OT: religion

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk][quote=flyer]I find it amusing that “nonbelievers” think their opinion is more valid than “believers.”

[/quote]

Not more valid necessarily, but definitely more rational.[/quote]

zk: So, you’re arguing AGAINST dogmatism, by USING dogmatism?[/quote]

No. I’m not saying that my position is incontrovertibly true (dogmatism).

I’m saying that my position is rational. Completely different from incontrovertibly true.

Rational means based on or in accordance with reason or logic. I have used reason and logic to arrive at my conclusion. Faith, by definition, does not use these things to reach a conclusion.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=zk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk][quote=flyer]I find it amusing that “nonbelievers” think their opinion is more valid than “believers.”

[/quote]

Not more valid necessarily, but definitely more rational.[/quote]

zk: So, you’re arguing AGAINST dogmatism, by USING dogmatism?[/quote]

No. I’m not saying that my position is incontrovertibly true (dogmatism).

I’m saying that my position is rational. Completely different from incontrovertibly true.

Rational means based on or in accordance with reason or logic. I have used reason and logic to arrive at my conclusion. Faith, by definition, does not use these things to reach a conclusion.[/quote]

We know all sorts of things that are not incontrovertibly true.

[Doofrat]

[quote=scaredyclassic]it does seem irrational that the creator is a bear on aunicycle who farts souls. first of all, bears are small and bound to the earth, probably, they only live in certain habitats. it’s not really likely that the farting and the soul are connected. it just seems irrational to think that souls are created by farting bears. is it dogmatic to hold to that view? no. probably not. there’s nothing to support it. for those who believe that we will find out in the afterlife that indeed, there is a special bear, one not bound by earthly laws, one who rides and farts souls…i say…dogmatically…no…no, that’s wrong.
[/quote]

Scaredy, it’s a CLOWN riding a unicycle, not a BEAR, that’s the other religion. Geesh, before you go bagging on my Clown religion maybe you need to understand it better!

[UCGal]

This thread has to be one of the most interesting threads on Piggington. Much better than discussing whether Jeff Bridges has sold out. LOL.

On the topic of faith at the time of death, I’ll share my observations of my Dad and brother. Dad was basically an agnostic. My brother was born again. My brother had much more fear of death than my dead. He would talk about joining God in heaven. He was not at peace with his terminal illness and went through horrific “heroic” measures to try and extend his life. He was constantly praying in what sounded like bargaining terms with God.
Dad was at peace with it all – choosing quality of life over quantity. Knowing he was going to die – he wanted to lead a good life while he could.

Kind of the opposite of CARs parents.

As far as theological discussions with those around me. I have them. I’m an agnostic. The only thing I’m certain of is that I do NOT know the answers. My personality type leans far more towards trusting scientific data than mythology. My sister is very devout. She and I have had long long long talks on this. She prays that I’ll be “blessed with the gift of faith”. Through our talks she acknowledges that you have to suspend belief in things provable and trust/have faith. She knows I don’t have that. We get along just fine and have respect for each other.

In general, I’m more likely to decide about a person not on their religion – but by whether they lead a good, ethical life. I don’t want to say moral – because that implies religion… but there are plenty of people who are non-religious and lead very moral/ethical lives. There are also plenty of people who are highly religous but are driven by greed and selfishness at the expense of others. I don’t care if a person is religious – but I do care if they are “good” people.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=doofrat][quote=scaredyclassic]it does seem irrational that the creator is a bear on aunicycle who farts souls. first of all, bears are small and bound to the earth, probably, they only live in certain habitats. it’s not really likely that the farting and the soul are connected. it just seems irrational to think that souls are created by farting bears. is it dogmatic to hold to that view? no. probably not. there’s nothing to support it. for those who believe that we will find out in the afterlife that indeed, there is a special bear, one not bound by earthly laws, one who rides and farts souls…i say…dogmatically…no…no, that’s wrong.
[/quote]

Scaredy, it’s a CLOWN riding a unicycle, not a BEAR, that’s the other religion. Geesh, before you go bagging on my Clown religion maybe you need to understand it better![/quote]

the bear resonates more with me, feels more mythologically powerful. Also clowns were a relatively recent invention. Bear farts seems more plausibly linked to a powerful other world while clown farts are just sad. Not as sad as nailing people to crosses. But sad.

[scaredyclassic]

I was willing to make a deal with G-d in the delivery room but he wasn’t negotiating.

I don’t care if I die but I do care if my kids die.

I’ve pretty much done everything.

[NotCranky]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]Probably a certain vanity or egotism , not humility at all , in being haughty about the believers. If the believers seem consistently more fucked up than the rest of us then maybe I could see laughing in their faces, but it just isn’t that way.

To me it’s about how we chose to be governed. We all have to chose sources to fulfill our need for governance. Religion is above all a form or forms of governance of societies and individuals. Look at the right wingers , most religiously fanatic and anti-government, with the strong attachment to governance by religion it makes sense. Their need for governance is filled by churches and bible verses so they have psychic space to be more hostile to the government…Jesus is their president. They say stuff like that

Others of us chose to be governed more by the actual standing government, social convention, our friends and families in some hodge podge way and don’t see a need for church/religion. But, I think it’s fair to say that these types of governances are as flawed or nearly as flawed as most of those that have a large dose of religion..so get off the high horse.[/quote]

that makes sense. I think I shaLol adopt it as my belief system.[/quote]

I know you tried to sneak a shalom in there. A lot of us are vestigially governed by religion. it’s like the tail we still have whether we like it or not….only potentially more troublesome. The most vocally anti-religious are the most torn inside over the issue. Damn, I just made the sign of the cross over myself again!

[FlyerInHi]

if there’s a god, I don’t think that he would discriminate against non-believers for entry into the afterlife. So believing gains you nothing in the afterlife.

Believing is for this life, if you need it to find meaning. I have to admit some of the rituals are beautiful theater and add sophistication to life.

On a blog, the question is just academic. But in social settings, I just nod and humor people. Religion is a powerful institution. Why bother fighting a battle you can’t win?
Didn’t someone say “don’t jaywalk at the intersection of how things are or should be’?

Flyer, maybe I’m just unemotional, because I find that at least 90% of movies are just stupid. The stories are not touching to me and I couldn’t care less. I just go along to get along.

I like realistic real life dramas. I know that Harry Potter is a big sensation, but the fantasy stuff if just ridiculous to me. I know that people want to escape reality and are willing to pay for it, but real life is just fine by me.

The movies that I like, Hollywood doesn’t make. How about a coherent, well thought out, realistic story line?

[scaredyclassic]

I weep right on cue at virtually every movie that asks me to.

My wife finds this hilarious.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Blogstar]Probably a certain vanity or egotism , not humility at all , in being haughty about the believers. If the believers seem consistently more fucked up than the rest of us then maybe I could see laughing in their faces, but it just isn’t that way.

To me it’s about how we chose to be governed. We all have to chose sources to fulfill our need for governance. Religion is above all a form or forms of governance of societies and individuals. Look at the right wingers , most religiously fanatic and anti-government, with the strong attachment to governance by religion it makes sense. Their need for governance is filled by churches and bible verses so they have psychic space to be more hostile to the government…Jesus is their president. They say stuff like that

Others of us chose to be governed more by the actual standing government, social convention, our friends and families in some hodge podge way and don’t see a need for church/religion. But, I think it’s fair to say that these types of governances are as flawed or nearly as flawed as most of those that have a large dose of religion..so get off the high horse.[/quote]

that makes sense. I think I shaLol adopt it as my belief system.[/quote]

I know you tried to sneak a shalom in there. A lot of us are vestigially governed by religion. it’s like the tail we still have whether we like it or not….only potentially more troublesome. The most vocally anti-religious are the most torn inside over the issue. Damn, I just made the sign of the cross over myself again![/quote]

It’s difficult to communicate without a langusge.

It’s as difficult to speak about this subject as if the past, ones family and people did notvexist.

My ancestors would probably chase me down and beat me with a stick for these thoughts. Or maybe not. I think my paternal great grandfather would’ve made tea and discussed the subject w amusement

[scaredyclassic]

I’m pretty confident that I have no ancestors anywhere living or dead for whom marrying a Catholic and raising Catholics is acceptable.

The world changes. THE g-d of our fathers lives and dies with our mating choices.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=zk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=zk][quote=flyer]I find it amusing that “nonbelievers” think their opinion is more valid than “believers.”

[/quote]

Not more valid necessarily, but definitely more rational.[/quote]

zk: So, you’re arguing AGAINST dogmatism, by USING dogmatism?[/quote]

No. I’m not saying that my position is incontrovertibly true (dogmatism).

I’m saying that my position is rational. Completely different from incontrovertibly true.

Rational means based on or in accordance with reason or logic. I have used reason and logic to arrive at my conclusion. Faith, by definition, does not use these things to reach a conclusion.[/quote]

zk: In a previous post, you asserted that ALL religions were a “fantasy”. Not SOME or CERTAIN, but ALL. That’s a dogmatic assertion. Interestingly, as someone who believes in empiricism and observable phenomena, that’s a position you cannot PROVE.

Here’s the point I was trying to make: Faith and Reason are not incompatible. You referenced astronomy (spherical Earth) and microbiology (bacteria) in a previous post. Some of the greatest research in those areas has been performed by people of faith. Did their faith or beliefs get in the way of their research? It doesn’t appear so. If you were to remove the body of work from just the Catholic scientists, researchers, doctors, etc, you would take away a staggering amount from science.

Saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the first contributors and proponents of the scientific method used extensively to this day. One can hold Faith and Reason with equal ease, was my point.

[FlyerInHi]

God (or Google) must have read my mind.
I’m getting some ads for Mormon.org on my screen.

[FlyerInHi]

doesn’t the scientific method put the burden of proof on the party advancing a theory?

If you want to say that a certain drug/compound cures a disease, you have to prove that it does. If not, then that cure doesn’t exist.

[zk]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: In a previous post, you asserted that ALL religions were a “fantasy”. Not SOME or CERTAIN, but ALL. That’s a dogmatic assertion. Interestingly, as someone who believes in empiricism and observable phenomena, that’s a position you cannot PROVE. [/quote]
Forgive me for not saying, “in my opinion.” I didn’t really think it was necessary to say that.
In my opinion, ALL religions are a fantasy. Just because ALL religions are included does not make that statement dogmatic.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Here’s the point I was trying to make: Faith and Reason are not incompatible. You referenced astronomy (spherical Earth) and microbiology (bacteria) in a previous post. Some of the greatest research in those areas has been performed by people of faith. Did their faith or beliefs get in the way of their research? It doesn’t appear so. If you were to remove the body of work from just the Catholic scientists, researchers, doctors, etc, you would take away a staggering amount from science. [/quote]

If, by your statement that faith and reason are not incompatible, you mean that many people of faith are great scientists, and that people of faith can also be reasonable (about other things than their faith), then of course I agree. I don’t think I said or implied otherwise. If you mean that faith is reasonable, then I don’t agree.

[Author]

Posts