|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:04 pm
Semiremis Apacelull Fine, how about we debate why religion does not deserve any respect instead of me saying that it doesn't and then you guys telling me that I'm wrong and telling me that I do not belong here. I will admit that my post was rash and did not have any sort of explanation. I will give more reasons for why I think religion does not deserve any respect: 1) It gives a reason (albeit a bad one) for homophobics to be homophobic. Gay marriage is and the rights of homosexuals is something that really ticks me off especially living in California with Proposition 8. There seems to be no legitimate reason for homophobia except religious ones. 2) It has no evidence in most, if not all claims. It does not deserve the same level of respect as an established and accepted scientific claim. "Gays choose to be gay" is such an example. So are the creation myths that are slowly entering some schools. 3) 9/11. 4) It gives you false hope. Same idea as the lack of evidence argument. Here's some ideas as to why religion may deserve respect: 1) They help the poor, feed the hungry etc etc. 2) It gives people a reason to live. 3) The other obvious ones I don't care to list. Any others? Maybe my cons for religion just outweighs the pros of religion in my mind. As an atheist I believe the world would be better without religion. <-- that probably sounds really arrogant to you religious folk and will probably be very very disrespectful. But can we please argue seriously about this? It will be interesting and you could change my mind. Tell me why the world is better as it is with religion. The only religion that I seriously respect is Buddhism. It has done no harm to me and has not managed to upset me in any manner. There's probably others out there, but I do not know them. 1.) Not all religious folk are obsessed with sexuality, and people can find more than one mode of support for their hatred and fear. An absence of religion doesn't mean that their would be an absence of homophobia or even a smaller amount of it present in humanity. 2.)Religion and science are not the same thing and so cannot be expected to follow the same rules of engagement. 3.)Radicals distort religious tenets and use that distortion to manipulate others into doing their bidding. People unfortunately seem fairly good at finding ways to control a population in doing it's bidding, just look at what we saw happening when communism was more wide spread, children ratting out their parents for not carrying that little red book. People getting beaten and killed and what about the Rwandan Genocide, the ethnicity of the Hutu's and Tutsi's were the same but as political groups they were turned against each other through negative propaganda and neighbors turned on the people they once cared about and killed them. 4.)What false hope? I might agree with you on #1. I just think that without religion or at least an organized one, proposition 8 would not have happened. Especially because religion teaches children at an early age and homophobia is definitely a taught thing. For number 2, I completely agree. That is why I dislike creationists who do so. I'm just poking at fundamentalists with that one. Number 3, agreed. I was poking at radicals again. 4 false hope, because to my understanding of the world, there is/are no god(s) and there is no afterlife.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:07 pm
Apacelull Richard Dawkins did suggest that if Thomas Jefferson had lived in the present day with the knowledge that we know now, he would've undoubtedly been an atheist and many letters profess this idea. He was the closest thing to agnosticism there was in his day. This idea is absurd. What more have we disproven about the notion of god since Jefferson's time? Nothing at all. I like how Richard Dawkins has the tenacity to not only pretty much insult members of theistic faiths, but also presume the position of famous leaders of theistic faiths, and how they would be today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:32 pm
Nattfodd Apacelull Richard Dawkins did suggest that if Thomas Jefferson had lived in the present day with the knowledge that we know now, he would've undoubtedly been an atheist and many letters profess this idea. He was the closest thing to agnosticism there was in his day. This idea is absurd. What more have we disproven about the notion of god since Jefferson's time? Nothing at all. I like how Richard Dawkins has the tenacity to not only pretty much insult members of theistic faiths, but also presume the position of famous leaders of theistic faiths, and how they would be today. What more? So much more! And Thomas Jefferson was a deist, which means that God created the world and then left it and does not intervene in human affairs. It is pretty much a way to explain where we came from and such. Since his day we have established the theory and fact of evolution by natural selection, we have found laws of physics and can further explain the Big Bang theory. If Thomas Jefferson knew what we knew now, he would probably be agnostic. It's a good point to be made. The existence of a god isn't necessary in his "religion" if he knew what we knew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:55 am
Apacelull Nattfodd Apacelull Richard Dawkins did suggest that if Thomas Jefferson had lived in the present day with the knowledge that we know now, he would've undoubtedly been an atheist and many letters profess this idea. He was the closest thing to agnosticism there was in his day. This idea is absurd. What more have we disproven about the notion of god since Jefferson's time? Nothing at all. I like how Richard Dawkins has the tenacity to not only pretty much insult members of theistic faiths, but also presume the position of famous leaders of theistic faiths, and how they would be today. What more? So much more! And Thomas Jefferson was a deist, which means that God created the world and then left it and does not intervene in human affairs. It is pretty much a way to explain where we came from and such. Since his day we have established the theory and fact of evolution by natural selection, we have found laws of physics and can further explain the Big Bang theory. If Thomas Jefferson knew what we knew now, he would probably be agnostic. It's a good point to be made. The existence of a god isn't necessary in his "religion" if he knew what we knew. I used to be an agnostic who could suddenly become an atheist the minute someone opened their mouth to preach. I've heard a lot of these arguments, because I have made them. The "Big Bang" Theory? "Evolution"? These are not new at all. In Gnostic scripture, Jesus let the cat out of the bag 2000 years ago in an over arching theme that includes multiverses, a concept only beginning to be (re)explored. A young Carl Jung read the Gnostic scriptures and used them for the basis of psychology. Thomas Jefferson was extremely intelligent, and with intelligence comes curiosity and insight. Disagreeing with one concept of God and creation(catholic christianity) does not mean that he would reject all others without investigation. The exploration of science into the universe has revealed new theories of matter, as projections of wave length(light) almost as holograms. Nothing new there either! Tell me, how does intelligence work? What is it that makes you, you? What is the seat of consciousness? Where is it located?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:18 am
Soulgazer the Gnostic Apacelull Nattfodd Apacelull Richard Dawkins did suggest that if Thomas Jefferson had lived in the present day with the knowledge that we know now, he would've undoubtedly been an atheist and many letters profess this idea. He was the closest thing to agnosticism there was in his day. This idea is absurd. What more have we disproven about the notion of god since Jefferson's time? Nothing at all. I like how Richard Dawkins has the tenacity to not only pretty much insult members of theistic faiths, but also presume the position of famous leaders of theistic faiths, and how they would be today. What more? So much more! And Thomas Jefferson was a deist, which means that God created the world and then left it and does not intervene in human affairs. It is pretty much a way to explain where we came from and such. Since his day we have established the theory and fact of evolution by natural selection, we have found laws of physics and can further explain the Big Bang theory. If Thomas Jefferson knew what we knew now, he would probably be agnostic. It's a good point to be made. The existence of a god isn't necessary in his "religion" if he knew what we knew. I used to be an agnostic who could suddenly become an atheist the minute someone opened their mouth to preach. I've heard a lot of these arguments, because I have made them. The "Big Bang" Theory? "Evolution"? These are not new at all. In Gnostic scripture, Jesus let the cat out of the bag 2000 years ago in an over arching theme that includes multiverses, a concept only beginning to be (re)explored. A young Carl Jung read the Gnostic scriptures and used them for the basis of psychology. Thomas Jefferson was extremely intelligent, and with intelligence comes curiosity and insight. Disagreeing with one concept of God and creation(catholic christianity) does not mean that he would reject all others without investigation. The exploration of science into the universe has revealed new theories of matter, as projections of wave length(light) almost as holograms. Nothing new there either! Tell me, how does intelligence work? What is it that makes you, you? What is the seat of consciousness? Where is it located? As far as I know, Dawkins was not talking about "new information" that would convince Jefferson to be an Atheist, but rather a change in attitude and social acceptance. Dawkns argument is that it never would have occurred to Jefferson to call himself an Atheist, because it was so foreign, and Deist was sort of the next best thing, if you will. Not improvements in science, but advancement of culture. Could be wrong, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:21 am
Soulgazer the Gnostic Tell me, how does intelligence work? What is it that makes you, you? What is the seat of consciousness? Where is it located? Simplistically, in the brain. Every "human" phenomena can be observed in its rudimentary form in animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:16 am
Soulgazer the Gnostic . A young Carl Jung read the Gnostic scriptures and used them for the basis of psychology. Going on a tangent, here: There's a book called The Shaman's Body, written by a psychologist who incorporates shamanic ideas into his practice. It's a fascinating read. He never explicitly claims a belief in any god -- not that I can remember, anyway -- but cites examples of people with different faiths putting that faith to use in remarkable ways. Trancework, talking to spirits, eliminating negative influences from their bodies. Some of the people he worked with were people with physical disabilities or terminal illnesses, and the stories were just so intriguing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:30 pm
Soulgazer the Gnostic Apacelull Nattfodd Apacelull Richard Dawkins did suggest that if Thomas Jefferson had lived in the present day with the knowledge that we know now, he would've undoubtedly been an atheist and many letters profess this idea. He was the closest thing to agnosticism there was in his day. This idea is absurd. What more have we disproven about the notion of god since Jefferson's time? Nothing at all. I like how Richard Dawkins has the tenacity to not only pretty much insult members of theistic faiths, but also presume the position of famous leaders of theistic faiths, and how they would be today. What more? So much more! And Thomas Jefferson was a deist, which means that God created the world and then left it and does not intervene in human affairs. It is pretty much a way to explain where we came from and such. Since his day we have established the theory and fact of evolution by natural selection, we have found laws of physics and can further explain the Big Bang theory. If Thomas Jefferson knew what we knew now, he would probably be agnostic. It's a good point to be made. The existence of a god isn't necessary in his "religion" if he knew what we knew. I used to be an agnostic who could suddenly become an atheist the minute someone opened their mouth to preach. I've heard a lot of these arguments, because I have made them. The "Big Bang" Theory? "Evolution"? These are not new at all. In Gnostic scripture, Jesus let the cat out of the bag 2000 years ago in an over arching theme that includes multiverses, a concept only beginning to be (re)explored. A young Carl Jung read the Gnostic scriptures and used them for the basis of psychology. Thomas Jefferson was extremely intelligent, and with intelligence comes curiosity and insight. Disagreeing with one concept of God and creation(catholic christianity) does not mean that he would reject all others without investigation. The exploration of science into the universe has revealed new theories of matter, as projections of wave length(light) almost as holograms. Nothing new there either! Tell me, how does intelligence work? What is it that makes you, you? What is the seat of consciousness? Where is it located? Evolution by natural selection WAS a new idea. Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was not published until the 1850s. Jefferson would've been dead 20-30 years before this. Evolution wasn't a new idea but without evidence or a mechanism to support the idea it wasn't accepted. The Big Bang theory is definitely a new idea. What do you mean by multiverses? Was it explained in gnosticism? Or was it interpreted that it meant that there are multiverses. The idea of parallel universes is still a hot debate anyway and would barely affect any kind of agnostic or atheist attitude. Also as I said, Thomas Jefferson was a deist. A deist. He was not Catholic. He believed in a creator god that left right after creation, who did not intervene in human affairs. That means he didn't believe Jesus was the messiah. If there is no use for a creator god, he would not have been a deist. He already did rejected most other catholic concepts. How does intelligence work? I don't know but it definitely has to do something with neurons. If you ever took a neuroscience class that question will be answered there! Don't turn to religion for those questions. What is that makes me, me? Again you ask a very deep, philosophical question. I am the material me. Nothing more. Life is just a beautiful orchestra of chemical reactions. DNA makes me different from other humans, the way I was brought up makes me different from a human that may have the same DNA (aka an identical twin). What is the seat of consciousness? The brain! Turn to psychology for that answer. Do not turn to religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:45 pm
Nebulance Wait, maybe I misunderstood; which points are good and should be taken seriously? The only I can see that might fit that criteria is calling someone's religion inherently evil... and that would just be extremely inaccurate for almost all modern religions. Here are a few that I think to be good points and are in no way insulting. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson "A believer states everything must have a creator but fail to say how he was created." – Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:16 pm
Apacelull "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson That statement made by Thomas Jefferson has always been one of my favorites but why is it listed as an atheist quote? Do you think that believers blindly follow out of fear? They couldn't have come to their own conclusions after putting some serious thought into the matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:23 pm
Semiremis Apacelull "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson That statement made by Thomas Jefferson has always been one of my favorites but why is it listed as an atheist quote? Do you think that believers blindly follow out of fear? They couldn't have come to their own conclusions after putting some serious thought into the matter? The second bit of the quote is albeit a bit generalized and insulting. But yes plenty of religious nuts (I'm assuming there are none here) believe in god because they fear punishment and dare not question his existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:56 pm
Apacelull Evolution by natural selection WAS a new idea. Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was not published until the 1850s. Jefferson would've been dead 20-30 years before this. Evolution wasn't a new idea but without evidence or a mechanism to support the idea it wasn't accepted. The Big Bang theory is definitely a new idea. What do you mean by multiverses? Was it explained in gnosticism? Or was it interpreted that it meant that there are multiverses. The idea of parallel universes is still a hot debate anyway and would barely affect any kind of agnostic or atheist attitude. Also as I said, Thomas Jefferson was a deist. A deist. He was not Catholic. He believed in a creator god that left right after creation, who did not intervene in human affairs. That means he didn't believe Jesus was the messiah. If there is no use for a creator god, he would not have been a deist. He already did rejected most other catholic concepts. How does intelligence work? I don't know but it definitely has to do something with neurons. If you ever took a neuroscience class that question will be answered there! Don't turn to religion for those questions. What is that makes me, me? Again you ask a very deep, philosophical question. I am the material me. Nothing more. Life is just a beautiful orchestra of chemical reactions. DNA makes me different from other humans, the way I was brought up makes me different from a human that may have the same DNA (aka an identical twin). What is the seat of consciousness? The brain! Turn to psychology for that answer. Do not turn to religion. The Gnostic text, when addressing the question, don't use the word "evolution", true. They use the word "emanation" Meaning, that everything that exist comes from something before it, and if you could trace it back to it's root, and you traced it back far enough, you would encounter the "first thought" or "big bang". Gnostics recognized millenia ago that nothing stays the same, everything changes. Evolution or "emenation" was as natural as the sun shine. Multiverse=when a person dies, an entire world dies with him. Quote: Also as I said, Thomas Jefferson was a deist. A deist. He was not Catholic. He believed in a creator god that left right after creation, who did not intervene in human affairs. That means he didn't believe Jesus was the messiah. If there is no use for a creator god, he would not have been a deist. He already did rejected most other catholic concepts. A deist is a long way from atheism, which has been around for centuries. And to quote another Deist, (Ethan Allen) "The world is eternal, which means it has always been here"....poof....no creator god. Quote: How does intelligence work? I don't know but it definitely has to do something with neurons. If you ever took a neuroscience class that question will be answered there! Don't turn to religion for those questions. What is that makes me, me? Again you ask a very deep, philosophical question. I am the material me. Nothing more. Life is just a beautiful orchestra of chemical reactions. DNA makes me different from other humans, the way I was brought up makes me different from a human that may have the same DNA (aka an identical twin). What is the seat of consciousness? The brain! Turn to psychology for that answer. Do not turn to religion. When psychology can explain to my satisfaction how remote viewing and astral projection work,, I'll pay more attention to their opinion. If you were a quadruple amputee, and living inside a heart-lung machine, would you still be you? At what point short of unconsciousness are you missing enough mass not to be you anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:36 pm
Soulgazer the Gnostic When psychology can explain to my satisfaction how remote viewing and astral projection work,, I'll pay more attention to their opinion. Uhm, those things don't work. Ever heard of the JREF? The James Randi Educational Foundation for several years running has offered one million dollars to anyone whose "supernatural" ability/phenomena can pass empirical testing. There have been several attempts, but all have failed to get past even the preliminary rounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:52 pm
alteregoivy Soulgazer the Gnostic When psychology can explain to my satisfaction how remote viewing and astral projection work,, I'll pay more attention to their opinion. Uhm, those things don't work. Ever heard of the JREF? The James Randi Educational Foundation for several years running has offered one million dollars to anyone whose "supernatural" ability/phenomena can pass empirical testing. There have been several attempts, but all have failed to get past even the preliminary rounds. No, I had not heard of that foundation. But I have had first hand experience, one time, of seeing someone miles away, and watching their every movement. I called her, and told her about my experience, and she quizzed me to make sure it wasn't a dream. I have never been able to repeat it, don't know exactly what happened or why, but there it is. If someone can explain how that phenomena works scientifically, I will accept the answer. Dr Jung suggested that it comes from tapping into the collective unconscious. I might be prepared to accept that. So, if the big bang started it all, where did the big bang come from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:40 pm
Soulgazer the Gnostic The Gnostic text, when addressing the question, don't use the word "evolution", true. They use the word "emanation" Meaning, that everything that exist comes from something before it, and if you could trace it back to it's root, and you traced it back far enough, you would encounter the "first thought" or "big bang". Gnostics recognized millenia ago that nothing stays the same, everything changes. Evolution or "emenation" was as natural as the sun shine. Multiverse=when a person dies, an entire world dies with him. Quote: Also as I said, Thomas Jefferson was a deist. A deist. He was not Catholic. He believed in a creator god that left right after creation, who did not intervene in human affairs. That means he didn't believe Jesus was the messiah. If there is no use for a creator god, he would not have been a deist. He already did rejected most other catholic concepts. A deist is a long way from atheism, which has been around for centuries. And to quote another Deist, (Ethan Allen) "The world is eternal, which means it has always been here"....poof....no creator god. Quote: How does intelligence work? I don't know but it definitely has to do something with neurons. If you ever took a neuroscience class that question will be answered there! Don't turn to religion for those questions. What is that makes me, me? Again you ask a very deep, philosophical question. I am the material me. Nothing more. Life is just a beautiful orchestra of chemical reactions. DNA makes me different from other humans, the way I was brought up makes me different from a human that may have the same DNA (aka an identical twin). What is the seat of consciousness? The brain! Turn to psychology for that answer. Do not turn to religion. When psychology can explain to my satisfaction how remote viewing and astral projection work,, I'll pay more attention to their opinion. If you were a quadruple amputee, and living inside a heart-lung machine, would you still be you? At what point short of unconsciousness are you missing enough mass not to be you anymore? The Gnostic text did not explain evolution via natural selection. I'm also pretty sure Thomas Jefferson did not know or was very passionate about the Gnostic text. If you need an explanation for remote viewing and astral projection, go check out some Penn and Teller Bullshit! episodes. They'll explain it to you very well and show that it is just a clever trick. Psychology does not explain the phenomena you have just described because it has been explained by magicians and entertainers. And yes I would still be myself if I were a quadruple amputee and living inside a heart-lung machine. As long as my brain is functioning healthily then I am myself. How much mass do I need to be myself? However much needs for my brain to keep running. Even if all my sense are depleted as long as the brain can function enough to have thoughts I will still be myself. Albeit it would be a one hellish prison if I lost ALL my senses. You could also say that once I am dead, I am still myself. Just not with a functioning brain. I'm sure you're implying that we all have a soul. If you learn about abiogenesis and evolution then you'll quickly realize that we have no soul. If there is a soul it has to be at a cellular level. We are, after all, multicellular organisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
