How do you define spirituality for yourself? What do you want to get out of it and what entities are required for it to work?
Worldview and Religion
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
How do you define spirituality for yourself? What do you want to get out of it and what entities are required for it to work?
Why even consider a theological position? Many people simply give it no heed one way or another, the issues are irrelevant for them, and I don't believe that is a theological position in the same way that atheism or materialism are theological positions. I.e. this is a third alternative.
Talmudic ideology is the worst thing to happen to humanity, it far surpasses any damage done by Christians.
The idea that a religion should dictate world view is dangerouse; your view of the real world should not be inclined by whatever beliefs you have.
This idea of religion dictating worldview brought us the problem of divine right.
The latter statement is the crux of it. Until you know what it is that you're after, the questions you are asking can't be answered.
Atheism and materialism are theological positions. Refraning from making a choice is still making a choice.
Atheism and materialism are rational positions. Theological positions are those that include supernature.
Atheism and materialism are theological positions because they take a position regarding God, namely, that of rejection.
For some, perhaps. But the core of each is that they don't consider a god position. Each of these positions can exist without the god position and are therefore independent. Thus, there is no reason to refer to them as "theological" positions. That leaves them as rational positions, assigned the designation of "theological" positions by those that accept the god position as fact simply because they refuse to use reason and don't want to believe others will either.
Wow. Way to not understand what I'm saying at all. Atheism and materialism are defined by their position toward God. Even agnosticism is still a theological position, in that the choice is made not to make a choice.
Abstaining from action is still an act in itself.
I still hold the position that you're wrong. Is a five year old that has never learned of a god or religious superstition holding a theological position when they reply with a shrug to the question "what is god?"
That five year old is an atheist since it doesn't hold a belief in any gods. It is a materialist since it recognizes as valid the material world in which it lives; the world it senses and observes -and understands that there is a difference between fantasy and reality.
Surely you cannot hold the position that this five year old has a theological position? It would be like saying high school drop out holds a super string position when he hasn't studied physics.
That five year old is an atheist since it doesn't hold a belief in any gods. It is a materialist since it recognizes as valid the material world in which it lives; the world it senses and observes -and understands that there is a difference between fantasy and reality.
Surely you cannot hold the position that this five year old has a theological position? It would be like saying high school drop out holds a super string position when he hasn't studied physics.
If ones religion is true then it should dictate their lifes view.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
PS: If God exists then things like the virgin birth and Jesus walking on water would be child's play for Him. You lack of belief in these thinks reveals your lack of belief that a God exists.
Not if God must be consistent with physical law. If God isn't consistent with physical law, then no experiment can be trusted. We are subject to the whims of a Creator's will, which is overwhelmingly not the message of the New Testament.
One can argue that science has progressed more rapidly in the West (after the Inquisition, that is) than in the East, for the sole fact that the Christian God is one of order, and the Muslim Allah is one of intervention---for example, from a Muslim textbook on Chemistry ``When hydrogen and oxygen combine, they form water, if God wills it''.
Your view is an extremely conservative one, to which I can never prescribe.
And what if that religion is inconsistent with what we can analytically test?
I think I agree with you, as per the original post. Specifically, athiesm would be the extreme end of the spectrum---one is confident that science can answer all questions without fail. If you are not confident of this, then, I would claim that you are an agnostic.
To be sure, science can NEVER prove God's existence. This is the message of the New Testament---salvation by faith alone. Science can only push God into corners, so to speak. Science can constrain God.
So I ask you---is it possible to scientifically explain the universe in its entirety? (I don't know what I think about this question, and don't know how to answer it myself...)
Perhaps you are right. I don't want to have to make up excuses to tell my childeren. I don't want to have to ignore logic and sanity to get something from religion. But at times, especially in America, religous people make it their mission to corrupt science. And it only takes a few to spoil the whole lot---one creation museum in Kentucky, one Intelligent Design textbook in Kansas... These things make me think that we'd be better off without religion.
This is totally fallacious. When someone believes in God but not these things, they aren't saying that God can't do these things, they are saying that God wouldn't do these things.
I've seen people practice religion merely to be a part of the rituals and social bonding that comes with it. They know and openly acknowledge that the theistical claims are bogus, but they do involve themselves in the traditions.
Do you think the reverse is possible? i.e. people surrounded by atheists go along with the gig?