Mystery Religions and Christianity

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ushomefree

mr.smiley
The arguement that mystery cults borrowed from Christianity has many holes in it.The biggest being that even early Christians admitted that Christainity had disturbing simularities to older mystery religions.Early Christians claimed that it was Satan who created most of these mystery cults,in an attempt to confuse belivers so he could send their souls to hell.Kind of like the arguement that God created dinosaur bones to test the faith of his followers,because the earth couldn't possibly be as old as science claims it is.Even St.Augustine admitted that the Pagans worshipped the same God as he did.

It makes more sense that this happened the other way around.Christianity adopted Pagan elements in order to gain more followers.

leonheartmm
utterly untrue. christianity's scriptures are a false record of history and facts. it evolved out of mystic relegions as opposed to the opposite. the only one hyppocritical here is christianity.

ushomefree
mr. smiley-

I'm not going to entertain your statement regarding the issue "who borrowed from who." We obviously have different perspectives. St. Augustine has didly-squat to do with the origins of Christianity, not to mention the earliest of Christian Creeds written within the first generation of the death and resurrection of Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Who cares what St. Augustine stated? Really! I would question your references and sources. And not all Christians embrace the theory that Earth--and the Cosmos--are 6,000 year old. I for one do not, and either does Christian Astronomer Hugh Ross (http://www.reasons.org/shop/catalog/ The_John_Ankerberg_Debate_YoungEarth_vs_OldEarth_D
VD_D030_p_520.html).

leonheartmm-

Anybody with a nose has the ability to regurgitate and rebuke one's statement(s), but anyone who wants to be taken seriously would provide supportive references. All you did was make empty statements. Are you opinions based on research or emotion?

Alfheim
Originally posted by ushomefree
mr. smiley-

I'm not going to entertain your statement regarding the issue "who borrowed from who." We obviously have different perspectives. St. Augustine has didly-squat to do with the origins of Christianity, not to mention the earliest of Christian Creeds written within the first generation of the death and resurrection of Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Who cares what St. Augustine stated? Really! I would question your references and sources. And not all Christians embrace the theory that Earth--and the Cosmos--are 6,000 year old. I for one do not, and either does Christian Astronomer Hugh Ross (http://www.reasons.org/shop/catalog/ The_John_Ankerberg_Debate_YoungEarth_vs_OldEarth_D
VD_D030_p_520.html).

leonheartmm-

Anybody with a nose has the ability to regurgitate and rebuke one's statement(s), but anyone who wants to be taken seriously would provide supportive references. All you did was make empty statements. Are you opinions based on research or emotion?

At any rate paganism existed before Christanity so obvously Christanity has some pagan aspects.

mr.smiley
Originally posted by ushomefree
mr. smiley-

I'm not going to entertain your statement regarding the issue "who borrowed from who." We obviously have different perspectives. St. Augustine has didly-squat to do with the origins of Christianity, not to mention the earliest of Christian Creeds written within the first generation of the death and resurrection of Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Who cares what St. Augustine stated? Really! I would question your references and sources. And not all Christians embrace the theory that Earth--and the Cosmos--are 6,000 year old. I for one do not, and either does Christian Astronomer Hugh Ross (http://www.reasons.org/shop/catalog/ The_John_Ankerberg_Debate_YoungEarth_vs_OldEarth_D
VD_D030_p_520.html).

leonheartmm-

Anybody with a nose has the ability to regurgitate and rebuke one's statement(s), but anyone who wants to be taken seriously would provide supportive references. All you did was make empty statements. Are you opinions based on research or emotion?

I am well aware St.Augustine had nothing to do with Christianities orgins.I was giving an example of how even Christians admitted to the likenesses between the mystery cults and their own.

DigiMark007

Goddess Kali

Imperial_Samura
Ah, some things never change.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The religions in the ancient world had strange names. Some folks worshiped a god named Mithra(s), others the deities of Osiris and Isis, and still others worshiped Dionysus. What makes things more interesting is that these religions borrowed heavily from each other. The same deity might end up having multiple names. It is difficult to speak of common features of these diverse religions because there were so many differences. Yet many skeptics of Christianity claim to see common elements between the mysteries and Christianity.

Or, not so much between the mysteries but between the religions themselves - themes, myths, world views.

And sceptics is, in way of connotations, probably wrong. People who make their life's works in studying history, theology find links. Labeling them sceptics detracts from serious, well researched nature of their work.

And no, the religions of the ancient world did not have strange names. They had names perfectly normal for the language and culture they existed in.



"The mysteries", which had been coexisting and developing together for many, many years share "Far greater commonality" then a religion that developed in a time of some cultural and spiritual change? How surprising.

And it is worthwhile noting that in the early days of Christianity, before it became the state religion of Rome, that many Romans and the state itself believed Christians to be involved in "secret ceremonies" and other strange rites. And they were, in terms of the relative way such things are perceived.

And you are overusing the term "salvation" - in the ancient world that concept was different, or far less evident. A large part of mysteries, and something that made them popular to jaded Westerners (who liked things like the Cult of Osiris) was that the mysteries, and being part of them, gave some greater insight into the world, universe, life. Many practitioners didn't go into them thinking "My "soul" is damned and needs saving".



That made me laugh so much... "strange names, strange places and stranger deities." Seriously - and the question is "Does Christianity have anything to do with them?" Why? Because Christianity came after them.



And quite possibly due to one of the original purposes of religion - to other an understanding of the physical world and its processes. I believe a chap called Kirk postulated that all myths are in a way nature myths as they often have some allegorical link to the natural world and its workings.



Actually sounds pretty sensible - God knows doctrine has been a stupidly constant point of conflict in more modern religions.



I would once again question the significance placed upon "salvation/redemption" their significance really came to the fore with Christianity and the like, far more so then with ancient religions.



Why do you word it like that? Christianity is a religion that came after them, it should be the Christianities similarities to them. The way you word it gives the impression of greater permanence and validity to Christianity.



If you say so. And "going nowhere" view? What the? It's a cycle. And cycles aren't all that bad.



Well, eventually perhaps, what with the "if the people can't read them they need to rely on the priesthood" and the long term aspect of keeping it in Latin, once again keeping people reliant on the clergy.

No, sorry old bean, the "proclamation of the gospel as accessible to all people" only became a reality in relativily modern times.



Ah, right belief. And like so many pooh-poohers of ancient religion the implied distaste of "emotional frenzy", or more accuratly the misunderstanding of what that really means. "Ooooh, emotional frenzy, so base, so barbaric! Jesus brings enlightenment!"

But what you are arguing here is that the marketing ofd the faith ("If you want to join my club you can't join any one elses club"wink - a matter of doctrine - is justifiabe proof that there is no real link between the to. Which is flawed.

*Scoff, scoff!*



And by extension bringing salvation far more to the fore by installing the belief that all humankind is fundamentally damned and doomed unless - you guessed it - they submitted to the "correct faith".



Mysteries were inclusive? Outrageous. How wrong were the people back then to think they could experience many religious things without the fear of damnation for not following the right faith!

And there are no myths in the Bible at all. No sir-reeee. Not like aspects of Genesis have some similarities to Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation myths. And so on. Really this sounds like an attempt to remove a big similarity - myths. Oh no, the Christian faith is based upon text revelations and history, the ancient religions are all myths. No similarity at all. Hey look over there! *runs away*



There it is again - that Big Flaw. Compare ancient mysteries around long before Christianity to Christianity and say how different they were rather then compare Christianity to its predecessors and look at the similarities.

DigiMark007
My scathing rebuttal of some Christian points is above, but I'm actually about to throw Christianity a bone for a second:

Counter-arguments are always good to find, if only to make sure you're right. And from what I can find (scholarly arguments both for and against Christinaity along these lines), the most commonly alluded-to mystery religions (Mithra, Iris, Osiris, Dionysius) do not bear enough in common with Christianity to formally debunk it. So no, they don't dis-prove Christianity.

A few, like the body/blood of Jesus inherited from Dionysius, are almost impossible to ignore. But the central argument of the resurrection remains intact, as do most of the stories....

...until you go further into pagan mythology. Christian scholars do well to focus on Mithraism more so than any other, because it is easily debunked, and many aspects of Mithraism actually borrowed from Christianity (in an ironic turn).

I read a chapter from a novel (The Case For Christ) recently that attempted to address this very topic and prove the opposite. To it's credit, it's the closest I've seen to a comprehensive rebuttal of the subject. It beautifully debunks Mithraic influence, while happily ignoring countless other myths. It even goes so far as to assert (in a very unscholarly blanket statement) that most of the myths in question came after Christianity, not before it. One need only read about the life and times of the Egyptian Horus (or others) to know that this is blatently false.

The book touches on Zoroaster, the Buddha, and a few other incidental stories that are easily dismissed. A few more blanket statements occur concerning The Golden Bough's findings (the author escapes me) and various other commerical publications. Few, if any, specific instances are pointed out to bolster their cause. It still misses the forest for the trees.

...

For anyone interested in a more comprehensive analysis of this phenomenon of shared mythological motifs, I'd highly recommend Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces. I recommend it because he isn't trying to debunk Christianity, nor prove that it is right. He's simply one of the world's foremost experts on religion and mythology, and the results of such an analysis speak for themselves and allow the reader to determine his/her own conclusions. It is an enlightening book that doesn't debase anyone or any religious belief, but re-contextualizes many of them in exciting ways that transcend the limited viewpoints of individual religions.

anaconda
Strange that its divided between mystery religions and christianity, the latter is just as much a mystery religion

Quiero Mota
I think all five of the world's major religions are mysteries. Especially Hinduism; talk about a religion that can't decide on anything. I guess that's what happens after 4,000+ years.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think all five of the world's major religions are mysteries. Especially Hinduism; talk about a religion that can't decide on anything. I guess that's what happens after 4,000+ years.

Ok.....so you're not trying to say that Christanity is more certain and can decide on alot more?

anaconda
mumbo jumbo the lot of them

Alfheim
Originally posted by anaconda
mumbo jumbo the lot of them

Whys that? That includes heathenism as well right?

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think all five of the world's major religions are mysteries. Especially Hinduism; talk about a religion that can't decide on anything. I guess that's what happens after 4,000+ years.




laughing

debbiejo
Christianity was considered a cult at one time.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Alfheim
Ok.....so you're not trying to say that Christanity is more certain and can decide on alot more?

No, notice how I said "all five".

But now that you brought it up, Christians agree with eachother more than Hindus; you won't find very many atheistic Christian denominations.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, notice how I said "all five".

But now that you brought it up, Christians agree with eachother more than Hindus; you won't find very many atheistic Christian denominations.

However, some Christians use the words "TRUE CHRISTIAN" as a club to beat each other with.

Quiero Mota
"True Christian" is another way of saying "Haha you sinned, I'm more religious than you". It's a derogatroy term that's pretty meaningless. You're either Christian or you're not, the "true" is understood and granted.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"True Christian" is another way of saying "Haha you sinned, I'm more religious than you". It's a derogatroy term that's pretty meaningless. You're either Christian or you're not, the "true" is understood and granted.

I think that people like Marchello and JIA would disagree with you.

Quiero Mota
Which isn't saying much.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which isn't saying much.

I think we have come to an agreement. big grin

anaconda
everything considered a religion

Alfheim
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, notice how I said "all five".

Yeah you did but I got the impression you were implying that Christanity was more consistent than Hinduism.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

But now that you brought it up, Christians agree with eachother more than Hindus; you won't find very many atheistic Christian denominations.

Yeah so you proved me right. You didnt come out and say it explictly but my suspicions were correct.

Bro one of the reasons why Christanity is more consistent is because the Chruch had a habit of killing off other Christians with different beliefs and putting forgeries in the Bible. Hindusim has more of a history of tolerance thats why it has moe diversity. erm

Originally posted by anaconda
everything considered a religion

Everything what do you mean by everything please elaborate?

anaconda
everything includes all religions there are, have been and will be

laughing out loud laughing out loud oh man that would have been the ultimate contradiction if that denomination existed laughing out loud roll eyes (sarcastic)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by anaconda
everything includes all religions there are, have been and will be

Does that include Buddhism? confused laughing

Alfheim
Originally posted by anaconda
everything includes all religions there are, have been and will be



OK then please explain why religon is mumbo jumbo.

debbiejo
Well, I can tell you that. It's stories are built upon older stories.

only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Dragnet

DigiMark007
Originally posted by anaconda
laughing out loud laughing out loud oh man that would have been the ultimate contradiction if that denomination existed laughing out loud roll eyes (sarcastic)

Mainstream Satanism is inherently atheistic. They treat is as a philosophy for approaching life, not literal dogmatic truths involving fairy tale deities.

So it wouldn't be impossible...but most Christian denominations wouldn't really consider them Christian. But it's really just the difference between seeing the life of Jesus as literal fact and following his example, and seeing it as metaphoric guidance and following his example.

...

P.S. dj, love the Dragnet reference. thumb up

Spliffman
s'cool man, jesus liked the spliffs n we can all be haps bout that rite?

debbiejo
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Mainstream Satanism is inherently atheistic. They treat is as a philosophy for approaching life, not literal dogmatic truths involving fairy tale deities.

So it wouldn't be impossible...but most Christian denominations wouldn't really consider them Christian. But it's really just the difference between seeing the life of Jesus as literal fact and following his example, and seeing it as metaphoric guidance and following his example.

...

P.S. dj, love the Dragnet reference. thumb up Thanks......Couldn't help it....lol.

Though I've read some about Satanism, and it does coincide with atheistic views of some. Nothing to do with the devil mind you, just that there is none, nor a god, and that life is for the here and now. So, enjoy it. Though I haven't read all their literature on the subject.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by debbiejo
Thanks......Couldn't help it....lol.

Though I've read some about Satanism, and it does coincide with atheistic views of some. Nothing to do with the devil mind you, just that there is none, nor a god, and that life is for the here and now. So, enjoy it. Though I haven't read all their literature on the subject.

I've seen detailed synopses on every book of the Satanic Bible, though I haven't actually read the text itself. It would probably be amusing, but I'd have to hide it or my family would freak.

But your description isn't far from the mark. It's inherently selfish, though that can still include altruism toward others if it serves your greater selfish needs. Close to an Ayn Rand-style philosophy. But then it delves into hokey paranormal stuff like voodoo dolls, curses, and soul purging, and has some detailed accounts of rituals for such practices.

Alfheim
Originally posted by DigiMark007

But your description isn't far from the mark. It's inherently selfish, though that can still include altruism toward others if it serves your greater selfish needs. Close to an Ayn Rand-style philosophy. But then it delves into hokey paranormal stuff like voodoo dolls, curses, and soul purging, and has some detailed accounts of rituals for such practices.

Yes and that kinda backs up my point that being selfish could be considered to be an atheistic concept. Theres no god, no afterlife just enjoy life.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes and that kinda backs up my point that being selfish could be considered to be an atheistic concept. Theres no god, no afterlife just enjoy life.

I dislike the comparison, because all altruism has its roots in the selfish nature of our genes, which affects our actions on a macrocosmic level. Reciprocal altruism (doing "good"wink got it's beginnings when rogue strands of "altruist" genes tended to survive better because they weren't constantly at war. Benevolent product, but with a selfish base.

No religious label or god erases that.

But the problem is that there is no intent with the genes. They don't consciously act selfish...it's just a convenient label for the process of natural selection. So, too, with us. Our altruism might be the by-product of a selfish desire to survive. But we aren't immediately aware of it in those terms, so we can't be labeled "selfish" because we think we're doing it for "good" reasons.

See the problem?

The answer is simply that nothing is either good nor bad, selfish nor altruistic. It is simply a determined set of causal occurences that are of neutral morality. It is only when we ascribe labels to it does it seem like it is good or bad, when in fact both are nothing more than arbitrary labels.

anaconda
I see all belief in a supreme being/s, omnipotent omnipresence deity as superstitious lunacy. I find the entire idea of religion stupid, and I mean all religions, they tend to be oh so helpful, but in fact all they do is create havoc and dispute, always trying to push their believes upon those who don't believe. Threatening of eternal damnation, or submit or die and all this crap. People can believe in whatever they want for me, doesnt mean I have to follow it wheter it being judism, christianity islam and other smaller religious ways, buddhism included.

Alfheim
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I dislike the comparison, because all altruism has its roots in the selfish nature of our genes, which affects our actions on a macrocosmic level. Reciprocal altruism (doing "good"wink got it's beginnings when rogue strands of "altruist" genes tended to survive better because they weren't constantly at war. Benevolent product, but with a selfish base.

No religious label or god erases that.

I dunno man but something tells me thats just a theory and your pasing it off as a fact. Im not saying that its without merit but it just seems merely a matter of opinion its not fact like the speed of sound.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

But the problem is that there is no intent with the genes. They don't consciously act selfish...it's just a convenient label for the process of natural selection. So, too, with us. Our altruism might be the by-product of a selfish desire to survive. But we aren't immediately aware of it in those terms, so we can't be labeled "selfish" because we think we're doing it for "good" reasons.

See the problem?

No not really.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

The answer is simply that nothing is either good nor bad, selfish nor altruistic. It is simply a determined set of causal occurences that are of neutral morality. It is only when we ascribe labels to it does it seem like it is good or bad, when in fact both are nothing more than arbitrary labels.

Your making this a bit more complicated than it needs to be and your not stating anything I dont know. This is what im trying to say....it seems sometimes that athiests tend to believe the opposite of what religous people believe and I dont think thats a coincedence as you once stated that opinion was not without merit. If you dont believe there is a god or an afterlife it could be argued that this could give you a selfish point of view. Im not passing this off as fact its just a way of looking at things, really to be quite honest I think good people will do good regardless of what they believe this is just a point of view for people that say that religon causes violence, when it could be argued its not the religon itself but there are other factors involved.

Originally posted by anaconda
I see all belief in a supreme being/s, omnipotent omnipresence deity as superstitious lunacy.

Thats just a matter of opinion, period.

Originally posted by anaconda

I find the entire idea of religion stupid, and I mean all religions, they tend to be oh so helpful, but in fact all they do is create havoc and dispute, always trying to push their believes upon those who don't believe. Threatening of eternal damnation, or submit or die and all this crap. People can believe in whatever they want for me, doesnt mean I have to follow it wheter it being judism, christianity islam and other smaller religious ways, buddhism included.

Right so what you're saying is religon is stupid because some people tend to push their beliefs on other people? Right so did the Vikings push their religon on to over people? Do Buddhists push their beliefs on other people? What about Hindus and Jainists? So basically what you've done is labeled religon stupid because some people are negative while ignoring the fcat there are still alot of religous people that are still postive. Dont you think thats a bit ignorant?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Alfheim
I dunno man but something tells me thats just a theory and your pasing it off as a fact. Im not saying that its without merit but it just seems merely a matter of opinion its not fact like the speed of sound.

It's evolution. If you want to argue Creationism/evolution, that's one thing. But if you accept evolution as the fact that it is, nothing I said is speculation. I don't feel like posting entire chapters by evolutionary scientists that show these things in action, but I'm not just pulling it out of my behind.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Your making this a bit more complicated than it needs to be and your not stating anything I dont know. This is what im trying to say....it seems sometimes that athiests tend to believe the opposite of what religous people believe and I dont think thats a coincedence as you once stated that opinion was not without merit. If you dont believe there is a god or an afterlife it could be argued that this could give you a selfish point of view. Im not passing this off as fact its just a way of looking at things, really to be quite honest I think good people will do good regardless of what they believe this is just a point of view for people that say that religon causes violence, when it could be argued its not the religon itself but there are other factors involved.

"Atheism leads to selfishness" is very different from "atheists believe the opposite of theists" so you're dealing with two seperate things.

The second one is a generalization. I don't disagree with it, but it will only be true in certain cases. I think I alluded to cooperative meme-plexes last time we had this conversations, and how they strengthen one another, so meme evolution might tend to produce findings that agree with your hypothesis, but not as a certainty.

The first one I disagree with simply because I don't think anything is selfish or unselfish. They're arbitrary distinctions. I could say that I think theists are selfish because they need a prescribed religious moral law to act altruistically, and that many do it simply to get into heaven. But I wouldn't be any more right than you.

On a more functional level, I have to deal with "Where does your morality come from?" constantly from concerned theists (as do most atheists), so anything is good in my mind that debunks the stereotype that atheism needs to be a selfish philosophy.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by anaconda
I see all belief in a supreme being/s, omnipotent omnipresence deity as superstitious lunacy. I find the entire idea of religion stupid, and I mean all religions, they tend to be oh so helpful, but in fact all they do is create havoc and dispute, always trying to push their believes upon those who don't believe. Threatening of eternal damnation, or submit or die and all this crap. People can believe in whatever they want for me, doesnt mean I have to follow it wheter it being judism, christianity islam and other smaller religious ways, buddhism included.

You need to learn more about Buddhism. It might help you realize that there are some good religions in the world.

Shin_Nikkolas
You shouldn't need any organization to tell you what is right and wrong...Of course this comes down to cultural influences which you can not avoid no matter where you are.

Of course this comes back to the relativist ideas which ignore the basis for how you need to make society ie. you need to lay down ideals and laws. Can these ideals and laws extend to places outside your sphere of influence? Is there such thing as a universal truth that all can be held accountable for? Maybe not. But it does make things much simpler and more efficient.

My basic line is, I don't need the Church to tell me what is good and bad. I've known that all my life.

Of course some will argue good and bad are points-of-view but such grey statements are a hindrance rather than a step forward.

anaconda
I know enough about buddism to know it aint for me

of course it is I dont speak on behalf of others

no they didnt, the ways of the Vikings was that you were free to believe in whatever you felt like and it was so up here in Scandinavia until christianity was forced down their throaths

they preach their ways and trying to recruit people to follow their ways

no you forgot to add the first sentence of what I wrote in your quoting there

no I label religions as stupid based on the fact that the main idea behind their belif is, to me, stupid. The fact that some, actually multiple followers of religious ways are ignorant fools, the positive aspect of religions are the followers that keep their mout shut about what they beleive, they keep their faith personal

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by anaconda
I know enough about buddism to know it aint for me...

That maybe true, but Buddhism can be viewed as a philosophy, and in that way, it might be good for you.

SpearofDestiny
Anaconda what about Buddhism do you know that you do not agree with ?


I have a feeling there's something you misunderstand about it, but i could be wrong.

anaconda
even as a philosophy it aint my thing

you are right you are wrong, no I dont misunderstand anything about buddhism, spiritual beneficial, rebirth karma, and so on. Not only does it seem real boring it sounds more like religion does, a load of crap
Just as I say about yoga, the actual purpose there is to be able to crawl up your own ass if that is what someone desire feel free to practise youga

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by anaconda
even as a philosophy it aint my thing...

Ok, but does "aint my thing" equal "mumbo jumbo"? Are you into American football? If not, then American football would be mumbo jumbo. laughing

anaconda
I am actually into American Football, baseball though zzzzzzzzzzzzz and basket ball mumbo jumbo sissy sport and yes I feel buddhism fills out enough to make the mumbo jumbo list

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by anaconda
I am actually into American Football, baseball though zzzzzzzzzzzzz and basket ball mumbo jumbo sissy sport and yes I feel buddhism fills out enough to make the mumbo jumbo list

Then it is only your opinion, and nothing but mumbo jumbo. wink laughing

anaconda
as I said earlier I speak only my mind, if I wanted to speak for others regardless if they wanted to or not I would have become either a priest or a politician

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by anaconda
you are right you are wrong, no I dont misunderstand anything about buddhism, spiritual beneficial, rebirth karma, and so on. Not only does it seem real boring it sounds more like religion does, a load of crap
Just as I say about yoga, the actual purpose there is to be able to crawl up your own ass if that is what someone desire feel free to practise youga



Do you know about the Four Noble Truths ?


Do you know that Buddhism promotes self responsibility and teaches that you should be your own refuge ?


You don't understand Buddhism, so your position that "it's not for you", or that its "bullshit" is biased and misguided.


You obviously do not understand Yoga either, else you'd know the intense physical and mental benefits which people derive from the practice.

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by anaconda
as I said earlier I speak only my mind, if I wanted to speak for others regardless if they wanted to or not I would have become either a priest or a politician


You have every right to speak your mind, but you really have nothing valuable to say.

anaconda
yes

yes


oh but I do understand and the biased thing here is the that if you dont like it you dont understand it

and again, just because a view goes against something doesnt mean they dont understand it.
Why is it with that when faced with people who reject the idea of like buddhism its always "oh you really dont understand it " and crap like that.
" oh I understand buddhism and the ones who reject it are wrong" laughing out loud laughing out loud yeah and those who are against christianity really dont understand it cause if they did they be chrisitians roll eyes (sarcastic) roll eyes (sarcastic)


welcome to the party then

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah you did but I got the impression you were implying that Christanity was more consistent than Hinduism.



Yeah so you proved me right. You didnt come out and say it explictly but my suspicions were correct.

Bro one of the reasons why Christanity is more consistent is because the Chruch had a habit of killing off other Christians with different beliefs and putting forgeries in the Bible. Hindusim has more of a history of tolerance thats why it has moe diversity. erm


The reason Hinduism is "more diverse" (translation: they can't agree on anything) is because unlike Christianity and Islam, they lack a centralized text that lays down ground rules. That's why they dispute among themselves as to whether Ganesh and Vishnu are two different individuals...or actually two different incarnations of the same god.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The reason Hinduism is "more diverse" (translation: they can't agree on anything) is because unlike Christianity and Islam, they lack a centralized text that lays down ground rules. That's why they dispute among themselves as to whether Ganesh and Vishnu are two different individuals...or actually two different incarnations of the same god.

Actually dont the hindus have tha Bagahavid Gita and the Vedas? Furthermore as I stated before the main reason why muslims and christians have a centralized text is because in the past people with different beliefs were killed and efforts were made to create their own version of the Bible and the Quran.

For example you have the apocrypha were the establishment decided that certain chapters werent fit for the bible, some Christians saw the apocrypha as legitimate parts of the bible but these Christians were persecuted.

Alfheim
Originally posted by anaconda
I know enough about buddism to know it aint for me


Good for you.

Originally posted by anaconda

of course it is I dont speak on behalf of others

Yeah but you are very condesending and you generalize alot.

Originally posted by anaconda

no they didnt, the ways of the Vikings was that you were free to believe in whatever you felt like and it was so up here in Scandinavia until christianity was forced down their throaths

Yeah well there you go not all religous people try to shove religon down peoples throats. You probably know that people still practice heathenism today.

Originally posted by anaconda

they preach their ways and trying to recruit people to follow their ways

You know theres nothing wrong with that as long as you dont shove it down peoples throats. Dont political parties try to "preach" their ways?

Originally posted by anaconda

no you forgot to add the first sentence of what I wrote in your quoting there

What was it? You're subjective opinion that you think a belief in a creator is stupid?

Originally posted by anaconda

no I label religions as stupid based on the fact that the main idea behind their belif is, to me, stupid. The fact that some, actually multiple followers of religious ways are ignorant fools, the positive aspect of religions are the followers that keep their mout shut about what they beleive, they keep their faith personal

Nobody is saying that you dont have the right to believe in what you do the problem is that you sound condesending arrogant and ignorant. You're reasons:

1. You think a belief in a creator is stupid. Yeah so what? Thats your subjective opinion why do you sound so superior?

2. You think religon is stupid because they try to shove it down peoples throats. Yeah so what? What about all those people who dont. Do people try to shove religon down peoples throat because of religon or do they do it because they are full of ****.

3. Ignoring the postive contributions that Religous people have made to science. Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Francis Bacon, The Islamic civilization etc.....

Originally posted by anaconda


oh but I do understand and the biased thing here is the that if you dont like it you dont understand it

and again, just because a view goes against something doesnt mean they dont understand it.
Why is it with that when faced with people who reject the idea of like buddhism its always "oh you really dont understand it " and crap like that.
" oh I understand buddhism and the ones who reject it are wrong" laughing out loud laughing out loud yeah and those who are against christianity really dont understand it cause if they did they be chrisitians roll eyes (sarcastic) roll eyes (sarcastic)



Thats not the problem really. You said that yoga is a load of crap, the fact is that yoga is good for you. Nobody is saying that you ahve to practice Yoga but when you come out with stuff like its a load of crap when its not its just ignorant.

Basically all you do on this forum is make smug remarks and basically **** off.

Alfheim
Originally posted by DigiMark007
It's evolution. If you want to argue Creationism/evolution, that's one thing. But if you accept evolution as the fact that it is, nothing I said is speculation. I don't feel like posting entire chapters by evolutionary scientists that show these things in action, but I'm not just pulling it out of my behind.

Well if you dont want to post whole pages thats up to you, but you do realise that im just taking your word for it? Basically all you did is talk about theory and not really explain how its a fact. Im not talking specifically about evolution as a whole but this for example.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I dislike the comparison, because all altruism has its roots in the selfish nature of our genes, which affects our actions on a macrocosmic level. Reciprocal altruism (doing "good"wink got it's beginnings when rogue strands of "altruist" genes tended to survive better because they weren't constantly at war. Benevolent product, but with a selfish base.



How do you know that for a fact?

Originally posted by DigiMark007

"Atheism leads to selfishness" is very different from "atheists believe the opposite of theists" so you're dealing with two seperate things.


Took what I said out of context there.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

The second one is a generalization. I don't disagree with it, but it will only be true in certain cases. I think I alluded to cooperative meme-plexes last time we had this conversations, and how they strengthen one another, so meme evolution might tend to produce findings that agree with your hypothesis, but not as a certainty.


I dont disagree with that.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

The first one I disagree with simply because I don't think anything is selfish or unselfish. They're arbitrary distinctions. I could say that I think theists are selfish because they need a prescribed religious moral law to act altruistically, and that many do it simply to get into heaven. But I wouldn't be any more right than you.

Right...ok...so what do you do with a statement like that...its not wrong. Ok lets look at some example "Stealing is an example of selfishness", "Theres no such thing as selfish or unselfish", "Murder is an example of being selfish", "Theres no such thing as selfish or unselfish" erm

Anyway I agree with your last sentence.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

On a more functional level, I have to deal with "Where does your morality come from?" constantly from concerned theists (as do most atheists), so anything is good in my mind that debunks the stereotype that atheism needs to be a selfish philosophy.

Well ok. Remember im not passing my theory as fact. Im just saying this another possible way of looking at things. I think moraility is a very complex subject and I dont think you can be certain of anything.

anaconda
Indeed
no I said the main purpose was to be able to crawl up your own ass

just how I feel followers of a religion/philosophy do in here so I jsut blend in

debbiejo
Sorry Alfheim, but that was funny.. laughing out loud

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by anaconda
yes

yes


oh but I do understand and the biased thing here is the that if you dont like it you dont understand it

and again, just because a view goes against something doesnt mean they dont understand it.
Why is it with that when faced with people who reject the idea of like buddhism its always "oh you really dont understand it " and crap like that.
" oh I understand buddhism and the ones who reject it are wrong" laughing out loud laughing out loud yeah and those who are against christianity really dont understand it cause if they did they be chrisitians roll eyes (sarcastic) roll eyes (sarcastic)


welcome to the party then



In your last post, you gave a vague and general reason why you don't like Buddhism. You argued that it sounds "real boring" and "more like religion does, a load of crap".


You're not being specific, only general, which lead me to beleive that you don't understand it.

And in all honestly, usually when someone doesn't appreciate something else, its Because they don't understand it.



Originally posted by anaconda
you are right you are wrong, no I dont misunderstand anything about buddhism, spiritual beneficial, rebirth karma, and so on. Not only does it seem real boring it sounds more like religion does, a load of crap
Just as I say about yoga, the actual purpose there is to be able to crawl up your own ass if that is what someone desire feel free to practise youga



I asked you specifically, what about Buddhism do you dislike, and you gave me nothing.


So as I said before, so far you have nothing valuable to say. Just a general load of childish bashing.

anaconda
well I did mention spiritual beneficial, rebirth and karma as things I disliked.
I dont believe in the rebirth/reincarnation, purification of the mind, karma good deeds bad deeds weight scale, the four noble truths: suffering and self view, attachment to desire, the cessation of suffering, the eightfold path (understanding, thought,.............so on)
We had religion in school were most aspects of each religion, major ones, were covered, buddhism was included in that study. So yes I spent hours uppon hours studying buddhism as well as other religious aspects of islam, judism, hinduism(christianity was a subject we had in school 4hours a week for 9 years)

I looked into them all and came out emptyhanded, none of them was for me

Alfheim
Originally posted by debbiejo
Sorry Alfheim, but that was funny.. laughing out loud

Dont encourage him...meh.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well if you dont want to post whole pages thats up to you, but you do realise that im just taking your word for it? Basically all you did is talk about theory and not really explain how its a fact. Im not talking specifically about evolution as a whole but this for example.

How do you know that for a fact?

Don't use "fact", use "probable hypothesis" because the former leads to dogmatic belief structures.

In any case, it's because I have read extensively on evolutionary theory and have seen numerous case studies and mathematical models to support the claim. A good starting point is "The Selfish Gene" from Richard Dawkins in his pre-anti-religion days when he was just a biologist. There's entire chapters devoted to how reciprocal altruism helps to create ESS's (Evolutionary Stable States) in a variety of animals, first on a fmaily level as well as larger levels of species altruism and friendship altruism. The extended anneversary edition has some additional chapters that describe how game theory (notably the Prisoner's Dilemma) helps to moderate these ESS's.

That's usually the problem with such discussions. No one's read the same stuff, so we have no way of knowing what's BS and what isn't (because plenty of people fudge their facts in any forum of debate). But aside from citing page numbers and sh*t like that, there's not much more I can do....and I'm usually the one having to support my arguments with legit sources and should probably start demanding it of others more often, because I don't just pull things out of nowhere when it serves my argument.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Right...ok...so what do you do with a statement like that...its not wrong. Ok lets look at some example "Stealing is an example of selfishness", "Theres no such thing as selfish or unselfish", "Murder is an example of being selfish", "Theres no such thing as selfish or unselfish" erm

Nah, that's you ascribing moral slants to actions based upon your own interpretation of morality. They aren't constants, and they aren't absolutes. There isn't an objective viewpoint from which we can accurately label such things.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Alfheim
Dont encourage him...meh. Okay.
sadangel

BananaKing
Originally posted by leonheartmm
utterly untrue. christianity's scriptures are a false record of history and facts. it evolved out of mystic relegions as opposed to the opposite. the only one hyppocritical here is christianity.

Alot like that big conspiracy between all the major scientists on earth, all this rubbish about evolution and humans coming from apes. I bet you've never seen any of those so called "evolved fossils" with your very own eyes!

The only thing that has evolved on this planet is Atheism from Paganism!

And about hypocricy:

1. Don't toot your own horn, atheism ALLOWS hypocricy, because there is no god to tell you otherwise.

2. You have so much FAITH in scientists, even though you haven't seen any real proof with your own eyes. Just because one says one thing that's true, doesn't mean eveything else they say is ttoo.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
Alot like that big conspiracy between all the major scientists on earth, all this rubbish about evolution and humans coming from apes. I bet you've never seen any of those so called "evolved fossils" with your very own eyes!

The only thing that has evolved on this planet is Atheism from Paganism!

And about hypocricy:

1. Don't toot your own horn, atheism ALLOWS hypocricy, because there is no god to tell you otherwise.

2. You have so much FAITH in scientists, even though you haven't seen any real proof with your own eyes. Just because one says one thing that's true, doesn't mean eveything else they say is ttoo.

I have seen the "evolved fossils" with my own eyes and hands. Also, evolution does not say we evolved from apes. If you understood the first thing about evolution, you wouldn't make that mistake.

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have seen the "evolved fossils" with my own eyes and hands. Also, evolution does not say we evolved from apes. If you understood the first thing about evolution, you wouldn't make that mistake.

Whether we did evolve from apes or not makes little difference to me, i have no reason to trust you, could be lying for all i know.
(This is the same way non-christians act about the Bible)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
Whether we did evolve from apes or not makes little difference to me, i have no reason to trust you, could be lying for all i know.
(This is the same way non-christians act about the Bible)

So, ignorance is a place you like to live?

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, ignorance is a place you like to live?

Oh no, i don't ignore anything but the lies.
(again, sounding like a non-christian)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
Oh no, i don't ignore anything but the lies.
(again, sounding like a non-christian)

Is everything a lie to you?

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is everything a lie to you?
Everything but the truth, and in my case god is the truth.
(or in an atheists case, anything BUT god)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
Everything but the truth, which in my case god.
(or in an atheists case, anything BUT god)

Which god?

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Which god?
The Christian God.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
The Christian God.

Which One?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Which One?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

I don't believe in denominations. I am just Christian. Jesus himself said ALL the laws in the bible in just a sentence, any changes to that rule and you're just changing them (which is wrong!).

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
I don't believe in denominations. I am just Christian. Jesus himself said ALL the laws in the bible in just a sentence, otherwise you're just twisting the subject.

No, I am just trying to show you that obituary judgments lead to obituary judgments.

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I am just trying to show you that obituary judgments lead to obituary judgments.

I kinda said it teh wrong way, so i editted it messed

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
I kinda said it teh wrong way, so i editted it messed

What is that rule?

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is that rule?

Jesus himself said that ALL the laws and the prophets in the bible are based on loving others as you love yourself, and loving god with all your heart.

Which according to that i'd guess If there's anything that strays from that in the Bible, it's because god was trying to prevent us from doing something that was/still is bad for us/our health (out of his love for us)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
Jesus himself said that ALL the laws and the prophets in the bible are based on loving others as you love yourself, and loving god with all your heart.

If there's anything that strays from that in the Bible, it's because god was trying to prevent us from doing something that was/still is bad for us/our health (out of his love for us)

Have you been showing love to atheists?

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Have you been showing love to atheists?

Yes, lol, although i just don't see how they view life, nobody has ever actually told me.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by BananaKing
Yes, lol, although i just don't see how they view life, nobody has ever actually told me.

Obviously, since you've thrown out about 3-4 unfounded generalizations and/or assumptions about them in the past 10 minutes in your posts.

BananaKing
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Obviously, since you've thrown out about 3-4 unfounded generalizations and/or assumptions about them in the past 10 minutes in your posts.

Atheists do think those things about the Bible, otherwise they'd believe it! As the exact thing happens vice versa. They weren't assumptions, and they weren't judgements, that's the way it is!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
Atheists do think those things about the Bible, otherwise they'd believe it! As the exact thing happens vice versa. They weren't assumptions, and they weren't judgements, that's the way it is!

Not all atheists hate the bible, and not all people who hate the bible are atheists.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by BananaKing
Atheists do think those things about the Bible, otherwise they'd believe it! As the exact thing happens vice versa. They weren't assumptions, and they weren't judgements, that's the way it is!

Judging by this statement, I've decided I won't be wasting much more time with you. But I'm an atheist and can personally say that pretty much everything you've said about me (and "us" if I can speak in a broader sense) is either slightly wrong or completely incorrect.

And the arrogance to think that you can tell others what they do and don't believe is staggering, to state it mildly.

Have a good day.

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not all atheists hate the bible, and not all people who hate the bible are atheists.

They don't hate it, they just don't trust it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
They don't hate it, they just don't trust it.

Why should someone?

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why should someone?

Which takes us back to the beginning again smile and is why we're supposed to bring people up into the religion, because youngsters usually trust their parents, and if everyone trusts their parents for 2000 years it will save people from going to hell.

But the only remaining reasons why someone should believe in the end, is because:

1. What i just told you. Jesus died for us, only if we trust the Bible.

2. Otherwise people'll either dissappear or go to hell (unless they have a different belief to atheism, then they'll either go to hell or another life etc), which isn't a good reason, but it's the only way.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
Which takes us back to the beginning again smile and is why we're supposed to bring people up into the religion, because youngsters usually trust their parents, and if everyone trusts their parents for 2000 years it will save people from going to hell.

But the only remaining reasons why someone should believe in the end, is because:

1. What i just told you. Jesus died for us, only if we trust the Bible.

2. Otherwise people'll either dissappear or go to hell (unless they have a different belief to atheism, then they'll either go to hell or another life etc), which isn't a good reason, but it's the only way.

Only 1/3ed of the world is Christian, what about the rest? Why are you right, and they wrong?

But hell is not a place you go when you die.

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Only 1/3ed of the world is Christian, what about the rest? Why are you right, and they wrong?

But hell is not a place you go when you die.

I am right because i trust my parents, and they trusted theirs, and they trusted theirs etc etc, all the way back to when mankind was made.

Your belief in hell depends on if you trust the bible, which you don't.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
I am right because i trust my parents, and they trusted theirs, and they trusted theirs etc etc, all the way back to when mankind was made.

Your belief in hell depends on if you trust the bible, which you don't.

What about the Muslim who trusted his parents who trusted their parents all the way back...?

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about the Muslim who trusted his parents who trusted their parents all the way back...?

They even saw Jesus as a prophet!
But they didn't trust him as god!
My religion has more people who trust in it. And a book that has existed longer.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BananaKing
They even saw Jesus as a prophet!
But they didn't trust him as god!
My religion has more people who trust in it. And a book that has existed longer.

I hope you are not telling me that you are right because your religion is popular. Also, the Lotus Sutra is just as old as the OT.

anaconda
all the way to when mankind was mad huh?, If that is so you should worship goonie goo goo, cause when man started believing in gods it sure as hell wasnt the biblical god they put their faith into

BananaKing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I hope you are not telling me that you are right because your religion is popular. Also, the Lotus Sutra is just as old as the OT.

That's not the sole reason why i'm right.

I am saying that Order is the way gods follow, and it explains alot of things about life i don't see in the others religions.

God is Order. Order is control. Control is when god tells us what to do so things go the way that invokes good feelings, without causing bad feelings in anybody else (loving each other etc).

If the god is supposedly in control of the universe, but makes rules that tell you to love yourself over everyone else(to create chaos), then he isn't causing order/control, therefore cannot be real and is probably a demon.

BananaKing
Originally posted by anaconda
all the way to when mankind was mad huh?, If that is so you should worship goonie goo goo, cause when man started believing in gods it sure as hell wasnt the biblical god they put their faith into

And why should i trust your belief? smile could you prove to me right now infront of my very eyes that god doesn't exist?

anaconda
it aint my belief , but your reasoning that led to it

god doesnt exist now your turn, its up to the believers to prove gods existence. As of now the ones who says god doesnt exist have the upper hand, the only way I would take proof of a gods existence is if this god joined me at the local pub sipping a beer with me and then showed me its magic/power omnipresence omnipotence as claimed by its followers

anaconda
I'm flying in Winchester cathedral
All religion has to have its day
Expressions on the face of the Savior
Made me say
I can't stay

Open up the gates of the church and let me out of here
Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
For anyone to heed the call
So many people have died in the name of Christ
That I can't believe it all -Crosby Stills & Nash

BananaKing
Originally posted by anaconda
it aint my belief , but your reasoning that led to it

god doesnt exist now your turn, its up to the believers to prove gods existence. As of now the ones who says god doesnt exist have the upper hand, the only way I would take proof of a gods existence is if this god joined me at the local pub sipping a beer with me and then showed me its magic/power omnipresence omnipotence as claimed by its followers

So your saying it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist. And you can't prove to me evolution/the big bang etc exists either.

anaconda
no all I need to say is god doesnt exist then it is up to the oposing party to find god, just like I can say that there is no Loch Ness monster, to prove me wrong they need to find it

BananaKing
Originally posted by anaconda
no all I need to say is god doesnt exist then it is up to the oposing party to find god, just like I can say that there is no Loch Ness monster, to prove me wrong they need to find it

I've already found god, i say he does exist now you have to find out if i'm right.

Evolution doesn't exist, now u have to prove me wrong

anaconda
no, whats inside your head and feelings aint proof, i just your faith, and mans faith aint the same as proof. You can have faith in a presidential candidate aint the same as he/ she end up a president though. So it is with religious belief, hopes and dreams and personal convincing is just not enough, sorry to lay it out like that but it aint more than a hopes and yearnings

who ever said I was an evolutionist. But I must admit that that theory seems the most plausible even with its holes here and there they sure bring up visible evidence for their theory unlike a certain religion do, but if they are right I really dont know, but if this was a poker game the evolutionist hand looks more like a winner than the hands of the religious ones

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by BananaKing
I am right because i trust my parents, and they trusted theirs, and they trusted theirs etc etc, all the way back to when mankind was made.



What if your parents are wrong ? What if they had been lied to by the same people who have told the same lie for the past millenia ?



Christianity did not appear until the Roman times. There was much more thick and rich religious and cultural history before that.




Originally posted by BananaKing
Your belief in hell depends on if you trust the bible, which you don't.



Biblical Hell does not exist, it is most likely based on Greek mythology's Tarturus/Hades, and Egypt's Underworld. The Bible itself even uses the word Hades.

Alfheim
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Don't use "fact", use "probable hypothesis" because the former leads to dogmatic belief structures.

In any case, it's because I have read extensively on evolutionary theory and have seen numerous case studies and mathematical models to support the claim. A good starting point is "The Selfish Gene" from Richard Dawkins in his pre-anti-religion days when he was just a biologist. There's entire chapters devoted to how reciprocal altruism helps to create ESS's (Evolutionary Stable States) in a variety of animals, first on a fmaily level as well as larger levels of species altruism and friendship altruism. The extended anneversary edition has some additional chapters that describe how game theory (notably the Prisoner's Dilemma) helps to moderate these ESS's.

That's usually the problem with such discussions. No one's read the same stuff, so we have no way of knowing what's BS and what isn't (because plenty of people fudge their facts in any forum of debate). But aside from citing page numbers and sh*t like that, there's not much more I can do....and I'm usually the one having to support my arguments with legit sources and should probably start demanding it of others more often, because I don't just pull things out of nowhere when it serves my argument.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Nah, that's you ascribing moral slants to actions based upon your own interpretation of morality. They aren't constants, and they aren't absolutes. There isn't an objective viewpoint from which we can accurately label such things.

No I think you misunderstood what I mean't, anyway nevermind.

debbiejo
Originally posted by BananaKing
I am right because i trust my parents, and they trusted theirs, and they trusted theirs etc etc, all the way back to when mankind was made.

Your belief in hell depends on if you trust the bible, which you don't. Well if you take the Bible literally then hell only means death of the body as stated in the original Hebrew in the OT. No torment.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Alfheim
Fair enough.



No I think you misunderstood what I mean't, anyway nevermind.

Victory!

stick out tongue

Nah, I enjoy talking with you Alf...sorry if I misinterpreted stuff.

julibug
Originally posted by anaconda
I see all belief in a supreme being/s, omnipotent omnipresence deity as superstitious lunacy. I find the entire idea of religion stupid, and I mean all religions, they tend to be oh so helpful, but in fact all they do is create havoc and dispute, always trying to push their believes upon those who don't believe. Threatening of eternal damnation, or submit or die and all this crap. People can believe in whatever they want for me, doesnt mean I have to follow it wheter it being judism, christianity islam and other smaller religious ways, buddhism included.

Just felt the need to point out that not all religions teach eternal damnation - mainly christianity & islam. roll eyes (sarcastic)

And to all of you who are frustrated by fundies online - try living in the bible belt. aaayyyeeeeeee! eek! messed wacko Jumpy

anaconda
oh yeah done that, The Natural State

julibug
Yep - you got out, though...I'm still stuck here. Yikes! At least the view is nice!!

anaconda
Ozark natural park nice............. big grin rolling on floor laughing

julibug
It's pretty where you are too, though. smile

debbiejo
You have poisonous spiders and snakes there. Jumpy

Alfheim
Originally posted by DigiMark007


Nah, I enjoy talking with you Alf

Ok dont go overboard now. no expression

Originally posted by DigiMark007


...sorry if I misinterpreted stuff.

Well anyway I was bit to tired to go into detail about what I mean't anyway I will try to explain. As far as I can think the idea of selfish and unselfish being something which is just subjective seems to be correct, my point was....."yeah and....so now what?"

Eventhough its correct it seems to be a concept that has no application. If you became President of America tmmorrow would you stop criminals from being punished because there is no obejctive way to measure what is selfish and unselfish?

If you were coming home on the train and somebody spat in your face would the fact that there is no true objective way of measuring whats selfish and unselfish stop you from thinking "what a jerk whats his ****ing problem?"

Another analogy could be this. Imagine your a fashion designer, it could be argued that there is no such thing as colour but how does that concept help you when desiging clothes, it doesnt.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Alfheim
Ok dont go overboard now. no expression



Well anyway I was bit to tired to go into detail about what I mean't anyway I will try to explain. As far as I can think the idea of selfish and unselfish being something which is just subjective seems to be correct, my point was....."yeah and....so now what?"

Eventhough its correct it seems to be a concept that has no application. If you became President of America tmmorrow would you stop criminals from being punished because there is no obejctive way to measure what is selfish and unselfish?

If you were coming home on the train and somebody spat in your face would the fact that there is no true objective way of measuring whats selfish and unselfish stop you from thinking "what a jerk whats his ****ing problem?"

Another analogy could be this. Imagine your a fashion designer, it could be argued that there is no such thing as colour but how does that concept help you when desiging clothes, it doesnt.

This is where such ideas do get a bit sticky. Though it is possible to form a system of morality out of such concepts. For one, no one is at fault for their actions, because the world is an inherently deterministic system. Criminals would still need punished (or detained) but this is to protect the innocent, not as a retibutive act against the criminal. Similarly, there's no such thing as "sin" or "wrongdoing"...on a functional level (like the spitting incident you highlighted) it might be hard to put into practice, but that doesn't mean it can't be. Anything is forgivable, and any event (good or bad) becomes an opportunity for acceptance, tolerance, and even happiness and love.

This, in my mind, goes far beyond religious concepts of morality (except perhaps those with similar worldviews like Buddhism and Taoism), because most Western religions have things or people that they discriminate against. Homosexuality, non-believers, atheists, women, births out of wedlock, those who eat non-kosher food, infidels, immigrants, and even further to showing disdain for thieves, killers, and the like. Their love, and thus the love of their religion, is conditional...even as they falsely claim the unconditional love of their creator-deity.

As for the color example, as long as we accept the subjective nature of reality and the arbitrariness of language/color/etc. we still have to live in that subjective world so it becomes functionally useful to make, in this example, aesthetically pleasing clothes.

Alfheim
Originally posted by DigiMark007
This is where such ideas do get a bit sticky.

You can say that again.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Though it is possible to form a system of morality out of such concepts. For one, no one is at fault for their actions, because the world is an inherently deterministic system. Criminals would still need punished (or detained) but this is to protect the innocent, not as a retibutive act against the criminal. Similarly, there's no such thing as "sin" or "wrongdoing"...on a functional level (like the spitting incident you highlighted) it might be hard to put into practice, but that doesn't mean it can't be. Anything is forgivable, and any event (good or bad) becomes an opportunity for acceptance, tolerance, and even happiness and love.

This, in my mind, goes far beyond religious concepts of morality (except perhaps those with similar worldviews like Buddhism and Taoism), because most Western religions have things or people that they discriminate against. Homosexuality, non-believers, atheists, women, births out of wedlock, those who eat non-kosher food, infidels, immigrants, and even further to showing disdain for thieves, killers, and the like. Their love, and thus the love of their religion, is conditional...even as they falsely claim the unconditional love of their creator-deity.

As for the color example, as long as we accept the subjective nature of reality and the arbitrariness of language/color/etc. we still have to live in that subjective world so it becomes functionally useful to make, in this example, aesthetically pleasing clothes.

Well ok your right you can base a system on that concept. The thing that is getting me thoguh is that eventhough you have the concept of no right and wrong you still have to deal with it. I guess it can change your attitude slightly but thats about it. Also a person who believes in right and wrong may have the exact same attitude, again it doesnt seem to change anything....well not much anyway.

DigiMark007
I suppose it's something that's easier to experience than describe. My own morality opened up immensely through these changes, and I honestly feel like I'm a "better" person than before (again, a subjective distinction, but in practical terms of amount of forgiveness and compassion). It also gives you a better outlook on life than having to deal with the perceived negativity in the world (which many struggle with).

anaconda
and you experienced that how

DigiMark007
Originally posted by anaconda
and you experienced that how

Experienced what? The negativity that comes with trying to rationalize the "evil" in the world according to some religious doctrine? That's what I was referring to.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.