agreed and resolved.

Look at the word means to consider the model to be how the world is. Hence,the model is a good way to look at the world, means this model is a good representative of the way the world is.

Yes. If god can be put in todays models, or models better than the ones today, I am willing to believe in him.

Yes. Until we can come up with a better model that represents the truth more than the current one, the one we have is the best we have. Until then, there is no way to access or confirm this 'too complicated' truth. Its the only way to overcome the age old question. "How do we know what we know?" and further "We can we be sure it is true?"

No. I think there has never been an event we know of for which a supernatural explanation is given and could not be better explained, at least in theory, but natural explanations.

I mean, the god of islam doesn't care for christian and the muslims are convinced that is the truth. You yourself you admit this is a ridiculous notion. That was what I was meaning to say.

I mean, what are they? Politicians, doctors, engineers, city planners, economists, religious leaders?

Agreed. He was looking at the curious way in which you were using words in contexts they are not usually found.

Ok. But as far as I know, this is not a actual institutionalised religion. It is perhaps, what you call a 'private religion'.

Dont Worry. I am an eclectic. Once I get something right I am unlikely to get it wrong. *humility*
But boasting aside, I dont think of religion to be bad anymore. I think of it as unnecessary but acceptable in moderate amounts.

Ps. The part for prophet hallucination is also in a new thread here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111662

 

Ok then. Next competitor:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

aaqucnaona,

Can you elaborate on that?

I'm confused.

You think an eclectic is incapable of not caring about right or wrong, or being
a fanatic?

Isn't everyone eclectic till they arrive at the limit?

Can only?
Indoctrination is the opposite of being fundamental. To be such, one needs to
be able to break from indoctrination. Unless of course you equate fanatism and religious fundamentalism.

Why would one?

Mmmm...!

Wow...!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Doesn't explain why think he was hallucinating.

Your in a field, the size of Alaska. You are completely blind, or it is completely dark. You begin to be curious, wanting to know where you are, what you are, how you came to be, and your relation to everything. You begin to use your senses, to make sense of your surroundings. Everything you think you know, constitutes your world, and as such the world IS everything you know, and think you know.

Claiming that there is NO supernatural component (whatever that really means) does nothing to explain anything. All that is directly observable, does nothing to explain anything except only that which HAS been observed.
So far you are exposing your dogmatic nature.

So you're saying, we now know that Muhammad was hallucinating?
And there is no God?

Et Voila !, the icing on top of the dogmatic cake.
It would be far more intelligent to just accept that you don't believe it, and try not to offer an explanation of something you have no interest in, or even care to understand.

So far you have, Muhammad was hallucinating, because he was hallucinating, mixed with, Muhammad was hallucinating because I haven't had such an experience, therefore it cannot exist. Mixed with God doesn't exist because I haven't seen Him, God is supernatural, and as the supernatural doesn't exist because of all the scientific observation, Muhammad must have been hallucinating.

The current knowledge is insufficient in much the same way the knowledge offered by a flower arranger is insufficient in designing a new engine.
IOW, science and spirituality are different disciplines.

It's rational to accept that, as you have not had such an experience, that you don't know. It's irrational to use that ignorance to make a conclusion, to believe that conclusion, and seek to suppress other ideaologies, or scriptures that contradict your opininion.

I'm afraid it's a case of The Emporers New Clothes.

IOW, you was looking at it from your perspective.

I agree, they do. But that doesn't answer the question.
And have you considered the idea that alot of things aren't what they seem.

IOW, you don't want to believe in God.
You wont agree with me, but that's is what you're actually, without saying it directly.

You have put yourself at the mercy of the mainstream.

Can you give a better explanation than ''life comes from life''?

It's obvious that you're not versed in what or who God is (or supposed to be, depending on your POV). Much like every explicit atheist I've come across, read, or heard. But then again, why is that not surprising? :shrug:

Idealists in the position the carry out their ideals.

You mean like, there is no animal sacrifice in the slaughterhouses, only to gods?

So what makes the word sacrifice appropriate, the slaughter of the animal, or, the purpose behind the slaughter?

Or to be more specific, you're currently out of your depth, so you bury your head in sand.

I'm quite sure Stalin felt the same way.


jan.

 

Quiz time. Name this fallacy: :scratchin:

 

Its the fallacy of equivocation!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes I win [Do I?]

What do I win?

 

You've been duped again.
Where/what is the actual fallacy?

jan.

 

Oh dear. We have got ourselves I quite a knot haven't we.
I will answer your post but will you first answer:

Where did I go wrong with the Prophet thing? Is is dogmatic to believe only that which has evidence or is atleast more likely than other competing claims?
What do you think of prophets?

You make it sound dogmatic and irrational [which is how it must have felt to you]. Again, please answer my questions above.

So it that's true, whatever one may want to believe is true? In absence of a proven hypothesis, all proposed hypothesis are equally true?

How is it? 'given cirsumstances', 'till a better model', 'likely' - sounds like a dogmatic inference to you? Its completely tentative!

Ok. What is your perspective. I honestly confess I dont understand your position on this.

In a way yes. I would not believe in the current circumstances. In order to convince you this disbeilief is not a faithbased or dogmatic assertion, I told you what can change my mind:
If god can be put in models better than the ones today, I am willing to believe in him.

That mainstream is the only way to tell the difference between yoga and deepak chopra. It may be slightly restrictive to flights of fancy, but it is reliable.

Abiogenesis. Hm... Another one of those...
Well. Early life was hardly life by todays standards. Like prions. But yes, life does come from a less life-like state to the ones we see today.

No. You got me wrong. That was not an attack on theism, it was an attack on literal religious fundamentalism. Do you support it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ad hom! I did get you very cross didn't I? I know about the vedas and am familiar with jain and buddhist philosophies. I know what you said by ''Sanatan Dharma''. I was merely pointing out that an non-anthromorphic, cross-religious ideology like your is not institutionalised or largely popular. How does that suggest out of my depth. If I am wrong, do correct me by all means.

:jawdrop:
Ok. You got very mad indeed.
No, stalin didn't feel that way. 'Opiate of the masses' is hardly what I think of religion to be.

:huh: