|
On July 14 2008 02:11 HamerD wrote:
Dawkins says in his book the God Delusion that 'virgin' was a mistranslation of 'young', and likens it to mixing up 'maid' and 'maiden'. So the whole concept of the virgin Mary is immediately cast into doubt and great swathes of Spanish culture are sundered lol...
omfg God is a pedo wtf.
|
On July 14 2008 03:20 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. Show nested quote +I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Nice quotes, by whom?
|
On July 14 2008 02:53 Fen wrote:Show nested quote + Travis Says
science builds up, not down. it's like a giant skyscraper of cause and effect. eventually it gets tall enough that part of the foundation ends up being wrong and the whole thing has to be rebuilt.
science is practical, and it is useful. but explaining what follows what does nothing to declare meaning or value or purpose.
does science have any clue, even just a small guess, at why we consciously think and feel?
You approach the subject with a view that concious thought and feeling are not part of biological function. That they are something that exists beyond that. And therefore if that is your belief, its impossible for me to argue against you using science and logic, the same as trying to debate the existance of god.
naw, im not denying the possibility, in fact I have kinda theorized a model explaining how conscious thought could arise as one facet of cosmic evolution.
I am just saying that science has uncovered what science has uncovered, and it has done absolutely nothing to reveal how the process of experiencing works.
Science says that concious thought and feeling are the result of the combined chemical reactions going on in your brain. Having a concious thought is really not dissimilar from having an unconcious thought. We sense all of these chemical reactions and the result is what we think.
They do not show that feeling and thought are the result of chemical reactions. They only show that one correlates to the other.
|
On July 14 2008 03:23 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 03:20 Kwark wrote:An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Nice quotes, by whom?
Dawkins  Atleast the second one.
|
On July 14 2008 02:56 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
"Buddha" is not something like a god, there have been many "Buddhas" historically. It's just a term for "having reached enlightenment" in Buddhism. Which, by the way, is very different from other religions, although it's counted as one. There is no omnipotent being which you worship...
I know what a buddha is, you didn't get my point.
On July 14 2008 03:00 Fen wrote:
No-one can say that there has not ever been a buddha, just as no-one can say that there really isnt a flying spagetthi monster. But both are equally probable. And the probability of either of those being true are VERY low.
well, I don't believe in enlightenment as "perfect", myself. I do believe it is entirely possible that there has been 1 or more buddhas who had the correct view regarding the fundamental nature of the universe.
|
On July 14 2008 03:22 Polemarch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 02:11 HamerD wrote:
Dawkins says in his book the God Delusion that 'virgin' was a mistranslation of 'young', and likens it to mixing up 'maid' and 'maiden'. So the whole concept of the virgin Mary is immediately cast into doubt and great swathes of Spanish culture are sundered lol...
omfg God is a pedo wtf.
The Loli Mary doesn't have the same ring...
|
On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 02:48 travis wrote:On July 14 2008 02:45 DrainX wrote:On July 14 2008 02:41 travis wrote:
science is practical, and it is useful. but explaining what follows what does nothing to declare meaning or value or purpose.
True. But don't go on saying that religion has any more claim to answering questions about meaning, value and purpose. Religion and spirituality is a topic pondered by many people their entire lives. In fact, some people devote their entire lives solely to the question of "why?".Who are you to say there has never been a buddha. (not meant as an attack  ) I would call them philosophers. I don't see how invoking fairy tales helps you in any way if you are looking for answers to questions like that. Just because science can't (and doesn't try to) answer questions like that doesn't automatically shift that right to religion.
yes it does.
why wouldn't it?
|
On July 14 2008 01:10 MasterOfChaos wrote:
The main problem with science and atheism is, that it does not provide an answer for the meaning of life.
What exactly is the meaning of life then?
Following the ten commandments and praying at the dinner table is hardly "meaning". The time I spent attempting to believe in a God did not provide answers, merely more questions.
|
On July 14 2008 03:34 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote:
I would call them philosophers. I don't see how invoking fairy tales helps you in any way if you are looking for answers to questions like that. Just because science can't (and doesn't try to) answer questions like that doesn't automatically shift that right to religion. yes it does. why wouldn't it?
If Bob makes up some bullshit and Joe says he doesn't know... that doesn't make Bob right. Being the only game in town doesn't mean you're right.
|
On July 14 2008 03:50 Polemarch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 03:34 travis wrote:On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote:
I would call them philosophers. I don't see how invoking fairy tales helps you in any way if you are looking for answers to questions like that. Just because science can't (and doesn't try to) answer questions like that doesn't automatically shift that right to religion. yes it does. why wouldn't it? If Bob makes up some bullshit and Joe says he doesn't know... that doesn't make Bob right. Being the only game in town doesn't mean you're right.
I didn't say anything makes anyone right.
|
On July 14 2008 03:52 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 03:50 Polemarch wrote:On July 14 2008 03:34 travis wrote:On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote:
I would call them philosophers. I don't see how invoking fairy tales helps you in any way if you are looking for answers to questions like that. Just because science can't (and doesn't try to) answer questions like that doesn't automatically shift that right to religion. yes it does. why wouldn't it? If Bob makes up some bullshit and Joe says he doesn't know... that doesn't make Bob right. Being the only game in town doesn't mean you're right. I didn't say anything makes anyone right.
What did you mean by saying religion has a right to answer those sorts of questions then? Does just anyone have that right, or is there something special about religion?
|
On July 14 2008 03:34 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote:On July 14 2008 02:48 travis wrote:On July 14 2008 02:45 DrainX wrote:On July 14 2008 02:41 travis wrote:
science is practical, and it is useful. but explaining what follows what does nothing to declare meaning or value or purpose.
True. But don't go on saying that religion has any more claim to answering questions about meaning, value and purpose. Religion and spirituality is a topic pondered by many people their entire lives. In fact, some people devote their entire lives solely to the question of "why?".Who are you to say there has never been a buddha. (not meant as an attack ) I would call them philosophers. I don't see how invoking fairy tales helps you in any way if you are looking for answers to questions like that. Just because science can't (and doesn't try to) answer questions like that doesn't automatically shift that right to religion. yes it does. why wouldn't it?
Why would it? Why doesn't philosophy do?
|
On July 14 2008 03:48 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 01:10 MasterOfChaos wrote:
The main problem with science and atheism is, that it does not provide an answer for the meaning of life.
What exactly is the meaning of life then? Following the ten commandments and praying at the dinner table is hardly "meaning". The time I spent attempting to believe in a God did not provide answers, merely more questions.
thats because u aren't stupid, not because religion fails to assign meaning to life. it clearly does.
|
On July 14 2008 03:34 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote:On July 14 2008 02:48 travis wrote:On July 14 2008 02:45 DrainX wrote:On July 14 2008 02:41 travis wrote:
science is practical, and it is useful. but explaining what follows what does nothing to declare meaning or value or purpose.
True. But don't go on saying that religion has any more claim to answering questions about meaning, value and purpose. Religion and spirituality is a topic pondered by many people their entire lives. In fact, some people devote their entire lives solely to the question of "why?".Who are you to say there has never been a buddha. (not meant as an attack ) I would call them philosophers. I don't see how invoking fairy tales helps you in any way if you are looking for answers to questions like that. Just because science can't (and doesn't try to) answer questions like that doesn't automatically shift that right to religion. yes it does. why wouldn't it? Why would it?
|
On July 14 2008 03:54 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 03:34 travis wrote:On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote:On July 14 2008 02:48 travis wrote:On July 14 2008 02:45 DrainX wrote:On July 14 2008 02:41 travis wrote:
science is practical, and it is useful. but explaining what follows what does nothing to declare meaning or value or purpose.
True. But don't go on saying that religion has any more claim to answering questions about meaning, value and purpose. Religion and spirituality is a topic pondered by many people their entire lives. In fact, some people devote their entire lives solely to the question of "why?".Who are you to say there has never been a buddha. (not meant as an attack ) I would call them philosophers. I don't see how invoking fairy tales helps you in any way if you are looking for answers to questions like that. Just because science can't (and doesn't try to) answer questions like that doesn't automatically shift that right to religion. yes it does. why wouldn't it? Why would it? Why doesn't philosophy do?
Philosophy works fine too. I don't care what you call it. They are the same thing.
A philosopher and a monk investigate the same thing (if the monk is true to himself that is).
My suspicion is that we agree and just had a misunderstanding about what I meant by "religion".
|
On July 14 2008 03:52 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 03:50 Polemarch wrote:On July 14 2008 03:34 travis wrote:On July 14 2008 02:57 DrainX wrote:
I would call them philosophers. I don't see how invoking fairy tales helps you in any way if you are looking for answers to questions like that. Just because science can't (and doesn't try to) answer questions like that doesn't automatically shift that right to religion. yes it does. why wouldn't it? If Bob makes up some bullshit and Joe says he doesn't know... that doesn't make Bob right. Being the only game in town doesn't mean you're right. I didn't say anything makes anyone right.
Remember, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
|
By religion I mean an organized institution claiming the existence of some supernatural being which they worship.
|
Here's my secular attempt at answering questions about meaning, etc.
There's no external source of meaning. In effect, it's pretty much up to any given individual to find what matters to them and extract meaning out of that. Different people might come up with different answers.
Things that are important to me are:
- Living happily and honestly
- Continually learning and understanding things
- Helping others to achieve what's important to them (rather than imposing my values)
|
On July 14 2008 04:00 DrainX wrote:
By religion I mean an organized institution claiming the existence of some supernatural being which they worship.
i meant(taken from dictionary.com)
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
AKA a non-bastardized meaning of religion
|
On July 14 2008 04:07 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 04:00 DrainX wrote:
By religion I mean an organized institution claiming the existence of some supernatural being which they worship. i meant(taken from dictionary.com) "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" AKA a non-bastardized meaning of religion
My definition was taken from Dan Dennetts book Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. Your definition sounds more like a worldview to me :S But I guess that's where we disagree then. For an example I don't think Buddhism is a religion.
Or actually now that I look it up his definition is:
Daniel Dennett wrote:
Social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose aproval is to be sought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/9374/lorevirginbirthpr8.gif)
