Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by jayleew, Jan 31, 2013.
More proof that you don't read posts when you respond.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I read your post. I repeated it in the question I posed to you.
Why is it so hard to admit that you're wrong?
try it with copy/paste to work it out ...
Slither, slither little snake.
better to pay attention next time rather than simply engage in monologues with yourself
It is modern consumerist culture that is "phallocratic."
But it is with at least nominally religious justification that they justified their defense of their land as it was invaded by foreigners.
If God needs neither our worship nor our protection, then why would anyone want to kick people and piss on them if they don't believe in God the way one does - then why would anyone want to kick people and piss on them if not for self-centred, egotistical reasons?
And if you argue that anyone can apply themselves spiritually, regardless of their karma, and that thus, karma cannot affect bhakti, then, unless you argue that kicking people and pissing on them (or at least wanting to do so) are forms of bhakti, there is no religious justification for kicking people and pissing on them (or at least wanting to do so).
The mistake you may be making here is a form of a fallacious argument from novelty, assuming that a later insight is necessarily true and refutes or invalidates any previous ones.
If one observes one's own (and some other people's) belief processes for long enough, one can notice a pattern: strong belief in x - doubt - complete dismissal of belief in x - strong belief in y ( - doubt - complete dismissal of belief in y - strong belief in z - ....).
Sometimes, the pattern goes: strong belief x - doubt - complete dismissal of belief in x - strong belief in y - doubt - complete dismissal of belief in y - strong belief in z - partial acceptance of x ... .
At some point, we may notice that later insights can get us to re-evaluate past beliefs and experiences, and to consider them with more discernment. How exactly this works out, though, seems impossible to predict.
It's bigoted that you point out Muslim defensiveness - while ignoring your own defensiveness, or that of the non-theists.
Do you know anyone who doesn't try to defend themselves against what they perceive as threats?
Is this based on a true statement by Al-Ghazali, or are you simply parroting Tyson?
I can't say that I am right about anything. There is no statement or argument in this particular post that was intended. I'm telling my story of how I believed, how I came to unbelief, and where I am. This was an illustration in an attempt to show Jan how someone can first believe something and then not believe something...or on the other side of the coin (from Jan's perspective), simply realize what they really believed to begin is what they believe now but were just confused.
My reason for all this babbling is that people need to not close the book. Everyone should practice a certain level of agnosticism (a creed) not a belief.
Other than that, I'm sort of ticked right now when I open my mind to the possibility of there being the God of Abraham because of the evil (as I see it) done by God who claims himself to be good....or at least claims his son to be good.
That's not what he's doing at all. An appeal to novelty is the fallacy that information or a proposition is true only because it is new. There is nothing fallacious about believing new information is correct so long as you believe it to be so based on its merits--and he's not even saying that. He's saying that new information makes one question their faith, but it isn't necessarily true and their faith isn't necessarily destroyed as a result.
That's almost exactly what he said: "At that point you can pick up the pieces and stand on faith/belief, or you can change/realize your true belief, however you want to look at it."
Stating a perception or observation is not bigotry. Unless his statement demonstrates or arises from intolerance, it isn't bigoted.
I really can't stand how people misuse the term to mean anything negative said about a people or a culture. That's not what bigotry is.
Straw man. He never said no one else was defensive, he was simply making an observation about Islam. Why does every statement about Islam on this forum require a disclaimer like "What I'm about to say regarding Islam isn't necessarily true only of Islam..."? It's nonsense. Grow up.
Why am I not surprised that you don't know anything about Al-Ghazali? And nice false dichotomy, by the way. Even if I were parroting Tyson, that wouldn't make the statement any less true.
Of course it's a true statement. He frames the work of the ancient Greeks as being corrupting of Islam, and says their ideas are heresies introduced by the Devil.
I think Jan understands quite well what your situation has been, and so do I, but I'm not sure you understand Jan.
You want people to do this and that, but you call your instructions to them "babbling"? Lol.
Your problem aren't other people. It's what you do or don't do.
Many people are terrified of mainstream Christian doctrine.
If you're waiting for Christians to acknowledge that their doctrine is terrifying you, chances are that you will die before that happens, no matter how much time, energy and money you invest in getting them to acknowledge your fears.
You can't let your peace of mind depend on other people acknowledging what you perceive to be their faults.
Neither you nor Jan have shown any sign that you actually understand what jaylee is talking about.
Jan is hard to understand. We've only come to terms once last year.
Things have changed, we do not have common ground anymore. I know it is changes in me partially, but I wonder if it is also changes in Jan. I know what's changed with me, but I am wondering how Jan has changed over the year to become so closed.
It is babbling to folks like Jan it appears. Nothing sinks in, so is it just me? I don't discount the possibility that it is just me.
I can't wait. I can only hope. I see that I am having trouble moving on from this...thanks for this comment. I will find my peace so that I can coexist with my family's beliefs.
My stance hasn't changed at all, it's very simple. God is the Supreme Personality, and once you accept this idea, things fall into place.
When I say ''accept'', it doesn't mean that you have to ''believe'' that it is true, it simply means that one has more clarity on the subject of God. It's like accepting that Superman can fly for the sake of understanding the concept of Superman, not actually believe such a person with that ability actually exists.
The ''theism'' or ''atheism'' would be based on ones experience (or lack of), and ones knowledge of systems.
Knowledge is ultimately accepted or rejected by the individual, not strictly by some universal body of evidence.
Your current position is that you don't believe in God, and mine is, I do, and you regard me as ''closed-minded'' because I don't look at thing in the same way you do. The truth is, I have no choice but to look at things the way you do because I have the same set of aparatus that you have, and the material condition of life is the same. I cannot use my base senses to understand God, anymore than I can use them to understand another expression of mind, so left to that ''there is no God'' other than what I create, and in the same way my understanding of music, literature, or any artistic expression of another mind would be left to my own whims. Obviously we have a higher perception which can tune in to phenomena which does not simply present itself to us, meaning we have to find a way to access it. So we have a unique ability to get information which seemingly does not exist (from a material pov).
Well, you are clueless. You got that much right.
Here's the thing: it doesn't fall into place. Not logically. We can all "accept" that the god of your imagining is the ultimato hombre, but that doesn't make the universe make any more sense than it did before. Even belief wouldn't necessarily make things any more clear; for clarity, you'd have to hold a specific kind of belief, one that extended far beyond "God is the boss." You'd have to believe you knew its mind. That requires quite a bit more than you're letting on, which is very dishonest.
No one has any problem with your concept of god. If you want to say it's the ultimate personality, good for you. You've still got a hell of a long walk from there to "It all makes sense now."
It's not so wishy-washy as all that. Evidence can be used to make predictions--oh why am I bothering? You know damn well what you say is BS, so why am I playing along with your charade?
Until you can explain or demonstrate this extra-sensory ability you claim to possess, there's no reason to accept this passage as anything more than the ramblings of a delusional person.
Separate names with a comma.