Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 so in other words, because you "HAVE" no belief, it is ok to put me down because "I HAVE" a belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyledude Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 About time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MANGO Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 My belief is that, you shouldn't even be allowed to expose your kids to religion until they are 18 and capable of making their own choices. As a parent, taking an under 10 year old kid to church, you are basically brain washing them, and perpetuating religion's existence. This I believe to be the root of the problem. If there was allot less of this early childhood brain washing, religion would have faded out a long time ago. Also, I would like to see more separation between church and state. I will apologies to any that I have offended, I am an academic. But at the same time I am entitled to believe what I wish and I choose reality......not faith. I have faith in myself and in my fellow man, even the religious ones. And for any of the religious people who claim that they are the same as me and have the right to make what ever choice they want about being religious......I ask, at what age did you start going to church, are you sure you actually had a choice or did your parents make it for you..........as thier parents made for them and so on, and so on........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five For Fighting Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 That sums up my beliefs quite nicely! I love how the legend that is George Carlin shared his beliefs/point of view without attacking other people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 And so from this, you think maybe concept of God is not needed to explain any phenomena which might be currently explained or not. That's where your atheism is born. It almost seems as if the idea of a supernatural higher being was always there... it's more of a "so are you gonna take it or not". I'd say the burden of proof is more on the religion ie: prove Allah/what makes the Qur'an right. God is only unnecessary because you assume it to be, not because it has been proven. Just because in the past, Romans or whatever attributed eclipses to being acts of god (but we can now explain it) doesn't mean that it makes God unnecessary for it to happen. If God had created the universe, then He can sustain it and it's laws as well - and this is consistent with Islamic theology. So to me, I have no problem believing God is necessary... to each their own. I just don't feel like I should have the inherant and objective right to be humilated for holding that belief though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 That sums up my beliefs quite nicely! I love how the legend that is George Carlin shared his beliefs/point of view without attacking other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I wouldn't say it's always been there at all. Evidence of primitive religion arguably appeared in Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis a few hundred thousand years ago at the earliest, with burial of the dead. Our closest primate relatives, despite advanced cognition and sentience, show no concept of a deity. It makes sense that our curious, yet imperfect brains would seek to impose supernatural answers on the then unexplainable. Paleoreligion was based around sun worship and animism, concepts hardly compatible with Abrahamic monotheism. Since monotheism is a relatively new player on the block, and hardly ubiquitous, why should it be seen as a default? It's got an enormous burden of proof to show that it's not simple curiosity-driven superstition like early supernatural beliefs. Until I get evidence to the contrary, I'd feel very uncomfortable attaching an extraneous supernatural being to our understanding of reality when there's not a scrap of proof, and naturalistic explanations have succeeded time and time again for questions formerly thought to be unknowable. I haven't implied that you have an inherent and objective right to be humilated for holding that belief, have I? I apologize if I have. I agree with this. It's all perfectly well and good to debate religion, but being antagonistic about it gets both sides nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Most of those "Buddhists" you mention are in China. They mostly follow the Pure Land school which really isn't Buddhism. There is way more elements of Chinese Heaven Worship and Confucianism than Buddhism. The only thing Buddhist about it is that they worship something vaguely similar to the original Shakyamuni Buddha. Imagine if a religion added in a whole crapload of Native American religious elements and then worshipped Jesus as one of many deities. I wouldn't really call it Christianity. The Four Noble Truths, if that is what you are referring to aren't really that supernatural. They are just based on observations made by the Buddha. I think Thanissaro Bhikku describes it most eloquently. You are painting Buddhism as a whole with very broad strokes. The differences between Mahayana (originating from the Mahasamghika) and Theravada (originating from Sthviravada) make the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism seem non-existent. I wouldn't be surprised if you heard of lot stuff about Buddhism from Mahayana. Besides Zen, Mahayana Buddhism has heavily syncretized with Chinese Heaven Worship and other religions. In Theravada, accounts of the Buddha and his teachings are far more mundane. As for Nirvana, I am not sure what exactly you are talking about but its not really an object of worship at least in Theravada or Zen. Its a state to strive for similar to how recovering alcoholics strive to sober. At 1:10, Thich Nhat Hanh describes it well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Not to interrupt the agreeing session here, but since this entire argument is circular, whether I'm being antagonistic or not is irrelevant. Neither side is going anywhere without the right amount of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 You've been posting an awful lot in a thread with a subject you consider to be useless, then. I mean, neither side is going anywhere after all. Personally, I find it useful to bandy ideas back and forth, even if there is no ironclad evidence on the existence of deities. Being respectful when doing that is never irrelevant, even though I'm guilty of slipping in that regard sometimes as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Where in that post did I call this subject "useless"? I said the argument and discussion is circular. Hardly the same, My point was I am being just as antagonistic towards religion as those in my personal experience have been towards me for being a non-believer. I'm attacking the belief, not the believers themselves. The belief is, in my opinion, highly fallible, superstitious and speculative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I felt that "neither side is going anywhere" implied uselessness. I guess I was mistaken. Don't stoop down to the level of people who would attack you for your beliefs. Calling beliefs horsecrap instead of demonstrating why you consider them to be faulty just comes off as tactless and an emotional response instead of an intellectual one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Duly noted. Thanks. But to be fair, I used the term crap on purpose, not as a swear filter, and his subsequent accusation of a profanity is baseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 To clarify, I don't consider it profane or offensive language. It just comes across as tactless in that context, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I wouldn't say it's always been there at all. Evidence of primitive religion arguably appeared in Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis a few hundred thousand years ago at the earliest, with burial of the dead. Our closest primate relatives, despite advanced cognition and sentience, show no concept of a deity. It makes sense that our curious, yet imperfect brains would seek to impose supernatural answers on the then unexplainable. Paleoreligion was based around sun worship and animism, concepts hardly compatible with Abrahamic monotheism. Since monotheism is a relatively new player on the block, and hardly ubiquitous, why should it be seen as a default? It's got an enormous burden of proof to show that it's not simple curiosity-driven superstition like early supernatural beliefs. Until I get evidence to the contrary, I'd feel very uncomfortable attaching an extraneous supernatural being to our understanding of reality when there's not a scrap of proof, and naturalistic explanations have succeeded time and time again for questions formerly thought to be unknowable. I haven't implied that you have an inherent and objective right to be humilated for holding that belief, have I? I apologize if I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 To add to this, I find Carl Sagan sums up what I was saying about the concept of god being extraneous very well. No problem. Sorry if I came across as holier than thou in my responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 kick ass underrated Metallica track ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 This was an interesting and on-topic interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 This was an interesting and on-topic interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 Whether it's Christianity or Atheism, any "movements" surrounding a large populace and the subject of religion worries me all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.