What makes your (dis)belief better?

[Oniw17]

A want for more is greed. Form dictionary.com: "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: “Many... attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed” (Henry Fawcett)."
What one deserves can not be interpreted by themselves, and since there is no great dieties to interpret what we deserve for us, then nature must be the judge. When you are born, you have nothing, only your survival and the mere chance that you will reproduce, and these two factors aren't guarentied either. So what you deserve is interpreted to what you need to survive. Thus, it can be concluded that any form of leisure or materialism is a result of greed.

Also, lawdog, you are refering to neo-paganism.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

correct, Nazism was a religion (with a political thrust). Something that few historians realize.
Its origin was in the occult and in witchcraft. the symbols of the Nazis were drawn from Teutonic legend, New Age theosophical traditions from The Secret Doctrine of the mystic madam Helena Petrovna Blavatski, Yorg Lance, the Nordic Runes, and Odin warrior religion. It was a cult of the masculine rooted in evil.

*************
M*W: The swastika was a symbol of Native Americans, too. Originally, it was depicted as the Medicine Wheel going North-South and crossed with East-West. What the Nazi's did was break the 'spirit' of the sacred Medicine Wheel and turn the broken cross into a swastika, or the broken cross of the Native Americans and other indigenous persons. So you are entirely wrong when you say its origin was in the occult and witchcraft. Those entities may have used similar symbols, but they did not originate specifically from the occult and witchcraft. The "occult" does not specify New Age or Pagan cultures. "Occult" simply means "hidden," just as the swastika implies more about the hidden meaning behind the origination of the swastika than it is a symbol of evil.

However, you are most certainly right about the masculine being rooted in evil. It all goes back to the matrilineal societies being destroyed by the patriarchy who invented religion.

 

[spidergoat]

Most problems are the result of someone's idea of a solution. Mankind screwed up the natural order that let us harvest food without tilling the earth and hunting the plentiful game with simple tools.

Modern agricultural techniques and crops introduced into Africa supported a population explosion that later times of drought could not support. Sometimes it's best to leave things alone.

 

[iam]

^which illustrates the point. If nature was perfect, this would have never happened. It is what it is but its not perfect.

 

[spidergoat]

Nature is perfect in it's imperfection. Mankind is the only animal to step out of their local ecosystems. If we would have realized we lived in the garden, there might not be this neurotic grasping for perfection in the afterlife.

 

[hug-a-tree]

What makes your (dis)belief [enter religion here or athiesm] better than all other beliefs? What made you come to believe that you belief ... or disbelief.. was supreme to all other beliefs? *The* truth?.

My guess is as good as yours. Only my beliefs suit me as your suit you. Not saying that mine is any better it just goes better with me. Rings more of a bell for me, I guess.

 

[iam]

striving for perfection is not the same as perfection. mankind is part of nature and whatever his choices must be natural maybe not wise because he is from and part of for good or for worse.

 

[SnakeLord]

Many athiests claim their belief that there is no god(s) ... or disbelief in any such thing... to be true. But what made you come to this conclusion? Dont just say logic. Explain a bit. Compare and contrast if you can. What makes you not believe?

When you realise why you don't just believe in leprechauns for the sake of it, you'll understand a bit better. The 'conclusion' is simply that there's no evidence to suggest gods, (or leprechauns for that matter), exist and as such "belief" is without merit.

 

[Oniw17]

Droughts are part of nature's perfection, they regulate the popolation of species in a given environment. The species will most likely survive, and if they fail to, then it is because they are a weaker species, and nature has no more use for that species. Their spot in the evolutionary process was given up by their weakness, as they have exceeded their usefulness. This is natural selection.

 

[Cris]

Nature is not perfect, it is simply undirected.

 

[Oniw17]

Perfect is a matter of perception. I perceive perfection as balance, I'm not sure what others perceive it as.

 

[Cris]

Oniw17,

So what you deserve is interpreted to what you need to survive. Thus, it can be concluded that any form of leisure or materialism is a result of greed

Nonsense that doesn't follow at all. Since there is no known higher power to determine what we desearve then the term has no meaning. Who is to say we do not deserve all the pleasure possible that can derived from maximizing leisure and materialism?

 

[Cris]

Oniw17,

Perfect is a matter of perception. I perceive perfection as balance, I'm not sure what others perceive it as.

Since there is no known absolute standard then perfection can only be relative to something else.

 

[Oniw17]

I suppose nobody, but, if not greed what else would you describe a strive for material wealth and leisure as?

 

[Provita]

i am jewish, and i dont hold my beliefs above anyone else's.
i never preach to convert, never espouse the virtues of my belief system, and never care what someone else believes as long as it makes them happy and helps them to live the life they want to live.

i wont even raise my children jewish. it is wrong to impose religion on anyone, especially someone that doesnt know better.
values are a different story.

You've got problems, friend....

Thats the one of the best ones I have heard so far... how does that make him have problems???

 

[Oniw17]

If a meteor hit and destroyed the human race, you have even stated that evolution would still progress, the simple fact that there is evolution that is productive is perfection. Are we not more intelligent than the dinosaurs by nature? Does our intellect make us more equipped to survive? A bussiness which has got better throughout it's entire history would be considered the perfect bussiness, right? A stock that always goes up and never goes down is perfect to invest in correct? Think of the world objectively in that sense.

 

[Oniw17]

iam:
To address your edit, I am in no way selfish, if I were killed tommorrow walking out on to my porch, life would go on for the rest of the world, most who would be oblivious to this fact. In the same respect, life will go on for me everyday that people die. If I suffer, I don't expect sympathy, and neither should anyone else. Life cannot be controlled, thus it must be accepted.

 

[iam]

If a meteor hit and destroyed the human race, you have even stated that evolution would still progress, the simple fact that there is evolution that is productive is perfection. Are we not more intelligent than the dinosaurs by nature? Does our intellect make us more equipped to survive? A bussiness which has got better throughout it's entire history would be considered the perfect bussiness, right? A stock that always goes up and never goes down is perfect to invest in correct? Think of the world objectively in that sense.

No, I never said it would survive. It was hypothetical. If a meteor was large enough it could obliterate the planet. It doesn't matter if we're more intelligent than the dinosaurs. We wouldn't be if we hadn't had the chance to evolve. Just because something continues to survive does not make it perfect. You are narrowing perfection to a single factor and to you that may be perfection but not to me. The south became quite well-functioning with slavery but I wouldn't consider that perfection. Yeah, the shit got done.

 

[Oniw17]

Slavery has nothing to do with nature, rather society, and the false emotions that society has created. I would say that it is impossisible for a meteor to obliterate the earth. You could not argue the point, because you have no proof. My evidence is that it is yet to happen. Also medicine is in no way a leisure.Never have I condmned science. You wish for a beeter life for your children, while I am content with having children. I would rather keep my children away from things such as medicine so that they can gain higher immunity, as nature intends, however, I am aware that medicine is needed in some cases. I define strenth as the means by which to survive. We have the same definition of greed, just a different point where we draw the line. If my children grew up less equiped than I to survive, and living less luxurious(doubtful), then they would forceably have a better means by which to survive. Because they were given less, they would be capable of more. The would be forced to use what they have to attain the same goals which someone who has more attains. In other words, it would be better for them in the end. What I say is in no way related to slavery. Because in the end, we all have the same fate: to die. So if I am to die regardless, it would be selfish to will live one day past my time. However, it seems that everyone has that will to live as long as possible, and admittedly, I do too. This is because as a human I am a victim of greed. But true conceptual thinking tells me that I should not use resources to fulfill a need for luxury or material goal because those resourses could go toward the survival of the next generation. If I do take more than my share, that IS greed. Also if I'm the twit, why is it that the only course of debate which you can use is to insult me?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Diogienes dog & samcdkey:

Funny how both of you 'experimented' with prayer and had interesting 'results' that prompted further 'research'.

Care to divulge?

Hello Kenny, sorry for the long delay in replying. Here is a summary (posted on another forum) of the "experiment". I kept a diary during the three weeks. I also invited others to do a similar experiment. Interestingly, I got most flak from the theists on that forum - who were suspicious of my motives (I had previously argued strongly for agnosticism)!

Experimental Method

The hypothesis I want to test is that...
God exists, and will communicate with us if asked, and if we are open to a response.

Stage 1 - Control Week

For the first week, I will do nothing more than record anything that could be considered a supernatural communication e.g. strange occurrences, coincidences, insights, loud thoughts etc. Also I will note any factors that might explain these.

Stage 2 - Test Week

At the start of the second week, with an open mind, I will invite a communication with something like...
"God, if you exist, and can hear me, I ask that you unequivocally communicate the nature of your existence to me this week".

Then I'll record any unusual occurrences, and possible communications that occur during the week. As in the first week, I will note any extrinsic factors that might explain these.

Stage 3 - Subsequent Monitoring

I'll continue to monitor for an additional week.
If there were any additional factors, I'll try to eliminate these by repeating the conditions as far as possible and note any results. Then I'll record the results here.

...and here is a summary of some of the results, and conclusions. They were inconclusive, but led me to want to investigate some more. Therein lies the 'slippery slope'!

Conclusions

1) No direct experience occurred in the test week that did not occur in the control week.
2) I had a number of interesting thoughts and realizations during the 3 weeks, including the thought that God may demonstrate himself by answering my requests (prayer).
3) Most requests I made happened, though with some notable exceptions.
4) Further work is needed to establish the parameters under which requests are answered.

Early on it occurred to me to keep a daily record during the experiment, some of which I have copied below.

Sunday June 4th. Control Week - Day One
I'm aware of noticing certain thoughts which I would normally ignore. Often this type of thought suggests a sensible course of action such as "set the alarm" to ensure I wake up in time for an appointment this morning. I might otherwise leave my awaking to chance.

It was interesting that this occurred in control week. Something about observing my own mind more carefully led to the realisation of the existance of these types of thoughts.

Monday June 12th. Test Week - Day Two
I have asked that I may be a to let go of the issue I spoke about yesterday, until the appropriate time for action comes. Within a few minutes, I'm aware of the invitation, as a thought, to 'give the situation over to God'. The belief that I could do this, and that the situation might be sorted, gives rise to a sense of relief. However, I am equally aware, that I may be playing thought games with myself. I will trust however, that I can let go, in the spirit of the experiment, and because it is preferable.

By the end of the 3 weeks it is still too early to say what the resolution of that issue will be. However, I have not worried about it.

Monday June 19th. Final Week - Day Two
While out running I had a similar sense of "inward turning" to that on day 2 of the control week. It was accompanied by the thought of a presence who is there continuously, but is obscured. It wasn't a strong feeling, but rather in the nature of an imagining.

I had a discussion about theism and synchronicity with my running partner, he is a non-theist, but experiences synchronous coincidences which he explains as the mind forming patterns out of experience, through figure formation. We discussed whether theists and non-theists experience the same things, but attribute different meaning to them. Is this a matter of interpretation, or do theists have experiences not available to non-theists?

I think this question is for me crucial. Do theists have similar experiences to non-theists, which they interpret differently? Alternatively, do theists have experiences not available to non-theists? It would seem from my experience that interpretation is a central part of the process of having "faith" or not.

Overall , the results of this experiment are inconclusive. The feeling I had was that I was going to need to trust, and to continue to trust, that there was a God, in order for that belief to be demonstrated. For example, God may demonstrate himself through answered prayer, but who could say that the results would not have happened anyway. This is a catch-22 situation. I cannot maintain neutrality and simply observe a result because the interpretation of that result is always a dilemma.