|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:51 pm
No one knows what is on the other side. Some people think that they have a pretty good idea and other people hope for a brighter pasture to play in. But anyone who tells you that they definitively know for a fact what happens when they die is full of bullshit. Know why? Because I don't know. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that you don't have any special power that I don't; we're all playing with the same deck of cards, they just come shuffled.
So I preach to you all: Doubt!
Don't ever stop wondering and start believing. That will get you no where my friends. End this cycle of division. Religion was a great thing at one point. It made us all come together and play nice with one another. But now we have laws to uphold the order, we don't need a wizard in the sky.
Don't drink the Kool-aid, always question.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:12 pm
If you don't want to believe, fine. No one is making you. However, this is not a place to preach; it's a place of debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:14 pm
Would you care to detail a time in history wherein there was religion, but no laws?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:51 pm
Quote: this is not a place to preach; it's a place of debate Correct you are, and I seem to have misspoken and thus was misunderstood. Thank you, though the indignant response instead of a argumentative once is saddening. I want the views on why this is not the case from those people who do believe in an absolute. Quote: care to detail a time in history wherein there was religion, but no laws I'm talking old school in this one. A grand Epoch it was in Africa those million years ago when man changed from hunter gatherer of the world to domesticated man. One of the four main reasons for civilization (the others being: forced rule, family, and if I recall correctly resources) is religion. Long ago someone figured out you could make others be kind to each other if they believed some one was always judging and watching them, and had judgement they could not escape. So I suppose my last posting was in some way misleading and in that fact I apologize. I now I humbly ask that those who do believe share their views on why I have mislead myself and I shall, to the best of my ability, help each and every person to understand or perhaps I will come to the conclusion I am dead wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:16 am
Reynard Lothar Quote: care to detail a time in history wherein there was religion, but no laws I'm talking old school in this one. A grand Epoch it was in Africa those million years ago when man changed from hunter gatherer of the world to domesticated man. One of the four main reasons for civilization (the others being: forced rule, family, and if I recall correctly resources) is religion. Long ago someone figured out you could make others be kind to each other if they believed some one was always judging and watching them, and had judgement they could not escape. I'm asking you for evidence that religion preceeded law. I suppose here we'd have to define how we're using "law", but I'd say social rules existed prior to religion. ETA: to be fair, that's as much an assumption on my part as yours is on yours. I don't have enough experience with human evolution to know at what point social rules started to play a major part. Also, I'm assuming here that "million years ago" is an exaggeration. Quote: So I suppose my last posting was in some way misleading and in that fact I apologize. I now I humbly ask that those who do believe share their views on why I have mislead myself and I shall, to the best of my ability, help each and every person to understand or perhaps I will come to the conclusion I am dead wrong. It's not so much that you're wrong, perhaps, but that your opinion wasn't well presented. It's just that you seem to have the impression - or at least, I am inferring that you have the impression - that religion as a whole is about "a wizard in the sky" whose purpose is to get us to "play nice". That religion was a great thing once, but is not now. How is this so, for religion as a whole? Also, I'm unsure that we all play with the same deck of cards here. Mine has these 22 extras in it and four court cards instead of three.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:13 am
4shi If you don't want to believe, fine. No one is making you. However, this is not a place to preach; it's a place of debate. I second this statement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:22 am
( on phone so bear with me)
I thought I covered that I wasn't preaching to this group... But I suppose I'll say it again.
That is what I preach. That is the idea, the beleif.
Now I'll get back on point as soon as I can, can we please post on the ideas expressed, and not the various mis steps in my presentation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:52 am
Reynard Lothar Quote: this is not a place to preach; it's a place of debate Correct you are, and I seem to have misspoken and thus was misunderstood. Thank you, though the indignant response instead of a argumentative once is saddening. I want the views on why this is not the case from those people who do believe in an absolute. Sanguina hit the nail on the head. Your word choice implied, especially with the commands like "Don't drink the Kool-Aid", that anyone who believes in religion is engaging in something akin to the Jim Jones cult and needs saving from oneself these days. That's just downright insulting on quite a few levels. Meanwhile, you imply religion in its "original form" has become obsolete without clear evidence to support your claim even if it had the function you claim in the first place. So if I come off as indignant then it's because I am insulted. I tend to get that way from the thinly-veiled, preachy stance of "arguments". Also, if many of us didn't doubt or think it through we wouldn't have converted to other religions. The Neopagan movement is a great example of this statement. ADD: Quote: ( on phone so bear with me) I thought I covered that I wasn't preaching to this group... But I suppose I'll say it again. That is what I preach. That is the idea, the beleif.Now I'll get back on point as soon as I can, can we please post on the ideas expressed, and not the various mis steps in my presentation? You say you aren't preaching, then turn around and say it in the next paragraph. Do you now understand why people like me have a hard time with what you're saying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:23 am
One again on phone I'll make it breif
I preach that. But I have not to you( collective). I will post and hopefuly save some level of face. But yes, I'm sorry but I cannot sweeten the next statment: I do view religious people as foolish. Much in the way a priest weep for my damned soul, I lament for his ludicrous beliefs. Now poke and pride me as you shall. I shan't look upon this page for 4 hours, and then for the last time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:43 am
Reynard Lothar One again on phone I'll make it breif I preach that. But I have not to you( collective). I will post and hopefuly save some level of face. But yes, I'm sorry but I cannot sweeten the next statment: I do view religious people as foolish. Much in the way a priest weep for my damned soul, I lament for his ludicrous beliefs. Now poke and pride me as you shall. I shan't look upon this page for 4 hours, and then for the last time. That's the thing, you're acting no better than some of the preachers of whom you detest when you preach. We don't need saving, especially in an environment where it isn't appropriate. We aren't asking you to "sugar-coat", we're asking you to debate. As it stands, your first post isn't a debate topic. It's preaching at us, nay belittling us, for having faith in something higher than ourselves. Ad hominem attacks are usually committed by people who have no argument but wish to be combative in my experience. Also, I presented something counter to your "argument": if people didn't doubt, they would stay with a religion. You chose not to address that. So I will present something that seems more akin to your level: if we are to doubt, then why have you not doubted everything you believe? Instead you are preaching it. Have you not doubted this method either? Have you gone to the level of Descartes with your doubting? If not, then why have you wavered in your quest to doubt? If you have, then show us the reasoning as to why you have no reason to doubt that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:59 am
4shi Reynard Lothar One again on phone I'll make it breif I preach that. But I have not to you( collective). I will post and hopefuly save some level of face. But yes, I'm sorry but I cannot sweeten the next statment: I do view religious people as foolish. Much in the way a priest weep for my damned soul, I lament for his ludicrous beliefs. Now poke and pride me as you shall. I shan't look upon this page for 4 hours, and then for the last time. That's the thing, you're acting no better than some of the preachers of whom you detest when you preach. We don't need saving, especially in an environment where it isn't appropriate. We aren't asking you to "sugar-coat", we're asking you to debate. As it stands, your first post isn't a debate topic. It's preaching at us, nay belittling us, for having faith in something higher than ourselves. Ad hominem attacks are usually committed by people who have no argument but wish to be combative in my experience. Also, I presented something counter to your "argument": if people didn't doubt, they would stay with a religion. You chose not to address that. So I will present something that seems more akin to your level: if we are to doubt, then why have you not doubted everything you believe? Instead you are preaching it. Have you not doubted this method either? Have you gone to the level of Descartes with your doubting? If not, then why have you wavered in your quest to doubt? If you have, then show us the reasoning as to why you have no reason to doubt that? OH SNAP SON! Sorry, thought that wall of intellectual power needed some stupid to contrast it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:11 am
divineseraph 4shi Reynard Lothar One again on phone I'll make it breif I preach that. But I have not to you( collective). I will post and hopefuly save some level of face. But yes, I'm sorry but I cannot sweeten the next statment: I do view religious people as foolish. Much in the way a priest weep for my damned soul, I lament for his ludicrous beliefs. Now poke and pride me as you shall. I shan't look upon this page for 4 hours, and then for the last time. That's the thing, you're acting no better than some of the preachers of whom you detest when you preach. We don't need saving, especially in an environment where it isn't appropriate. We aren't asking you to "sugar-coat", we're asking you to debate. As it stands, your first post isn't a debate topic. It's preaching at us, nay belittling us, for having faith in something higher than ourselves. Ad hominem attacks are usually committed by people who have no argument but wish to be combative in my experience. Also, I presented something counter to your "argument": if people didn't doubt, they would stay with a religion. You chose not to address that. So I will present something that seems more akin to your level: if we are to doubt, then why have you not doubted everything you believe? Instead you are preaching it. Have you not doubted this method either? Have you gone to the level of Descartes with your doubting? If not, then why have you wavered in your quest to doubt? If you have, then show us the reasoning as to why you have no reason to doubt that? OH SNAP SON! Sorry, thought that wall of intellectual power needed some stupid to contrast it. LOL, and I thought it was just to show us your siggie (I love that picture, btw).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:37 pm
Shameless preaching (at us, as it's in our guild) will be colored red. Admissions of preaching will be colored green. Reynard Lothar No one knows what is on the other side. Some people think that they have a pretty good idea and other people hope for a brighter pasture to play in. But anyone who tells you that they definitively know for a fact what happens when they die is full of bullshit. Know why? Because I don't know. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that you don't have any special power that I don't; we're all playing with the same deck of cards, they just come shuffled. So I preach to you all: Doubt!Don't ever stop wondering and start believing. That will get you no where my friends. End this cycle of division. Religion was a great thing at one point. It made us all come together and play nice with one another. But now we have laws to uphold the order, we don't need a wizard in the sky.
Don't drink the Kool-aid, always question.Reynard Lothar Quote: this is not a place to preach; it's a place of debate Correct you are, and I seem to have misspoken and thus was misunderstood. Thank you, though the indignant response instead of a argumentative once is saddening. I want the views on why this is not the case from those people who do believe in an absolute. Quote: care to detail a time in history wherein there was religion, but no laws I'm talking old school in this one. A grand Epoch it was in Africa those million years ago when man changed from hunter gatherer of the world to domesticated man. One of the four main reasons for civilization (the others being: forced rule, family, and if I recall correctly resources) is religion. Long ago someone figured out you could make others be kind to each other if they believed some one was always judging and watching them, and had judgement they could not escape.So I suppose my last posting was in some way misleading and in that fact I apologize. I now I humbly ask that those who do believe share their views on why I have mislead myself and I shall, to the best of my ability, help each and every person to understand or perhaps I will come to the conclusion I am dead wrong. Reynard Lothar ( on phone so bear with me) I thought I covered that I wasn't preaching to this group... But I suppose I'll say it again. That is what I preach. That is the idea, the beleif. Now I'll get back on point as soon as I can, can we please post on the ideas expressed, and not the various mis steps in my presentation? Reynard Lothar One again on phone I'll make it breif I preach that. But I have not to you( collective). I will post and hopefuly save some level of face. But yes, I'm sorry but I cannot sweeten the next statment: I do view religious people as foolish. Much in the way a priest weep for my damned soul, I lament for his ludicrous beliefs. Now poke and pride me as you shall. I shan't look upon this page for 4 hours, and then for the last time.Now, I'm not perfect. I won't go into the religious symbolism in the avi or speech manner. I will say that religions formed independent of laws. Taoism prescribes a philosophy, not some moral code, nor cowering to some celestial parent-figure. Study the aborigines, and you'll note that their beliefs about the world have little to do with their ideas about how to respect one another. That's weird. I thought an atheist would argue that morality *was* independent of religion. Yet, the faith still exists. Both yours, ours, and Aborigines. I challenge you, Reynold Lothar, to try the most scientific, rational-minded approach to beliefs of anything that may possibly be considered a religion, Atheism aside. Doubt is not a hindrance in Thelema, but rather a requirement for initiation. Trust me, there's no Kool-Aid in there. Read "Book IV" by Aliester Crowley, and take a year to try the practices out, as prescribed. Doubt is prerequisite for this course. Being a staunch atheist, you have nothing to fear - the occult shouldn't exist in your world view. Here's Book IV.Never mind that in our western concept of faith, even the Christians doubt. In fact, unless one tests the faith with doubt, it never grows strong. It never proves itself. It just withers and wanes in the secure knowledge of "I think I'm saved, and that's all that matters". Our very notion of belief in this society implies doubt as a prerequisite for faith. The Apostles' Creed (among other Christian prayers) affirm faith, quietly acknowledging that Doubt is possible. Other cultures don't do that. When missionaries went to India to spread the "word of Jesus", there was no doubt. The held every missionary's word in rapt attention, accepted a cross for the shrine of their new god..... and they put him right next to Ganesha, Krishna, and Shiva. They don't have this "belief vs doubt" dichotomous neurosis that we do. Believe me, that drove the missionaries insane. If you really want, I can go on and on and on.... about the meanings behind the english word "believe". We spent a week on it in my Anthropology of Religion course. Ask many a native of his tribe what they "believe", and they'll literally think you're retarded. They don't believe - they *know*, as evidenced by the fact that there is no question. The conclusion that we reached to circumvent a firmly Christian bias in our very language? Belief isn't what's important in how we study religion - its action. That makes Evangelical Christians much the same as Evangelical Atheists... Your assertion that belief in anything is erroneous seems to imply a belief in nothing. This implies that you, too, are a believer, just as religious as any fundamentalist loudmouth that goes door-to-door. I repeat 4shi's question - have you questioned *your* beliefs? A true skeptic would not argue faith - it is subjective. There is no evidence against *all* concepts of God, just a collection of evidence against one religion or another. Hence, my proposal about Thelema - it is as reasonably objective a means as exists to explore this subjective realm. Apply the formula rigorously, just like the quadratic, and the desired results occur. Note that unless you understand what I'm talking about (requiring a thorough reading) any dismissal would be out of hand, and thus show a closed-mind ill equipped for debate or preaching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:28 pm
Reynard Lothar Long ago someone figured out you could make others be kind to each other if they believed some one was always judging and watching them, and had judgement they could not escape. Actually, I tend to think religion evolved as a way to explain the world and rather than a way to make people behave. To the best of my knowledge, many earlier religions seemed to have more to do with the behavior of the Gods/Spirits/whatever and interaction with them then with how you behave toward other people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:47 pm
As an Atheist, I advise you to get a new hobby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
