User Tag List

First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 97

  1. #81
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default Truly Unique

    Quote Originally Posted by Unique View Post
    Ah yes, I understand now

    Interesting, though I don't think it would of made a difference if the Christian religion was given to me as a child. Why?

    Well because my mother is Buddhist and I was taught all about it I however chose to respect it but not embrace it as my religion and this was a choice I made as a child

    Now the reason I say "brain washing" is because the only way religion would of effected me as a child is by not giving me a choice which essentially is brain washing, the fact that I was not having my hand forced is the reason for my chosen preference

    That being said, it would be more like "holding a gun" to my head even in childhood, I've always been a curious person with way too many questions so there is no way I would truly 100% believe in something even if I said so

    At an early age I was thinking deeply about the meaning of life and for someone to tell me something "is a certain way" I would always be skeptical of people

    I payed little attention in school as a child too as I found most of it irrelevant even being so young, the questions the other children were asking were of no interest to me

    I've been this way as long as I can remember, I can remember playing in the sand pit by myself with the gears in my head turning already, going over ideas

    There was no "trance of childhood" for me as I was vastly different from other children

    Funny you mention language I remember as a child discussing that very concept with my mother I was questioning it already

    I disagree that I learn any of the things you stated unconsciously, do you have proof of this?

    If what you are saying is true than so is children believing in santa. Most children simply found out santa wasn't real through others I however demanded the truth from my mother and was obviously devastated

    Hypothetically if I was born into a highly religious family there is no doubt in my mind that I would be skeptical and unlikely to take what they say as absolute truth even as a child

    I was born with a critical mind, it wasn't developed
    It's true that most small children do believe in Santa. And all small children do carry out a remarkable feat in learning a spoken language.

    And the spoken language is learnt intuitively and naturally. This contrasts with learning to read and write which is counter-intuitively taught in a special State institution called a school by specially trained staff called teachers.

    So you might say the spoken language is revealed to a small child at home by their parents, while the written language is learnt by travail outside of the home in a State institution.

    So we could say our spoken language is learnt in the paradise of our home in our mother's arms, while to learn to read and write we are expelled from the Garden of Eden of our home and we must learn our letters by the sweat of our brow.

    This, as you have probably noticed, is the story of Adam and Eve. And it is our story.

    Of course I understand you are saying this is not your story - so this does make you truly unique.

  2. #82
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default The God Equation

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonkavision View Post
    Why couldn't God have a causal relationship to the physical universe?
    God could have a causal relationship with the physical universe, but so far there is no evidence of such a relationship.

    Normally people who believe things without evidence are considered unhinged. For instance, if a Congressman stood up and said Hurricane Katrina was caused by the God of the Sea, Poseidon, because we had offended Him, we would consider the Congressman unhinged.

    And those who say God has a causal relationship with the universe without any evidence are equally unhinged - only there are millions upon millions who believe this.

    Hancock library is devoted to causal relationships in the universe, and these relationships are expressed in equations. And of the truly vast number of equations in this library, not one equation contains the variable God.

    Frankly, if you think God has a causal relationship with the universe, do put it in an equation. And I can assure you that the God equation will be more famous than E = MC squared.

  3. #83
    Retired Member Wonkavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post

    Frankly, if you think God has a causal relationship with the universe, do put it in an equation. And I can assure you that the God equation will be more famous than E = MC squared.

    Why must it be an equation?

    Why not a WORD?

    In fact, the Bible says that Christ is "The Word."

    John 1

    The Eternal Word

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.

    John’s Witness: The True Light

    6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.[b]
    10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own,[c] and His own[d] did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

    The Word Becomes Flesh

    14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  4. #84
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonkavision View Post
    Why must it be an equation?

    Why not a WORD?

    In fact, the Bible says that Christ is "The Word"(original Greek=Logos="word").
    Mathematics describes causal relations in the world. And equations are the expressions of mathematics.

    So to understand causal relations it is necessary to be numerate.

    For instance, quantum mechanics makes no sense in words but it makes perfect sense in mathematics to ten decimal places.

    The Bible is literate but innumerate and so naturally favours the word rather than the equation.

    In fact the Bible is so innumerate there is not one equation in the whole book.

    And this, we are told, is the word of God.

    But the word does not equate.

  5. #85
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Religious hypotheses are falsifiable, in principle. It just depends on what conditions are assumed.

    The issue of whether people are willing to hold hypotheses open to falsification is another matter entirely.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  6. #86
    Retired Member Wonkavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    I Corinthians 1:18-29 ---

    18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
    "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

    20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

    26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him.
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  7. #87
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Religious hypotheses are falsifiable, in principle. It just depends on what conditions are assumed.

    The issue of whether people are willing to hold hypotheses open to falsification is another matter entirely.
    I agree, but, I'll add that: (1) it's not just in the religious realm [specifically, the 'god debate'], and that, (2) this point may not be valid for discussion of religion, by religion's very nature. Hence, your bolded.

    It is not only religious hypotheses, but, any abstract thought "trying" to be tied to the physical [evidence]. The concept of falsifability is moot for such cases/concepts [god]; if we hold that such abstraction affords them to be beyond observable evidence. Just felt/thought. "Metaphysical"?

    Concept of god. Common enough, but, no common experience. How do you falsify that? Or, even begin to perscribe such process of thought to these types of critical inquiry of the abstract mind?

    ****

    Existential thought.

    The experience of death and dying

    The experience of pain.

    *********

    Granted, these last three (vs. God), one can easier aim to answer the what it is, but, for none, can we define an [universal] how.

    Maybe, at the end of the day, "god" is a personal experience.

  8. #88
    Senior Member Heart&Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Sure, if you never look to diversity in spiritual experience as the norm and instead rely on a sense of misguided universalism.
    You presuppose what you are trying to examine. There are diverse experiences. And then there are religious interpretations of these experiences. Those interpretations should not be taken to be sound or respectable or legitimate only because some nice people claim to believe in them 'very very very much!'.
    Diversity is fine. But religious ideas will exclude other interpretations IF they happen to be true. You can't have both Zeus and Jesus and an impersonal expanding universe. That's not bad in itself to come with strong claims, but it's misleading to say they are not strong claims, just to hide the fact that some of them are very poorly supported strong claims.
    ...I think you missed my point. Terribly.
    Yes, I probably did, since the point of your thread was to make people describe their beliefs without theological censorship. Fine. But I wanted to point out that calling faith 'personal' feeds into an ideological sweet-talking about religious beliefs.

    So I 'missed' your point because I wanted to make a point of my own: that of being critical about the word 'personal' when you link it to the most outrageously grandiose, collective, universalist scams in world history.

    1. 'Personal' strikes me as misleading with respect to the external condition of religions, since it's evident that it is an inherently social phenomenon. Like a language is more than weird sounds because it's shared, religion differs from insanity by being shared and considered normal in the group. Religious people are not cracy. You know that, no doubt.

    2. 'Personal' is also misleading with respect to the internal condition of religion, which is that the relation to a transcendent, primary and moral entity, a God or several, (a relation called "faith"] will determine the relations in this world to life, the universe and everything. Not just the believers', but everybody's universe, life and everything. Mine included. So I feel entitled to protest and demand some reasons to take these strong claims serious. On a scientific level, on an ethical level, on a social level, on an existential level, on an aesthetic level, on a spiritual level. So it doesn't need to be scientific reasons. Just some reasons beyond the usual two: "but the holy X said so" or "but little me believe that very strongly". Just won't do.
    You don't "believe" in gravity. Gravity is empirical. Gravity is falsifiable.
    But maybe you miss my point a bit too. My point is not that religion is wrong because it is not compatible with scientific methodology. Many true and right and valueable things are not scientific (art and philosophy for instance, if we stick to the realm of the products of the human spirit for now - which is what I hope you mean by the imprecise buzz-word 'spiritual'). My point is that religions are trying to have their cake and eat it too, thus both claiming eternal universal truth and 'personal' taste. The substance of religion contains no principle of procedure or demand for consistency or criteria for when it's successful and when to be aborted. Their ideas have no standards. People believe just because they believe. It's completely circular, and crafted to make the followers accept being blind and deaf to the real world. And they call that insensivity a 'virtue' even. It's narcisistic. With religion everything, every atrocity, ignorance and injustice, can be permitted and justified. And has been during the ages.

    I meant 'believe' in the simple meaning 'act as if it's true until further notice'. I think the religious use of the word 'belief' is highly manipulative and designed to dodge the issue once again. Normally you hold ideas to be true or good or sublime for some reasons beyond that you hold them.
    But religious people believe only because they believe. Complete selfabsorbtion and disregard for the autonomy and feedback from the inner or outer world. Organised insensivity and disrespect for life, the universe and everything.

    Caveat: we are only talking ideas here. Real individual persons are usually wiser than their ideology. Luckily...

  9. #89
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Maybe, at the end of the day, "god" is a personal experience.
    How did we perceive this "god" if not, to a [very real] degree, indoctrinated as we grew [up]?

  10. #90
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heart&Brain View Post
    You presuppose what you are trying to examine. There are diverse experiences. And then there are religious interpretations of these experiences. Those interpretations should not be taken to be sound or respectable or legitimate only because some nice people claim to believe in them 'very very very much!'.
    Diversity is fine. But religious ideas will exclude other interpretations IF they happen to be true. You can't have both Zeus and Jesus and an impersonal expanding universe. That's not bad in itself to come with strong claims, but it's misleading to say they are not strong claims, just to hide the fact that some of them are very poorly supported strong claims.
    Yes, I probably did, since the point of your thread was to make people describe their beliefs without theological censorship. Fine. But I wanted to point out that calling faith 'personal' feeds into an ideological sweet-talking about religious beliefs.

    So I 'missed' your point because I wanted to make a point of my own: that of being critical about the word 'personal' when you link it to the most outrageously grandiose, collective, universalist scams in world history.

    1. 'Personal' strikes me as misleading with respect to the external condition of religions, since it's evident that it is an inherently social phenomenon. Like a language is more than weird sounds because it's shared, religion differs from insanity by being shared and considered normal in the group. Religious people are not cracy. You know that, no doubt.

    2. 'Personal' is also misleading with respect to the internal condition of religion, which is that the relation to a transcendent, primary and moral entity, a God or several, (a relation called "faith"] will determine the relations in this world to life, the universe and everything. Not just the believers', but everybody's universe, life and everything. Mine included. So I feel entitled to protest and demand some reasons to take these strong claims serious. On a scientific level, on an ethical level, on a social level, on an existential level, on an aesthetic level, on a spiritual level. So it doesn't need to be scientific reasons. Just some reasons beyond the usual two: "but the holy X said so" or "but little me believe that very strongly". Just won't do. But maybe you miss my point a bit too. My point is not that religion is wrong because it is not compatible with scientific methodology. Many true and right and valueable things are not scientific (art and philosophy for instance, if we stick to the realm of the products of the human spirit for now - which is what I hope you mean by the imprecise buzz-word 'spiritual'). My point is that religions are trying to have their cake and eat it too, thus both claiming eternal universal truth and 'personal' taste. The substance of religion contains no principle of procedure or demand for consistency or criteria for when it's successful and when to be aborted. Their ideas have no standards. People believe just because they believe. It's completely circular, and crafted to make the followers accept being blind and deaf to the real world. And they call that insensivity a 'virtue' even. It's narcisistic. With religion everything, every atrocity, ignorance and injustice, can be permitted and justified. And has been during the ages.

    I meant 'believe' in the simple meaning 'act as if it's true until further notice'. I think the religious use of the word 'belief' is highly manipulative and designed to dodge the issue once again. Normally you hold ideas to be true or good or sublime for some reasons beyond that you hold them.
    But religious people believe only because they believe. Complete selfabsorbtion and disregard for the autonomy and feedback from the inner or outer world. Organised insensivity and disrespect for life, the universe and everything.

    Caveat: we are only talking ideas here. Real individual persons are usually wiser than their ideology. Luckily...
    What the hell are you talking about?

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Quote Thread: Express your feelings or thoughts with a quote
    By Sparrow in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 412
    Last Post: 12-03-2017, 12:20 AM
  2. What is Your Spiritual Belief System?
    By lightsun in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-29-2017, 09:59 AM
  3. Famous/INfamous people you wish didn't share your type
    By Sahara in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 04-06-2012, 12:43 PM
  4. Share your spiritual beliefs
    By Night in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 12:53 AM
  5. Knowing Me, Knowing God: Exploring Your Spirituality with Myers-Briggs
    By Usehername in forum Typology and Psychology Book Reviews
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 03:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO