Religion and Science

[mrsdutt]

Sept 10, 2012 7:58:34 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

]If you left off '...for ourselves', I would agree. But indeed we aren't put here for ourselves, but rather to assist each other in life. I'm sure you understand this.

I'm sure she does, as well. I'm also pretty sure she understands if one is not true to him/herself it's a cinch they'll not be true to anyone else.

Agreed.

[mrsdutt]

Sept 10, 2012 8:10:03 GMT -5 @devianity said:

Sept 10, 2012 7:44:00 GMT -5 mrsdutt said:

If only - just for a moment - each person could shed all outside influences, they would be able to see how simple and free life can be.

Yes. It seems to me that you're slowly making your way towards describing the moment of enlightenment there, although I believe that this requires shedding the self too, in order to allow for the most naked and unadulterated experience possible to come flooding in.

I guess I didn't think of it that way, but yes, you have it right. Thank you for summing it up for me.

I wish I could shed myself, but I'm just not that good at it 100% of the time. But then I am human. How's that for a justification?


The one thing I consider a positive is when I do 'misbehave', I'm convicted of it and work it out then move forward. Since I have the ability to be a few watts short of a full bulb, I seem to repeat the same things over and over. So I guess I'm still climbing that mountain.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2012 8:21:33 GMT -5 mrsdutt said:

I wish I could shed myself, but I'm just not that good at it 100% of the time

There are various methods available to assist with achieving that goal though, to my knowledge, they are all neglected by the 3 main monotheistic faiths of our time.

I seem to repeat the same things over and over. So I guess I'm still climbing that mountain.

No worries. Just gotta watch out for mountain goats, is all.

[mrsdutt]

No worries. Just gotta watch out for mountain goats, is all.

[Reckless Roselia]

“Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.”
- Heywood Broun (1888 - 1939)

...the understatement of the millennium.

;D

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2012 10:59:54 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

“Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.”
- Heywood Broun (1888 - 1939)

...the understatement of the millennium.

;D

I think that statement is baloney. ;D The only time I ever talk about your god is when you bring it up. otherwise I really don't care and would have no reason to speak of it.

[Reckless Roselia]

Sept 10, 2012 11:16:41 GMT -5 @joey said:

Sept 10, 2012 10:59:54 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

;D

I think that statement is baloney. ;D The only time I ever talk about your god is when you bring it up. otherwise I really don't care and would have no reason to speak of it.

God is a bit like marmite, no?

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2012 11:20:48 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

Sept 10, 2012 11:16:41 GMT -5 @joey said:

I think that statement is baloney. ;D The only time I ever talk about your god is when you bring it up. otherwise I really don't care and would have no reason to speak of it.

God is a bit like marmite, no?

Perhaps, but marmite is not quite as polarizing. God is like Lady Gaga.

[Deleted]

;D

[Green Eyed Lady]

I think that statement is baloney. ;D The only time I ever talk about your god is when you bring it up. otherwise I really don't care and would have no reason to speak of it.

I disagree. I find that statement to be right on the money. As far as bringing up God, you'll find that happens a lot in the threads on "Religious Discussion". "Religious Discussion" threads, to me, says it is a given that God will be discussed. Navigating and posting in said threads says that the person DOES care and must have a reason to speak in them. Otherwise, those threads would be ignored in much the same way as I ignore threads I have no interest in and no reason to speak of the subject.

[weltschmerz]

Sept 9, 2012 22:56:46 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Please, do find us the proof of this completely made up 1 in 5 statistic you've trotted out.

Out of the latest 50 posts in Weltz' profile, results #1, #13, #29, #30, #42, #43, ...
Admittedly that's only 12%. It's the weekend and "cats" seem to be the major theme.

Only 12%?? I thought it was much more than that! I'll have to ramp it up a bit.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2012 12:00:14 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I think that statement is baloney. ;D The only time I ever talk about your god is when you bring it up. otherwise I really don't care and would have no reason to speak of it.

I disagree. I find that statement to be right on the money. As far as bringing up God, you'll find that happens a lot in the threads on "Religious Discussion". "Religous Discussion" threads, to me, says it is a given that God will be discussed. Navigating and posting in said threads says that the person DOES care and must have a reason to speak in them. Otherwise, those threads would be ignored in much the same way as I ignore threads I have no interest in and no reaspon to speak of the subject.

I post on a lot of different topics, because this is a god thread makes it no more or less interesting.

[Reckless Roselia]

I kinda beg to differ here. The thread topics that pull the most comments and responses are the political and religious threads. Chat threads do too (maybe) but they're not for those that like a challenge or a debate.

[Spellbound454]

There are different degrees of religion.

I have a level of spirituality but its nowhere near fundamentalism which can be a bit oppressive.
I also have a fascination for science.

Its getting the best of both worlds.....

[Deleted]

I tend to see religion as the institutionalisation of spirituality, Spell. The institutionalisation of anything is questionable because it is an inherently dogmatic affair. A hierarchy develops, power begins to corrupt, inequity blossoms like some rancid flower, the whole enterprise is warped from being an expression of its original ideals into something that exists merely to continue existing -that it might nourish the relationships of power that have come about.

There is a spectrum of institutionalisation which runs from the whimsical beliefs of just one individual, all the way up to the colossal juggernaut of organised religion at the other end. The former is fluid and open to amendment, it is potentially compatible with a great range of different beliefs. The latter is dogmatic and tyrannical, it is compatible with different beliefs only by coincidence.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2012 14:28:22 GMT -5 @devianity said:

I tend to see religion as the institutionalisation of spirituality, Spell. The institutionalisation of anything is questionable because it is an inherently dogmatic affair. A hierarchy develops, power begins to corrupt, inequity blossoms like some rancid flower, the whole enterprise is warped from being an expression of its original ideals into something that exists merely to continue existing -that it might nourish the relationships of power that have come about.There is a spectrum of institutionalisation which runs from the whimsical beliefs of just one individual, all the way up to the colossal juggernaut of organised religion at the other end. The former is fluid and open to amendment, it is potentially compatible with a great range of different beliefs. The latter is dogmatic and tyrannical, it is compatible with different beliefs only by coincidence.

so

[Spellbound454]

I tend to see religion as the institutionalisation of spirituality, Spell. The institutionalisation of anything is questionable because it is an inherently dogmatic affair. A hierarchy develops, power begins to corrupt, inequity blossoms like some rancid flower, the whole enterprise is warped from being an expression of its original ideals into something that exists merely to continue existing -that it might nourish the relationships of power that have come about.

Its ok for people who can't think for themselves ISA
but many of us are well educated, morally sound... free thinking individuals.

It may get to a point where you think...Actually, I don't want to bully people, be a baby factory, kill people in the name of religion.....and Yes I have a real problem with what the Catholic Church have done in Africa.....
and................I don't have to nail myself to a cross to feel enlightment....So don't bother telling me I do..

[Reckless Roselia]

I sometimes believe you and I are Wiccan, Spell.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Its ok for people who can't think for themselves ISA
but many of us are well educated, morally sound... free thinking individuals.

I'm confused. Who can't "think for themselves"?

[Spellbound454]

I sometimes believe you and I are Wiccan, Spell.

Well...despite the monika...I think its a bit glamorous but far too simplistic.
I might enjoy dancing naked around bonfires....but that would be just mischief..... not because I believed anything.....

[Spellbound454]

I'm confused. Who can't "think for themselves"?

I'm talking of people who blindly follow orders.....which are man-made to meet an agenda without questioning the validity given their own life experiences and moral code.
If someone told me to place a bomb in a crowded area.....I wouldn't do it. It defies all rational thought.
Yet......people do.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I see. Thank you.

[Reckless Roselia]

Sept 10, 2012 15:11:24 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

I sometimes believe you and I are Wiccan, Spell.

Well...despite the monika...I think its a bit glamorous but far too simplistic.
I might enjoy dancing naked around bonfires....but that would be just mischief..... not because I believed anything.....

;D

Actually, I was speaking with admiration for you, Spell. I enjoy reading your posts on this board.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm confused. Who can't "think for themselves"?

"People who can't think for themselves" is such a quaint expression coming from individuals whose values, mores, habits, hobbies, styles, and entertainment preferences were ostensibly handed to them by society at large, and whose lives are utterly unexceptional in any of these regards.

"Thinking for yourself" is a myth. Unless we hold fast to some doctrine, we wind up thinking exactly what our society tells us to think. The only difference between them being that the latter has no definitive source, granting us the luxury of assuming our worldviews are somehow meticulously engineered rather than simply handed to us and spray painted a little for a personal touch.

Want the hard, bitter reality? Out of the literally thousands of beliefs you hold, there is absolutely nothing you believe that isn't also believed by at least 25% of the people here. (Don't believe me? Just ask. I dare you.) Moreover, if you did hold any unconventional beliefs, you'd be classified as part of the "lunatic fringe" and mocked off of NMSNM so fast it would make your head spin.

So viva "thinking for yourself".

[mmhmm]

One can most certainly think for oneself. One can also hold unconventional beliefs without being classified as anything at all by anyone who matters. This is accomplished strictly by keeping one's fingers still with regard to one's most deeply-held beliefs, keeping one's fingers still concerning the deeply-held beliefs of others, and simply living one's life the way one feels it should be lived. It might be a novel concept to some, but it could catch on. ;D

[Green Eyed Lady]

Interesting concept but decidedly bad for message board business or any debate forum for that matter. Whether the subject is religion, politics or social issues, keeping one's fingers still would make for a fairly inactive board.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Well...with the exceptions of the thread like I usually post in, which is mostly nonsense. However, that particular venue isn't for everyone.

[mmhmm]

Sept 10, 2012 16:23:25 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Interesting concept but decidedly bad for message board business or any debate forum for that matter. Whether the subject is religion, politics or social issues, keeping one's fingers still would make for a fairly inactive board.

LOL! Yeah, it would; however, I didn't say keep one's fingers still about everything. I just suggested keeping one's fingers still with regard to one's most deeply-held beliefs and the most deeply-held beliefs of others. That shouldn't be that difficult. There's plenty to talk about in the world without every having to go there, IMO.

[Virgil Showlion]

This is accomplished strictly by keeping one's fingers still with regard to one's most deeply-held beliefs, keeping one's fingers still concerning the deeply-held beliefs of others, and simply living one's life the way one feels it should be lived.

*lol*

So we can hold unconventional ideas, the key is never to mention them to anybody.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2012 14:58:26 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Its ok for people who can't think for themselves ISA but many of us are well educated, morally sound... free thinking individuals.

Indeed, Spell. When you say 'think for themselves' I presume you mean the process of rationalising, however it's unclear as to whether faith is a product of rational thought at all.

Does a person chose such a thing?

It may get to a point where you think...Actually, I don't want to bully people, be a baby factory, kill people in the name of religion.....and Yes I have a real problem with what the Catholic Church have done in Africa..... and................I don't have to nail myself to a cross to feel enlightenment....So don't bother telling me I do..

You give a fine example. Look at the fundamental tenets and then look at the behaviour of the institution; something has gone horribly wrong.