Discussion about Religion

[Redoubtable]

The Super Natural is Natural, it is just outside, beyond, above, superior to, the natural order of the Material World of Reality.

It must have taken some practice to spew forth a statement that obtuse and vapid.

In effect, my articulate fellow, you asserted the following.

"The supernatural is natural, except that it's supernatural."

*Laughing Obstreperously*

 

[wayne_92587]

Originally posted by Cris
Wayne,

No. It is just a baseless imaginative concept.

Of Course this is True.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Super Natural is Natural, it is just outside, beyond, above, superior to, the natural order of the Material World of Reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So do you think that determinism is the only Reality, and that Free Will is an Imaginative Concept.

Freedom determined by the Chaos of cause and effect, finite Freedom, is not Freedom, it is determinism.

Man is Free to Bring the Chaos, the natural order of the material World of Reality to order; order that is unnatural to the Material World of Reality, Freedom of Motion that is highly ordered and he does so with the help of his Imaginary Concepts, Imagination, Freedom from the Chaos.

The Imagination is Supernatural, is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, is more powerful than a locomotive and Faster than a speeding bullet, is not bound to the Material World of Reality.

Free Will, Freedom of Mind, the Creative Imagination, is superior
in nature to the Flesh, Man's physical, Material Reality.

If Man’s survival were dependent upon his natural Instincts, the Consciousness of the Flesh, his five senses which are sorely lacking, man would not exist.

Man has a helpmate that is Super Natural, his sixth sense, Freedom of Mind, Free Will, the Creative Imagination.



Up Up and Away.

 

[Cris]

Flores,

Religion is also based on observations and detections,

In which case faith is never needed then correct? There have been no scientifically substantiated observations or detections of a god.

religion is a private matter with the goal to estimate the person's life purpose,

I have ways to establish my life’s purpose and it is not religious.

I personally don't believe in a supernatural force. I believe in a natural force that is responsible for creating this universe. I call it universal order, others call it nature, others call it entropy, other call it god, ect...

OK.

Irrelevant to whom exactly?

Irrelevant, as in not relevant to the issue.

And I was the dumb one that got so excited and empowered by my most recent accomplishment of passing the PE exam and being recognized by the board of engineers as a professional engineer. Little did I know that any Joe Shmoe that have lifted up a scale or operated a computer is an engineer.

It is all a matter of degree then.

No you were simply ignorant.

Well thank you, and while we are at the name calling, so are you.

No, that wasn’t an insult, but a matter of objective fact. You did not know about atheism therefore you were ignorant of available facts. That is ignorance. Most people are ignorant of some things as am I. The key issue is when people claim to know something but have not made the effort to research it.

Yes, they should object, specially if the person calling them a man is using the label to belittle them.

That is not the issue. My point is that if someone behaves in a religious manner then they are religious. It is objective observation.

Religions exist whether they are labeled or not. Whether Jesus called himself religious or not is irrelevant. He would be religious as a result of his actions.

It only exist in your head...perhaps your head is not challenged enough or occupied by enough of it's own theories that it always find itself obsessed with how others think.

What?

It is simple; if someone engages in religious activities then they are religious. I don’t see any need to dispute what is simple objective observation.

You are confusing institutional religion with generic religion.

…May you elaborate please, …

Religious beliefs can take on many forms; they do not have to conform to the big institutionalized religions like Christianity, or Islam.

You obviously don't make a distinction between physical attributes and mental choices. For example, a black man is black whether he likes it or not, and yellow is yellow and a white is white....

OK.

But how could you call a person a communist or a religionist because they seem to believe secretely in a set of ideas

Why does it matter whether their ideas are secret or public?

that YOU happened to attribute to negative words like religion or communisim.

Why are these terms negative?

Isn't this againest all privacy laws.....

???

No one can compel another to give a religion affiliation, while you are pushing an affiliation on me whether I like it or not....

I am not pushing anything. You are what you are by physical characteristic or action. I have nothing to do with it.

Religion is made up by man and chose by man,

OK.

being a woman/man/black/yellow is not a choice, religion is.

OK.

And I chose to believe in god and not be religious

That is like being a woman and calling yourself a man. Believing in a god and being religious are dependent on each other; you cannot be a theist and not be religious.

...IT IS MY CHOICE..

No, it is a matter of dependent concepts. The action of believing in a god is the definition of being religious. If you believe in a god then you cannot help but be religious, it is not a matter of choice.

What objects???? Whoever spoke of an object?????

God is an object which might be real or imaginary.

Whether God is real or not is one question, but your belief that he exists is real.

You seemed to be confusing your beliefs as being imaginary with the objects of your beliefs.

I'm getting an ulcer here yelling that I believe in the concept of singularity and universal order...

Do you understand that the concept is one thing, but the targets of the concept, in this case singularity or universal order, are separate?

 

[wayne_92587]

Originally posted by Redoubtable
It must have taken some practice to spew forth a statement that obtuse and vapid.

In effect, my articulate fellow, you asserted the following.

"The supernatural is natural, except that it's supernatural."

*Laughing Obstreperously*

No that is not what I said, Supernatural is unnatural to the material World of Reality. The Supernatural is natural, is relative to the Reality that exists beyond the Material World of Reality, the Supernatural exists outside of the Natural Material World of Reality.

The Super Natural is Natural to the Spiritual World of Reality, is not Natural to the Material World of Reality.

What is Natural to the Immortal Soul is Unnatural, Supernatural to the Mortal Soul.

The Immortal Soul that part of our Nature that is Rational.
The Mortal Soul that part of our Nature that is Sensible.

Man exists because of his Superior Nature, because he is sensible, reasonable, Rational.

If man were left to his natural instincts, his animal nature he would not exist.

 

[Cris]

Wayne,

So do you think that determinism is the only Reality, and that Free Will is an Imaginative Concept.

Freedom determined by the Chaos of cause and effect, finite Freedom, is not Freedom, it is determinism.

Now those are interesting issues worthy of a separate thread.

The Imagination is Supernatural, is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, is more powerful than a locomotive and Faster than a speeding bullet, is not bound to the Material World of Reality.

Imagination is a product of the brain and is entirely material.

If Man’s survival were dependent upon his natural Instincts, the Consciousness of the Flesh, his five senses which are sorely lacking, man would not exist.

Perhaps, although the cockroach has outlived man for quite a few million years, so perhaps the cockroach has a fabulous imagination as well.

Man has evolved from his earlier predecessors because he developed a larger brain which seems to have allowed him a more powerful imagination coupled with superior intelligence. All of which are entirely physical.

 

[Redoubtable]

Originally posted by wayne_92587
No that is not what I said, Supernatural is unnatural to the material World of Reality. The Supernatural is natural, is relative to the Reality that exists beyond the Material World of Reality, the Supernatural exists outside of the Natural Material World of Reality.

The Super Natural is Natural to the Spiritual World of Reality, is not Natural to the Material World of Reality.

What is Natural to the Immortal Soul is Unnatural, Supernatural to the Mortal Soul.

The Immortal Soul that part of our Nature that is Rational.
The Mortal Soul that part of our Nature that is Sensible.

Man exists because of his Superior Nature, because he is sensible, reasonable, Rational.

If man were left to his natural instincts, his animal nature he would not exist.

*waves white flag about madly*

 

[wayne_92587]

Originally posted by Redoubtable
*waves white flag about madly*

Maybe a red flag but never a white flag.

 

[Flores]

Cris[/B] In which case faith is never needed then correct? There have been no scientifically substantiated observations or detections of a god.[/B]

If religion was a cookie cutter, automautive, airoplane intended for the public use, then I'm with you that it's not scientifically substantiated for such a use. But I'm saying that religion is private unique to every person, and how can science capture such a unique characteristic like finger prints. When the day come that science can predict the pattern of finger printing of each person from their blood type then maybe we can start using science to observe and detect religion....Science is still too primitive for such applications.

Cris[/B] I have ways to establish my life’s purpose and it is not religious. [/B]

You say tomatoes, I say tomAtoes.

Cris[/B] It is all a matter of degree then.[/B]

No, it's a matter of accountability. A person with a degree and license to practice his earned skill is accountable for his errors and could be barred from the profession. People that keep their skills private and don't use them on the public are not accountable for their thoughts or actions until they break a law like building without a permit.

Cris[/B] That is not the issue. My point is that if someone behaves in a religious manner then they are religious. It is objective observation.[/B]

What the hell is "Behave in a religious manner". Can you for instance list me those manners and elaborate further on your so called objective observation.

Cris[/B] It is simple; if someone engages in religious activities then they are religious. I don’t see any need to dispute what is simple objective observation.[/B]

Religious activities? Again, please show as a Cris list of what constitues a religious activity.....Again, let's examine your very objective observations.

Cris[/B] Why does it matter whether their ideas are secret or public? [/B]

Aren't you the one that carry the signature that says that you are free to do what you wish if it doesn't impact another person. When you hold your ideas secrete, you're not impacting anyone...The minute you go public, you're bound to brush into other opinions.

Cris[/B] Why are these terms negative? [/B]

Because you think so.....unless you wish to change your mind and tell me that being religious is a positive term.

Cris[/B] I am not pushing anything. You are what you are by physical characteristic or action. I have nothing to do with it.[/B]

Yes you're pushy. Extremely pushy...Religion is not a physical character, yet you are attempting to lump me together using one term with another 3 billion souls based on a subjective erratic list in your head.....How would you feel if I used a rope to tie you down and equate you to another 3 or 4 billion people based on a stereotype in you head.....If that's not prejudice, what is?

 

[Cris]

Flores,

You seem to be offended about being called religious and you appear to be having a problem explaining why you aren’t religious. I never intended offence or that this would be contentious.

My perspective is very simple. If someone believes in the existence of a god then they are necessarily religious to some degree, (and I didn’t mean this in the sense of academic qualifications), e.g. from the simple recognition of a god as an ultimate reality to extreme fundamentalism, and anything in-between.

From Webster: Religious - relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

From Encarta: Religious - believing in a higher being.

From Cambridge: Religious - having a strong belief in a god or gods.

From American Heritage: Religious - Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

Now there are many more in depth discussions of what is meant by being religious, so these simple dictionary definitions are by no means comprehensive. But they do seem to encompass my perspective that any belief in a god does qualify as being religious.

I suspect your objection to the label is because of the possible association with religious fundamentalists, and I can understand that concern. Perhaps the issue here is your perspective that the term ‘religious’ is a significant negative, and I don’t see it that way.

The real issue should be the reasoning behind why you believe in a deity. This current dispute seems like a pointless irrelevance, and largely comes down to the interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘religious’.

Does this help?