Take another look at the religion sub-forum. Not preference- a difference in perceptions or assumptions. You assume that theism is empirical. Or that it can be determined empirically. You want to "see" or "grasp" a concrete vision which will confirm/deny the presence or absence of a god. But except for the "vision" of god as seen in Western theology, there is no theistic definition of God; so you want to define a concept in your mind, not one in the mind of a theist. And you cannot accept that there need not be a definition or that the perception of God need not even exist for theism. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Quite right. Now if I were to tell you that you will benefit from a spiritual exercise, what proof could I offer? I could offer my observations that spirituality can lead to better concentration, a more focused and broad outlook both at once, that you would feel less stressed, fall sick less often, maybe find coping strategies that would help you to lead a fuller life, etc you would (most probably) think it nothing more than brainwashing. And I could not possibly prove otherwise. Because these are subjective experiences. And not surprisingly, the amount you can benefit from a spiritual exercise is directly proportional to your faith in it. So if you think you can or you think you cannot, you are right. So what is the solution to this? And though they sound immaterial or insignificant, you are no judge of this, since you have no knowledge or experience to tell you otherwise. edit: Bother! you guys have infected me with your cynical outlook. I sound like a woo-woo to myself, even. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is your particular pet irrationality sam. If you want to argue that there is no defining characteristic of "god" then I completely agree. If you want to argue that not only is there no need to percieve"god" but that "god" can't be percieved, then I completely agree with you. Our only difference lies in our conclusions then. You say Allah, I say FSM. You say tomato, I say tomahto.
(Q)! It's working! We're chipping away at sam's facade of self assured theistic... umm... theism! Yay!
So? I practice a limited form of zen. What does that have to do with the existence/non-existence of a diety?
(Q) is stuck on my delusions and you on my pet irrationality; I forgive both of you since you come from a culture where you cannot conceive of a God who is NOT anthropomorphogenic. I mean the Romans had Zeus, the Vikings had Thor, and the Christians have Jesus. Obviously spirituality is a culturally alien concept for you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We could review that Buddhist article you linked. I found it very informative in regards to many of the things you mention about spirituality. I didn't agree with some of the subjects it covered, such as reincarnation, karma and energy flows, but the rest of it was rather good. The solution? Simple. Remove all the notions of the supernatural, the afterlife, the intolerance, oppression and the fighting from Islam, and you might have yourself a much better "guide" to living, similar to what the article covered. Having knowledge or experience of the immaterial is a contradiction. That is one of the serious flaws in your outlook, to think that we are cynical. We consider mankind to be compassionate and caring, with great ideals to achieve a great many things, to learn all there is to learn. Theists consider mankind as terrible sinners, violent and wretched. Who is cynical here?
Hindusim is a very vast philosophy, clumped together by the (also culturally challenged British) who did not even realise what it was. Hinduism embraces the concept of Brahman ( a universal consciousness) which regulates the universe. Since it is over 5000 years old, it has undergone constant reformations to the point where Brahman has been broken up into several Ishvars (or personal gods) and even embraces agnosticism and atheism. The basic principle underlying Hinduism is that man is governed by four pursuits in life: dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣha. i.e. righteousness, materialism, pleasure and salvation. He needs to overcome his attachment to artha and kama within the framework of dharma to attain moksha. This is the same principle that is the basis for Buddhism or Islam. Religion is a philosophy and the ritualistic practices are to help you to go through the cycles but they are not the aim, neither is God; the aim is to use the philosophy to get through the cycle of life. So Buddhism is also a philosophy based on Hinduism, just much younger. The Eightfold path is a variant of the four cycles. But could you explain the benefits of your spiritual exercises if it was not understood that Buddhism can be atheistic? In the East, it is largely considered theistic, btw. edit: looks like (Q) got there first. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tell me sam, what is the need for the supernatural in your religion; ie. gods, angels and so on? By removing them from the ideology, what would you lose?
The supernatural is only defined in Christianity (Q); it is not defined in Islam (I don't know about Judaism). And you don't know what I believe in, so the gain/loss is irrelevant. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sam, Allah and Gabriel are both from the supernatural realm. If removed from the religion, what would stand to gain or lose with Islam as a guide to life?
But God is not defined and neither is Gabriel; you forget the Ottoman rule of 600 hundreds years (which was pretty tolerant) meant that a lot of the concepts from Judaism and Christianity got incorporated into Islam. But we don't know what an angel is except as defined by the Christians. And its become such a pervasive concept that it's hard to tell how it began.
Of course it was, because you could relate to it. The other stuff is alien to you. I said "sound" immaterial. There is a difference. There is a difference between idealism and realism, sweets. Accepting the possibility of a weakness (like kama and artha without dharma) is not cynical. When you design an experiment, you anticipate all the things that might go wrong. Does not mean that they will, but it is a possibility, yes? And only if you anticipate a possibility are you prepared to tackle it. Does that mean you deliberately make the mistakes? No, but in case you do, you know the right way to resolve it. That is not cynicism, that is just plain common sense.
I have never managed to discover the point of discussing theism with any atheist so far. At least discussing theism with another theist offers me a perspective. Atheists have no perspective on spirituality or theism at all, except to look askance at all the foreign notions. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And so convinced they know it all.
Is that a hint? Sorry I got a little carried away. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What does it matter? For all practical purposes, I am a theist who believes in the concept of God. This concept may not agree with yours, but that would just be semantics. LG has been trying to convey it in his own unique fashion, but its hard to wrap another concept over an existing one, so let's just leave it there.
Sam, gods and angels, by definition, are part of the supernatural realm, because they are not part of nature, if they were, we would be able to detect them. But, I get the feeling that you're arguing semantics because once again you are doing everything in your power to avoid a hard question. That's what you do, you come here quoting this scripture and interpreting that scripture, but as soon as someone asks you a hard question, you head for the hills, tail tucked twixt your legs. If that is your attitude, then I would have to agree with Supe, what is the point of discussing anything with you? I could look up those quotes and find interpretations myself, I don't need you to do it. So, if you're going to avoid the question, just say so and spare me the bullshit.
(Q): "So, you're essentially claiming that a four year old is able to discern genuine shock or disguised?" Yes. It is not terribly difficult for a four year old child to recognize legitimate shock and annoyance, specifically in a man that made a point of not "dumbing things down". " Were you consistent, at four years old, beating other competitors equal to your father? Did you go on to win championships with competitors who were better players?"" I rarely played other people, but at times when I did, I consistantly beat them. Moreover, over the years I participated in several chess clubs, where I was routinely one of the better players, if not the best.
