This & that
Regardless, it might be a somewhat shoddy list, but I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say.
Largely, yes. I wouldn't even bother to argue the semantics at that point if I was drunk.
Ohhh ... tell me about it.
I think the question is WHY does one adapt religion ever?
Same reason one speaks any given language:
learned behavior. However, we do need to look at the reasons we examine the religions of others, for as you note:
It only affects me by pissing me off.
It seems that this is a good enough reason for you. And, judging by the behavior of others around this site, it's a fairly common sentiment to varying degrees of severity.
But it's reason enough.
Does it piss you off because you're a selfish bastard and it gets in your way? There are generally better reasons, but that one's fair, and other speculation gets too complicated for the moment. But there you have it.
(As an irrelevant editorial note, such seems a good enough reason for a war--because he pisses us off ....
)
I think it affects you mostly because you love those who taught it to you or you have a deeply personal relationship with it somehow.
How deep should I pile the rhetoric? I do strive for a universal love, but let's be reasonable. And of course Christianity damaged me somewhat. And if I'm going to understand that damage, I must understand the nature of its cause.
You say it is art and can therefore provides such a relationship, but to me when the first thing you do is stipulate your assumptions, you're dealing with science. Well, at least a scientificish approach. I'd say more precisely, REASON. That is part of my motivation in placing my faith (i.e. a correct assumption) in reason .
"Reason" is an excellent point. We can spill out our presuppositions while discussing Charles Dickens, but it doesn't make our literary waxings necessarily scientific. Understanding the presuppositions of Christianity is, as a functional necessity, no different than understanding the presuppositions of modernism or cubism. If you know what you're looking for, it's easier to find it. If you know what you're looking at, it will tend to make more sense.
And when it makes enough sense, then you can figure out what to do about it.
I disagree strongly however, and see that you're looking at science from the wrong end.
Hardly. I'm one of the ones who wants to get off this rock and spend a few million generations getting to know the Universe more intimately. More accurately, what I was referring to is that when you step into the logical construction of something like Christianity, there are only so many possible results. Higher math is one thing, but Christianity does not require "higher math" in metaphysics. Christianity is more like doing mazes with crayons on the back of a Pizza Hut menu. Once you put the stylus to the page, there are only so many ways to make it through the maze. Christianity on a flow chart would be vast, but fairly simple to follow.
It happens. Don't let me stop you.
I realize you say it is art, but it sounds suspiciously like unreasonable circular reasoning to me.
Well, Catholicism is almost entirely built on a limited number of presuppositions. I suppose the frustration goes a little like this:
? Atheist Joe and Catholic Jim are shooting the breeze.
? Joe asks Jim about the homosexual vote coming up
? Jim responds that while the Old Testament is pretty clear about gay sex, he is a Christian, and is therefore moved to forgiveness and trust in God.
? Joe thinks about it for a moment, nods, and says, "But there is no God, you git."
What I'm after is that the conclusions based on God--the actual important result that affects conduct--and the routes undertaken to get to those conclusions somehow become inconsequential while folks get hung up arguing about God.
Jim indicates that his belief in God will not incite him to limit someone's civil rights for sex habits, and Joe bashes God. When I see that pattern in a discussion, it tells me that God is more important to Joe than Joe will let on. It also tells me something about the degree of identification. It tells me that Joe's sense of personal identification is of higher priority than his associate's actual sentiments.
It's just that I've seen this process push people back from the brink of spiritual liberation, when the perception of hostility drives them from open questioning of the faith back into rote.
At Sciforums I sometimes think the biggest inhibitor to my own communication with Christians is the presence of atheists. I can't help what one or another of the faith will choose for fixation, but it sometimes stuns me how someone will ignore the issue to chase after God.
your details do not yield productive results
Depends on what you call productive and what results you expect. That's yours to elaborate or not, as you will.
It's the journey that's the thing right?
That's part of it. Suffice to say that the journey takes place for a reason.
Facts are just ways to attempt to relate to one another in a sophisticated way right?
Not just to one another, but from one (the self) to all things (the Universe).
Well ... you know ... (hides the bong)
I think if you are truly selfish, others benefit inherently.
A matter of definitions close enough to my perception that I would agree. The problematic issue, though, is one of human diversity. The Rede is more specific than Thelema. But it seems that if you think about Thelema carefully, the bases are inherently covered:
? An' it harm none, do what thou will. (Rede)
? Do what thou will shall be the whole of the Law. (Thelema)
You can see where something like Thelema would get you into trouble, right? But it seems that "harm none" is an important part of protecting and advancing the self. In the end, it's kind of like the Golden Rules compared:
? Do unto others as you would have done unto you. (Jesus)
? Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you. (Hillel)
The Rede prevents you from harming even yourself; Thelema "allows" one to destroy their own self if they so choose, but the only way to do what thou will is to protect your ability to do it.
As a side note, I point to the interventionist 80s. But it's a way-out side note.
End story on this point, it matters how you perceive "selfish", but I'm happy to admit that one of the reasons I want schools funded and poverty addressed is so that there will be less people wanting to rob me for whatever.
Nah, can't blame you. It's a natural symptom of atheism. (And, well ... I couldn't resist, either ...
)
Nothing is objective in an absolute sense, you can merely attempt to make objective observations. The moment you make your observation, you become subjective.
Indeed. And here's another brain-twister: By the time you perceive an event, it is history. There is no real-time perception. We might say that a bank robbery, in total, is going on for two minutes and certainly you're perceiving. But when the gunshot goes off, by the time you know it, it has happened. By the time you perceive the teller has died, it has happened. Time passes while the signals travel. Miniscule amounts of time, but events are history nonetheless.
Drink on it a few times. Things get weird when you do.
If you're lucky, you'll still be able to communicate with the other humans.
My quest for objectivity shattered my communicative abilities. It's a long rehabilitation, and I've found out that communication is something so reviled in society that many people I know would prefer that my communicative skills never return.
I just hope nobody has to die before I snap back into reality.
I tend to be tangential, please bear with me
Many of Sciforums' readers smiled ironically at that.
Subjectivity is an inescapable fact of human nature; it is a foundation stone of human nature.
She was full on mental and I calmed her down with truth and understanding and didn't mention god once.
I tend to think that makes it a little easier, but I haven't had to play that way for a few years. I tell you ... Jesus only
complicated that situation.
And one of these days ... I'll get that scoundrel Jesus ....
Hmm. I think you are avoiding something there... the truth is, words will do nothing if not from the "heart" so to speak. If say "it is as god wills" but like, all sarcastic like, my heart has offended the ill. It is how you are able to communicate the fact that you love that person or care about them or can relate to them that will comfort them in their time of despair, unless of course. If they are christian or a doubting athiest or prone to the idea of god they will certainly respond to "it is as god wills" better because it is something they relate to.
Exactly. Otherwise I should order my Moo Goo Gai Platter in Greek.
Not entirely. I'm a pacifist by nature and declaration, however if people are determined to fight ....
I would prefer, however, that all future wars be conducted in Antarctica. Thus, two armies composed entirely of volunteers might go forth and slaughter themselves senseless without heavy civilian damage. Who needs the ice shelf?
Regardless you align yourself thusly, but for what.... submission?
Then I would be Muslim ...
Originally posted by tiassa
Whoever is smart enough to work around that will make it through to the other side, and then we can see what the sum total of the remaining religions equals.
I'm sorry but I'm not quite following you on this point... if it is important please clarify for me.
Natural selection. Let them fight. The smart ones will survive, and they can come live in peace with the rest of us with no hard feelings whatsoever.
The Sufis assert that there exist a core of ideas fundamental to human existence, and these, by my interpretation, become what we call God. Enumerating those ideas is a little more difficult than speaking of them in theory. But if you stop to dwell on mortality and death, and on infinity, and on the "why" of human existence, what these ideas inspire in us emotionally lend to that core. The rest--the trappings, the bells, the incense, the hymns and scriptures of folk heros--is merely the balance of "religion" as compared to the identification of God.
To put it into more atheistic terms: there is a purpose to life, whether or not we know what it is. What people do with
that idea is entirely their own ....
As such, recognizing the idea of a purpose of life would be, for our rhetorical purposes, the idea of God, while deciding that saving the trees is the right thing to do and dedicating your life (and the processes thereof) to that right thing is, of a sort, religion. And then you get into the sectarian crap: are you a tree-hugger? A lobbyist? A militant tree-spiker?
God represents an idea. That idea is, essentially, God. Anything beyond that is religion.
Entertain her notions such that she is comforted.
Would it seem unnecessary if I countered with, "What about managing
real human communication in those moments?" Of course, that rare moment might be included in entertainment or comfort, but it's one possibility.
I'm ignorant of what you speak. I'm not particularly interested unless it really has bearing on negating my trash talking.
Abram, Abramic, Abramism--a term describing the common religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which trace their lineage to Abram (Abraham).
Much of Sciforums theist/atheist debate pertains to Abramic ideas. Most American pop-headline religious issues concern some form of Abramism. Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions fall outside the paradigm, though Orthodox Hinduism carries a heavy influence from British protestantism.
Think of the things people often complain about in religion. Many of these elements can be found inside the Abramic paradigm. But what does who around here know of Native American shamanism, African shamanism, and so forth? The fundamental outlook on the Universe is somewhat different outside the Abramic paradigm. Some people would wonder why we discuss God in this manner at all; it seems undignified, of all ironies.
Ah, but I think that is spin. I think that we call a rose red when it reflects red light. The rose is exactly red by definition.
Exactly. It's not a spin, but a twist. Look at the rose: what you see is what is
reflected, or, if we might use a more personalized verb,
refused. What actually goes into the rose are other colors.
We call a rose red because we identify it according to what it refuses, according to what is not actually present in the thing itself. We identify it symptomatically, not essentially.
As we've discussed, it is impossible to state them as they actually are with 100% confidence, but it IS possible to have faith that what you see is real.
I find this curious because while we cannot see anything with 100% confidence as such, it also seems vastly important to bear this in mind at any given time. I have a joke I use with my friends, "If I ever say I know what I'm doing, go ahead and worry." (Unfortunately, it's too subtle for some, but that's a bit of a sidebar.)
It also follows that you should make sure that what you claim to see is real before claiming you've seen something real.
To what degree? You cannot prove to me that you exist. My perception of you does not prove my existence because I cannot prove that I exist to perceive you. We can establish the fact that I perceive you, and you me, but we cannot establish that either one of us exists.
I haven't heard the song.
Of those references you haven't seen or heard, well, they obviously come with my recommendation, but aside from that, they only serve as examples for comparison, and you seem to get the trend of comparison going on.
What's really embarrassing, though, is that I can't find an image of the Botticelli I refer to. The nearest I'm getting is Petrus Christus. It's been years since I've actually seen the painting. It's an oval, as I recall ... hmm ... searching, searching.
Ugh.
Oh, well.
I'm glad you enjoyed yourself. Strangely, my wind tends to annoy people.
thanx,
Tiassa