Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:06 pm
Bennieboj wrote:Lord Elevation wrote:Do you believe in extraterrestrials?
I believe in life in outer space, not necessarily in extraterrestrials
That's what an extraterrestrial is. Extra - "beyond" - terrestrial - "Earth"
Either way, the Catholic Church says that belief in them doesn't conflict with belief in God. They figured this out last year. Pretty cool, huh?
Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:39 am
Lord Elevation wrote:Bennieboj wrote:Lord Elevation wrote:Do you believe in extraterrestrials?
I believe in life in outer space, not necessarily in extraterrestrials
That's what an extraterrestrial is. Extra - "beyond" - terrestrial - "Earth"
Either way, the Catholic Church says that belief in them doesn't conflict with belief in God. They figured this out last year. Pretty cool, huh?
yes it is, well at least I learned something today
Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:49 pm
none of the above. atheism ftw!
Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:35 pm
Just don't forget that atheism is a spiritual belief/practice, too.
Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:42 am
Lord Elevation wrote:Just don't forget that atheism is a spiritual belief/practice, too.
not really.
atheism is not a religion. atheism is the lack of a religion. so there's nothing to practice.
it's not like I hold services to worship the non-existence of god.
Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:34 pm
I didn't say religion! Religion implies being a part of a greater group, which isn't necessary for atheists, but most of them are a part of the same big group. They get their truth from the high priests of science (before you get upset, don't assume I'm digging on science - I'm a very big fan - I'm just making the point that our scientists compose narrative mythologies to explain where we came from and why all of this is here, just like all the other religions).
Now, that being said, I said belief. You have that, too. And in this case, you believe that there is no divine.
Sorry, but everyone has to believe something. There is no such thing as opting out of it. You can convince yourself you have - that's how powerful your mind is - but it's not actually possible.
And whatever it is that you believe, it is something you practice all the time...........
Now, that being said, I said belief. You have that, too. And in this case, you believe that there is no divine.
Sorry, but everyone has to believe something. There is no such thing as opting out of it. You can convince yourself you have - that's how powerful your mind is - but it's not actually possible.
And whatever it is that you believe, it is something you practice all the time...........
Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:19 pm
Lord Elevation wrote:I didn't say religion!
The thread title does though. That's what his post was about.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:18 am
It also says faith.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:20 pm
Which means he has an option.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:49 pm
Atheists have faith that there is no divine.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:51 pm
And faith in choosing which question he'll be answering.
Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:20 am
Alpine star - I agree with you in that I have a lack of religion, however, Lordy has a point. Spiritual practice does not imply religion in the modern or secular usage of the word. I prefer the word practice (rather than belief) in connection to spiritual.
I am an atheist and I live spiritually; in that I am honest & kind to others even if I don't know them or like them. However, I will not tolerate injustice or hypocrisy. I am a moral creature and I have found little evidence to suggest that religions have ownership of our morals - as this post argues in an uncomplicated way http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/relmor.htm
Lordy - I don't have faith that there is no divine, as far as I am concerned the probability that a god or gods exist is extremely low. However, if god can be unequivocally proved, well
I will admit that I'm wrong and start believing in a omnipotent and omniscient super being that created the universe from its imagination (because if he created everything there can't have been anyone before him and nobody to teach him).
Our existence and the earth/solar system/galaxy/universe are logically (not completely) explained to me by science. If creationist and religious zealots don't kill off the scientists
- whatever we don't understand or mis-understand will be explained at some time in the future by our naturally inquisitive minds.
If you want to believe in a God - that's fine - but if you want to tell me that I'm wrong and that I should follow your god, then you can stick it up your proverbial.
I am an atheist and I live spiritually; in that I am honest & kind to others even if I don't know them or like them. However, I will not tolerate injustice or hypocrisy. I am a moral creature and I have found little evidence to suggest that religions have ownership of our morals - as this post argues in an uncomplicated way http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/relmor.htm
Lordy - I don't have faith that there is no divine, as far as I am concerned the probability that a god or gods exist is extremely low. However, if god can be unequivocally proved, well
I will admit that I'm wrong and start believing in a omnipotent and omniscient super being that created the universe from its imagination (because if he created everything there can't have been anyone before him and nobody to teach him).Our existence and the earth/solar system/galaxy/universe are logically (not completely) explained to me by science. If creationist and religious zealots don't kill off the scientists
- whatever we don't understand or mis-understand will be explained at some time in the future by our naturally inquisitive minds.If you want to believe in a God - that's fine - but if you want to tell me that I'm wrong and that I should follow your god, then you can stick it up your proverbial.
Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:55 am
See, this is the thing that doesn't make sense to me (though I admit I fell for it earlier in my life). Science makes no attempt to discuss the divine, yet the appeal is always made to science when attempting to discredit it - you say there is an extremely low probability of god existing. Based on what calculations? Not to mention your lack of a definition for god...
But looking beyond that, the fact of the matter is, you don't need to define god to discuss the spiritual. The idea of god is a projection of our collective ego. What needs to be discussed is consciousness. And this is the one fundamental force in the universe of which mainstream science is too terrified to touch. The current paradigm teaches us that the universe is a soulless void of particles and waves, that life is an accident, and that our consciousness is some kind of anomaly. We have created this model in an effort to remove all of man's subjectivities and projections from the equation - that is the aim of science - to objectify, and thus, disenchant the world, in an effort to better predict and exploit our material surroundings. But is this not the greatest anthropocentric projection of all? Namely, the idea that man, and man alone, is capable of experiencing life to such an incredible moral, spiritual, and psychological depth, with its many levels of purpose and meaning, its multitudes of paradox and insight: we teach ourselves that all these things are created by man in his own mind. Is this not the grand hubris of the modern self?
Because, the fact of the matter is, we are products of the universe. We are all made of stardust, and to stardust we shall return. The average human body is composed of about 100 trillion cells at any given time (that's 100,000,000,000,000), and it is shedding, all the time, millions of those cells at any given second. And of those cells, only 10% are human. The rest are bacteria and other forms of life. That means that you are your own planet. Your body is an oasis of life. How do you think your body appears on the molecular or atomic level? You can't really tell where "you" end and "everything else" begins. You are much more than an ego inside a bag of skin with a bunch of receptors to let your mind know what is going on around you. There is no separation between "man" and "nature." This is the illusion - not consciousness.
So maybe we should look at the universe as having the same properties as we do - sentience, consciousness, intelligence, depth of expression and understanding, emotion, spirituality, morality, etc. I am not suggesting that we get rid of science. Rather, I am suggesting we incorporate the scientific perspective into a much greater, integral understanding of the cosmos. There are many levels of truth beyond the objectively experimental, and real, hard-won truth usually comes to us as paradox. And the truth is, if you speak to nature, it will speak back. You just have to listen.
But looking beyond that, the fact of the matter is, you don't need to define god to discuss the spiritual. The idea of god is a projection of our collective ego. What needs to be discussed is consciousness. And this is the one fundamental force in the universe of which mainstream science is too terrified to touch. The current paradigm teaches us that the universe is a soulless void of particles and waves, that life is an accident, and that our consciousness is some kind of anomaly. We have created this model in an effort to remove all of man's subjectivities and projections from the equation - that is the aim of science - to objectify, and thus, disenchant the world, in an effort to better predict and exploit our material surroundings. But is this not the greatest anthropocentric projection of all? Namely, the idea that man, and man alone, is capable of experiencing life to such an incredible moral, spiritual, and psychological depth, with its many levels of purpose and meaning, its multitudes of paradox and insight: we teach ourselves that all these things are created by man in his own mind. Is this not the grand hubris of the modern self?
Because, the fact of the matter is, we are products of the universe. We are all made of stardust, and to stardust we shall return. The average human body is composed of about 100 trillion cells at any given time (that's 100,000,000,000,000), and it is shedding, all the time, millions of those cells at any given second. And of those cells, only 10% are human. The rest are bacteria and other forms of life. That means that you are your own planet. Your body is an oasis of life. How do you think your body appears on the molecular or atomic level? You can't really tell where "you" end and "everything else" begins. You are much more than an ego inside a bag of skin with a bunch of receptors to let your mind know what is going on around you. There is no separation between "man" and "nature." This is the illusion - not consciousness.
So maybe we should look at the universe as having the same properties as we do - sentience, consciousness, intelligence, depth of expression and understanding, emotion, spirituality, morality, etc. I am not suggesting that we get rid of science. Rather, I am suggesting we incorporate the scientific perspective into a much greater, integral understanding of the cosmos. There are many levels of truth beyond the objectively experimental, and real, hard-won truth usually comes to us as paradox. And the truth is, if you speak to nature, it will speak back. You just have to listen.
Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:07 pm
Lord Elevation wrote:
But is this not the greatest anthropocentric projection of all? Namely, the idea that man, and man alone, is capable of experiencing life to such an incredible moral, spiritual, and psychological depth, with its many levels of purpose and meaning, its multitudes of paradox and insight: we teach ourselves that all these things are created by man in his own mind. Is this not the grand hubris of the modern self?
Now that I have never thought about before.
Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:12 am
Here's a quite from the debate currently going in Sweden:
"Saying atheism is a religion is like saying 'not playing football' is a sport, or 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby."
"Saying atheism is a religion is like saying 'not playing football' is a sport, or 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby."
Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:04 am
flexxx wrote:Here's a quite from the debate currently going in Sweden:
"Saying atheism is a religion is like saying 'not playing football' is a sport, or 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby."
man I have lots of hobbies
Sat May 29, 2010 12:56 am
i have none of them
Sun May 30, 2010 8:40 pm
I'm a proud believer. : )
You shouldn't mix religion with friendship tho...just sayin'!
You shouldn't mix religion with friendship tho...just sayin'!
Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:57 am
I'm a Christian-Catholic... I was about to be baptized as Seventh Day Adventist, but my mom didn't allow me to do so...
I must admit Seventh Day Adventist were good influence... (or I say, the best religious influence.)
but I am studying in that Christian School anymore.
I must admit Seventh Day Adventist were good influence... (or I say, the best religious influence.)
but I am studying in that Christian School anymore.
Last edited by tecna jessie on Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:57 pm
So it seems we have one adherent of Judaism on the forum... who is it?
Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:06 pm
AOSO
Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:48 am
Khalpz wrote:AOSO
Nah, he's an evangelical Christian.
Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:18 pm
Oy gevalt, isn't it obvious? It's clearly you.
Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:22 pm
doyle wrote:Oy gevalt, isn't it obvious? It's clearly you.
Funny thing is, you might be right. I may have voted for Judaism just for the hell of it way back.
Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:47 pm
I'm not Jewish but I've kept kosher for the better part of two years.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.