|
|
General religion discussion.
|
Posts:
1,698
Registered:
7/9/08
|
|
(4322 of 4607)
Aug 24, 2009 12:28 PM
|
> He'd have
> written the commandments on plastic, or something
> unbreakable, right? Or just stopped the tablets from
> breaking. Or just told him he could enter anyway.
> But to contrive the broken tablets as an excuse...
> . that's just bogus.
It's also a juvenile evasion of one of the creed's many insufferable contradictions = why does God punish in order to serve his pride, when he's supposed to forgive?
Umm... he didn't.. see, the tablets broke. Whoopsee 
|
|
|
Posts:
272
Registered:
8/30/08
|
|
(4321 of 4607)
Aug 24, 2009 11:23 AM
|
> If you don't like ritual, don't do ritual. But ritual
> is what makes a church a church rather than just
> another building.
>
> lol I am pretty much agreeing with you. I just wanted
> to offer something I thought would be helpful to the
> discussion. 
JaredP
lol I got that you agreed with me. I just wanted to add that any fixed belief system can become dogmatic.
--
Edited by Lilianne at 08/24/2009 8:28 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
4,132
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(4320 of 4607)
Aug 24, 2009 11:06 AM
|
The reason why I chose to attend a unitarian universalist church was because I thought it would incorporate all religions including atheists. But to be honest I found myself acting foolishly by having to stand to the north, south, east and west and praising each corner. This behavior and mode of thinking can also be thought of as dogma, since they do this at every service.
I can't speak for other unitarian universalist churches, since this is the only one I attended.
Btw, I have no fixed belief system. I don't label myself at all and I don't attend any church.
If you don't like ritual, don't do ritual. But ritual is what makes a church a church rather than just another building.
lol I am pretty much agreeing with you. I just wanted to offer something I thought would be helpful to the discussion.
|
|
|
Posts:
272
Registered:
8/30/08
|
|
(4319 of 4607)
Aug 24, 2009 11:00 AM
|
> Unitarian Universalism is a very diverse church.
> There are atheistic, pagan, christian, and many other
> religions incorporated and included under that
> title.
>
> Basically they believe there are certain universal
> truths found in all religions which transcend
> rhetoric and are rationally distinguishable. While
> other sections are mere dogma.
>
> From what I have heard the specific service ranges
> widely from church to church. *shrug*
>
> --
> Edited by JaredP at 08/24/2009 7:31 AM PDT
The reason why I chose to attend a unitarian universalist church was because I thought it would incorporate all religions including atheists. But to be honest I found myself acting foolishly by having to stand to the north, south, east and west and praising each corner. This behavior and mode of thinking can also be thought of as dogma, since they do this at every service.
I can't speak for other unitarian universalist churches, since this is the only one I attended.
Btw, I have no fixed belief system. I don't label myself at all and I don't attend any church.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,132
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(4318 of 4607)
Aug 24, 2009 10:29 AM
|
Unitarian Universalism is a very diverse church. There are atheistic, pagan, christian, and many other religions incorporated and included under that title.
Basically they believe there are certain universal truths found in all religions which transcend rhetoric and are rationally distinguishable. While other sections are mere dogma.
From what I have heard the specific service ranges widely from church to church. *shrug*
--
Edited by JaredP at 08/24/2009 7:31 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
272
Registered:
8/30/08
|
|
(4317 of 4607)
Aug 24, 2009 10:07 AM
|
|
There's lots of talk about anxiety on this thread. Last year I attended a Unitarian Universalist church in Mass. We had to stand and face the four conners and give praise and thanks to the four elements, earth, wind, water and fire if I recall correctly. After the "service" everyone congregated for coffee and conversation. I learned that everyone there was atheist. I talked to about 10 members, who were all highly educated, had very good jobs and lived in very affluent communities. The people there were all very nice, but I didn't attend the church again, because it reminded me of wicca.
|
|
|
Posts:
460
Registered:
6/7/09
|
|
(4316 of 4607)
Aug 24, 2009 9:06 AM
|
Good morning all.
realTXn,
That was a really interesting study. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Posts:
35,509
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(4315 of 4607)
Aug 24, 2009 8:48 AM
|
> Thank you realTXn,
>
> Proof of what atheists have long suspected: religion
> really is the opiate of the masses.
>
>
Jared,
That reminded me of the way they now believe that chanting as is done in monasteries alters brain waves and puts listeners into an altered state of consciousness. I can't remember which waves, maybe delta?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,038
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(4314 of 4607)
Aug 24, 2009 2:44 AM
|
> > Where is that written, exactly?
>
> Actually, i looked back on it and its said about Him.
> He doesnt come right out and say it, but whats the
> difference? If i quote a verse in the Bible that
> shows God talking saying "I do not change my mind",
> you can just say thats what the Bible, which was
> written by people, say God said. And if i quote a
> verse showing somebody else saying "God does not
> change His mind", you will say the same thing....so
> whats the point?
>
> > But we're talking about two different realms of
> > knowledge, here. He may know all that we
> know...
> > maybe...
>
> No. There are many verses in the Bible that specify
> what this means. First, it says God knows all things.
> All things means, all things. Not "all things that we
> know". Or "all that is possible to know" or "all
> things about the world, but not the Universe" or
> anything like that. It means exactly what it
> says...ALL things. There is no limit. In fact, the
> Bible also says His knowledge is infinite...no limit,
> no restriction, so right there you cannot limit His
> knowledge solely to what we human beings are capable
> of knowing. There are also many verses that state God
> knows the future, God has known the end since the
> beginning, God knows our hearts/thoughts, etc...In
> other words, God knows ALL. God is omniscient.
>
That's from their perspective. But let's face it... if you're saying God never said that about Himself, then where did they get it from? Wouldn't that mean they made it up? And let's take the example of Moses. Shall we figure He never intended for Moses to enter the Promised Land? If He did, He'd have written the commandments on plastic, or something unbreakable, right? Or just stopped the tablets from breaking. Or just told him he could enter anyway. But to contrive the broken tablets as an excuse... that's just bogus.
> > And you're also intelligent enough to know that
> being
> > in pretty good condition has little to do with
> > eyesight, and that seeing land from a distance
> tells
> > you little to nothing about its quality or
> > suitability for a given purpose. It might be
> > beautiful.. but it may have poor soil for crops
> other
> > than the indigenous, which may be unsuitable
> for
> > human or animal consumption. These things are
> only
> > apparent upon closer examination.
>
> I believe i already made my point. A valid point.
> Sure, your speculations are valid as well, but the
> fact is clear that age had not yet caught up with
> Moses. Once again, you are implying that God is a
> trickster, or a liar, or something like that. For, if
> God knows that Moses cannot see well from afar
> because of His old age, He would not be so ignorant
> as to show Moses the promised land from afar. He
> either knew Moses could see, or knew He couldnt see.
See above... He knew when He made the promise that He never intended Moses should enter.
> > I repeat... that is not in any form we can use.
> If
> > it were, then drowning would be physically
> > impossible.
>
> And i repeat, 70% of our BREATHABLE oxygen comes from
> water.
But even if it comes from the water, the oxygen in the water is not in a form in which we can breathe it.
>
> Actually, i believe its clear that the waters above
> us are the same type of water below us, or else it
> would have tried to make that distinction. It says
> God separated the waters below us from the waters
> above us. But, it also says God called the waters
> belows us oceans(i think) and the waters above us
> sky, so its also possible you are right about this.
>
The people in those days didn't know about gases in chemistry, and they didn't actually see this separation occurring, so they would have no reason to differentiate. They did know that water comes from the dark clouds in the sky, though.
> > I doubt that our spirit can be perfect, either.
>
> First, you'd have to believe in a spirit.
No, first you'd have to define what is meant by the word. Then it can be decided if it's believable, and then whether or not one chooses to believe.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,132
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(4313 of 4607)
Aug 23, 2009 10:51 PM
|
Thank you realTXn,
Proof of what atheists have long suspected: religion really is the opiate of the masses.
|
|
|
Posts:
108
Registered:
5/31/09
|
|
(4312 of 4607)
Aug 23, 2009 10:29 PM
|
JaredP asked:
> I never said I believed them either. WTF are you
> talking about?
Jared, I found an interesting article which might make your discourse with Don a little easier to understand...or tolerate, whatever. ie. explains why theists will not recognize their own mistakes in logic, argument, facts, etc.
(bold inserted by me)
Brain Differences Found Between Believers In God And Non-believers
Believing in God can help block anxiety and minimize stress, according to new research that shows distinct brain differences between believers and non-believers.
ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2009) ? Believing in God can help block anxiety and minimize stress, according to new University of Toronto research that shows distinct brain differences between believers and non-believers.
In two studies led by Assistant Psychology Professor Michael Inzlicht, participants performed a Stroop task ? a well-known test of cognitive control ? while hooked up to electrodes that measured their brain activity.
Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake. The stronger their religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they made.
"You could think of this part of the brain like a cortical alarm bell that rings when an individual has just made a mistake or experiences uncertainty," says lead author Inzlicht, who teaches and conducts research at the University of Toronto Scarborough. "We found that religious people or even people who simply believe in the existence of God show significantly less brain activity in relation to their own errors. They're much less anxious and feel less stressed when they have made an error."
These correlations remained strong even after controlling for personality and cognitive ability, says Inzlicht, who also found that religious participants made fewer errors on the Stroop task than their non-believing counterparts.
Their findings show religious belief has a calming effect on its devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making errors or facing the unknown. But Inzlicht cautions that anxiety is a "double-edged sword" which is at times necessary and helpful.
"Obviously, anxiety can be negative because if you have too much, you're paralyzed with fear," he says. "However, it also serves a very useful function in that it alerts us when we're making mistakes. If you don't experience anxiety when you make an error, what impetus do you have to change or improve your behaviour so you don't make the same mistakes again and again?"
The paper, appearing online in Psychological Science, was co-authored by Dr. Ian McGregor at York University, and by Jacob Hirsh and Kyle Nash, doctoral candidates at the University of Toronto and York University, respectively.
MLA
University of Toronto (2009, March 5). Brain Differences Found Between Believers In God And Non-believers. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 23, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm#
|
|
|
Posts:
4,132
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(4311 of 4607)
Aug 23, 2009 10:03 PM
|
> > Perhaps. However blind faith will blind you to
> even
> > more.
>
> You need to define blind faith. Im pretty sure you
> mean people who choose to believe in something,
> regardless of the "proof" or evidence that says the
> contrary. Or, belief in something that has no proof
> whatsoever.
Yep.
> But, if what i believe in is indeed true,
> even after all the evidence that contradicts it and
> the lack of evidence to support it, was it still
> blind faith?
Yes. Delusional thinking. Even a blind pig can find an acorn in the forest. That doesn't mean it can see. Besides, I see no reason to think you are right.
> I cant speak for everybody, but as far
> as i go, my faith isnt blind.
I've yet to see anything backing it up. Let me guess, the universe is too big for you to comprehend so their must be a god. Fallacious logic.
> Faith and rationality do indeed go hand in hand. One
> should never be discarded for the other. Problem is,
> most people do discard one for the other. They either
> choose to believe ONLY in what is proved,
Based off that comment, I'm thinking you don't know what rationality is.
> or they
> choose to believe in something even after all the
> evidence that proves the contrary. The problem is,
> nobody is, ever has been, or ever will be omniscient.
> Nobody can know it all, therefore, we shouldnt limit
> our knowledge/belief. It doesnt mean we should be
> willing to believe anything and everything that is
> said, but we shouldnt discard something for lack of
> evidence, cause the fact of the matter is, we just
> never know.
Haven't discarded anything. Just said I see no evidence. I put your religion on the same basis as the idea my ass is the whole point of the universe. It's a very nice ass, but I have no reason to think that's true.
> There are more questionable ancient texts than the
> Bible, or the NT at least, and there are more
> questionable figures in ancient history than Jesus,
> yet we dont seem to have a problem accepting them as
> truth. I wonder if it has anything to do with talking
> snakes and God?
I never said I believed them either. WTF are you talking about?
|
|
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4310 of 4607)
Aug 23, 2009 9:52 PM
|
> Perhaps. However blind faith will blind you to even
> more.
You need to define blind faith. Im pretty sure you mean people who choose to believe in something, regardless of the "proof" or evidence that says the contrary. Or, belief in something that has no proof whatsoever. But, if what i believe in is indeed true, even after all the evidence that contradicts it and the lack of evidence to support it, was it still blind faith? I cant speak for everybody, but as far as i go, my faith isnt blind.
> Not really. Christianity used to come from
> rationality. Go read C.S. Lewis. While he does not
> encompass the whole of the christian faith, his "Mere
> Christianity" was widely accepted and is generally
> considered the greatest modern christian work. As he
> said the word "faith" has devolved. Faith did not use
> to be in opposition to rationality. Faith used to be
> that which perservered. That once you have rationally
> chosen to believe something you continue to believe
> and act on it despite trials and fluctuations of
> fortune. Not that you should blindly ignore new
> evidence, but that you should not blindly change your
> beliefs just because your luck is bad.
Faith and rationality do indeed go hand in hand. One should never be discarded for the other. Problem is, most people do discard one for the other. They either choose to believe ONLY in what is proved, or they choose to believe in something even after all the evidence that proves the contrary. The problem is, nobody is, ever has been, or ever will be omniscient. Nobody can know it all, therefore, we shouldnt limit our knowledge/belief. It doesnt mean we should be willing to believe anything and everything that is said, but we shouldnt discard something for lack of evidence, cause the fact of the matter is, we just never know.
>
> *shrug* One ancient book of questionable origin is
> not proof. I will continue to keep my eyes open and
> learn.
There are more questionable ancient texts than the Bible, or the NT at least, and there are more questionable figures in ancient history than Jesus, yet we dont seem to have a problem accepting them as truth. I wonder if it has anything to do with talking snakes and God?
|
|
|
Posts:
4,132
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(4309 of 4607)
Aug 23, 2009 9:34 PM
|
> > > Well then, my friend, there is much to
> reality
> > that
> > > you are being left out of.
> >
> > Yep. That's why I am a big fan of exploration
> and
> > research. It sounds like a much more
> intelligent
> > approach than making shit up or believing
> > unsubstantiated claims.
>
> No amount of exploration and/or research will ever
> allow you to fully understand anything, and sense
> life/reality to its fullest.
Perhaps. However blind faith will blind you to even more.
> Nonetheless, i
> understand, and its reasonable. People shouldnt just
> go on believing anything without proof, i know. I
> know it might sound strange coming from a Christian,
> but its true.
Not really. Christianity used to come from rationality. Go read C.S. Lewis. While he does not encompass the whole of the christian faith, his "Mere Christianity" was widely accepted and is generally considered the greatest modern christian work. As he said the word "faith" has devolved. Faith did not use to be in opposition to rationality. Faith used to be that which perservered. That once you have rationally chosen to believe something you continue to believe and act on it despite trials and fluctuations of fortune. Not that you should blindly ignore new evidence, but that you should not blindly change your beliefs just because your luck is bad.
*shrug* One ancient book of questionable origin is not proof. I will continue to keep my eyes open and learn.
|
|
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4308 of 4607)
Aug 23, 2009 9:26 PM
|
> > Well then, my friend, there is much to reality
> that
> > you are being left out of.
>
> Yep. That's why I am a big fan of exploration and
> research. It sounds like a much more intelligent
> approach than making shit up or believing
> unsubstantiated claims.
No amount of exploration and/or research will ever allow you to fully understand anything, and sense life/reality to its fullest. Nonetheless, i understand, and its reasonable. People shouldnt just go on believing anything without proof, i know. I know it might sound strange coming from a Christian, but its true.
|
|
|
|
|
